Contradiction With Dogma Regarding Baptism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Curious_Convert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Curious_Convert

Guest
First, let me thank all at CA for invaluable information that I have learned from this site over the past 3 years (it was instrumental in my conversion from Lutheranism)! 👍

Now for the burning question:

I am aware of Church teaching regarding ‘baptism of desire’ (BOD) and ‘baptism of blood’ (BOB) as is expressed in the Catechism, Church fathers, and Council of Trent. I have read the tracts from this site on these topics as well. I believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth, and truth cannot contradict truth.

However, I still cannot understand how ‘BOD’ and ‘BOB’ do no contradict the infallible dogmatic statement:

“Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception for salvation.” (excerpt from Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma)

I know that God is not bound to work only in the normative means of grace, but I still don’t understand how water baptism can be necessary for “all men without exception,” if it is not necessary for those who receive ‘BOD’ or ‘BOB’. In other words, if it is really true to say that all men without exception require X to get Y, how can some get Y without X? What about the law of non-contradiction? :confused:

Please help!
 
The requirement for water baptism “without exception” means that a person cannot intentionally avoid water baptism counting on the efficacy of the baptism of desire.

The teaching concerning “baptism of desire” concerns accidental cases where a catechumen (here I mean someone who wants to join the Church; not necessarily someone receiving formal instruction) dies before he is able to receive baptism (certainly if his pending death were known, he would have been baptized). The “baptism of blood,” of course, is a special case of BOD wherein the catechumen is martyred.
 
God will never require of us that which we could not do. Water Baptism is “normatively” necessary, not absolutely necessary. Dr. Ott is not the Pope, so he cannot claim to be infallible in his writings.
 
SonCatcher,I understand the teachings and distinctions, but if your explanation is correct, shouldn’t the dogmatic statement read:
“Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for salvation for all men who have the opportunity to receive it before dying.”

Instead, it reads:

“Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception for salvation.” (excerpt from Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma)

I don’t mean to nit-pick. I just can’t find a logical exception to the words “all men without exception.” It would seem that this statement would need to be rephrased to mean anything other than what is clearly says, but that is not possible because it has been defined as an infallible dogmatic statement…Still puzzled…
 
I sure hope so… I have always heard that the work of Ott and Denzinger are the closest that we can get to an official list of dogma (which also doesn’t make sense to me, but that is another thread entirely…). I am not like the people who are looking for a list of ‘the minimum’ that they need to believe, I accept the Catechism in entirety. I am just looking for internal consistency within the dogmas of the Church, since these are to be infallible and irrevocable. Can anybody confirm that this statement is not worded the way that it was initially intended?
 
Curious_Convert said:
Still puzzled…
Click to expand...
You ought to read what St. Thomas Aquinas has to say in Articles 11 and 12 of Part III, Question 66 of the Summa.

Incidentally, the Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter IV, decreed:
And this translation [from original sin to the state of grace], since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto), as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
And then, Session VII, solemnly pronounced:
CANON IV. - If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof (sine eis aut eorum voto), men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification; - though all [the sacraments] are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
 
Curious_Convert said:
SonCatcher,I understand the teachings and distinctions, but if your explanation is correct, shouldn’t the dogmatic statement read:
“Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for salvation for all men who have the opportunity to receive it before dying.”

Instead, it reads:

“Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception for salvation.” (excerpt from Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma)

I don’t mean to nit-pick. I just can’t find a logical exception to the words “all men without exception.” It would seem that this statement would need to be rephrased to mean anything other than what is clearly says, but that is not possible because it has been defined as an infallible dogmatic statement…Still puzzled…
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don’t abide much by commentary when the Catechism itself is sufficiently clear

CCC 1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Dr. Ott is correctly emphasizing the necessity of baptism but has unfortunately left out “for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament” from his particular discussion.
 
Curious_Convert said:
I sure hope so… I have always heard that the work of Ott and Denzinger are the closest that we can get to an official list of dogma (which also doesn’t make sense to me, but that is another thread entirely…). I am not like the people who are looking for a list of ‘the minimum’ that they need to believe, I accept the Catechism in entirety. I am just looking for internal consistency within the dogmas of the Church, since these are to be infallible and irrevocable. Can anybody confirm that this statement is not worded the way that it was initially intended?
Click to expand...
I use the full catechism for this purpose, although, a priest I know has developed a simple list.
 
Curious_Convert said:
First, let me thank all at CA for invaluable information that I have learned from this site over the past 3 years (it was instrumental in my conversion from Lutheranism)! 👍

Now for the burning question:

I am aware of Church teaching regarding ‘baptism of desire’ (BOD) and ‘baptism of blood’ (BOB) as is expressed in the Catechism, Church fathers, and Council of Trent. I have read the tracts from this site on these topics as well. I believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth, and truth cannot contradict truth.

However, I still cannot understand how ‘BOD’ and ‘BOB’ do no contradict the infallible dogmatic statement:

“Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception for salvation.” (excerpt from Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma)

I know that God is not bound to work only in the normative means of grace, but I still don’t understand how water baptism can be necessary for “all men without exception,” if it is not necessary for those who receive ‘BOD’ or ‘BOB’. In other words, if it is really true to say that all men without exception require X to get Y, how can some get Y without X? What about the law of non-contradiction? :confused:

Please help!
Click to expand...
I am searching my memory. If I recall correctly – what are the Latin words after the statement in Dr. Ott’s book? Or are you reading it on line. If so, can I have the link? Seems to me that there is a difference between the Latin phrases.
 
SonCatcher said:
Sorry, I don’t abide much by commentary when the Catechism itself is sufficiently clear

CCC 1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Dr. Ott is correctly emphasizing the necessity of baptism but has unfortunately left out “for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament” from his particular discussion.
Click to expand...
The catechism is ordinary teaching. Dr.Otts book was primarily on defined Dogma; also Dr.Ott wrote some time before Vatican II much less the CCC.
 
I think that three points must be considered:
1-Sacraments are a guarantee that the “operations” will be effective; however, they are not an automatic limit upon God’s capability of distributing graces.
2-Dogmas cannot change but their understanding can develop over time.
3- Plain literal interpretation of documents and their translations could be incorrect, context must be considered at all times (e.g. in this case it would appear that the rules for baptism do not apply to women because it says men).

BTW Dr. Ott’s book is not an official document of the Church the CCC is an official one.
 
Thanks for all the responses. I am at a disadvantage in that I am reading Ott’s list of defined dogmas as they are listed in many places on the internet, such as: theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm#Dogma-IX-Baptism.

I frequently read ultra-traditionalists using this particular defined dogma to attempt to refute ‘BOD’ and ‘BOB’ as they attack Vatican II.

I don’t deny the clarity of the Catechism or Council of Trent. It is the clarity of this particular defined dogma that I am trying to learn about. Seems like it wouldn’t matter when Ott wrote or what came after him if he wrote accurately concerning this particular defined dogma.
 
grannymh said:
I am searching my memory. If I recall correctly – what are the Latin words after the statement in Dr. Ott’s book? Or are you reading it on line. If so, can I have the link? Seems to me that there is a difference between the Latin phrases.
Click to expand...
The original book is in German and sometime there are some questions about a few parts of its English translation. I think that the best reference would be going directly to a Papal Bull or to a Council.
 
Curious_Convert said:
Thanks for all the responses. I am at a disadvantage in that I am reading Ott’s list of defined dogmas as they are listed in many places on the internet, such as: theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm#Dogma-IX-Baptism.

I frequently read ultra-traditionalists using this particular defined dogma to attempt to refute ‘BOD’ and ‘BOB’ as they attack Vatican II.

I don’t deny the clarity of the Catechism or Council of Trent. It is the clarity of this particular defined dogma that I am trying to learn about. Seems like it wouldn’t matter when Ott wrote or what came after him if he wrote accurately concerning this particular defined dogma.
Click to expand...
I would not trust some internet web site when it comes to these details. I would trust the documents of the Church. I would also be careful with “documents of the Church” posted on web sites that are not the Vatican one. Going as close as possible to the original Church documents is always the best route.
 
Cristiano said:
The original book is in German and sometime there are some questions about a few parts of its English translation. I think that the best reference would be going directly to a Papal Bull or to a Council.
Click to expand...
So, where did you get the excerpt in post 1? Thank you.
 
Good points Christiano.

I also agree that Ott is not the final authority on defined dogma, but what source is there that is more authoritative? Again, I affirm the teaching of the Catechism as ordinary, authentic, and authoritative, but I have not personally found a list of exactly what has been dogmatically defined in the Catechism itself. Does it list what is dogmatically defined?

Since the Church teaches that the Holy Spirit enables the Church to permanently define dogma, I would expect that the Church would also provide a more ‘official’ document concerning which truths have been dogmatically defined so that there would be no confusion and possible misrepresentation as some say is possible with the work of Mr. Ott. What is the point of defining dogma in a permanent manner and then keeping that official definition discrete in regards to its permanent and binding authority? Is that not what is happening by not issuing an ‘official list’? Many non-Catholics frequently wonder this as well…
 
grannymh said:
So, where did you get the excerpt in post 1? Thank you.
Click to expand...
Don’t ask me I am not the OP. 😛

I would guess that probably the OP was using a quote from an internet web site that was apparently quoting an excerpt from the English translation of Dr. Ott’s book.
 
Curious_Convert said:
Good points Christiano.

I also agree that Ott is not the final authority on defined dogma, but what source is there that is more authoritative? Again, I affirm the teaching of the Catechism as ordinary, authentic, and authoritative, but I have not personally found a list of exactly what has been dogmatically defined in the Catechism itself. Does it list what is dogmatically defined?

Since the Church teaches that the Holy Spirit enables the Church to permanently define dogma, I would expect that the Church would also provide a more ‘official’ document concerning which truths have been dogmatically defined so that there would be no confusion and possible misrepresentation as some say is possible with the work of Mr. Ott. What is the point of defining dogma in a permanent manner and then keeping that official definition discrete in regards to its permanent and binding authority? Is that not what is happening by not issuing an ‘official list’? Many non-Catholics frequently wonder this as well…
Click to expand...
If I were you I would buy the print editions of the books by Detzinger and Ott. The first is easy to find the second appears out of print. The original texts have references to the original documents and so it is much easier to see when it is a direct quote from a Church document or if it is paraphrasing it. You also must remember that these are highly specialized books that are aimed at the experts in the field (dogmatic theology) and they assume a deep knowledge of other documents. I encourage you to read the posts by JReducation in this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=641481, He will give you a better idea on how to look at dogmas and their development.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top