Council of trent: no baptism of desire

[debtera]

R Siscoe,

You ask: Why would God act outside of the general order communicating grace in this way - without the sacrament?

If you mean the unique grace of baptism that makes us members of his Mystical Body, then I’d say he doesn’t.

If you mean the actual graces that make conversion and baptism possible, or the sanctifying and justifying grace that he may grant proleptically, then there are two answers, depending on which the two possible uses of these gifts he foresees us making of them. To those whom he has chosen to save, he gives graces so that using them rightly they may work out their salvation (which will always include baptism) and demonstrate his goodness and mercy. To those whom he has not chosen to save, he gives graces so that when they freely reject them they are justly condemned by their own will and thus demonstrate his justice.

 

[RSiscoe]

debtera:

“Ordinarily no one receives the grace of baptism proleptically”(RSiscoe).

What do you mean by the “grace of baptism” here? There is no question that God grants graces prior to any desire on our part – it’s only by virtue of his grace that we are capable of any good action at all, including the desire for grace. In this sense, then, any desire for baptism or any action of our wills ordered toward the reception of the sacrament is evidence of actual graces given proleptically. Whether the grace of justification differs from sanctifying grace, and if so how, is not relevant at this point, but it appears to be common teaching that these are also given proleptically at least sometimes.

There are only two kinds, or categories, of grace: actual grace and sanctifying grace. Actual grace, as you know, does not justify; it is what draws men to God; or what enlightens their mind to some particular point; or what helps us have contrition for sin, etc. All men receive actual grace; even atheists and heretics receive actual grace, which is intended to bring them into the Church.

Sanctifying grace, in th other hand, is the grace the gives supernatural life to the souls, making man a “partaker of the Divine nature” and “temple of the Holy Ghost”.

Since there are only two kinds of grace, and since sanctifying grace is what justifies, then it is clear that “the grace of justification” is sanctifying grace. It is certainly not actual grace, because actual grace does not justify.

So when the Catechism says that desire and intent to receive baptism, combined with repentance of past sins, can give “grace and righteousness” it can only mean sanctifying grace. Also keep in mind the obvious context of what the catechism is saying. It says that the delay in baptizing an adult does not carry the same danger as it does with an infant since the adult’s desire to receive the sacrament can give them “grace and righteousness” if they were to die.

We can also tell that the catechism is not referring to actual grace because a person does not have to intend to receive baptism to receive actual grace; everyone receives actual grace.

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

debtera:

"We both admit that no one can receive the grace of the
*sacrament without actually receiving the sacrament"(RSiscoe). *

It surprised me that you said this; above you said that “ordinarily” no one receives the grace of baptism proleptically. Are you now saying that everyone who is granted sanctifying grace and justification actually does receive baptism before death?

You should be surprised, because I did not mean to add the word “no”. I meant to say: “we both admit that one can receive the grace…”. If you read my earlier post, I thought you were admitting that a person can receive “sanctifying” grace proleptically, before actually receiving the sacrament. That is what I was commenting on. I should have re-read my post more carefully before sending it. Sorry about that. In the next part of your post you are a little confused because of my miss-type. I’ll skip past that part.

 

[RSiscoe]

debtera:

“Why would God act outside of the general order communicating grace in this way - without the sacrament?”(RSiscoe)

If you mean the unique grace of baptism that makes us members of his Mystical Body, then I’d say he doesn’t. If you mean the actual graces that make conversion and baptism possible, or the sanctifying and justifying grace…"

Sanctifying grace is the “unique grace of baptism that makes us members of his Mystical Body”. Jutifying grace, sanctifying grace, and the “unique grace” are one and the same thing.

There are only two kinds of grace.

Baltimore Catechis:

Question #110: “How many kinds of grace are there?
Answer: There are two kinds of grace: sanctifying grace and actual grace.” (pg 62).

The “unique grace” you ar speaking of is sanctifying grace. The same grace that gives supernatural life, and incorporates us into the Mystical Body of Christ, is also that which brings the soul that has committed mortat sin back to life in confession. Sanctifying grace is that which gives supernatural life to the one being baptized and he one who has committed a mortal sin.

Question #112: “What are the chief effects of sanctifying grace?
Answer: The chief effects of sanctifying grace are:
first, it makes us holy and pleasing to God;
second, it makes us adopted children of God
third, it makes us temples of the Holy Ghost;
fourth, it gives is the right to heaven” (ibid.)

Debtera:

… that he may grant proleptically, then there are two answers, depending on which the two possible uses of these gifts he foresees us making of them. To those whom he has chosen to save, he gives graces so that using them rightly they may work out their salvation (which will always include baptism) and demonstrate his goodness and mercy. To those whom he has not chosen to save, he gives graces so that when they freely reject them they are justly condemned by their own will and thus demonstrate his justice.

There are only two kinds of grace. Actual grace is given to all men, not just those desiring baptism; sanctifying grace is what gives supernatural life to the soul. In the above section, you seem to be, either confusing the two, or speaking of a third kind of grace. I think what you are doing is considering sanctifying grace as being different the “unique grace” you speak of. In doing that, you have divided the two kinds of grace into three. But there are not three kinds of grace, only two.

Just as a person can receive the Eucharist by desire (spiritual communion), confession by desire (perfect contrition), so too can they receive Baptism by desire, if they die before being able to receive the sacrament.

That is why the Council of Trent specifically says that to be save a person must receive the laver of regeneration, or have a desire for it.

The Council is very clear, and so it the catechism. That is why, even though so many saints have taught baptism of desire, none have ever specifically preached against it.

If baptism of desire is heresy, then Pope St. Pius X was a heretic because His catechism explicitly teaches it. St. Alphonsus Ligouri and St. Robert Bellarmine were also heretics; and virtually every theology manual and Catechism produced since the Council of Trent taught heresy. Is that likely?

 

[debtera]

R Siscoe,

Thanks for clearing up the confusion caused by that unintended “no.”

I know grace is spoken of as being of two kinds: sanctifying and actual. However, it appears this is more a convenience of theologians for the purposes of discussion than a real distinction. As an example of what I mean, consider the following passage from Grace: Commentary on the Summa theologica of St. Thomas, Ia IIae, q. 109-14 of Rev. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.; I’m using the translation by the Dominican nuns of Corpus Christi Monastery, Menlo Park California (B. Herder, 1952). Toward the end of his discussion of Question 110 (“The grace of God with respect to its essence,” pp. 110-149), he discusses sacramental grace:

According to IIIa, q.62, a.2: “Sacramental grace adds, over and above [habitual] grace generally so called and above the virtues and gifts, a certain divine help toward the attainment of the end of the sacrament.” In the reply to the first objection of the same article St. Thomas maintains that “the grace of the virtues and gifts perfects the essence and powers of the soul sufficiently with respect to the general ordering of the acts of the soul (so it was in Adam before the Fall and in the angels in whom did not reside Christian grace strictly speaking, which was conferred upon men by Christ the Redeemer). But with respect to certain special effects which are demanded by a Christian life, sacramental grace is required.” Thus it may also be said that in the angels and in Adam before the Fall there resided supernatural grace, as a participation of the divine nature, but not however as Christian grace proceeding from Christ the Redeemer and forming souls in the image of Christ crucified.
Sacramental grace is not a new infused habit really distinct from habitual grace, but it adds over and above ordinary grace a certain right to actual graces to be received at the appropriate time and corresponding to the special end of the sacraments; for example, the grace of holy orders confers the right to the actual graces necessary to celebrate Mass. And this moral right is a relationship which requires a real basis; the real basis is sacramental grace, properly speaking, inasmuch as it is really permanent in the soul. **And the more probable opinion, as Thomists assert, is that it is a special mode and a special force of sanctifying grace, **which overflow into the acts of the virtue. (Cf. St. Thomas, *De veritate,*q. 27, a.5 ad 12.) Thus we speak of priestly charity, of priestly prudence. John of St. Thomas, the Salmanticenses, Contenson, Hugon, Merkelbach, and several other Thomists accept this explanation.
Accordingly, as sanctifying grace is the principle of the sanctification of the just, whether men or angels, so is the sacramental grace of baptism the principle of Christian sanctification, and the sacramental grace of holy orders the principle of sanctification of priests, who are the monisters of Christ. [pp.148-9, bold face not in original]

Now, I think you can see from this that respected theologians are of the opinion that there is a special mode of sanctifying grace that is unique to the sacrament of baptism,and that it is supplied toward the end of the sacrament – the imparting of the image of the Redeemer; the distinction between sanctifying and actual grace does not apply here. There is likewise a sanctifying grace sometimes given apart from baptism, which is not ordered toward that end.

It has been the constant teaching of the Church that salvation is through baptism into the death (and resurrection) of Christ, whereby we are conformed to the image of the only-begotten Son. This sanctifying grace granted outside of baptism grants a temporary participation in the divine nature, but can’t confer the glorification that comes through incorporation into the glorified Christ; that is the result of the special mode of sanctifying grace that is the sacramental grace of baptism.

 

[RSiscoe]

Debtera,

I am enjoying this conversation, but I will be going out of town soon (either today or tomorrow, most likely), and will not be able to respond. I will try to respond one more time, but if I do not that is the reason.

One thing I was thinking about this morning is how easy it is to be deceived - very very easy. It is a fact that baptism of desire has been a universal teaching since the Council of Trent (see virtually all theological manuals and catechisms); therefore, it is very safe to believe what so many have believed, yet dangerous to reject it. That is just one point I wanted to make, but I am enjoying discussing the points of disagreement. Hopefully this will result in more clarity.

God Bless,

 

[debtera]

R Siscoe,

Concerning the Tridentine Catechism’s teaching on delaying baptism:

When the Catechism says delaying the baptism of adults is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, what the authors have in mind is obviously the danger of sudden death, not the danger of damnation. SIDS was at least as prevalent in the sixteenth century as it is now, and infant mortality was certainly much higher because of the many congenital defects and infectious diseases that could carry off a baby before anyone suspected there was a problem. Adults may also die unexpectedly, but they differ from infants in two respects:

first, they are able to act to procure emergency baptism if they experience symptoms that might make the fear of imminent death a reasonable one;

second, unlike infants, adults, especially those who have determined to receive baptism, are certainly capable of praying for the grace of living long enough to actually receive it. If a man is in a state of sanctifying grace, fully justified, and determined to be baptized, how can he fail to pray for the accomplishment of his desire? and how can God fail to grant the prayer of a just man who asks the ability to obey a divine command? So if someone preparing for baptism dies without the sacrament, it must be because he failed to do what was necessary for his salvation – to ask for it. The Catechism says his desire will avail him to grace and righteousness, because we know God is just and will reward good with good, but exactly what form this reward will take we don’t know. It may mean his sins will be forgiven, and his punishment will be lessened, but it doesn’t mean he will enter heaven; if it did, there would be nothing stopping the authors of the Catechism from saying so explicitly, but they were fully aware that without baptism with water no one enters the kingdom of heaven.

You also said:
Just as a person can receive the Eucharist by desire (spiritual communion), confession by desire (perfect contrition), so too can they receive Baptism by desire, if they die before before being able to receive the sacrament.

No. The effects of the other sacraments are available to members of the Church through desire because they already share in the life of the Mystical Body and are conformed to the image of the Son. The effect of baptism can’t be obtained in this way because to do so would require one to have already the thing one desired to receive.

 

[debtera]

R. Siscoe,

I’m very pleased with this discussion too. Hope your trip goes well, and that you have a happy New Year.

 

[RSiscoe]

There are only two categories of grace: actual and sanctifying. There are probably different kinds of actual and sanctifying grace, but there are only two categories. Actual grace does not justify, sanctifying does. Habitual grace, and sacramental grace, justifying grace, are all forms of sanctifying grace, which give supernatural life to the soul. That there are categories of the two types of grace, seems very reasonable, and even probable, to me. Whatever name is given to it doesn’t affect my argument that baptism of desire can communicate a kind of sanctifying grace that gives supernatural life to the souls, and by which it can be saved.

But in this post, I am going to address this matter from a different angle.

I want to address what I believe is the main reason for people not believing in Baptism of desire. I believe the principle reason for the rejection of the three baptism are the dogmatic statements that explicitly state that a person must be baptized with water to attain salvation. Since this is a dogmatic statement - revealed by the Holy Ghost - people adhere to it strictly and therefore do not allow any exceptions. What I am going to address here is how it can be true that all people MUST be baptized with water, yet at the same time, some can be save via baptism of desire. I am going to explain how two things, which appear to contradict one another, can be true.

We will start with St. Thomas appearing to contradict himself, by teaching both the necessity of water baptism and baptism of desire:

St. Thomas: “A thing may be so necessary that, without it, the end cannot be attained… In this way the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary to the individual, simply and absolutely. (Summa Theologica, III, Ques.65, Art.4).

In the above quote, St. Thomas says Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. He even quote John 3:5. But in the same section of the Summa, where the above quote came from, he refers back to Question 68, Article 2, which states the Following:

“The Sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of “faith that worketh by charity,” whereby **God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. **Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: “I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for” (St. Thomas).

Is this an explicit contradiction? I am going to ask you several questions, the answers to which will also seem to be a contradiction; then I will explain how both statements of St. Thomas are true:

Question #1: Is it a mortal sin to miss Mass on Sunday?

Answer: Yes, it is a mortal sin to miss Mass on Sunday.

Question #2: If someone has an accident on the way to Church, and misses Mass, did they commit a mortal sin?

Answer: No, even though they missed Mass on Sunday, they did not commit a mortal sin.

Argument: How can you say it is a mortal sin to miss Mass on Sunday, then turn around one question later and claim that a person who missed Mass on Sunday did not commit a mortal sin?

Response: But he wasn’t able to attend Mass because he got into a wreck. It wasn’t his fault that he missed Mass

Argument: You are not being honest: First you say (rightly so) that it is a mortal sin to miss Mass on Sunday, then you hesitate to admit that a person who misses mass on Sunday committed a mortal sin.

Commentary: Why is there confusion between these two people in the above example? Because they are not distinguishing between the objective and the subjective levels. It is true that missing Mass on Sunday is objectively a mortal sin, but if it is “through no fault of their own”, they are not subjectively guilty. In this we can see that understanding the objective level and the subjective level clears up what “seems” to be a contradiction.

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

Let’s take another example of something that could seem to be a contradiction:

“Everyone that liveth and believeth in Me shall not die forever” (St. John 11:26).

Jesus, who is truth itself says that anyone who believes in Him shall not die; yet all of those who were listening to Him are now dead. The bible also speaks of some people who were alive as being “dead”. How can this be? People who are alive are not dead are they? And people who are dead are not alive are they? What is it with this contradiction. It makes no sense!

It actually makes perfect sense when one understands the natural and supernatural levels. There is a “life” of the spirit (supernatural life) and a “life” of the body (natural life). When a person understands these two kinds of life, there is no more contradiction. Everything makes perfect sense.

Now, just as there is an objective level and subjective level; and just as there is a natural level and supernatural level, so too is there a “general order” and a “particular order”.

The general order is that which applies to all people generally (kind of like the objective); the particular order is that which applies in individual cases (similar to the subjective).

Understanding these two levels explains how St. Thomas could say: “And something may be so necessary that, without it, the end cannot be attained… In this way the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary to the individual, **Simply and absolutely. " **Yet in the same section reference back to the following: “The Sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of “faith that worketh by charity,” whereby **God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly” (St. Thomas).

**Now, these two statement would “seem” to be a direct contradiction, but they are actually not. The first statement is a general statement; it is a statement of the “general order”. The second statement, however, deals with particular circumstances, and this is of the “particular order”.

The following is taken from “The Dialogue of Saint Catherine of Siena“. In the first quote God explains to her that all laws are given in the “general order“, not “particular“, since a particular case does not make a law: “I always speak to thee in general, not in a particular case, which cannot give a law” (pg. 323). In another place He speaks of the possibility of a person who does not have “science” (by which He means “the truth -i.e. the invincibly ignorant) to obtain salvation: “Your reward is measured according to the measure of your love. If thou should ask Me, whether one who has no science (invincibly ignorant) can attain to this love, I should reply, yes it is possible that he may attain to it, but an individual case does not make a general law, and I always discourse to thee in general” (Pg. 262).

Continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

When God speaks to us, through the Church, and gives us a law, it is always an objective law of the “general order”; yet that does not eliminate the possibility for a particular exception. Both the general order and the particular order are under the providence of God, as He explained to Catherine of Siena: “I have explained to thee My providence, in general and in particular”.

St. Alphonsus also speaks of the general order and particular order. I think it is in the book “Prayer a great means of salvation”.

I believe the distinction between the general order and the particular order clear up the confusion. That is why the Church can say baptism is necessary (general order), then allow for the possibility that a person can be saved without actually receiving water baptism (particular order).

Council of Trent: “And this translation (to righteousness), since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected… without the laver of regeneration (general order), or the desire thereof (particular order).”

In the above passage, we see the Church addressing both levels: the general order, and the particular order.

My experience has been that most people deny the three baptism as a result of not understanding the two “levels”, or “orders”. Once this distinction is made, we can see how two “seeming” contradictions can both be true: viz, baptism with water is necessary for salvation (general order), yet at the same time: “when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized (particular order) (St. Thomas).

And keep in mind that since the Council of Trent, the three baptisms has been taught universally. Not until Fr. Feeney did anyone explicitly teach against it. St. Alphonsus even called baptism of desire a “de fide” dogma of the faith, and he based it partly on the words of Trent - “or a desire thereof”. I have a question: If it turns out that St. Alphonsus was correct, and baptism of desire is a de fide dogma; and that when the Council of Trent said “or a desire for it”, they meant what He thought: that a desire for baptism could attain salvation for the soul; and if it turns out that what virtually all Catechisms and theology manuals have taught (that some can be saved by baptism of desire) is true, what will happen to those who reject it?

It is a much safer path to follow what so many saints and doctors of the Church have taught. If they saved their soul by believing in it, it must not be a heresy.

I am going to end with a quote from the Council of Florence, which seems to allude to Baptism of desire; then quote St. Thomas, which says almost the exact same words as Florence and applies the to baptism of desire:

Council of Florence: “**Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, **through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people, but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently, but so that, when danger of death is imminent, they be baptized in the form of the Church, early without delay, even by a layman or woman, if a priest should be lacking, just as is contained more fully in the decree of the Armenians”.

Here, the council at least seem to allude to the possibility that an adult can attain salvation without baptism, since it specifically states, what the Catechism of Trent does, that an infant has no other remedy. In the next quote, St. Thomas uses almost the same words, the states that adults “do have another remedy”, which he says is baptism of desire.

Summa Theologica, Question 68, Article 3: “I answer that, In this matter we must make a distinction and see whether those who are to be baptized are children or adults. For if they be children, Baptism should not be deferred. First, because in them we do not look for better instruction or fuller conversion. Secondly, **because of the danger of death, for no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism. On the other hand, adults have a remedy in the mere desire for Baptism, as stated above **(A[2]).

As we both know, St. Thomas had an entire section in the Summa defending the three baptisms. It is safe to believe what so many have taught, yet very dangerous to preach against it.

 

[debtera]

R Siscoe,

You’ve admitted that the necessity of baptism with water is an explicit dogma of the Church. As such, it is not a “law,” but a statement about the nature of reality, a statement of fact just as the dogma of the Virgin Birth or of the Resurrection. If you want to argue that there are exceptions, the burden will be on you to do more than show that God could make exceptions if he wished. You’ll have to show that such exceptions have actually occurred or will occur, and you wil have to explain how these occurrences don’t falsify the dogma’s explicit meaning

St. Thomas may be the foremost of theologians, but even he is a man of his times. He was free to propose a theological theory in the thirteenth century that we, with the benefit of Florence’s teachings, now know to be erroneous.

St. Alphonsus is correct in his teaching about the effects of the desire for baptism: Trent does teach *de fide *that desire of the sacrament is sufficient – for justification, not for salvation.

But, even granting that the saints mean exactly what you think they do, and that Thomas’s teaching on three kinds of baptism conferring salvation (not just leading to it, which could be understood as involving eventual baptism with water in every case) is correct, the strongest case you have made is that God is free to grant grace, including sanctifying grace, in any way that he chooses, even outside of the sacraments, so that *if *he were to grant justification and the life of sanctifying grace to an unbaptized person, and *if *that person chose freely to respond so that he remained in that state of grace his entire life, and *if *hewere to die with at least an implicit desire to receive the sacrament but in circumstances where it were absolutely impossible (not just difficult) for him to receive baptism with water despite every effort on his part to receive it, then he would enter the kingdom of heaven.

I grant this freely, but the plain meaning of the dogma is that, since the institution of baptism as the unique door through which we enter the Church (outside of which there is no salvation), this has never happened and never will happen.

 

[RSiscoe]

debtera:

But, even granting that the saints mean exactly what you think they do, and that Thomas’s teaching on three kinds of baptism conferring salvation (not just leading to it, which could be understood as involving eventual baptism with water in every case) is correct, the strongest case you have made is that God is free to grant grace, including sanctifying grace, in any way that he chooses, even outside of the sacraments, so that *if *he were to grant justification and the life of sanctifying grace to an unbaptized person, and *if *that person chose freely to respond so that he remained in that state of grace his entire life, and *if *he were to die with at least an implicit desire to receive the sacrament but in circumstances where it were absolutely impossible (not just difficult) for him to receive baptism with water despite every effort on his part to receive it, then he would enter the kingdom of heaven.

I grant this freely, but the plain meaning of the dogma is that, since the institution of baptism as the unique door through which we enter the Church (outside of which there is no salvation), this has never happened and never will happen.

Debtera,

Sorry for the dely in responding. I think what you wrote above is the best way to handle it. If you hold out the possibility that a person can be saved without water baptism - through a miracle of Divine grace - then you will not have to reject all of the Cathechism and theological manuals that explicitly teach the three baptisms (and there are many); neither will you have to implicitly declare all of the Popes, saints, and theologians who taught baptism of desire and baptism of blood (after Trent) as heretics.

I’m going to end by quoting what I wrote a few posts back:

RSiscoe:

Not until Fr. Feeney did anyone explicitly teach against it [baptism of desire]. St. Alphonsus even called baptism of desire a “de fide” dogma of the faith, and he based it partly on the words of Trent - “or a desire thereof”. I have a question: If it turns out that St. Alphonsus was correct, and baptism of desire is a de fide dogma; and that when the Council of Trent said “or a desire for it”, they meant what He thought: that a desire for baptism could attain salvation for the soul; and if it turns out that what virtually all Catechisms and theology manuals have taught (that some can be saved by baptism of desire) is true, what will happen to those who reject it?

It is a much safer path to follow what so many saints and doctors of the Church have taught. If they saved their soul by believing in it, it must not be a heresy.

 

[RSiscoe]

Brining this back to the top

 

[JGC]

RSiscoe:

Brining this back to the top

redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/necromancer.htm

 

[Huiou_Theou]

What a wonderful thread!

I have always understood the difference in Justification and Salvation as being related to the aspect a person wishes to emphasize.

For sinful man to be justified, a saving action must occur.
I cannot concoct a situation where a person subject to original sin is justified without the salvation of God.

Ultimately salvation is only revealed eschatalogically.
No one knows who is saved or not, in any given case, for absolute certain witout the specific judgement of God of their fate.
(I do not mean the rules given in scripture/Tradition, but God’s actual Judgement)

In a way, this thread flirts with danger of Judgement.
We should Judge for ourselves what is right and wrong, and this judgement needs to be informed by a right conscience.
The perspective shift to the ultimate state of justification, and hence the success of salvation, is a bit risky.

Should a person persist in rejecting the sacrament of baptism by water after understanding the offer – definitely sins mortally.

All other cases are dubious.

There are four baptisms in discussion (three groups).

1. Baptism by water – any of the forms.
2. Baptism by martyrdom/blood.
3. Baptism by explicit desiring the Baptism of water – could be posited of martyrs.
4. Baptism by impllicit desiring the Baptism of water.

The “laborous form of baptism” is out of scope.

-continues-

 

[Huiou_Theou]

-continued-
As far as St. Thomas goes, Fides et Ratio – shows that it is not the official stance of the church to use Thomas’ philosopical method. Thomas is good, but not definitive.

#46

It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ."

This is something that I have always wondered about. It is not a sacrament in the sense of the 7, but none the less, Jesus does carry with him the signs of a martyr, and does he says – I have another baptism to be baptized with – when referring to the cross.
For this reason, I tend to understand martyrdom as being grouped under water baptism (somehow) for it does appear as a sign which chirst appropriated. (perhaps not instituted, but then what of water baptism itself, eg Moses, John?)
The church has always held that martyrdom on account of Jesus is efficacious.

The apologetic used by Feenyites – unless a man be reborn of water and the spirit, he can not enter the kingdom of heaven – cu ts too deeply for the very reason that it excludes martyrdom.

The sense of the unless passage is very similar to the eucharistic apologetic in John 6, rather than repeat myself:

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=141757#post141757

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=142370#post142370

I think that what christ speaks of in the case of baptism is parallel (in the way it is written) of what christ says of the eucharist. It is the negative act, rejecting God’s gift that leads to damnation.

Debterra #39

– that “Baptism is necessary” means “Baptism is required for those who have it, but not for those who lack it;”

I do not think this, although I hold all 4 types of baptism.
Nothing stops God from offering baptism at the time of death, where to all people here we view a person as dead – e.g. the soul is ineffective, but the spirit may not be totally seperated from the body. (The Hebrews did not consider corruption to begin until the fourth day – which is why the miracle of Lazarus is so extra astonishing). What of those who are martrys? If it is not a sacrament, nor allowed under the heading of baptism of water, then it would follow that God provides them a baptism at some point. The third and fourth style of baptism fall under the same logic.

debterra #39

– that it is possible to desire something you have never heard of;

You can desire milk as a baby why not baptism?

debterra #39

– that is is possible to give implicit assent to something that you explicitly deny;

There are confused people in the world! I wouldn’t want to risk hell by that method.

But this is not something that all protestants do – many ARE baptized in water.
For that matter, their baptizing ‘church’ subsist in the Catholic Church. Baptism by a heretic is valid…

– that when the Fathers of the Council of Trent said one can be justified by desire of baptism, they were trying to say in their incompetent way that one may be saved by baptism of desire, since it’s obvious that “justification” and “salvation” are synonyms (right?);and

They are not identities, but they are synonimous in this sense.
Descendants of Adam can not be justified without the process of salvation. However, Ultimate salvation which implies perserverence is uncertain until after death.
When the word salvation is used, it can refer to the process or the ultimate eschatalogical reality. ( context is important ).

Catholic counter example, what of Mary. Did recieve or intend to have baptism of water? She was alive when it was offered.
I do not think the fathers of Trent were in any way incompetent.

– and most important of all, that no one is competent to judge what the magisterium really teaches except the pope when he exercises his office as head of the magisterium, so you’ll always be wrong because you can’t understand his pronouncements

This is at least partially true. I do wonder, however, why the understanding of pronouncements is so intimately tied up with laypeople judging the salvation of others? Is it not enough to say that for me water baptism was absolutely necessary since I knew what it meant and had access to it? And if you don’t receive water baptism YOU run the serious risk of Hell?

RSiscoe,
You reference the council of Florence concerning the inability of iinfants to be saved by any other method that baptism of water.
(Hopefully it was you, read it awhile ago).
Could you clarify the language (a quote or something) so I can see what you a referring to?

Thanks.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Sorry about the php boxes, hit the wrong button.
Try these instead.
Old thread first comment
Old thread – references clarified