Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[guanophore]

To connect with our thoughts regarding sacramental and spiritual communion. What you are talking about here is a spiritual baptism. As you say, the theif did not need to be baptized with water in a Sacramental dying with Christ. However, though he died alongside Christ, it is not the fact that he died alongside Christ that saved him either (remember there was another thief that we don’t speak of being saved though he had the same experience). What saved him was his faith. There was a spiritual connection made between this thief and Christ that the other thief never made. And it is that faith, that spiritual connection not water which the thief who was saved did not experience, and not blood (which the thief who was not saved did experience), but the relationship that one had with Christ, in this case a purely spiritual experience because they never once touched each other, that save him.

This is true, but this is not the normative means by which one enters into the salvific power of the shedding of blood. Faith is a requirement, yes, but the normative means by which Jesus wants us to access that grace is baptism.

 

[guanophore]

To connect with our thoughts regarding sacramental and spiritual communion. What you are talking about here is a spiritual baptism. As you say, the theif did not need to be baptized with water in a Sacramental dying with Christ. However, though he died alongside Christ, it is not the fact that he died alongside Christ that saved him either (remember there was another thief that we don’t speak of being saved though he had the same experience). What saved him was his faith. There was a spiritual connection made between this thief and Christ that the other thief never made. And it is that faith, that spiritual connection not water which the thief who was saved did not experience, and not blood (which the thief who was not saved did experience), but the relationship that one had with Christ, in this case a purely spiritual experience because they never once touched each other, that save him.

This is true, but this is not the normative means by which one enters into the salvific power of the shedding of blood. Faith is a requirement, yes, but the normative means by which Jesus wants us to access that grace is baptism.

Frankly, when I read that part of the Passion, I do not see such a terrific faith. The guy does NOT say: Yo! Jesus! You’re the Savior! Make that my *personal *Lord and Savior! All he says is that “this man has done nothing wrong.” Hardly a faith-statement. Nevertheless, Christ promised him Paradise, so we call him St. Dismas.

There was more to it than that. Yes, by this confession, he acknowledges that Jesus did not deserve to die, but he also admits that he himself is deserving of his punishment, confessing that he is a sinner. He also places his trust in Jesus, asking to be remembered, by which He acknowledges Jesus’ Kingship, and that he has not earned a place in that kingdom.

 

[mercygate]

There was more to it than that. Yes, by this confession, he acknowledges that Jesus did not deserve to die, but he also admits that he himself is deserving of his punishment, confessing that he is a sinner. He also places his trust in Jesus, asking to be remembered, by which He acknowledges Jesus’ Kingship, and that he has not earned a place in that kingdom.

You are absolutely correct. My brain must have been on leave when I wrote what I did. Thank you for calling me back to consciousness!

 

[Mark_LePard]

Grace comes to us through the Sacraments - think of Christ as the river, the Sacraments as the pipes, and grace as the water that comes into your kitchen sink.

The Sacraments are the conduits that bring the salvific effects of Christ’s blood from the Cross outside of Jerusalem at 3:00 pm on March 25, 33 AD to where you are, right now.

But Ephesians 2:8,9 says the conduit is faith, not anything we can do, i.e. the sacraments. If something I do can bring abour salvation then it has been bought. Inherent in the word grace is the idea that it is absolutely free. All one must do is believe.

 

[mercygate]

But Ephesians 2:8,9 says the conduit is faith, not anything we can do, i.e. the sacraments. If something I do can bring abour salvation then it has been bought. Inherent in the word grace is the idea that it is absolutely free. All one must do is believe.

The hinge of this thread, if you have troubled to read it, is the meaning of belief or faith.

Ephesians 2:8-9 says: For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is** not your own doing**, it is the gift of God – not because of works, lest any man should boast.

The context of these verses addresses something other than the particular way in which grace is received through faith. You seem think that sacraments are something separate from faith; that they are fruitless. Moreover, the sacraments are **not our own doing. **The Sacraments are effective by the working of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

If he had the belief, but did not die with Christ either for real or in Baptism, he also would not have been saved. It takes both the assent of faith and the Sacraments - it’s not an “either-or” situation.

Plainly, the baptism of desire is not a sacramental baptism. Perhaps it is a spiritual baptism. Thus emphasizing my point that the spiritual is not less effective than the sacramental. Indeed it is just as effective because you treat it as being as valid as if one had actually received the sacrament.

 

[mercygate]

Plainly, the baptism of desire is not a sacramental baptism. Perhaps it is a spiritual baptism. Thus emphasizing my point that the spiritual is not less effective than the sacramental. Indeed it is just as effective because you treat it as being as valid as if one had actually received the sacrament.

But the baptism of desire or of blood kick in ONLY when actual water baptism is absolutely unavailable. The normative form, required except in extraordinarily exceptional circumstances, is by water. Why are we so picky? Cuz that’s what the Boss told us to do!

I recall the Martyrs of Uganda. They baptized with water those in the group who had not yet been baptized – right on the spot of their martyrdom (they were wrapped in bamboo ‘blankets’, stacked up like cordwood, and set afire). Now, surely the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood would have covered this extreme situation, but they STILL baptized with water.

 

[Mark_LePard]

The hinge of this thread, if you have troubled to read it, is the meaning of belief or faith.

Ephesians 2:8-9 says: For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is** not your own doing**, it is the gift of God – not because of works, lest any man should boast.

The context of these verses addresses something other than the particular way in which grace is received through faith. You seem think that sacraments are something separate from faith; that they are fruitless. Moreover, the sacraments are **not our own doing. **The Sacraments are effective by the working of the Holy Spirit.

I was reponding to the claim that the sacraments are the conduit of grace, but Ephesians 2:8 says faith is the conduit of grace.

 

[Mark_LePard]

The hinge of this thread, if you have troubled to read it, is the meaning of belief or faith.

Sorry, I havn’t troubled to read 53 pages of posts. Please forgive me.

 

[mercygate]

Sorry, I havn’t troubled to read 53 pages of posts. Please forgive me.

:tiphat: I might have sounded snippy. But this thread has been fairly cohesive/coherent; it actually bears reading in toto.

 

[mercygate]

I was reponding to the claim that the sacraments are the conduit of grace, but Ephesians 2:8 says faith is the conduit of grace.

Ephesians does not say that faith is the “conduit” of grace. And the “conduit” image (a good one) was analogical. Point being: God uses matter as a language. Water, wine, bread, oil . . . (what’s with all this FOOD?) . . . Oh! Wait! “I am the bread of life!” God is in LOVE with his creation.

 

[jmcrae]

But Ephesians 2:8,9 says the conduit is faith, not anything we can do, i.e. the sacraments. If something I do can bring abour salvation then it has been bought. Inherent in the word grace is the idea that it is absolutely free. All one must do is believe.

Yes, but “to believe” is to do something. Belief, if it is more than just a mental assent, or a “yes, but so what?” (The Devil has this, after all) has actions attached to it.

For example, if I believe it is going to rain (ie: if I’m firmly convinced of this idea), I go get my umbrella and my rain jacket before going outside.

If I believe I can move the mountain, I buy a sufficient quantity of dynamite, and I hire a sufficient number of bulldozer operators. But I don’t do that, unless I’m convinced (believe) that I will succeed.

It’s the same with belief in Christ. If we believe in Christ, then we believe His words to us - we obey His commandments because we believe that doing so will be good for us, and we believe that His Sacraments are effective (because they’re His, after all!), so we make use of them - because to believe in Christ means that we are convinced that whatever He tells us to do will be good for us.

But if we say that we believe in Christ, but we don’t obey His commandments, and we don’t make use of His Sacraments, then what kind of belief is that? Isn’t that a sort of “yes, but so what” belief? Or else maybe a “yes, but I’m the exception to the rules” belief - which seems kind of arrogant?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

But the baptism of desire or of blood kick in ONLY when actual water baptism is absolutely unavailable. The normative form, required except in extraordinarily exceptional circumstances, is by water. Why are we so picky? Cuz that’s what the Boss told us to do!

I recall the Martyrs of Uganda. They baptized with water those in the group who had not yet been baptized – right on the spot of their martyrdom (they were wrapped in bamboo ‘blankets’, stacked up like cordwood, and set afire). Now, surely the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood would have covered this extreme situation, but they STILL baptized with water.

I understand the concept of normative.

Normative is that a priest normally does baptism, but it doesn’t have to be a priest a lay person can baptize a person as well in an extrordinary circumstance. And I assume that such a baptism would still be considered sacramental.

But is a baptism of desire or a baptism of blood considered a sacrament?

If I am walking hand in hand with Jesus down the beach and we reach trying times where he carries me, I might claim to have been in extraordinary communion with Jesus, but I wouldn’t call it a sacrament. I am not talking about normative and ordinary versus extra-ordinary. I am talking about the difference between something that gains its meaning from its sacramental nature and something that gains its meaning from its spiritual nature. It seems that some here are wishing to lift up sacramental as being more effective than spiritual, and I think that doing so is to either overvalue the sacramental or undervalue the spiritual aspects of the grace that God shares with us through both ordinary and extraordinary means.

 

[mercygate]

I understand the concept of normative.

Normative is that a priest normally does baptism, but it doesn’t have to be a priest a lay person can baptize a person as well in an extrordinary circumstance. And I assume that such a baptism would still be considered sacramental.

The Catholic Church accepts baptisms done even by heathens if they are done in the formula - Father, Son and Holy Spirit (not creator, redeemer, sanctifier or any other odd language). Your baptism is valid in the eyes of the Church.

But is a baptism of desire or a baptism of blood considered a sacrament?

This is a really good question. And I believe that you intuit the answer correctly. It would not properly be termed a Sacrament (Canon Lansing? Where are you when we need you?). The terminology of “baptism of blood/desire” likely refers to the effect rather than the action. After all, a Sacrament requires the “outward and visible sign”. So, pending correction from those more learned than I, I would say that it has the EFFECT of the sacrament but is not the sacrament.

If I am walking hand in hand with Jesus down the beach and we reach trying times where he carries me, I might claim to have been in extraordinary communion with Jesus, but I wouldn’t call it a sacrament.

Understood. Neither would we.

I am not talking about normative and ordinary versus extra-ordinary. I am talking about the difference between something that gains its meaning from its sacramental nature and something that gains its meaning from its spiritual nature.

the sacraments do not “gain their meaning” from their forms – if that is what you mean by ‘sacramental nature.’ Their “meaning” – which we would call “effect” comes from the working of the Holy Spirit through the forms.

It seems that some here are wishing to lift up sacramental as being more effective than spiritual, and I think that doing so is to either overvalue the sacramental or undervalue the spiritual aspects of the grace that God shares with us through both ordinary and extraordinary means.

Maybe we’re a little vague here. I don’t think a Catholic would phrase the matter as you do AT ALL. But then, you’re not Catholic!

We, too, experience all kinds of personal “spiritual” graces outside the sacramental life. Sometimes I pick up Scripture, and the Holy Spirit sucks my breath away, using the Word to slam me upside the knot with something he wants me to know. We receive manifold gifts that are personal: the way I received my religious name is one of those stories. Grace abounds! All over the place! No confining the Holy Spirit, even by his own privileged means of grace.

The idea of pitting sacraments AGAINST spirituality is not in our vocabulary. We believe God really acts through the sacraments that He has ordained for us. (Yup: all of 'em; we can demonstrate this through Scripture, even for the ones that make most Protestants twitch with indignation.)

Catholics see the sacraments as essential to our spiritual life, but not the totality of our spiritual life.

A Catholic with the Holy Spirit breathing down his neck is walking in an atmosphere of “spirituality” that touches every corner of his life. We view the sacraments as effective means of grace but by no means as the exclusive means of grace. If the Holy Spirit never acted outside the sacraments, we would never have any converts!

 

[jmcrae]

I understand the concept of normative.

Normative is that a priest normally does baptism, but it doesn’t have to be a priest a lay person can baptize a person as well in an extrordinary circumstance. And I assume that such a baptism would still be considered sacramental.

Yes, it would. This is why Protestants converting to the Catholic Church are not required to be re-baptized - because even though their Baptisms were performed by persons not holding valid Holy Orders, they are still Sacramental, because the person baptizing them intended to do what the Church does.

But is a baptism of desire or a baptism of blood considered a sacrament?

They have the same effect as actual baptism. Obviously, these people are dead, so they are beyond the reach of the Sacraments, but we have no doubt that they entered into Heaven - they received Sacramental graces from their desire/intention to be baptized at the point of death, or at the point where it was no longer possible to give them the Sacrament of Baptism in this life.

The living are required to make use of the Sacraments as given to the Church, of course - a person who is still alive cannot be said to have “baptism of desire,” or “baptism of blood,” because he still has the opportunity to receive baptism in the normative manner.

All I can say about spiritual vs. sacramental is that my spiritual relationship with Christ is what pushes me into my sacramental relationship with Christ.

I have the gift to be able to “hear” Christ in interior locutions, and whenever He speaks to me, it is always to encourage me to participate in the Sacraments and in the life of the Church. He has never given me any indication that this gift of mine, to be able to hear Him speaking to me interiorly, is superior to the Sacraments, or that it could ever be a substitute for the Sacraments.

In fact, I vividly remember a time, when I was first beginning to go to Confession (it was my third or fourth time), I was standing in line, and having an interior conversation with Christ, in which I was reviewing the sins that I was planning to confess. I said to Him, “Hey, wait a minute! I am already confessing my sins directly to You - why do I need to go in and confess them to the priest, now?” He said to me, “So that you and he may learn to love one another, so as to obey My greatest commandment.” Because our relationship with Jesus one-on-one is not the most important thing. It is the “we and Jesus” that is more important to Him; not the “me and Jesus.”

Nice, though that is, of course.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

OK. I think we are having a very nice and polite discussion on this topic, so I dare to continue.

mercygate, it might be helpful for you to know that this conversation really began in another thread with this comment:

Sacramental Communion is more effective than Spiritual Communion, it is when we truely receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord JESUS CHRIST.

followed by the following conversation between jmcrae and myself:

Then I feel for the poor thief who experienced no sacramental graces, only the love of his Lord dying next to him. It is a shame that he missed out on something that would have been more effective.

He had the actual blood of Jesus on him, and he actually imitated Christ’s death - how much more Sacramental can you get?

So you see, the question of what is and what is not sacramental is integral to this discussion as much as is efficacy. My sarcastic remarks were meant to imply that I understand that St. Dimas certainly had an efffective grace in his life, but I do question whether he experienced sacramental grace. Is a baptism of desire or of blood truly a sacrament. As I read yours and jmcrae’s answers to that question, It seems that there is disagreement among my Catholic brethern. What chance to us poor protestants have in such waters?

jmcrae, you use a very good illustration in your confession story. I understand that we are to avail ourselves of ALL the means of grace. And I understand that we do so for many reasons, our own spiritual life being just one part of it.

Yet, I find a difference, a significant difference in the way you have answered my questions and the way mercygate has. So, either I’m seeing a distinction in some of the things you two are saying that isn’t as big to you as it appears to me – I’ve been known to make a few mountains out of molehills before. Or, there is still confusion among the three of us (and perhaps others) as to the effect of sacraments.

mercygate, yes, I appreciate that what we are talking about with sacraments is their effect. I understand that we look at sacraments to see if they are in order, valid, and effecacious. Leaving baptism to speak of communion briefly, one of the most meaningful experiences in my life was a time with a group of other high school kids (its been a few years) I was asked to such on a butterscotch drop and think of Christ’s death on the cross. Well it wasn’t a valid sacrament for a multitude of reasons, the issue of order is sort of moot, but it was one of the most spiritually efficaious moments of my life, maybe the single most efficacious moment. Yes, even more so than my baptism which was in order (at least by my standards, even if not by yours), valid (by all our standards), and also efficacious.

If I have intuited the correct answer to whether or not baptism of desire or blood could be rightly termed a sacrament, then we are left with the effect of a spiritual baptism in Christ or spiritual communion with Christ being every bit equal to the effect of the sacraments themselves. I believe this is what you have yourself expressed, mercygate. And I believe that this is what jmcrae has affirmed when she said of baptism of desire and blood, “They have the same effect as actual baptism.”

I have no problem with that; hence the objection I initially raised to Theodore which started this two thread line of conversation. And it was not my intent to imply a pitting of spirituality against sacraments. Indeed that thought is what I was obejcting to.

jmcrae, not only do I not suggest that one’s spirituality could be considered superior to meeting Christ in the sacraments, I concur with you that it should never be substituted for meeting Christ in the sacraments. That is like telling someone to pick a favorite child. Those who do, do so foolishly and to their own loss. That is precisely why I argue against someone who elevates sacramental grace over and against other spiritual graces. We need them all, and we don’t build the importance of one up, but tearing down the value of others.

 

[mercygate]

I need to cut 1000 characters to make this fit, so pardon if it seems disconnected

I feel for the poor thief who experienced no sacramental graces, only the love of his Lord dying next to him. It is a shame that he missed out on something that would have been more effective.

So you see, the question of what is and what is not sacramental is integral to this discussion as much as is efficacy. . . . I understand that St. Dismas had an efffective grace in his life, but I do question whether he experienced sacramental grace. Is a baptism of desire or of blood truly a sacrament.

No. It is not a sacrament, but the grace would be not “lesser” on that account. The grace received from fruitful reception of the Sacraments is sanctifying grace, as distinct from “actual” grace. The word “actual” is technical, not as in normal conversation.

I eschew invidious comparisons of different kinds of grace. Each has its place.

It seems that there is disagreement among my Catholic brethern. What chance to us poor protestants have in such waters?

We may be unclear but the Catechismisn’t.

I find a . . . significant difference in the way you have answered my questions and the way mercygate has.

If I have time, I’ll go back and look.

mercygate, yes, I appreciate that what we are talking about with sacraments is their effect.

When I spoke of EFFECT, I meant the baptism of blood/desire achieved the EFFECT of baptism but is not a sacrament.

I understand that we look at sacraments to see if they are in order, valid, and effecacious. . . . , one of the most meaningful experiences in my life was a time with a group of other high school kids . . . I was asked to suck on a butterscotch drop and think of Christ’s death on the cross. Well it wasn’t a valid sacrament for a multitude of reasons, the issue of order is sort of moot, but it was one of the most spiritually efficaious moments of my life . . .

You are saying that you experienced a moment of grace. But it wasn’t sacramental.

Yes, even more so than my baptism . . .

I would be unwilling to state that your butterscotch drop was “more” efficacious than the Sacrament ordained by Our Lord. We may receive the most significant graces without ever knowing it.

Catholics would never dismiss the importance of your butterscotch grace. But hey! Methodists build their spirituality on “cum dilatasti cor meum!” while Catholics tend to look at the nuts & bolts. Sometimes it may appear that Catholic theology is legalistic and dry, but you never formulate something unless a problem has has forced the clarification. Over 2000 years, a LOT of issues have forced clarification.

If I have intuited the correct answer to whether or not baptism of desire or blood could be rightly termed a sacrament, then we are left with the effect of a spiritual baptism in Christ or spiritual communion with Christ being every bit equal to the effect of the sacraments themselves.I believe this is what you have yourself expressed, mercygate. And I believe that this is what jmcrae has affirmed when she said . . . they have the same effect as actual baptism."

The baptism & communion questions are quite different because the baptism situation involves death without the possibility of the form of the sacrament. But the Sacraments convey grace for living. Communion during Mass is definitely “better” than spiritual communion because it is as Our Lord intended. If I make a spiritual communion because an impediment prohibits my receiving Our Lord then that impairment detracts from our Lord’s intention.

. . . it was not my intent to imply a pitting of spirituality against sacraments. Indeed that thought is what I was obejcting to.

You’re starting to sound very Catholic!

jmcrae, not only do I not suggest that one’s spirituality could be considered superior to meeting Christ in the sacraments, I concur with you that it should never be substituted for meeting Christ in the sacraments. That is like telling someone to pick a favorite child. Those who do, do so foolishly and to their own loss. That is precisely why I argue against someone who elevates sacramental grace over and against other spiritual graces. We need them all, and we don’t build the importance of one up by tearing down the value of others.

You’re really sounding Catholic. What we object to is the view that Sacraments are “empty rituals.” Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, or even Thomas Merton, demonstrate spirituality that vividly engages the whole person within the context of sacramental life, but intensely one-on-one with the Boss.

 

[jmcrae]

If I have intuited the correct answer to whether or not baptism of desire or blood could be rightly termed a sacrament, then we are left with the effect of a spiritual baptism in Christ or spiritual communion with Christ being every bit equal to the effect of the sacraments themselves.

They are qualitatively different, though, since the one receiving a spiritual Baptism does not go on to live out the Christian life. He dies in his present condition, thus missing out on opportunities to grow in grace.

And the person making a spiritual Holy Communion does so because either he didn’t make it to Confession when he needed to go, or because he is not yet Catholic, and has not yet received all three Sacraments of Initiation - but, in order to obtain the grace he needs to be able to solve these problems, he does need to make a Spiritual Holy Communion (because doing this does impart grace to him) but it is in order that he may make a Sacramental Holy Communion that he does this - if he didn’t feel the need of the Sacramental Holy Communion (at least at some level), he probably wouldn’t bother with the spiritual kind.

 

[MariaG]

First off, :clapping: , this is the best thread, at least in the last few pages, showing that all Christians can discuss things charitably.

**Catholics see the sacraments as essential to our spiritual life, but not the totality of our spiritual life. **

A Catholic with the Holy Spirit breathing down his neck is walking in an atmosphere of “spirituality” that touches every corner of his life. We view the sacraments as effective means of grace but by no means as the exclusive means of grace. If the Holy Spirit never acted outside the sacraments, we would never have any converts!

Second, this point bears repeating again, (and again ) Red, **Bold, **and underline placed by me

And while Catholics see the sacraments, the miracles of God made visable as essential to our spiritual life, we acknowledge that Christians today can have a strong spiritual life without regularly partaking the sacraments, but those of us who have had both, would contend that the spiritual life WITH God’s visable miracles is much richer than it was without.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Catholics see the sacraments as essential to our spiritual life, but not the totality of our spiritual life.

Second, this point bears repeating again, (and again ) Red, **Bold, **and underline placed by me

Indeed. I think that many protestants would say the same.

And while Catholics see the sacraments, the miracles of God made visable as essential to our spiritual life, we acknowledge that Christians today can have a strong spiritual life without regularly partaking the sacraments,

OK. But be careful, as I was told that I was sounding very careful, you are sounding very protestant. LOL

but those of us who have had both, would contend that the spiritual life WITH God’s visable miracles is much richer than it was without.

AMEN to that!!!

(Of course you understand, that I consider as valid sacraments protestant practices of Holy Communion that you may not recognize as being valid sacraments. )