No Salvation Outside The Church?

[itinerant1]

To sum up your current position, the following texts from the Catechism of the Catholic Church are asserted by you to be false teachings. Is this correct?

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

 

[sidbrown]

1. Are you trying to say/imply that there is salvation outside the Church?

there are true and valid Sacraments outside the Catholic Church. For example, in the Orthodox Church there is the priesthood, confession, and Holy Communion all of which are a help to the Salvation of Souls.

 

[AnneElliot]

Ott knew ecclesiastical Latin quite thoroughly, and he did not take the clauses to be joined in the manner you describe. It is typical for “traditionalists” to argue that the Latin “aut” (or) was used in this text to mean “and”. While there are examples of such use, the argument remains inconclusive.

The Latin “aut” was a very minor point to my overall argument. You can pull that out if you find it unsatisfactory. The rest of the argument has historical basis, which I provided…

Elsewhere in his “Fundamentals” (p. 114) in my edition (1974), Ott says “The spiritual re-birth of young infants can be achieved in an extra-sacramental manner… [he includes baptism of blood, baptism of desire]… are indeed possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation”
and then goes on to say (for infants), “Theologians usually assume that there is a special place or state for children dying without baptism which they call limbus puerorum (children’s Limbo). Pope Pius VI adopted this view against the Synod of Pistoia.”

To sum up your current position, the following texts from the Catechism of the Catholic Church are asserted by you to be false teachings. Is this correct?

Did I assert the CCC contained “false” teachings? No.

“The individual doctrines which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess.” Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 26

The parts of the Catechism which you’ve quoted regarding baptism of desire/baptism of blood are not de fide (dogmatic) teachings. They are theological theories. The Catechism, and that which it presents is not necessarily immutable, dogmatic teaching. Otherwise, Catechisms could never be revised. The dogmatic teachings, which the CCC does include receive their authoritative weight from their proclamations outside of the CCC (i.e., Papal/Conciliar documents).

As the CCC freely admits,
CCC 1257 “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.””

Baptism of desire/blood are theories which Ott admits are “possible, but their actuality cannot be proved” and so the CCC rightly states, “The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures” salvation.

 

[itinerant1]

Regarding post #835
Fr. Hardon says baptism of desire is implicit. Do you agree with this?

If one is talking about those who do not know specifically of the Sacrament, which was the situation with the pagans in Acts, that Fr. Hardon used as an example, or the individuals who lived prior to the institution of the Sacrament, then the baptism of desire would necessarily be “implicit”.

On the other hand, if a catechumen died before being able to receive the Sacrament desired, then we could reasonably say he had an “explicit” desire.

Would you say that faith alone (implicit/explicit) is sufficient to obtain grace (i.e., the grace of the Sacrament of Baptism) in some/any circumstance(s)?

Infants or children before the age of reason lack explicit faith, but are baptised and receive the mark of Baptism.

Adults, or those who have reached the age of reason, must have faith in Christ, a love for God, and sorrow for their sins, to receive the Sacrament.

What (if anything) is required of the recipient?

Answered above.

 

[AnneElliot]

Thanks for answering…

If one is talking about those who do not know specifically of the Sacrament, which was the situation with the pagans in Acts, that Fr. Hardon used as an example, or the individuals who lived prior to the institution of the Sacrament, then the baptism of desire would necessarily be “implicit”.

On the other hand, if a catechumen died before being able to receive the Sacrament desired, then we could reasonably say he had an “explicit” desire.

See? You didn’t completely agree with everything Fr. Hardon said from what you posted previously. He said ‘baptism of desire’ was implicit, with no clarifications. Post #835 This is why I was asking and trying to ascertain what precisely you meant by ‘baptism of desire’.

So, according to you, there are some cases of implicit baptism of desire, and other cases of explicit baptism of desire… correct?

Infants or children before the age of reason lack explicit faith, but are baptised and receive the mark of Baptism.

Adults, or those who have reached the age of reason, must have faith in Christ, a love for God, and sorrow for their sins, to receive the Sacrament.

This is not what I was asking. I’m not asking about the reception of the Sacrament itself, but the reception of the *grace *of the Sacrament.

Is faith alone sufficient to obtain the grace of (sacramental) Baptism in some circumstances (theoretically) without the reception of the Sacrament itself?

It is my understanding of the theory of baptism of desire, that baptism of desire imparts the grace of Baptism (i.e., sanctifying grace, the removal of Original Sin), without the actual reception of the Sacrament itself (thus, no baptismal character is imprinted on the soul). Is this what you mean by ‘baptism of desire’?

Also, I asked if anything was required on the part of the recipient which you said was “answered above” (you mean within the same post, yes?). Here then I am confused. In answering my second question you spoke about the reception of the actual Sacrament of Baptism, and not baptism of desire. Could you make this more clear for me?

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by itinerant1
Your point is moot. Catechumens are not considered members of the Church because they have yet to be baptized.

As I demonstrated above, Catechumens are not always unbaptized… (it’s not amnesia, long threads are just hard to follow and remember who said what )

First Council of Nicea, Can. 2: “For a catechumen needs time and further probation after baptism…” (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p 6)

Catechumens still received instruction after they had been initiated into the Church by Baptism… indeed, some instruction was specifically reserved until after Baptism. In the early Church, unbaptized Catechumens could not participate in any part of the liturgy, but once baptized they were admitted to the first part (i.e., this is where the name ‘Mass of the Catechumens’ comes from) but dismissed before the second part (i.e., The Eucharist), as Justin Martyr relates:

Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch. 65 “But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation.”
newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

Come on Ann, read the entire second canon of Nicea. It doesn’t say what you claim. Here it is inits entirety. The bold parts are mine for emphasis.

"Since, either through necessity or through the importunate demands of certain individuals, there have been many breaches of the church’s canon, with the result that men who have recently come from a pagan life to the faith after a short catechumenate have been admitted at once to the spiritual washing, and at the same time as their baptism have been promoted to the episcopate or the presbyterate it is agreed that it would be well for nothing of the kind to occur in the future. For a catechumen needs time and further probation after baptism, for the apostle’s words are clear: “Not a recent convert, or he may be puffed up and fall into the condemnation and the snare of the devil”., But if with the passage of time some sin of sensuality is discovered with regard to the person and he is convicted by two or three witnesses, such a one will be suspended from the clergy. If anyone contravenes these regulations, he will be liable to forfeit his clerical status for acting in defiance of this great synod.

The additional instruction they are talking about refers to ordaining people at their baptism to the priesthood and/or episcopate. The council says this practice is to stop and these people are to undergo further instruction and it cites Pauls words in 1Timothy 3:2-6 which clearly refes to the ordination of bishops:

" 2 Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, 3 no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; 5 for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil;" [1Timothy 3:2-6]

Apples and oranges Anne, apples and oranges.

As for your quoting Justin Martyr, nowhere does Justin Martyr even mentin catechumens in chapter 65. He is speaking of persons who after being baptized are given the Eucharist.

 

[itinerant1]

The Latin “aut” was a very minor point to my overall argument. You can pull that out if you find it unsatisfactory. The rest of the argument has historical basis, which I provided…

Elsewhere in his “Fundamentals” (p. 114) in my edition (1974), Ott says “The spiritual re-birth of young infants can be achieved in an extra-sacramental manner… [he includes baptism of blood, baptism of desire]… are indeed possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation”
and then goes on to say (for infants), “Theologians usually assume that there is a special place or state for children dying without baptism which they call limbus puerorum (children’s Limbo). Pope Pius VI adopted this view against the Synod of Pistoia.”

I thought your argument mostly un-necessary and tedious. The link to the Inquisition made me finally give up on it.

Did I assert the CCC contained “false” teachings? No.

You made no “explicit” satement to that effect.

“The individual doctrines which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess.” Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 26

The parts of the Catechism which you’ve quoted regarding baptism of desire/baptism of blood are not de fide (dogmatic) teachings. They are theological theories. The Catechism, and that which it presents is not necessarily immutable, dogmatic teaching. Otherwise, Catechisms could never be revised. The dogmatic teachings, which the CCC does include receive their authoritative weight from their proclamations outside of the CCC (i.e., Papal/Conciliar documents).

As the CCC freely admits,
CCC 1257 “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.””

Baptism of desire/blood are theories which Ott admits are “possible, but their actuality cannot be proved” and so the CCC rightly states, “The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures” salvation.

So, it’s not de fide. True, but that’s a slick and slippery response.

The Church can be reasonably certain of a matter without it being *de fide. *To not accept the baptism of desire or of blood, is a position that has little merit to it. It is by far the weaker of the two positions. If one is concerned about certitude, as you claim to be, it is a logical contradiction to take the position that doubts the baptism of desire, since it is proven to be an indefensible position, especially when one seriously considers the unacceptable implications of the possibility that the baptism of desire and blood are not true.

The argument against the baptism of desire and blood is a negative argument that can only show that the doctrines are not de fide. There are no positive arguments in its favor that do not involve rigorist interpretations of Church dogma.

Hence, I take your position to be a logical contradiction, and otherwise critically flawed.

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

 

[AnneElliot]

inkaneer,

The Conciliar text calls them “catechumens”, does it not? Catechumens still require instruction after Baptism thus they cannot receive Holy Orders. They are newbies.

 

[AnneElliot]

I thought your argument mostly un-necessary and tedious. The link to the Inquisition made me finally give up on it.

It was not a critical article of the Inquisition. It came from a Catholic website. I didn’t need to link to any website, but I wasn’t sure of your familiarity with conversos.

 

[itinerant1]

Thanks for answering…

See? You didn’t completely agree with everything Fr. Hardon said from what you posted previously. He said ‘baptism of desire’ was implicit, with no clarifications. Post #835 This is why I was asking and trying to ascertain what precisely you meant by ‘baptism of desire’.

The style of Fr. Hardon’s Q&A Catechism is terse. If you want fuller texts from Fr. Hardon, I can provide that. But then, you would just give your usual lame response that Fr. Hardon is not the pope, or some such thing.

So, according to you, there are some cases of implicit baptism of desire, and other cases of explicit baptism of desire… correct?

That is so, from a perspective of knowing what a catechumen desired before they died. Whether every theologian will agree with that kind of distinction, I do not know. Seems unimportant, though, or, as my redneck friend would say, “It makes no nevermind anyhow.”

This is not what I was asking. I’m not asking about the reception of the Sacrament itself, but the reception of the *grace *of the Sacrament.

Really?? It was hard to tell. Your question was a bit garbled and thus lacked the clarity required.

Even now, I do not know what you mean by making your distinction between the “reception of the Sacrament” and “reception of the *grace *of the Sacrament.”

Is faith alone sufficient to obtain the grace of (sacramental) Baptism in some circumstances (theoretically) without the reception of the Sacrament itself?.

You don’t seem to understand everything involved with the “grace of the Baptism”. Neither have you specified what kind of faith you are talking about.

It is my understanding of the theory of baptism of desire, that baptism of desire imparts the grace of Baptism (i.e., sanctifying grace, the removal of Original Sin), without the actual reception of the Sacrament itself (thus, no baptismal character is imprinted on the soul). Is this what you mean by ‘baptism of desire’?.

Not exactly, since there is more to the Sacrament of Baptism than reception of Sanctifying grace.

Also, I asked if anything was required on the part of the recipient which you said was “answered above” (you mean within the same post, yes?). Here then I am confused. In answering my second question you spoke about the reception of the actual Sacrament of Baptism, and not baptism of desire. Could you make this more clear for me?

I can make my answer clearer if you can first make your question clearer. I was laboring under less than ideal circumstances.

 

[itinerant1]

inkaneer,

The Conciliar text calls them “catechumens”, does it not? Catechumens still require instruction after Baptism thus they cannot receive Holy Orders. They are newbies.

Huh?

 

[AnneElliot]

itinerant,

I am sorry my questions are not clear enough for you. I am simply trying to get you to pin down what exactly you mean when you say ‘baptism of desire’.

What do you mean when you use that phrase?
What is ‘baptism of desire’?
What does it “do” for the soul of the recipient?
Do people receive it by faith (implicit/explicit… this is what I am asking you to tell me)?
Is anything else required? Is nothing required?
etc.

Pretend I’m not Catholic, not even Christian, and have never heard the phrase before… how would you explain ‘baptism of desire’ to me, in your own words? You are free to quote others, so long as you clarify if they’ve left something out/don’t give the complete picture, etc.

Example: I know some Catholics who say that baptism of desire imparts the grace of sacramental Baptism without the recipient having received the actual Sacrament. Thus, the recipient of baptism of desire is freed from Original Sin and receives sanctifying grace in their soul. They say, to receive this, the recipient must make a perfect act of love of God and an act of perfect contrition. Such a thing would be exceptionally rare and we have no knowledge if such a thing has happened.

I know other Catholics who say that baptism of desire applies to (practically) everyone who is not baptized (because, if they knew about baptism/the Faith they would obviously desire it). They don’t know exactly what it is, but whatever it is, it takes the place of sacramental baptism. Nothing is required of the recipients and “it’s probably a frequent occurrence”.

I’m sure there are several other opinions about what exactly constitutes ‘baptism of desire’. Point is, different people mean different things when they say, “baptism of desire”. I have no idea what you mean when you use that phrase, so I was asking you to explain what precisely you mean when you use that phrase… in general, what is baptism of desire?

 

[itinerant1]

itinerant,
I am sorry my questions are not clear enough for you. I am simply trying to get you to pin down what exactly you mean when you say ‘baptism of desire’.

Fair enough. What I mean by “baptism of desire” is only that which the Church teaches on the subject. I have nothing to say that is any different than the gist of the dominant teaching. The following section from the CE explains the doctrine, which I agree with.

X. SUBSTITUTES FOR THE SACRAMENT

"The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquae or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood. (I) The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism.

"The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The “baptism of the Holy Ghost” is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book “De Rebaptismate”. The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John, iii), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John, xiv): “He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him.” And again: “If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him.” Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins.

"This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men cannot obtain original justice “except by the laver of regeneration or its desire” (voto). The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius.

"We have already alluded to the funeral oration pronounced by St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen. The doctrine of the baptism of desire is here clearly set forth. St. Ambrose asks: “Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it because he asked for it.” St. Augustine (IV, De Bapt., xxii) and St. Bernard (Ep. lxxvii, ad H. de S. Victore) likewise discourse in the same sense concerning the baptism of desire. If it be said that this doctrine contradicts the universal law of baptism made by Christ (John, iii), the answer is that the lawgiver has made an exception (John xiv) in favor of those who have the baptism of desire. Neither would it be a consequence of this doctrine that a person justified by the baptism of desire would thereby be dispensed from seeking after the baptism of water when the latter became a possibility.

“For, as has already been explained the baptismus flaminis contains the votum of receiving the baptismus aquae. It is true that some of the Fathers of the Church arraign severely those who content themselves with the desire of receiving the sacrament of regeneration, but they are speaking of catechumens who of their own accord delay the reception of baptism from unpraiseworthy motives. Finally, it is to be noted that only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire.”
(Excerpted from Baptism; my paragraphing added for easier reading)

If there have been any subsequent developments of this doctrine that are generally accepted by the Church, then I am inclined to go along, as the doctrine makes perfect sense, and it is in harmony with the NT.

 

[tqualey]

Anne,

Maybe you should read this link: catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0002chap.asp

These past dozen or so posts you have made have made for some of the saddest reading I have experienced on CAF. You have a very good mind - and to watch you spin out a web of confusion with this cascade of hair-splitting questions is nothing short of staggering to me.

For the life of me, I simply can not understand why you are running this thread around in circles with the same hair-splitting you began with? While you have not quoted Feeney recently, you have, for many posts, been endorsing his view of “No Salvation Outside the Church”. As you know this view has been condemned by the Holy Office. That should end it - but, apparently, it doesn’t. I have watched atheists and protestants try to goad Catholics on CAF - but, never have I seen this done by a Catholic.

If there is anyone to truly admire - it is Itinerant - for the heroic degree of patience demonstrated in these numerous posts. While not endowed with much patience to begin with - the little I had has been lost… and, at the risk of being uncharitable… will exit from this thread.

I was under the impression (from a previous post) that - unlike Feeney’s heresy - you do not believe that unbaptized babies are in the hell of the damned. I see this as an important distinction between you and Feeney’s published teachings on this topic. Maybe you need to pay more attention to what comes out of the Holy Office and less of what comes from this very questionable group of Benedictines. Truly, in my opinion you need to think about just where you are going with this line of argumentation. From where I sit, you look like you are heading for the edge of a cliff.

God bless and goodbye.

itinerant,

I am sorry my questions are not clear enough for you. I am simply trying to get you to pin down what exactly you mean when you say ‘baptism of desire’.

What do you mean when you use that phrase?
What is ‘baptism of desire’?
What does it “do” for the soul of the recipient?
Do people receive it by faith (implicit/explicit… this is what I am asking you to tell me)?
Is anything else required? Is nothing required?
etc.

Pretend I’m not Catholic, not even Christian, and have never heard the phrase before… how would you explain ‘baptism of desire’ to me, in your own words? You are free to quote others, so long as you clarify if they’ve left something out/don’t give the complete picture, etc.

Example: I know some Catholics who say that baptism of desire imparts the grace of sacramental Baptism without the recipient having received the actual Sacrament. Thus, the recipient of baptism of desire is freed from Original Sin and receives sanctifying grace in their soul. They say, to receive this, the recipient must make a perfect act of love of God and an act of perfect contrition. Such a thing would be exceptionally rare and we have no knowledge if such a thing has happened.

I know other Catholics who say that baptism of desire applies to (practically) everyone who is not baptized (because, if they knew about baptism/the Faith they would obviously desire it). They don’t know exactly what it is, but whatever it is, it takes the place of sacramental baptism. Nothing is required of the recipients and “it’s probably a frequent occurrence”.

I’m sure there are several other opinions about what exactly constitutes ‘baptism of desire’. Point is, different people mean different things when they say, “baptism of desire”. I have no idea what you mean when you use that phrase, so I was asking you to explain what precisely you mean when you use that phrase… in general, what is baptism of desire?

 

[AnneElliot]

Fair enough. What I mean by “baptism of desire” is only that which the Church teaches on the subject.

Can you point me to the Papal and/or Conciliar documents that teach “baptism of desire”?

 

[AnneElliot]

Tom,

Much of my understanding of the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus comes from other priests, bishops, etc. in good standing with the Church. They lived and died defending EENS without ever being censored or questioned.

Archbishop George Hay
Fr. Michael Mueller
Fr. Arnold Damen
Orestes Brownson

If you are sincerely interested, you can find some of their works, though not all, online. Many of their books are, unfortunately, out of print. Some libraries may carry copies of them though.

 

[itinerant1]

Can you point me to the Papal and/or Conciliar documents that teach “baptism of desire”?

If there is one, you will have to track it down on yer own.

 

[AnneElliot]

If there is one, you will have to track it down on yer own.

The article you cited above mentions Trent, but no where in the Conciliar texts of Trent will you find the phrase “baptism of desire”.

If it is your contention that the Church teaches “baptism of desire” shouldn’t we find that phrase in any Papal or Conciliar document, at least once? I cannot think of any other doctrine of the Church which has no explicit mention in Papal or Conciliar documents. Even proponents of a fifth Marian dogma (CoRedemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate) can point you to various Papal and Conciliar documents where the titles were used.

Is “baptism of desire” the only doctrine of the Church not explicitly mentioned in ANY Magisterial documents?

 

[itinerant1]

“Catechumens are persons who have not received the visible sacrament in re, and therefore are not actu et propria in the church, since it is only by baptism that we are made members of Christ and incorporated into his body.” ~ Orestes Brownson

 

[itinerant1]

The article you cited above mentions Trent, but no where in the Conciliar texts of Trent will you find the phrase “baptism of desire”.

If it is your contention that the Church teaches “baptism of desire” shouldn’t we find that phrase in any Papal or Conciliar document, at least once? I cannot think of any other doctrine of the Church which has no explicit mention in Papal or Conciliar documents. Even proponents of a fifth Marian dogma (CoRedemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate) can point you to various Papal and Conciliar documents where the titles were used.

Is “baptism of desire” the only doctrine of the Church not explicitly mentioned in ANY Magisterial documents?

Is baptism by martyrdom found in any magisterial document?