A
AnneElliot
Guest
Hi Chuck,
OT Saints were not bound by the law of baptism because the died under the Old Covenant.
- Status
OT Saints were not bound by the law of baptism because the died under the Old Covenant.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Good question. The answer to that is found within this quote from Rev. Francis Spirago:
"If baptism by water is impossible, it may be replaced by the baptism of desire, or by the baptism of blood, as in the case of those who suffer martyrdom for the faith of Christ.
"The Emperor Valentinian II was on the way to Milan to be baptized when hewas assassinated; St. Ambrose said of him that his desire had been the means of his cleansing. The patriarchs, prophets and holy men of the Old Testament had the baptism of desire; their love of God was ardent, and they wished to do all that He commands. God accepts the will for the deed; in this He manifests His super-abundant loving kindness. But all the temporal penalties of sin are not remitted by the baptism of desire.
“Martyrdom for Christ’s sake is the baptism of blood. This the holy innocents received, and the Church commemorates them as saints. All unbaptized persons who suffer martyrdom for the Christian faith, for some act of Christian virtue, or the fulfilment of a Christian duty, also received the baptism of blood. Witness St. John Baptist; or St. Emerentiana, who while yet a catechumen, was found by the pagans praying at St. Agnes’ tomb, and was put to death by them. The Church does not pray for the unbaptized who suffer death for Christ; for He Himself says, “He that shall lose his life for Me, shall find it.” (Matt. x. 39).”
(Excerpted from Rev. Francis Spirago THE CATECHISM EXPLAINED)
A
AnneElliot
Guest
I was simply trying to clarify your position by direct questions. Is that a problem?
I
inkaneer
Guest
How obstinate can you be? According to the Catholic Encyclopedia catechumens were called that because they were not baptized. Once baptized they were called “faithful”. Note the following from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“Catechumens when present at Mass were not dismissed with the inquirers, but were detained while a special prayer was recited over them. They then also withdrew before the Mass of the Faithful began.”
The reason they withdrew from the Mass was because they were not baptized. So the very fact that those sources you quoted stated she was indeed a catechumen is proof she was not baptized.
In that same topic the Catholic Encyclopedia states:
“…(3) When the catechumens had completed this stage of preparation and trial, their names were inscribed among the competentes; i.e. those seeking to be baptized.”
Furthermore the Catholic Encyclopedia goes on to state in the subject of Christian Doctrine the following:
"If anyone was moved to embrace the true religion, he was not at once admitted, as in the days of the Apostles. At first he was treated as an inquirer, and only the fundamental doctrines were communicated to him. As soon as he had given proof of his knowledge and fitness he was admitted to the catechumenate proper, and was further instructed. After some years spent in this stage he was promoted to the ranks of the Competentes, i.e. those ready for baptism. "
Again Anne your insistence that she MAY HAVE BEEN baptized is completely contradicted because every source you quoted say she was a Catechumen. If she was baptized she would not be a Catechumen but at least a Competentes.
Anne, your position is based on nothing but wishful thinking. Feeney was wrong and so are you.
I
itinerant1
Guest
It’s a problem when you ask, “Are you trying to say/imply that there is salvation outside the Church?” How many posts did I make explaining what “no salvation outside the Church” means? I don’t know, but they were many in number. If it is just now that you do not understand what I was saying, why then did argue to no end in response to my previous posts? Yes, I see that as a problem.
Also, I posted more about the baptism of desire, which should be sufficient to show that you have no justifiable grounds for denying the legitimacy of the teaching.
I
itinerant1
Guest
That’s a neat non-answer.
We know that OT saints were justified by faith and received sanctifying grace. Sanctifying grace was received by means of the non-sacramental baptism of desire.
A
AnneElliot
Guest
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
A
AnneElliot
Guest
It’s not a non-answer. Jesus Christ had not yet even instituted the Sacrament of Baptism when the just of the OT died. The necessity of Baptism is not retroactive. It was not binding until after the Resurrection of Jesus, and certainly not before it was even instituted as a Sacrament!
I’ve not hesitated to clarify my position when asked, even though it had been stated above (ex., Limbo/punishment). Why are you so hostile to dialogue?
I’m sorry I’m not a computer with a mechanical brain that has memorized who exactly said what in this 50+ page thread… You’ve posted (to my recollection) excerpts from numerous articles. I was simply asking for a direct answer from you. I’m sorry if you thought it repetitive. Furthermore, I was trying to pin down what precisely you meant by ‘baptism of desire’ since not everyone defines it the same.
I
itinerant1
Guest
There is no demonstration, here or in previous posts, for your contention. For example, the Council of Nicea’s reference to the further probation after baptism does not specifically say that the individual after baptism is still a catechumen.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
““Catechumen,” in the early Church, was the name applied to one who had not yet been initiated into the sacred mysteries, but was undergoing a course of preparation for that purpose. The word occurs in Galatians 6:6: “Let him that is instructed in the word, ho katechoumenos, is qui catechizatur] communicate to him that instructeth him to katechounti, ei qui catechizat] in all good things.” Other parts of the verb katicksein occur in 1 Corinthians 14:19; Luke 1:4; Acts 18:24.” Catechumen
I don’t recall reading anything in the Catholic Encyclopedia that supports your interpretation: Catechumen . Perhaps you can find something explicit. If and until then, I can’t buy your explanation.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Well, here’s the problem. First, I did not imply that the Sacrament of Baptism existed in OT times or that the necessity of Baptism was retroactive. So, we can strike those comments of your as being irrelevant.
Second, the context concerned the baptism of desire, which as Fr. Hardon explained is non-sacramental, it does not confer the marks of baptism. However, the Church teaches that the baptism of desire was the means by which some received Sanctifying grace such as the OT saints, the pagans in Acts 10:45, etc.
Also “St. Ambrose has no doubt about the salvation of Valentinian the Younger, who has asked for baptism, but had died before the saint could reach him (“De Obitu Valentini.”, n. 51, P.L. XVI, 1374). Hence the common teaching was that the defect of baptism might be supplied by desire. This was especially held with regard to those who were in the later stage of immediate preparation, to be described presently. On this whole question see Franzelin, “De Ecclesia” (Rome, 1887), 414 sqq.”
Instead of responding to the issue at hand – baptism of desire – you made irrelevant comments about Baptism. It’s not that I am hostile to dialogue, it’s that you cannot seem to stay engaged in a straight line or remain relevant in your repsonses. And that is why this discussion drags on long after your ideas have been thoroughly repudiated. It’s just a matter of time before you realize that fact. But then again, maybe not.
A
AnneElliot
Guest
Are you claiming that Fr. Hardon speaks for the Church… since you say “the Church teaches that the baptism of desire was the means by which some received Sanctifying grace such as the OT saints, the pagans in Acts 10:45, etc”?
Do you have a Magisterial document that elaborates this claim?
Do you have a Magisterial document that elaborates this claim?
I
itinerant1
Guest
Fr. John A. Hardon, unlike the heretical and anti-Semitic Fr. Feeney, was eminently capable of accurately representing the mind and teachings of the Church.
Do you have a Magisterial document that repudiates the concept of “baptism of desire”?
A
AnneElliot
Guest
I have not used Fr. Feeney as evidence for anything I’ve put forth as Catholic teaching. I’ve used Papal and Conciliar documents. Nice try…
I’ll take that as a “no” then, that you have no official Conciliar and/or Papal texts that can support your theory of baptism of desire? (which you’ve still yet to explain what precisely you mean by baptism of desire…)
I
itinerant1
Guest
In case of emergency Baptism by water can be replaced by Baptism of desire or Baptism by blood. (Sent. fidei prox.)
a) Baptism of desire (Baptismus flaminis sive Spiritus Sancti) Baptism of desire is the explicit or implicit desire for sacramental baptism (votum baptismi) associated with perfect contrition (contrition based on charity).
The Council of Trent teaches that justification from original sin is not possible "without the washing unto regeneration or the desire for the same."
According to the teaching of Holy Writ, perfect love possesses justifying power. Luke 7, 47: “Many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved much.” John 14, 21: " He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father: l and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." Luke 23, 43: “This , day thou shalt be with me in Paradise.”
The chief witnesses from Tradition are St. Ambrose and St. Augustine. In the funeral oration on the Emperor Valentine II, who died without Baptism, St. Ambrose says: " Should he not acquire the grace for which he longed? Certainly: As he desired it, he has attained it . . . His pious desire has absolved him " (De obitu Valent. 51, 53). St. Augustine declared: " I find that not only suffering for the sake of Christ can replace that which is lacking in Baptism, but also faith and conversion of the heart (fidem conversionemque cordis), if perhaps the shortness of the time does not permit the celebration of the mystery , of Baptism " (De bapt. IV 22, 29).
In the period of early Scholasticism, St. Bernard of Clairvaux (Ep. 77 c. 2 n. 6-9), Hugo of St. Victor (De sacr. 116, 7) and the Summa Sententiarum (V 5) defended the possibility of Baptism of desire against Peter Abelard. Cf. S. th. III 68, 2.
Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis. It bestows Sanctifying Grace, which remits original sin, all actual sins, and the eternal punishments for sin. Venial sins and temporal punishments for sin are remitted according to the intensity of the subjective disposition. The baptismal character is not imprinted nor is it the gateway to the other sacraments.
(Ludwig Ott)
a) Baptism of desire (Baptismus flaminis sive Spiritus Sancti) Baptism of desire is the explicit or implicit desire for sacramental baptism (votum baptismi) associated with perfect contrition (contrition based on charity).
The Council of Trent teaches that justification from original sin is not possible "without the washing unto regeneration or the desire for the same."
According to the teaching of Holy Writ, perfect love possesses justifying power. Luke 7, 47: “Many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved much.” John 14, 21: " He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father: l and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." Luke 23, 43: “This , day thou shalt be with me in Paradise.”
The chief witnesses from Tradition are St. Ambrose and St. Augustine. In the funeral oration on the Emperor Valentine II, who died without Baptism, St. Ambrose says: " Should he not acquire the grace for which he longed? Certainly: As he desired it, he has attained it . . . His pious desire has absolved him " (De obitu Valent. 51, 53). St. Augustine declared: " I find that not only suffering for the sake of Christ can replace that which is lacking in Baptism, but also faith and conversion of the heart (fidem conversionemque cordis), if perhaps the shortness of the time does not permit the celebration of the mystery , of Baptism " (De bapt. IV 22, 29).
In the period of early Scholasticism, St. Bernard of Clairvaux (Ep. 77 c. 2 n. 6-9), Hugo of St. Victor (De sacr. 116, 7) and the Summa Sententiarum (V 5) defended the possibility of Baptism of desire against Peter Abelard. Cf. S. th. III 68, 2.
Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis. It bestows Sanctifying Grace, which remits original sin, all actual sins, and the eternal punishments for sin. Venial sins and temporal punishments for sin are remitted according to the intensity of the subjective disposition. The baptismal character is not imprinted nor is it the gateway to the other sacraments.
(Ludwig Ott)
I
itinerant1
Guest
I just recently posted an explanation of the baptism of desire earlier today. Are you not reading all the posts?I have not used Fr. Feeney as evidence for anything I’ve put forth as Catholic teaching. I’ve used Papal and Conciliar documents. Nice try…
I’ll take that as a “no” then, that you have no official Conciliar and/or Papal texts that can support your theory of baptism of desire? (which you’ve still yet to explain what precisely you mean by baptism of desire…)
You have not used Fr. Feeney? What do you call it when you use and link to catholicism.org?
Or, was that the other Feeneyish poster?
I
itinerant1
Guest
Addendum:I have not used Fr. Feeney as evidence for anything I’ve put forth as Catholic teaching. I’ve used Papal and Conciliar documents. Nice try…
I’ll take that as a “no” then, that you have no official Conciliar and/or Papal texts that can support your theory of baptism of desire? (which you’ve still yet to explain what precisely you mean by baptism of desire…)
See Council of Trent for baptism of desire.
My first post today explaining, once again, the baptism of desire, is post # 835. Also, you said “your theory of baptism of desire.” Correction: it is not in any sense “my” theory. It has been a teaching of the Church.
Also, the notion of baptism of desire and baptism of blood are so commonly written about, there is no reason why you should be unfamiliar with either idea. There is no need whatsoever to rely on my posts for an understanding of the concepts, especially since they are not “my” theories.
But if you honestly do not know what “baptism of desire” refers to, then why are you even arguing against the idea? That makes no sense. :dts:
A
AnneElliot
Guest
This is Ott’s theology here, right? Because the above is not from any Papal or Conciliar text. The Conciliar text you’ve offered, by way of quoting Ott, is the Council of Trent:
Decree on Justification, ch. 3 “This translation however cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
This is not a definition of baptism of desire. The decree is drawing a parallel between justification of the sinner by the sacrament of Baptism or (/and… Latin “aut”) it’s desire and the passage from John 3:5… “This translation… cannot be effected except through either the laver of regeneration or its desire”. The two are joined. It’s hard in English to understand… but, as an example, you can’t a have a wedding without either a bride or a groom, but it doesn’t mean you can have a wedding with only one of them! Proof that this “interpretation” is the meaning of the Conciliar text? Look at the rest of the text: “as it is written…” Here’s the parallel:
(John 3:5)"…Unless a man be born again of water **AND **the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God"
“laver of regeneration” and “its desire” are joined (“as it is written”)… as “water” and “the Holy Ghost” are joined.
This is a direct refutation of the practice of forced baptisms… in the excitement/effort to win conversions some overly zealous people would force others to be baptized (because baptism is necessary for salvation). But while a valid baptism is a valid baptism, without true conversion on the part of the recipient, receiving the mark of the Sacrament would make things worse for them in the end-- that is, after having been incorporated into the Church, they rejected it. This practice, of forced baptisms, was mostly done to the Jews and Muslims (conversos and moriscos, respectively)
“This is contrary to the Christian religion, that anyone always unwilling and interiorly objecting be compelled to receive and to observe Christianity. On this account some absurdly do not distinguish between unwilling and unwilling, and forced and forced, because he who is violently forced by terrors and punishments, and, lest he incur harm, receives the sacrament of baptism, such a one also as he who under pretense approaches baptism, receives the impressed sign of Christianity, and he himself, just as he will conditionally although not absolutely, must be forced to observance of the Christian Faith.”
Pope Innocent III, The Effect of Baptism (and the Character) (Dezinger 411)
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=5236
A
AnneElliot
Guest
I did not link to catholicism.org
As I said previously, I have not used Fr. Feeney to back up any of my positions regarding Church teaching.
A
AnneElliot
Guest
I am not unfamiliar with baptism of desire. But different people have very different understandings of baptism of desire… what it is, precisely. And how it is obtained. These are the two things I was trying to ascertain by my questions.
Regarding post #835
Fr. Hardon says baptism of desire is implicit. Do you agree with this? 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)? What (if anything) is required of the recipient?
I
itinerant1
Guest
No one, including Ott, claim the text is “a definition of baptism of desire”.
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.
- Status