We don’t, but given the fact that if it were so very important, it stands to reason that it would’ve been mentioned. It may also be a practice that was added when going from the Old to New Testaments.
do all those who accept baptism but then fall away from the Church end up in Hell?The Catechism is not an infallible source, and, as I mentioned above. There are no references for the supposed long history of BOD/BOB.
I am not familiar with their being upbaptized. My book on the Saints says that they were martyrs, it says nothing at all about baptism. Do you have a source for this?
Trent did not teach Baptism of Desire. The statement about the desire for the Sacrament of Baptism was in reference to the practice of forced conversions (which were condemned… look up the “conversos” or “moriscos”-- the Spanish were forcing the Jews to be converted, and they tried the same thing again years later during the founding of the Americas). You cannot force someone to accept the faith and be baptized.
Same as above. The Council of Trent did not take place in a void. The Council Fathers knew what was going on (and had gone on) in the world and took measures not to profane the Sacrament of Baptism by forcing it upon someone against their will.
A person who merely “desires” the Sacrament of Baptism is not, and cannot be said to be, incorporated into the Church. He cannot receive any of the other Sacraments (i.e., the Holy Eucharist or Confirmation) without Sacramental Baptism. Baptism of Desire does not suffice to admit him to any of the other Sacraments because he is not incorporated into the Church.
The Council of Trent no where includes the phrase “baptism of desire”. Nor can Trent be used to identify BOD as a teaching of the Church since such a stance involves reading into the Conciliar texts more than what is already there.
So, how can these (i.e., BOD/BOB) be said to be extraordinary means of membership in the Church when they do not actually incorporate one into the Church?
Anne, I’m not sure how old you are, but if you are from the pre-Vatican II age, many traditionalists adhered to the old Baltimore Catechism (1941) as their rule of faith. It was felt to be the solemn teachings of the Church. Here is the wording:
And if you are reeeeeallly old
, here is the Catechism of St. Pius X:I’m having trouble with it because the text says one thing but the church was teaching exactly the opposite up to the early 1980s. When I was in Catholic school, they made it clear that all non-Catholics go straight to hell. No Purgatory, nothing but hellfire and damnation.
Council of Florence, 1438-1445:so you are saying that all the unbaptized go to Hell?
Noah and Job died under the Old Law. Baptism was not a requirement for salvation until after the Resurrection.
My parents were but wee children during the Second Vatican Council!
I was born WELL after the Council.Then you did not read it:
Those were all under the Old Law, and if they died justified, they went to the Bosom of Abraham (i.e., the Limbo of the Fathers) until Jesus descended there after His death.
Not necessarily the painful/torturous part of Hell. Limbo is a theological necessity. It is a place of natural happiness for those who are excluded from the Beatific Vision (and Original Sin is enough to be excluded from the Beatific Vision).so you are saying that all the unbaptized go to Hell?
If they do not die in a state of grace, then yes.
**Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (#7), Aug. 15, 1832: **“… nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning.” papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16mirar.htm
And that makes sense so I’m okay with it. That said, it has nothing to do with thief who was obviously not baptised.
I went over this in a previous post on this thread. The Good Thief also died before the Resurrection and under the Old Law.
But nothing was added; it was essentially there from the start.
with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law which have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can, by the power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life. For God, who knows completely the minds and souls, the thoughts and habits of all men, will not permit, in accord with His infinite goodness and mercy, anyone who is not guilty of a voluntary fault to suffer eternal punishment**On Promotion of False Doctrines *(Quanto Conficiamur Moerore) *no. 7]. He said essentially the same thing in On the Church in Austria (Singulari Quidam):
Pope Pius IX wasn’t a modernist by a long shot.
When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body…. All who are within [the Church] in heart are saved in the unity of the ark *On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:28 (39) *(A.D. 394*)*]*. *I’ll even grant you this one, too, but my point is that only the grace of God is required for salvation. What he does is up to Him and it would be arrogant of me to assume that he’s going to follow the rules of mankind so as to attain some sort of fairness in our eyes.
We were never talking about the “rules of mankind”.