O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
Then please explain the practice of ***infant ***baptism.
As a 6 week old infant, ***I ***certainly had *no desire *for baptism,
does that mean mine is null & void?
- Status
As a 6 week old infant, ***I ***certainly had *no desire *for baptism,
does that mean mine is null & void?
F
Faith3Faith
Guest
When I said “If a man is being Baptized with Water, but has no desire for it, then his Baptism is null and void,…meaning it is as if he had not been Baptized at all.”, I was speaking of all those persons who are above the age of reason. Obviously an infant is not above the age of reason, so therefore the infant’s SACRAMENTAL water baptism would be valid.Then please explain the practice of ***infant ***baptism.
As a 6 week old infant, ***I ***certainly had *no desire *for baptism,
does that mean mine is null & void?
C
Cecilianus
Guest
When we say that baptism is necessary for salvation (as it certainly is), we mean there is a moral necessity - it is the way God ordained and instituted for our salvation. It is not a logical necessity - for those who are unaware of the necessity of baptism, or who are unable to get baptized, God can save them anyway.
Heaping quotations upon quotations on the “necessity of baptism” is missing the point entirely. Everybody here agrees that baptism is necessary for salvation. It is the ordinary means of salvation.
You also have not logically explained to me how a good God who loves all men can damn a person to Hell for something he was invincibly ignorant of (and by definition not culpable for).
Heaping quotations upon quotations on the “necessity of baptism” is missing the point entirely. Everybody here agrees that baptism is necessary for salvation. It is the ordinary means of salvation.
You also have not logically explained to me how a good God who loves all men can damn a person to Hell for something he was invincibly ignorant of (and by definition not culpable for).
C
Cecilianus
Guest
Faith3Faith, you also have not explained to me how the souls of the just before the coming of Christ could be saved - including all of the Old Testament prophets and saints, who are commemorated as saints by the Church both East and West. (We just passed the feasts of Sts. Adam and Eve on December 24.) They weren’t baptized.
Neither were the righteous Gentiles who lived during the Old Dispensation, who did not follow the Jewish Law, including Job (proclaimed righteous by Holy Scripture), Balaam (venerated as a saint in some countries in the East, such as Ethiopia), honest and noble God-fearing men like Socrates or the prophet Hermes Trismegistus (regarded by the Church Fathers as a prophet of Christ), or Buddha (also regarded as a saint by the Church Fathers). They weren’t baptized.
If they could be saved by Christ’s Redemption, so could people who lived after 33 A.D. but didn’t have the good fortune to have ever heard of Christianity - or who may have heard of it, but through no fault of their own were unaware that it was the truth.
Neither were the righteous Gentiles who lived during the Old Dispensation, who did not follow the Jewish Law, including Job (proclaimed righteous by Holy Scripture), Balaam (venerated as a saint in some countries in the East, such as Ethiopia), honest and noble God-fearing men like Socrates or the prophet Hermes Trismegistus (regarded by the Church Fathers as a prophet of Christ), or Buddha (also regarded as a saint by the Church Fathers). They weren’t baptized.
If they could be saved by Christ’s Redemption, so could people who lived after 33 A.D. but didn’t have the good fortune to have ever heard of Christianity - or who may have heard of it, but through no fault of their own were unaware that it was the truth.
F
Faith3Faith
Guest
There are different definitions of “Baptism of Desire” amongst your kind. Some believe that **only catechumens can be saved **by BoD. Others believe that only catechumens and protestants can be saved by BoD. Persons such as yourself believe that **those who don’t even know of Baptism can be saved **by Baptism of Desire even though they have no desire for it. Do you see the sticky mess all of you have stepped in? Which one of you is correct? **Where is the infallible dogmatic definition of the Church which instructs Catholics on which Baptism of Desire we should accept? ** … I’ll answer that for you,…There is none.
But there is the infallible dogmatic teaching handed down from the “Universal Magisterium” that only those who undergo the Sacramental Water Baptism are to be counted as members within Christ’s Church. Plus, there is the infallible dogmatic teaching handed down from the “Universal Magisterium” that only those who are members of the Church can enter into the Kingdom of God.
C
Cecilianus
Guest
Honestly, if that were true, Vatican II wouldn’t have infallibly stated that the Church “subsists”, rather than being equivalent to, the visible structure of the Catholic Church.
C
Cecilianus
Guest
I also reject your assumption that if the Church has no “infallible” declaration on a subject that it has no teaching on the subject. The Church also has no “infallible” declaration on the bitter controversies concerning grace between the Molinists and Thomists - in fact, She has specifically forbidden either side from charging the other with heresy. Either side holds a permitted view - and both reject Pelagianism, which the Church does condemn as heresy.
By contrast, there actually is no disagreement between any of us over Baptism of Desire because we all admit the power of God to save whomever He wills, and none of us claim to know who actually is saved, unlike you who elected yourself to be the judge and jury of Judgment Day.
Even if there were disagreement over who is saved by Baptism of Desire, the Church would not have condemned either of us as being heretics, and therefore both would be permitted views - unlike your Feeneyist heresy, which the Church decisively condemned when it excommunicated Fr. Feeney.
I find it strange that a Roman Catholic such as you would be so insistent that a doctrine (baptism of desires) taught so clearly in the Summa is a “heresy”. I also find it strange that someone trying so hard to be so orthodox or so conservative rejects basic Catholic doctrines we all learned from the Baltimore Catechism up, such as baptism of desire, invincible ignorance, and the ordinary teaching authority of the Church.
Finally, I’m still waiting for an answer to my question about invincible ignorance and God’s goodness. I’m hoping you don’t hold to the heretical Calvinist doctrine of total depravity. If you do, as it seems, then this discussion should be over, since the dispute is over what the Catholic Faith teaches.
By contrast, there actually is no disagreement between any of us over Baptism of Desire because we all admit the power of God to save whomever He wills, and none of us claim to know who actually is saved, unlike you who elected yourself to be the judge and jury of Judgment Day.
Even if there were disagreement over who is saved by Baptism of Desire, the Church would not have condemned either of us as being heretics, and therefore both would be permitted views - unlike your Feeneyist heresy, which the Church decisively condemned when it excommunicated Fr. Feeney.
I find it strange that a Roman Catholic such as you would be so insistent that a doctrine (baptism of desires) taught so clearly in the Summa is a “heresy”. I also find it strange that someone trying so hard to be so orthodox or so conservative rejects basic Catholic doctrines we all learned from the Baltimore Catechism up, such as baptism of desire, invincible ignorance, and the ordinary teaching authority of the Church.
Finally, I’m still waiting for an answer to my question about invincible ignorance and God’s goodness. I’m hoping you don’t hold to the heretical Calvinist doctrine of total depravity. If you do, as it seems, then this discussion should be over, since the dispute is over what the Catholic Faith teaches.
F
Faith3Faith
Guest
What you fail to understand is that the Catholic Church already has an infallible dogmatic teaching on how a person becomes a member of Christ’s Church which is through Water baptism only, …**this is why you are unable to provide any infallible Church teachings to back up your position ** **of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood **. There will never be such an infallible teaching simply because the Holy Spirit has already revealed to the Church that Water baptism is the only means by which one becomes a member of the Church.
Also, the reason you don’t want me to post the infallible dogmatic declarations is because it is from those declarations that we know what the “Universal Magisterium” teaches, …Therefore I will post the traditional dogmatic infallible Church’s teachings which you must accept as a Catholic…
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, On the **Sacraments of Baptism **and Penance, Sess. 14, Chap. 2, ex cathedra: “But in fact this sacrament [Penance] is seen to differ in many respects from baptism. For, apart from the fact that the matter and form, by which the essence of a sacrament is constituted, are totally distinct, there is certainly no doubt that the minister of baptism need not be a judge, **since the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism. For what have I to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle. It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body’ (1 Cor. 12:13).” **
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration [water baptism] and profess the true faith.”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 27), June 29, 1943: “He (Christ) also determined that through Baptism (cf. Jn. 3:5) those who should believe would be incorporated in the Body of the Church.”
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration.”
In the early Church, the unbaptized catechumens (i.e., those who had not received the Sacrament of Baptism) had to leave after the Mass of the catechumens, when the faithful professed the Creed. The unbaptized were not allowed to stay for the Mass of the faithful , because it is only by receiving the Sacrament of Baptism that one becomes one of the faithful. This is the teaching of Tradition.
Also unlike today, in the earlier Church when catechumens had been water baptized , many of them had continued as catechumens for some time afterwards, which would explain those cases of Saints who are reported to have still been catechumens.
So far, I have provided numerous infallible dogmatic declarations from numerous Popes that all say only those who have been WATER Baptized can enter into his Church. So Cecilianus , if you want to prove your case that unbaptized persons can become members of God’s Church outside of sacramental Water baptism, then you are required to provide infallible dogmatic teachings from the Church which backs up your case. If you can’t, then that means what I have provided carries more weight than anything you can provide. Please don’t provide casual comments from Doctors, Theologians, Popes, Bishops, Priests and other Saints. Such commentaries are fallible and meaningless, when compared to already established infallible dogmatic statements which all Catholics must accept and believe.
Also, for every Doctor, Saint and Theologian you provide who claims a person can become a Saint without Water baptism, then I can provide a Doctor, Saint and Theologian who says the exact opposite. So that means you have no case when it comes to “Universal doctrine” having already been established when it comes to BOD and BOB. Your peception of universal doctrine must only be understood in the light of what has already been established infallibly by the “Universal Magisterium” of the Church. **Therefore since it has been dogmatically taught that only Water Baptism is the door by which one enters the Church, then you must accept that this has always been the universal doctrine of the Church as well. **
G
Gregory_I
Guest
You provided one excerpt each, and very short, from two coucnils that are ex cathedra statements, the others are encyclicals.
The Fathers of the Church clearly teach that an unbaptized person, who is ignorant of Christ could be saved. DO you WANT the references? I have a handful right here, but I won’t waste your time if you won’t listen…
The Fathers of the Church clearly teach that an unbaptized person, who is ignorant of Christ could be saved. DO you WANT the references? I have a handful right here, but I won’t waste your time if you won’t listen…
C
Cecilianus
Guest
I have quoted and several other people have quoted Trent multiple times to show that it teaches baptism of desire. Vatican II also taught an even broader doctrine of salvation when it taught that the Church SUBSISTS IN - rather than being identical to - the visible Catholic Church. Both are ecumenical councils - which are INFALLIBLE. I also quoted INFALLIBLE dogmatic statements from Clement XII and Alexander VIII in condemnation of the Jansenist heresy. I have provided the infallible proofs you asked for. You have done nothing but reiterate quotations to the effect that baptism is necessary for salvation, a point we are all in agreement on.
Go back to my post #62 where I explain that the fact of the necessity of baptism and the fact that God can save whomever He wills regardless of baptism or not are perfectly consistent with each other.
Your excessive reliance on those statements you are willing to concede as “infallible” is not very useful for this debate. I’m a Greek Catholic, not a Roman, and my Church has kept the Faith intact for over a thousand years (since Nicea II in 787) without ever having to appeal to Rome to settle disputes. For most of that time, we weren’t even in communion with Rome (like the greater part of the Greek Church today). For us, as for orthodox Roman Catholics according to Trent and Vatican II, Tradition is the source of doctrine - the Apostolic patrimony preserved by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.
Your insistence on “infallible” proofs for doctrines that none of us ever thought to question is also an unfair debating tactic. We don’t have such proofs on the tips of our tongues not because they don’t exist but because I for one never would have considered them controversial. I don’t own a copy of Denziger; if you are sincerely concerned with understanding Catholic doctrine you should look it up there. I also suggest you take some time to study Church dogma, beginning with the Baltimore Catechism and continuing on to Ludwig Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” (another book which I would be using extensively to find more statements of the Church’s teaching on this matter if I owned a copy of it).
And I cannot believe your arrogance in dismissing the entire teaching of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church - which is indeed infallible - as “meaningless”. The authority and reliability of St. Thomas Aquinas has been quite strongly taught by the Church. Aeterni Patris is one good example; some of the Thomists on this forum can provide you with a more complete list. I don’t even know your name - why should I believe you stacked against someone like Thomas Aquinas?
Go back to my post #62 where I explain that the fact of the necessity of baptism and the fact that God can save whomever He wills regardless of baptism or not are perfectly consistent with each other.
Your excessive reliance on those statements you are willing to concede as “infallible” is not very useful for this debate. I’m a Greek Catholic, not a Roman, and my Church has kept the Faith intact for over a thousand years (since Nicea II in 787) without ever having to appeal to Rome to settle disputes. For most of that time, we weren’t even in communion with Rome (like the greater part of the Greek Church today). For us, as for orthodox Roman Catholics according to Trent and Vatican II, Tradition is the source of doctrine - the Apostolic patrimony preserved by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.
Your insistence on “infallible” proofs for doctrines that none of us ever thought to question is also an unfair debating tactic. We don’t have such proofs on the tips of our tongues not because they don’t exist but because I for one never would have considered them controversial. I don’t own a copy of Denziger; if you are sincerely concerned with understanding Catholic doctrine you should look it up there. I also suggest you take some time to study Church dogma, beginning with the Baltimore Catechism and continuing on to Ludwig Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” (another book which I would be using extensively to find more statements of the Church’s teaching on this matter if I owned a copy of it).
And I cannot believe your arrogance in dismissing the entire teaching of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church - which is indeed infallible - as “meaningless”. The authority and reliability of St. Thomas Aquinas has been quite strongly taught by the Church. Aeterni Patris is one good example; some of the Thomists on this forum can provide you with a more complete list. I don’t even know your name - why should I believe you stacked against someone like Thomas Aquinas?
F
Faith3Faith
Guest
For every Church Father you give who holds your position, then I can give a Church Father who held the opposite position. Besides, the Church Fathers didn’t speak infallibly on behalf of the Church from the seat of Peter. I have already provided numerous posts from those who did sit upon the seat of Peter. All of them agree that only through Water baptism does one enter the Church.
F
Faith3Faith
Guest
You think the Fathers and Doctors of the Church speak infallibly? Which ones? The reason I ask is because for every Doctor and Church Father who held a certian belief, then I can provide you with a Doctor and Church Father who held the opposite belief?
Infallible statements only come from a Pope when he addresses the entire Church either on his own or in union with the Bishops through a Church Council by decreeing whatever is taught in that Council.
But this is what I expected from you,…I provided infallible teachings which you must accept, and yet you reject those teachings based on fallible beliefs once held by some doctor, theologian, church father or saint.
C
Cecilianus
Guest
I simply presented the teachings of my Church regarding Tradition and the Fathers of the Church. They are infallible taken as a whole.
I am not going to respond to any more posts because this discussion has probably ceased to be mutually edifying, I’m starting to get a little bit annoyed, and I don’t want to give the moderators any more cause for complaints.
Have a blessed Solemnity of Our Lady.
Pax,
Cecilianus
I am not going to respond to any more posts because this discussion has probably ceased to be mutually edifying, I’m starting to get a little bit annoyed, and I don’t want to give the moderators any more cause for complaints.
Have a blessed Solemnity of Our Lady.
Pax,
Cecilianus
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
Faith3Faith,
You seem to have a very legalistic way of looking at things, and I too am getting a little annoyed by you trying to put God in a “box”.
You seem quite adept at quoting Church Fathers, Councils and Popes, yet I have not once seen any reference to the teachings of Jesus, who is the head of the Church.
I will give you 2-
Matthew 19:26 "… for man it is impossible. Nothing is impossible for God."
***Matthew 22:37-40
He said to him, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment.
The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.” ***
You seem to have a very legalistic way of looking at things, and I too am getting a little annoyed by you trying to put God in a “box”.
You seem quite adept at quoting Church Fathers, Councils and Popes, yet I have not once seen any reference to the teachings of Jesus, who is the head of the Church.
I will give you 2-
Matthew 19:26 "… for man it is impossible. Nothing is impossible for God."
***Matthew 22:37-40
He said to him, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment.
The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.” ***
F
Faith3Faith
Guest
The Universal Magisterium of the Church, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, has already infallibly taught that ONLY through the Sacrament of WATER baptism can a person enter God’s Church. By the way, the Holy Spirit is God.
Jesus who also is God has never taught Baptism of Desire and/or Baptism of Blood.
Instead Jesus taught that ONLY through WATER baptism can a person enter Heaven.
**John 3:5 - Jesus said, “I tell you, amen, amen,…unless you are born again through Water and the Spirit( Water Baptism) you cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven” **
A
Acolythus_sum
Guest
“By the way, the Holy Spirit is God.” Really? We do not need to sink to blows like that.
The universal magisterium has taught through the Catechism (which I have already quoted as being both doctrinal in nature and an exercise of the universal magisterium, and as such must be believed by the Catholic) to the contrary of your statement “Jesus taught that ONLY through WATER baptism can a person enter Heaven.”
You still have not replied to the problem of how God’s omnipotence is reconciled with the limits the “water baptism only” imposes. Please respond with a logical refutation or cede the point. Note that large, bold words do not count as logic.
A practical example may help to illustrate my point: By your reasoning, every person in America was damned until missionaries came, over 1500 years after our Lord’s command to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”. They surely weren’t baptized! Even if one of them had desired to be saved (inasmuch as he understood it) and thereby strove to live a virtuous life, he would have been damned by no fault of his own.
This is clearly a Calvinistic view of free will in that, by this reasoning, much of the world would have been predestined to damnation with no chance of salvation! How is this reconcilable with the image of a loving, omnipotent God?!?–the God Who is clearly taught by Holy Mother Church!
Also, please see what S. Thomas Aquinas, Priest and Doctor of the Universal Church, has to say on this matter (src. newadvent.org/summa/4066.htm#article11):
"Article 11. Whether three kinds of Baptism are fittingly described–viz. Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit?
Objection 1. It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Ephesians 4:5): “One Faith, one Baptism.” Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.
Objection 2. Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above (Question 65, Article 1). Now none but Baptism of Water is a sacrament. Therefore we should not reckon two other Baptisms.
Objection 3. Further, Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) distinguishes several other kinds of Baptism. Therefore we should admit more than three Baptisms.
On the contrary, on Hebrews 6:2, “Of the doctrine of Baptisms,” the gloss says: “He uses the plural, because there is Baptism of Water, of Repentance, and of Blood.”
I answer that, As stated above (Question 62, Article 5), Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ’s Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ’s Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 7:14): “These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb.” In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this it is written (Isaiah 4:4): “If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning.” Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): “The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: ‘Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise’ that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable.”
Reply to Objection 1. The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ’s Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.
Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (Question 60, Article 1), a sacrament is a kind of sign. The other two, however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not sacraments.
Reply to Objection 3. Damascene enumerates certain figurative Baptisms. For instance, “the Deluge” was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of the salvation of the faithful in the Church; since then “a few . . . souls were saved in the ark [Vulgate: ‘by water’,” according to 1 Peter 3:20. He also mentions “the crossing of the Red Sea”: which was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of our delivery from the bondage of sin; hence the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 10:2) that “all . . . were baptized in the cloud and in the sea.” And again he mentions “the various washings which were customary under the Old Law,” which were figures of our Baptism, as to the cleansing from sins: also “the Baptism of John,” which prepared the way for our Baptism."
If you still disagree, please submit refutations to the Angelic Doctor’s statements for further debate.
And let’s try to keep this civilized; I’m growing tired of this as well, and I don’t want to have to worry the moderators over this.
The universal magisterium has taught through the Catechism (which I have already quoted as being both doctrinal in nature and an exercise of the universal magisterium, and as such must be believed by the Catholic) to the contrary of your statement “Jesus taught that ONLY through WATER baptism can a person enter Heaven.”
You still have not replied to the problem of how God’s omnipotence is reconciled with the limits the “water baptism only” imposes. Please respond with a logical refutation or cede the point. Note that large, bold words do not count as logic.
A practical example may help to illustrate my point: By your reasoning, every person in America was damned until missionaries came, over 1500 years after our Lord’s command to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”. They surely weren’t baptized! Even if one of them had desired to be saved (inasmuch as he understood it) and thereby strove to live a virtuous life, he would have been damned by no fault of his own.
This is clearly a Calvinistic view of free will in that, by this reasoning, much of the world would have been predestined to damnation with no chance of salvation! How is this reconcilable with the image of a loving, omnipotent God?!?–the God Who is clearly taught by Holy Mother Church!
Also, please see what S. Thomas Aquinas, Priest and Doctor of the Universal Church, has to say on this matter (src. newadvent.org/summa/4066.htm#article11):
"Article 11. Whether three kinds of Baptism are fittingly described–viz. Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit?
Objection 1. It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Ephesians 4:5): “One Faith, one Baptism.” Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.
Objection 2. Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above (Question 65, Article 1). Now none but Baptism of Water is a sacrament. Therefore we should not reckon two other Baptisms.
Objection 3. Further, Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) distinguishes several other kinds of Baptism. Therefore we should admit more than three Baptisms.
On the contrary, on Hebrews 6:2, “Of the doctrine of Baptisms,” the gloss says: “He uses the plural, because there is Baptism of Water, of Repentance, and of Blood.”
I answer that, As stated above (Question 62, Article 5), Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ’s Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ’s Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 7:14): “These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb.” In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this it is written (Isaiah 4:4): “If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning.” Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): “The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: ‘Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise’ that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable.”
Reply to Objection 1. The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ’s Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.
Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (Question 60, Article 1), a sacrament is a kind of sign. The other two, however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not sacraments.
Reply to Objection 3. Damascene enumerates certain figurative Baptisms. For instance, “the Deluge” was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of the salvation of the faithful in the Church; since then “a few . . . souls were saved in the ark [Vulgate: ‘by water’,” according to 1 Peter 3:20. He also mentions “the crossing of the Red Sea”: which was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of our delivery from the bondage of sin; hence the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 10:2) that “all . . . were baptized in the cloud and in the sea.” And again he mentions “the various washings which were customary under the Old Law,” which were figures of our Baptism, as to the cleansing from sins: also “the Baptism of John,” which prepared the way for our Baptism."
If you still disagree, please submit refutations to the Angelic Doctor’s statements for further debate.
And let’s try to keep this civilized; I’m growing tired of this as well, and I don’t want to have to worry the moderators over this.
F
Faith3Faith
Guest
Aquinas was simply wrong on BoD, just as he was wrong when he claimed that the blessed virgin Mary was not born of immaculate conception.Also, please see what S. Thomas Aquinas, Priest and Doctor of the Universal Church, has to say on this matter (src. newadvent.org/summa/4066.htm#article11):
Ofcourse, if the Church had dogmatically declared Water Baptism and the teaching on the Immaculate Conception before Aquinas made those comments, then obviously Aquinas would have rejected BoD and accepted the Church’s teaching on the Immaculate Conception.
Today we have the **infallible dogmatic **teaching of the Church which says that ONLY through water baptism can a person receive the gift of salvation.
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent , Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
S
Shin
Guest
So, your view is that up to the time St. Thomas Aquinas lived, the Church had not declared infallibly that water baptism only was the source of salvation?
Which declaration do you take after he lived to be that determination?
And can you show from historical context that those who received the words of that declaration viewed it as you do, as a determination against baptism of desire/blood, rather than a more limited statement addressing other aspects of baptism?
F
Faith3Faith
Guest
My mistake. Actually Water Baptism was infallibly declared before Aquinas made such comments, but that does not mean that he knew of those teachings.
St. Robert Bellarmine: “It is very credible that St. Thomas, Alexander of Hales, and other scholastic doctors had not seen the second synod of Nice [Nicea II], nor the eighth general synod… [they] were long in obscurity, and were first published in our own age, as may be known from their not being extant in the older volumes of the councils; and St. Thomas and the other ancient schoolmen never make any mention of this Nicene Synod.” (De Imag. Sanct. Lib. II. Cap. Xxij.; quoted in NPNF2, Vol. 14, p. 526)
St. Robert Bellarmine says that St. Thomas Aquinas was probably unaware of what was taught in the seventh and eighth ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church: that is, the Second Council of Nicea in 787, and the Fourth Council of Constantinople in 869-870. This is a significant statement. Some people have argued that it’s impossible or unthinkable that a doctor of the Church could be wrong or ignorant of something taught at a council. To the contrary, the teaching of doctors of the Church is important, but it is not infallible. A doctor of the Church can be wrong and even ignorant of certain things that have been taught by the Church. Their teaching certainly does not weigh more than the teaching of the Magisterium.
Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”
Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: “This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.’”
So we can see that the defenders of “baptism of desire”– and even those who say that it’s unthinkable that baptism of desire could be incompatible with Catholic teaching if a doctor of the Church believed in it – are wrong again
S
Shin
Guest
Do you know of any instance in the history of the Holy Office in which it has ever censured a book for teaching baptism of blood or desire, rather than in fact, permitted it?
- Status