Ordinary vs extraordinary means of salvation

[Acolythus_sum]

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

“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.”

In this paragraph is clearly defined the unity of the three types of Baptism, contained under one Baptism. Kind of like the Most Holy Trinity… Thus, these teachings (Aquinas and Trent) are mutually compatible, as Trent never specifies that the Baptism of Water is the only kind of Baptism acceptable. Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, which has been given the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, asserting that it is free of error in Catholic teaching, informs this statement from Trent with the qualifications of the “unity of Baptism”.

Have you been missing the below question, or are you ignoring it? Please respond to its argument.

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!

 

[Cecilianus]

I said I was going to keep out of this, but as an Orthodox I have to point out that the Second Council of Nicea (the Triumph of Holy Orthodoxy) was concerned with the veneration of icons, and condemned the iconoclast heresy. Its canons are chanted in the Synodikon of Holy Orthodoxy on the First Sunday of Great Lent in churches of the Byzantine Rite.

I’m not sure what relevance the council had to the present debate.

 

[Faith3Faith]

I said I was going to keep out of this, but as an Orthodox

Are you of a certain rite within the Catholic Church or are you a member of the Eastern Orthodox sect which had broken away from the Catholic Church about 1000 yrs ago?

 

[Cecilianus]

Are you of a certain rite within the Catholic Church or are you a member of the Eastern Orthodox sect which had broken away from the Catholic Church about 1000 yrs ago?

I am a member of the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church - in other words, an Eastern Orthodox Christian in communion with the See of Peter.

We use the term “Orthodox” (Pravoslavni) to identify ourselves. In all the traditional liturgies (including the Tridentine Mass) the priest prays “for all Orthodox Christians” (or “sikvas Pravoslavni Khristyan” in Slavonic - pardon my spelling); Eastern Christians identify with the term because the pray is chanted out loud during the Great Entrance rather than in a low voice as in the Tridentine.

 

[Cecilianus]

Are you of a certain rite within the Catholic Church or are you a member of the Eastern Orthodox sect which had broken away from the Catholic Church about 1000 yrs ago?

It is also inaccurate to refer to the Orthodox as a “sect” because they are simply the particular churches - including four out of the five Patriarchal sees - with whom communion with Rome was broken. The word “sect” ordinarily implies a group of dissidents who left the Church or rebelled against their lawful bishop within a Catholic diocese, something which obviously did not happen.

 

[Faith3Faith]

Trent never specifies that the Baptism of Water is the only kind of Baptism acceptable.

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.”

Ask any Priest, theologian and scholar if baptism of desire and baptism of blood are considered Sacraments and they will all say “NO”. Instead they all acknowledge that the only SACRAMENT of baptism is WATER baptism.

Below is another infallible teaching from the Council of Florence which says that only through “WATER” baptism[the *sacrament] that one can enter into Heaven…
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 3:5]. *The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.” DZ 696

 

[Acolythus_sum]

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.”

Ask any Priest, theologian and scholar if baptism of desire and baptism of blood are considered Sacraments and they will all say “NO”. Instead they all acknowledge that the only SACRAMENT of baptism is WATER baptism.

Below is another infallible teaching from the Council of Florence which says that only through “WATER” baptism[the **sacrament

] that one can enter into Heaven…
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 3:5]. *The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.” DZ 696

All the huge bold words are starting to bug me. Didn’t Aquinas prove that the other types of Baptism are valid (under certain conditions) along with Baptism of Water (Water being, naturally, the ordinary means of the Sacrament). If you will not answer my oft-pointed question of God’s power, I shall pose another scenario.

Imagine that two men are dying in the desert. One man desires Baptism on account of his own salvation. However, the other man has no water to baptize him according to the ordinary means of the sacrament. The unbaptized man dies. Is he damned, though he truly desired eternal life and repented of his sins at the end of his life? We cannot profess a Gospel of Love if we do not admit the possibility of Baptism of Desire. How, then, can you logically explain your position?

 

[Faith3Faith]

It is also inaccurate to refer to the Orthodox as a “sect” because they are simply the particular churches - including four out of the five Patriarchal sees - with whom communion with Rome was broken. The word “sect” ordinarily implies a group of dissidents who left the Church

You admit that they **broke away **from the Church(i.e.-Rome) and then in the next sentence you go on to admit that “sect” applies to all those who “left the Church”. Yet, you don’t think its proper to call them “sect” but instead call them “churchs”? I don’t understand your logic. Do you not believe that there is ONE church on Earth today?

I confess that there is ONE Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Here is the infallible teaching of the Church that all Catholics must accept…
“Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation”

 

[Gregory_I]

ISn’t the only legitimate baptism of desire explicit desire for baptism?

Invincible gnorance and sanctifying grace are not the same thing.

Bu Aquinas teaches that if an invincinly ignorant person actually responded to God’s grace by a miracle of grace, then God owuld even go so far as sending an angel to that person to make the faith explicit.

 

[Acolythus_sum]

By the way, I just asked my pastor whether Baptism of Desire and Blood were considered Sacramental, and he said they were, in essence. So…

 

[Faith3Faith]

By the way, I just asked my pastor whether Baptism of Desire and Blood were considered Sacramental, and he said they were, in essence. So…

Then your Pastor is wrong.

The Church teaches that there are only 7 sacraments.
The Church teaches that **ONLY WATER BAPTISM **is the SACRAMENT of Baptism.

Are you and your Pastor claiming that the Church has 9 Sacraments instead of 7 Sacraments?

 

[Acolythus_sum]

Then your Pastor is wrong.

The Church teaches that there are only 7 sacraments.
The Church teaches that **ONLY WATER BAPTISM **is the SACRAMENT of Baptism.

Are you and your Pastor claiming that the Church has 9 Sacraments instead of 7 Sacraments?

You are correct. She teaches only 7 sacraments. However, Baptism of Blood and Desire are parts of the Sacrament of Baptism, as Aquinas clearly showed. And you of all people would seem to advocate obedience to our shepherds, who have theological degrees and many years of education (my pastor was educated in Rome).

 

[Faith3Faith]

You are correct. She teaches only 7 sacraments. However, Baptism of Blood and Desire are parts of the Sacrament of Baptism, as Aquinas clearly showed. And you of all people would seem to advocate obedience to our shepherds, who have theological degrees and many years of education (my pastor was educated in Rome).

Aquinas never had authority to speak infallibly on any matter of the faith. Obviously you would not agree with Aquinas that the virgin Mary was not born of Immaculate Conception, right? Therefore though theologians, saints and doctors of the Church can be helpful as a sign of what the Church teaches as doctrine, it doesn’t mean they are always correct. Especially since theologians, saints and doctors disagreed with each other over this topic? Popes and Councils settle such disputes by speaking infallibly on those matters of faith. I have provided in previous posts the infallible statements from Popes and Councils that only Water baptism is the Sacrament of baptism. Now show us all in this Forum the infallible statements from Popes and Councils that Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire are “parts” of the Sacrament of Baptism. You can’t, because such statements simply do not exists. Why do you continue to place your trust in fallible sources, when the already established infallible teaching of the Church declares that one cannot receive sanctifying saving grace unless through the Sacrament of WATER baptism?

notice below the infallible teaching which says that WATER baptism cannot be separated from the other 2 necessities by which we receive the Lord’s gift of sanctifying “saving” grace…
I profess that in Sanctification by the Spirit (i.e., Justification from the state of original sin), the Spirit of Sanctification(Holy Spirit), the Blood of Redemption(Christ’s sacrifice) and the Water of Baptism are one and remain indivisible; none of them is separable from its link with the others.(Pope St. Leo the Great, Dogmatic Letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451).-14

 

[Cecilianus]

Though I am not a Thomist by any stretch of the imagination, it’s only fair to the doctor-saint to point out that most of his life he did believe in the Immaculate Conception.

cantuar.blogspot.com/2010/12/did-thomas-aquinas-deny-immaculate.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+taylormarshall+%28Canterbury+Tales+by+Taylor+Marshall%29

 

[Gregory_I]

FAith, none of your posts make your point.

 

[Cristiano]

Aquinas never had authority to speak infallibly on any matter of the faith. Obviously you would not agree with Aquinas that the virgin Mary was not born of Immaculate Conception, right? Therefore though theologians, saints and doctors of the Church can be helpful as a sign of what the Church teaches as doctrine, it doesn’t mean they are always correct. Especially since theologians, saints and doctors disagreed with each other over this topic? Popes and Councils settle such disputes by speaking infallibly on those matters of faith. I have provided in previous posts the infallible statements from Popes and Councils that only Water baptism is the Sacrament of baptism. Now show us all in this Forum the infallible statements from Popes and Councils that Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire are “parts” of the Sacrament of Baptism. You can’t, because such statements simply do not exists. Why do you continue to place your trust in fallible sources, when the already established infallible teaching of the Church declares that one cannot receive sanctifying saving grace unless through the Sacrament of WATER baptism?

notice below the infallible teaching which says that WATER baptism cannot be separated from the other 2 necessities by which we receive the Lord’s gift of sanctifying “saving” grace…
**I profess that in Sanctification by the Spirit (i.e., Justification from the state of original sin), the Spirit of Sanctification(Holy Spirit), the Blood of Redemption(Christ’s sacrifice) and the Water of Baptism are one and remain indivisible; none of them is separable from its link with the others.(**Pope St. Leo the Great, Dogmatic Letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451).-14

In Jn 3:5 Jesus said: Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.

Does that mean that the thief on the cross still went to hell even after Jesus said (Lk 23:43): He replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”?

 

[Faith3Faith]

In Jn 3:5 Jesus said: Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.

Does that mean that the thief on the cross still went to hell even after Jesus said (Lk 23:43): He replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”?

As I said in post #18 on this thread, the thief on the cross died under the **Old Covenant ** , so he was not required to receive Water baptism for the remission of sins since Jesus didn’t institute Water baptism as a requirement under the **New Covenant ** until after Jesus’ Resurrection.

 

[Gregory_I]

Faith3Faith, what does the both the Roman Catechism and the Catechism of the Catholic church say?

 

[Cristiano]

As I said in post #18 on this thread, the thief on the cross died under the Old Covenant , so he was not required to receive Water baptism for the remission of sins since Jesus didn’t institute Water baptism as a requirement under the New Covenant until after Jesus’ Resurrection.

It appears that your statement contradicts John 3:5. Jesus said that well before His death and resurrection.

 

[Faith3Faith]

It appears that your statement contradicts John 3:5. Jesus said that well before His death and resurrection.

No, Jesus in John 3:5 was simply saying what would eventually be the case for one to get into Heaven under the New Covenant. Just as Jesus had spoken of himself being put to death(crucifixion) before it ever happened.