Ordinary vs extraordinary means of salvation

[Oneofthewomen]

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.

And the references for your exegesis are…?

Faith3Faith-
In post #73, I asked you why you were so intent on putting God in a “box”?

Looking back at your original post I call to your attention the highlighted portion

I’m wondering about this. ***I hear some Catholics claim that God is not bound to ordinary means of salvation(meaning through the Sacraments and the Church which he established), but that God may be able to save souls through extraordinary means(such as to intercede immedietaly at the point of that person’s death). ***What are your thoughts on this?

The answer is very simple-

Matthew 19:26
**Jesus looked at them and said, "For human beings this is impossible,
but for God all things are possible." **

 

[Acolythus_sum]

Also consider:

For whosoever will save his life, shall lose it: and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel, shall save it. [Mark 8:35, Douay-Rheims]

Qui enim voluerit animam suam salvam facere, perdet eam: qui autem perdiderit animam suam propter me, et Evangelium, salvam faciet eam. [Marcus 8,35]

This clearly supports the Baptism of Blood, and salvation from that act of martyrdom.

 

[Faith3Faith]

And the references for your exegesis are…?

Because the Church teaches that the New Covenant had not begun until after Jesus’ death and resurrection. Also, Jesus did not command/institute his Apostles to baptize “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” until after his Resurrection. The Church also teaches that this baptism is what brings a person into God’s Church under that New Covenant.

 

[Faith3Faith]

Also consider:

For whosoever will save his life, shall lose it: and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel, shall save it. [Mark 8:35, Douay-Rheims]

Qui enim voluerit animam suam salvam facere, perdet eam: qui autem perdiderit animam suam propter me, et Evangelium, salvam faciet eam. [Marcus 8,35]

This clearly supports the Baptism of Blood, and salvation from that act of martyrdom.

Well, if you take that Bible verse out of context and ignore the infallible statements of the Church,as all protestants do, then yes, you could come to that conclusion.

But those who understand that verse correctly, do so because they accept the infallible statement from the Church below…

"*The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; …no one, **even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ *, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

This clearly teaches that only those who are within the Catholic Church profit from martyrdom and all outside do not.

 

[Gregory_I]

What does the roman catechism say?

 

[Faith3Faith]

What does the roman catechism say?

Well, since the thief on the cross was brought up in an earlier post as evidence against the position held by Traditional Catholics that **Water ** baptism is an absolute necessity, then lets take a look at what the Catechism says…

*"The Catechism of Trent

Baptism Made Obligatory After Christ’s Resurrection

The second period to be distinguished, that is, the time when the law of Baptism was made, also admits of no doubt. Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord , when He gave to His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.
This is inferred from the authority of the Prince of the Apostles when he says: Who hath regenerated us into a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead;’ and also from what Paul says of the Church: He delivered himself up for it: that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life. By both Apostles the obligation of Baptism seems to be referred to the time which followed the death of our Lord. Hence we can have no doubt that the words of the Saviour: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, refer also to the same time which was to follow after His Passion."*

The thief on the cross, St. Dismas, is an absolutely beautiful - and extremely moving - picture of the surpassing power of grace, contrition, faith, and charity, but when St. Dismas is used as an example to counter the “Feeneyites” on the necessity of **Water ** baptism (I am talking the ordinary means of the sacrament), that example is really irrelevant, if only in a temporal sense - because we do live in time.

The Church says in plain terms, the law being posited against the thief’s example did not begin until after the thief had died. That’s a pretty conclusive argument against the thief on the cross being used as an example against the “Feeneyite” position on **Water **baptism… Therefore using the thief, St. Dismas, as an example just does not prove the “Feeneyites” are wrong, and doesn’t get any of you far in the argument because of what the Church has said about when the “law of **Water ** baptism became obligatory.”

 

[Acolythus_sum]

Faith3faith, please see: romancatholicism.org/feeney-condemnations.htm

And if ever you are inclined to answer the philosophical questions raised earlier, please do so.

 

[Gregory_I]

Faith3Faith.

   The Church clearly uses the terms Baptism of Desire, and Baptism of Blood. I think we both agree on what baptism of blood is: Martyrdom for the Catholic Faith by those who ar enot formally Catholic yet, like a Catechumen or someone who converts on the spot and implicitly accepts allt he church would teach if they were alive.

We Cannot deny there is a baptism of desire, the church clearly references it in the Fathers, so what is it for you?

Is it simply the hazy implicit wish to be saved some pople may have who live in invincible ignorance, or is it the explicit desire for water baptism, but delayed for reasons beyond the individuals control when they met their death? Like the emperor Valerian. I tend toward the explicit desire for water baptism. Invincible ignorance is NOT sanctifying grace, and without grace to illumine the soul in the first place there is no reason to believe those in invincible ignorance would respond to Gof’s grace offered to them in a state of ignorance for “THe thoughts of a man’s heart are wicked from his youth.” perhaps 1 in 10,000. DOn’t underestimate human stupidity/selfishness.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Because the Church teaches that the New Covenant had not begun until after Jesus’ death and resurrection. Also, Jesus did not command/institute his Apostles to baptize “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” until after his Resurrection. The Church also teaches that this baptism is what brings a person into God’s Church under that New Covenant.

And again, your references please?
I am not interested in your ***opinions ***or what ***you think ***the Chruch teaches, I want actual references that back up your statements, from documents that are accepted by the Magisterium as teaching documents of the Chruch.

Well, if you take that Bible verse out of context and ignore the infallible statements of the Church,as all protestants do, then yes, you could come to that conclusion.

But those who understand that verse correctly, do so because they accept the infallible statement from the Church below…

“*The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; …no one, **even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ ***, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
This clearly teaches that only those who are within the Catholic Church profit from martyrdom and all outside do not.

And what does the Chruch have to say about this now, c. 2011. I do believe that some of the VII documents address these very issues. Don’t have access to them right now, but I will be happy to provide references later if you would like.

Well, since the thief on the cross was brought up in an earlier post as evidence against the position held by Traditional Catholics that **Water ** baptism is an absolute necessity, then lets take a look at what the Catechism says…

*"The Catechism of Trent

Baptism Made Obligatory After Christ’s Resurrection

The second period to be distinguished, that is, the time when the law of Baptism was made, also admits of no doubt. Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord* , when He gave to His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.
This is inferred from the authority of the Prince of the Apostles when he says: Who hath regenerated us into a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead;’ and also from what Paul says of the Church: He delivered himself up for it: that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life. By both Apostles the obligation of Baptism seems to be referred to the time which followed the death of our Lord. Hence we can have no doubt that the words of the Saviour: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, refer also to the same time which was to follow after His Passion."

The thief on the cross, St. Dismas, is an absolutely beautiful - and extremely moving - picture of the surpassing power of grace, contrition, faith, and charity, but when St. Dismas is used as an example to counter the “Feeneyites” on the necessity of **Water ** baptism (I am talking the ordinary means of the sacrament), that example is really irrelevant, if only in a temporal sense - because we do live in time.

The Church says in plain terms, the law being posited against the thief’s example did not begin until after the thief had died. That’s a pretty conclusive argument against the thief on the cross being used as an example against the “Feeneyite” position on Water baptism… Therefore using the thief, St. Dismas, as an example just does not prove the “Feeneyites” are wrong, and doesn’t get any of you far in the argument because of what the Church has said about when the “law of Water baptism became obligatory.”

Again, you are quoting the Catechism of the Council of Trent. A worthy document, but one that is also 400 years old.
How about looking at some of the documents of the Church that are relevant to the 20th & 21st centuries.
Or do you think that those do not apply because you do not like what they say?

And finally,
why have you not yet answered my very simple questions-

Why do you want to put God in a “box”?

And why do you continually ignore Matthew 19:29?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

OOPS!
I mean Matthew 19:26

 

[Gregory_I]

Truth is relevant in all centuries, no matter how old a document is.

To deny this is to deny the faith.

 

[Cecilianus]

Truth is relevant in all centuries, no matter how old a document is.

To deny this is to deny the faith.

Doctrinal development does take place, though. And what was taught by the Church as part of the ordinary Magisterium may come to be rejected later as we grow in our understanding of the Faith.

Examples of doctrines no longer taught or taught as binding by the Church include the Church’s condemnation of dancing and the theatre well into the 18th century, the condemnation of religious liberty, the restriction of baptism of desire to people consciously and explicitly desiring baptism, the filioque, the rejection of the doctrine of deification through the divine energies, the rejection of miaphysitism, the Papal declaration that kissing outside of marriage is a mortal sin, the condemnation of philosophy, the teaching that sex is just a biological means towards procreation and a remedy for concupiscence rather than an expression of love, the teaching that Adam and Eve would have been asexual had the Fall never happened, the doctrine that transubstantiation always occurs at the Words of Institution or that the Words of Institution are even necessary for a valid Eucharist, the presence of temporal fire in Purgatory, the need for a limbo of the innocent, the condemnation of any book mentioning sexual sins as being contrary to morals, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Faith3Faith]

Doctrinal development does take place, though. And what was taught by the Church as part of the ordinary Magisterium may come to be rejected later as we grow in our understanding of the Faith.

Great, so then even if Baptism of Desire is not just theological speculation, but is infact a doctrinal teaching of the Church, then by your own logic, it may be a false teaching which later could be nullified and done away with

 

[Cecilianus]

Great, so then even if Baptism of Desire is not just theological speculation, but is infact a doctrinal teaching of the Church, then by your own logic, it may be a false teaching which later could be nullified and done away with

Only by a deeper understanding of the doctrine - not by just whimsically changing opinions that pass like fashions.

The Church has taught Baptism of Desire for 2,000 years, and any development in that doctrine is going to be nuances as to how it is applied, just as developments in moral theology deal with how they are applied (we have never abolished moral principles entirely). We are not going to get rid of it altogether.

 

[Faith3Faith]

"Cecilianus:

Cecilianus:

Doctrinal development does take place, though. And what was taught by the Church as part of the ordinary Magisterium may come to be rejected later as we grow in our understanding of the Faith.

Great, so then even if Baptism of Desire is not just theological speculation, but is infact a doctrinal teaching of the Church, then by your own logic, it may be a false teaching which later could be nullified and done away with

Only by a deeper understanding of the doctrine - not by just whimsically changing opinions that pass like fashions.

The Church has taught Baptism of Desire for 2,000 years, and any development in that doctrine is going to be nuances as to how it is applied, just as developments in moral theology deal with how they are applied (we have never abolished moral principles entirely). We are not going to get rid of it altogether.

Only by a deeper understanding of the doctrine

Thankyou for finally admitting that Baptism of Desire may possibly be false

The Church has taught Baptism of Desire for 2,000 years

The overwhelming majority of the Early Church Fathers would have disagreed with you on that point since most all of them rejected Baptism of Desire

We are not going to get rid of it altogether.

You just laid out, in an earlier post, a large list of Church teachings which were done away with, but somehow you have “infallible” insight into what will happen with Baptism of Desire in the future??? :ehh:

 

[Cecilianus]

Thankyou for finally admitting that Baptism of Desire may possibly be false

No, I didn’t. I admitted that our understanding of it may grow with time, as it has. And I also, AS A CATHOLIC, accept uncritically what the Church teaches about it in its current understanding.

You just laid out, in an earlier post, a large list of Church teachings which were done away with, but somehow you have “infallible” insight into what will happen with Baptism of Desire in the future??? :ehh:

If you will please listen to me, I pointed out the manner in which doctrine develops. The Church never whimsically changes her mind; rather, her understanding of issues matures. Accepting the possibility of the salvation of anyone whom God wills is a development of the doctrine of baptism of desire, a doctrine which was always present to begin with. The different views on casuistry held by the Church are a development of basic moral principles that have remain unchanged. The Roman Church’s long-overdue openness to the theology of the East is a development of a clearer understanding of the roles that the Eastern and Western traditions play in the Catholic Church, and the result of better communication and understanding of these Eastern traditions. The Church’s about-face on religious liberty has to do with the changing political situation and background. (As St. Thomas Aquinas pointed out, the proper ethical or political manner of responding to a situation does depend on the situation in question - we don’t hold a “legalist” ethics. Ethics does not consist of a series of arbitrary and absolute rules, but a series of applications of axiological principles.)

Our understanding of “baptism of desire” may grow over time. Just as once we had absolutely established the necessity of baptism (as you have abundantly pointed out and beaten to death), we were able to then consider God’s goodness and omnipotence in order to permit the salvation of those outside the visible confines of the Church, once the proper relationship between divine grace and other “religions” or between divine grace and the souls of people outside the visible Church is established and we no longer have to worry about a Feeneyite heresy, then some other hitherto-ignored aspect of the doctrine will be taught by the Church.

 

[Faith3Faith]

Cecilianus, so are you essentially asserting that the spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption are able to bring a soul to this Justification/Sanctification without water baptism, but instead by means of Baptism of Desire and/or Baptism of Blood? And please keep it short because your last post was like reading a book. :bible1:

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Truth is relevant in all centuries, no matter how old a document is.

To deny this is to deny the faith.

I am not denying the Truth or the Faith!

What I am saying is that the Church has grown ans developed in Her wisdom & understanding of things and we cannot discount what the Church teaches ***now ***on many of the topics brought up in this thread.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Cecilianus, so are you essentially asserting that the spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption are able to bring a soul to this Justification/Sanctification without water baptism, but instead by means of Baptism of Desire and/or Baptism of Blood? And please keep it short because your last post was like reading a book. :bible1:

YES!!!

Because as Jesus said, and I have repeated now for the 3rd time-

"FOR MAN IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD!!!"

 

[Cecilianus]

Cecilianus, so are you essentially asserting that the spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption are able to bring a soul to this Justification/Sanctification without water baptism, but instead by means of Baptism of Desire and/or Baptism of Blood? And please keep it short because your last post was like reading a book. :bible1:

What I am asserting is that God can do whatever He wants. If you don’t want to “read a book”, then stop here, because there isn’t any way to reduce the concept to short paragraphs or sentences. Sanctification and salvation isn’t that simplistic.

Ordinarily I do not think that the ordinary unevangelized pagan (say, a 14th century African or Papua New Guinean or Native American) is going to be achieving a great degree of sanctity, because they would not possess the means to do so. In this case whether they could be saved or not depends on their fidelity to the natural law. They could be saved (and sanctified in Purgatory) if they have tried their best to be faithful to the natural law or if any of their violations of it were due to invincible ignorance (by cultural standards and expectations clouding their judgment - regarding polygamy or honor killings, for example).

On the other hand, there are many people who practice religions such as Hinduism and Shinto where they do spend their lives attempting to achieve union with God. This isn’t something they can achieve on their own, but there’s no reason why God can’t honor their effort by granting them divine grace (and many, especially in Islam and Amida Buddhism, say that it is divine grace). I don’t know how many people outside of Christianity do achieve theosis if any, but it’s not any of my concern and I do not have the capability of finding out on this side of sempiternity.

If you want examples of people who might be good candidates for people who have achieved sanctity without water baptism, I would point to Seami Motokiyo (a Shinto priest), Kabir (a poet), Hafez (poet), Al-Hallaj (martyr, who provoked his execution so that he could offer his life up for the persecuted Christians), Siddhartha Gautama (who was worshiped as a god “on account of his great sanctity”, according to St. Cyril of Alexandria), Rabindranath Tagore (whose poetry betrays more love for God than even most Christian poetry), Lalla Yogishwari, Abu Yazid, and many other Sufi saints. Their sanctity to me is evident in their writings. This is just my guess and I can’t judge their souls; we ought to be content to find out on judgment day.

My apologies for the length of this post, but it’s a question you can’t give as simplistic an answer as you are looking for.