Ordinary vs extraordinary means of salvation

[Faith3Faith]

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.

Actually you are incorrect…
The Holy Council of Vatican I teaches that "the doctrine of Faith that God has revealed, was not proposed to the minds of men as a philosophical discovery to be perfected, but as the divine deposit, entrusted to the Spouse of Christ that she might faithfully keep it and infallibly define it. Consequently, the meaning of the sacred apostolic teachings which must always be preserved, is that which our Holy Mother the Church has determined. **Never is it permissible to depart from this in the name of a "deeper understanding" ** (Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz.1800)

 

[Faith3Faith]

YES!!!

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

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

You and Cecilianus are in error when you claim 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.

Pope Leo the Great infallibly declared that the **grace of sanctification ** and the blood of Jesus’ sacrifice **cannot be separated **from the **Sacrament of (WATER)Baptism ** **nor sanctification from the Sacrament **:…

Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:
“Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2)… It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood.* And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies.* For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) **IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.” **

 

[Oneofthewomen]

You and Cecilianus are in error when you claim 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.

Pope Leo the Great infallibly declared that the **grace of sanctification ** and the blood of Jesus’ sacrifice cannot be separated from the Sacrament of (WATER)Baptism nor sanctification from the Sacrament :…

Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:
“Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2)… It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood.* And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies.* For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”

Sorry, I did not know that Pope Leo the Great had been “promoted”.

NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD!

 

[Acolythus_sum]

You and Cecilianus are in error when you claim 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.

Pope Leo the Great infallibly declared that the **grace of sanctification ** and the blood of Jesus’ sacrifice cannot be separated from the Sacrament of (WATER)Baptism nor sanctification from the Sacrament :…

Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:
“Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2)… It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood.* And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies.* For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”

The three are one, and remain indivisible… like…Aquinas said? This does not necessarily support your (fallible) interpretation of it; perhaps you should consider the Angelic Doctor’s arguments? That each of the three types are a way of Baptism, united together as one Sacrament?

Also, if Cecilianus’ posts are like reading a book, yours are like a MOVITATIONAL SPEAKER!!!

 

[Cecilianus]

Actually you are incorrect…

The Holy Council of Vatican I teaches that "the doctrine of Faith that God has revealed, was not proposed to the minds of men as a philosophical discovery to be perfected, but as the divine deposit, entrusted to the Spouse of Christ that she might faithfully keep it and infallibly define it. Consequently, the meaning of the sacred apostolic teachings which must always be preserved, is that which our Holy Mother the Church has determined. **Never is it permissible to depart from this in the name of a "deeper understanding"**   (Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz.1800)

Again, nobody is disagreeing with you.

Please quote something that we don’t disagree with or this conversation will continue to be a waste of time.

 

[Faith3Faith]

Is there anyone in this Forum who is able to give at least one example in history of God using ** “extraordinary means” ** outside of the Church’s sacraments( i.e.- Baptism of Desire )which had enabled a person to receive sanctifying grace?

Please don’t use the Martyred Saints by whom you “think” may have not been **water **baptized and don’t use Catechum Saints as examples because you don’t know for certian that any of them was NOT ** water ** baptized either. Also, don’t use the thief on the cross, St. Dismas, since he had died under the Old Covenant, before ** water ** baptism was instituted by Jesus for the remission of sins as a sacrament within the New Covenant.

By the way, we Traditional Catholics can give historical evidence of God having used “ordinary means”(Church’s sacraments) to deliver sanctifying grace by not using the Priests within the Church, but instead by administering the sacraments directly from Heaven, which therefore totally destroys Baptism of Desire. But I’ll wait for the BoD supporters to provide their historical evidence first,…so take your best shot

 

[Acolythus_sum]

Is there anyone in this Forum who is able to give at least one example in history of God using ** “extraordinary means”** outside of the Church’s sacraments( i.e.- Baptism of Desire )which had enabled a person to receive sanctifying grace?

Please don’t use the Martyred Saints by whom you “think” may have not been **water **baptized and don’t use Catechum Saints as examples because you don’t know for certian that any of them was NOT ** water ** baptized either. Also, don’t use the thief on the cross, St. Dismas, since he had died under the Old Covenant, before ** water ** baptism was instituted by Jesus for the remission of sins as a sacrament within the New Covenant.

By the way, we Traditional Catholics can give historical evidence of God having used “ordinary means”(Church’s sacraments) to deliver sanctifying grace by not using the Priests within the Church, but instead by administering the sacraments directly from Heaven, which therefore totally destroys Baptism of Desire. But I’ll wait for the BoD supporters to provide their historical evidence first,…so take your best shot

“Which therefore totally destroys Baptism of Desire” I fail to see your reasoning. This extraordinary means of the Sacrament (directly from God) in no way can disprove the existence of Baptism of Desire. Please support your argument, and show us the example (from an approved source).

“Catechumens…you don’t know for certain any of them was not Water Baptized.” Yes we do. Catechumens are, by definition, not baptized. Sorry.

“Coming closer to our own times, we can add that the traditional 1917 Code of Canon Law clearly indicates what the constant belief at teaching of the Catholic Church is and always has been, in regard to Baptism of Desire in two of its canons: namely, Canon 7371. “Baptism… if we are to attain salvation, must be either actually received or at least desired…”; and, Canon 1239: “… catechumens who, through no fault of theirs, die without having received baptism… are to be regarded as among those baptized”—the reason being that such catechumens had the desire and intention to be baptized before they died.”
(see christorchaos.com/TheUnBaptizedSaintsDeceptionbyFatherStepanich.htm)

From the Martyrologium Romanum (Pridie Idus Aprilis):

“ancti Victoris Martyris, qui,
adhuc catechumenus, cum noluisset idolum adorare, et
Christum Jesum magna constantia confessus fuisset, ideo,
post multa tormenta, capite abscisso, meruit proprio
sanguine baptizari”

Literally translated as:

“Saint Victor Martyr, who, as yet a catechumen, when he had refused to adore an idol, and had confessed with great firmness Jesus Christ, therefore, after many torments, his head was cut off, and he won by his own blood to be baptized.”

This clearly shows Baptism of Blood–again, as Aquinas said, part of the Sacrament of Baptism, not a separate Sacrament.

Note further that the Martyrologium is an approved liturgical text.

Note also that the Latin “catechumenus” literally is translated as “catechumen, one receiving elementary religious instruction before baptism.” There are other Latin words for catechumens/neophytes; “catechumenus” has its own precise meaning.

 

[Cecilianus]

Is there anyone in this Forum who is able to give at least one example in history of God using ** “extraordinary means”** outside of the Church’s sacraments( i.e.- Baptism of Desire )which had enabled a person to receive sanctifying grace?

I provided a list in my second to last post.

 

[Gregory_I]

"If unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For he who said “Unless a man be born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven,” also made an exception in their favor when he said “whoever will confess me before men, him will I confess before my father in heaven.”

St. Augustine, City of God 13:7

“But I hear you lamenting because the emperor Valentinian had not received the sacrament of basptism. Tell me, what else could we have, except the will to it, the asking for it? He too now had this desire, and after he came into Italy it was begun, and a short time ago he signified that he wished to be baptized by me. Did he not have the grace he desired? Did he not have what he eagerly sought? Certainly, because he sought it, he received it.”

St. Ambrose of Milan, Smypathy at the Death of Valentinan

There ya go. At least one historical case.

Two of the Greatest of the Western Doctors of the Church

 

[chypmonk]

The three are one, and remain indivisible… like…Aquinas said? This does not necessarily support your (fallible) interpretation of it; perhaps you should consider the Angelic Doctor’s arguments? That each of the three types are a way of Baptism, united together as one Sacrament?

Also, if Cecilianus’ posts are like reading a book, yours are like a MOVITATIONAL SPEAKER!!!

To call “Baptism” of Desire or “Baptism” of Blood sacraments or even part of the Sacrament of Baptism is incorrect there is only ONE Baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

“Baptism” of Desire is similar to the Sacrament of Baptism in the sense it supposedly can give Sanctifying Grace but it doesn’t give all the same effects:

1. No sacramental “seal”-- by which one becomes a member of the Church.

Ludwig Ott,:
“The so-called Baptism by blood and Baptism of desire, it is true, replace Sacramental Baptism in so far as the communication of grace is concerned, **but do not effect incorporation into the Church , as they do not bestow the sacramental character by which a person becomes attached formally to the Church.” **(Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma , p. 311.)

1. No remission of all temporal punishment due to sins.

St Alphonsus Liguori, a “Baptism” of Desire advocate, explains this in his
Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7:

“We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the Passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt,** but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment."**

Again we believe in “One Lord, one faith and one baptism” and The Letter to Flavian is just saying what St. Ambrose said:

1. Therefore read that the three witnesses in baptism, the water, the blood, and the Spirit, 1 John 5:7 are one, for if you take away one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element, without any sacramental effect. Nor, again, is there the Sacrament of Regeneration without water: “For except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” John 3:5 Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, wherewith he too is signed; but unless he be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive remission of sins nor gain the gift of spiritual grace.
   newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm

As for Ambroses’ sermon at Emperor Valentinian II funeral is doubtful. For a number of reasons. Paganism was still a force in the Empire to announce Valentine was Baptized secretly by Ambrose could have political reasons for not explicitly saying he was Bapized, who knows; it isn’t clear whether Valentinian was murdered or committed suicide: though more than likely it was suicide." [link] Also Ambroses sermons were written by secretaries either listening or writing it later. It is all too “ify” to base doctrine on.

When we have treaties written in his hand on Baptism-- clearly with no exceptions again:
Ambrose:
“‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity.”[Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2: 1324.]

Plus when St. Augustine proposes “Baptism” of Desire he never uses Ambrose (his teacher) as a reference.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Is there anyone in this Forum who is able to give at least one example in history of God using ** “extraordinary means”** outside of the Church’s sacraments( i.e.- Baptism of Desire )which had enabled a person to receive sanctifying grace?

But I’ll wait for the BoD supporters to provide their historical evidence first,…so take your best shot

*From a letter St. Bernard of Clairvaux wrote to a couple who asked what would happen to their child who dies because of miscarriage.

“Your faith spoke for this child. Baptism for this child was only delayed by time. **Your faith suffices. *The waters of your womb — were they not the waters of life for this child?
Look at your tears. Are they not like the waters of baptism?
Do not fear this. God’s ability to love is greater than our fears. Surrender everything to God.

Faith3Faith,

I leave this thread with this quote. It is apparent to me that you have made your decision regarding this matter, and nothing that is posted here that you do not agree with with ever be good enough to convince you that,
WITH GOD ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.

Peace be with you on your journey.

Matthew 16:21-23
From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.
Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him,
“God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you.”
He turned and said to Peter,
"Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as men do."

 

[Faith3Faith]

Good post, Chypmonk :clapping:. Although I would have to disagree with you that the theologians are speaking of “sanctifying grace” there. Instead, they are probably referring to the grace God gives which leads a soul to the Church so that one can receive sanctifying grace through the Sacrament of Water baptism. This is because those same theologians claim that the individual is still **“OUTSIDE” **the Church and we all know that nobody can receive sanctifying grace who is not a member of God’s Church.

Infallible teaching → ** “There is no salvation outside of The Catholic Church” **

Oh, and I am still waiting for all the Baptism of Desire supporters to give absolute **proof **that anyone has received “sanctifying grace” outside of the Church’s Sacraments since the institution of the Sacrament of Water Baptism by Jesus himself under the New Covenant. So, far you have all given stories by persons who “think” someone may not have been baptized, but those very individuals don’t really know for sure. Infact, the person they claim was saved through BoD may not even have realized that he or she had been previously baptized, such as in the case of when they were an infant. After all, do any of you remember your baptism when you were an infant.

p.s. - Oh, and please don’t use our Lord, Jesus Christ and his mother, the virgin Mary, as examples because that would be completely ridiculous since they had no original sin, nor any sins of their own

 

[Acolythus_sum]

Faith3Faith, did you read my last post?

 

[Cecilianus]

I agree with everything you said, except that the Church has nuanced Ott’s statement that baptism of desire and baptism by blood do not attach a person to the Church. This is not because the teaching has changed but because Vatican II employed a slightly different understanding of the Church. It is still true that baptism by water is the only means by which one can be incorporated into the visible Church - the corporate entity that you can point to as the “Catholic Church”. Another way of phrasing this in completely identical terms is that baptism by water is the only way by which one enters the ordinary economy of grace.

However, since all grace comes through the Church, anyone who is in the state of grace is associated with by being in imperfect communion with the Church by virtue of the fact. (In other words, Christ established one means of salvation, and therefore anyone who is saved is saved through the Church whether they realize it or not. As Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre said, “If men are saved in Protestantism, Buddhism or Islam, they are saved by the Catholic Church, by the grace of Our Lord, by the prayers of those in the Church, by the blood of Our Lord as individuals, perhaps through the practice of their religion, perhaps of what they understand in their religion, but not by their religion.” Christ didn’t establish multiple salvific religions.)

Hence one can and should say that the umbrella of the Church extends farther than her visible boundaries. The Church “subsists” in the Catholic Church, but extends beyond it (how far beyond we can never know until Judgment Day). Anyone in the state of deifying grace is part of the Mystical Body of Christ (otherwise they would have to be saved by something other than Christ, which is absurd). They are, in Karl Rahner’s words, “anonymous Christians”.

Of course, if such a person were to present himself for Holy Communion, he would have to be denied - baptism by desire does not convey a sacramental seal, and if such a person were to realize the truth of the Catholic Faith he would have an obligation to receive baptism.

I would also nuance your post by saying that while it is true that there is only one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, and this baptism is the baptism of water, baptism of desire and baptism of blood are an extension of the graces of this sacrament - hence the term “baptism” to describe them. Calling them other sacraments is wrong, and calling them part of the sacrament of baptism is fuzzy.

To call “Baptism” of Desire or “Baptism” of Blood sacraments or even part of the Sacrament of Baptism is incorrect there is only ONE Baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

“Baptism” of Desire is similar to the Sacrament of Baptism in the sense it supposedly can give Sanctifying Grace but it doesn’t give all the same effects:

1. No sacramental “seal”-- by which one becomes a member of the Church.

Ludwig Ott,:
“The so-called Baptism by blood and Baptism of desire, it is true, replace Sacramental Baptism in so far as the communication of grace is concerned, **but do not effect incorporation into the Church , as they do not bestow the sacramental character by which a person becomes attached formally to the Church.” **(Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma , p. 311.)

1. No remission of all temporal punishment due to sins.

St Alphonsus Liguori, a “Baptism” of Desire advocate, explains this in his
Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7:

“We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the Passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt,** but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment."**

Again we believe in “One Lord, one faith and one baptism” and The Letter to Flavian is just saying what St. Ambrose said:

1. Therefore read that the three witnesses in baptism, the water, the blood, and the Spirit, 1 John 5:7 are one, for if you take away one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element, without any sacramental effect. Nor, again, is there the Sacrament of Regeneration without water: “For except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” John 3:5 Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, wherewith he too is signed; but unless he be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive remission of sins nor gain the gift of spiritual grace.
   newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Please avoid using CAPITAL LETTERING. It’s interpreted as shouting.

Thank you.

 

[chypmonk]

I agree with everything you said, except that the Church has nuanced Ott’s statement that baptism of desire and baptism by blood do not attach a person to the Church.

Hence one can and should say that the umbrella of the Church extends farther than her visible boundaries. The Church “subsists” in the Catholic Church, but extends beyond it (how far beyond we can never know until Judgment Day). Anyone in the state of deifying grace is part of the Mystical Body of Christ (otherwise they would have to be saved by something other than Christ, which is absurd). They are, in Karl Rahner’s words, “anonymous Christians”.

Of course, if such a person were to present himself for Holy Communion, he would have to be denied - baptism by desire does not convey a sacramental seal, and if such a person were to realize the truth of the Catholic Faith he would have an obligation to receive baptism.

I would also nuance your post by saying that while it is true that there is only one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, and this baptism is the baptism of water, baptism of desire and baptism of blood are an extension of the graces of this sacrament - hence the term “baptism” to describe them. Calling them other sacraments is wrong, and calling them part of the sacrament of baptism is fuzzy.

I was speaking theoretically about “Baptism” of Desire giving Sanctifying Grace.
In Unam Sancum the Church taught there is** no **forgiveness of sins outside the Church:
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302:
"Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins" papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm

If there is no forgiveness of sins outside the Church then how can “Baptism” of Desire be true? This understanding also links up with the teaching that one needs to be Sacramentally Baptized to be a member of the Church:

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943 #22:
“Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration[Sacramental Baptism] and profess the true faith.” papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MYSTI.HTM

The meaning of “subsists” in Vatican II has to mean those Sacramentally Baptized persons who have not separated themselves from the Church but by outward appearances appear to be outside the Church, for example a baptized Lutheran infant may appear to be Lutheran to many, but in fact, he/she is Catholic because the baby received the grace of being a member of the Church from the Sacrament and has put no opposition to the Church. But once that person reaches the age of discernment and rejects the Catholic Church he/she ceases to be a member. I think even Faith3Faith could accept this understanding, no ?

Oneofthewomen wrote:

From a letter St. Bernard of Clairvaux wrote
“Your faith spoke for this child. Baptism for this child was only delayed by time. Your faith suffices. The waters of your womb — were they not the waters of life for this child?
Look at your tears. Are they not like the waters of baptism?
Do not fear this. God’s ability to love is greater than our fears. Surrender everything to God.

First I would like to see a link to this assertion.
Secondly, even if he did say that, it is wrong:
St. Augustine, in his “Epistle to Boniface” says, “For it is not written ‘Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,’ but of water and the Holy Spirit” (Rouet de Journel: Enchiridion Patristicum: 98)

St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori states:

“Calvin says that infants born of parents who have the faith are saved, even though they should die without Baptism. But this is false: for David was born of parents who had the faith, and he confessed that he was born in sin. This was also taught by the Council of Trent in the Fifth Session, number Four: there the fathers declared that infants dying without Baptism, although born of baptized parents, are not saved, and are lost, not on account of the sin of their parents, but for the sin of Adam in whom all have sinned” (Explanation of Trent , Duffy Co., 1845, p.56).

The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, # 4:
4. “If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.” history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct05.html

 

[chypmonk]

Of course, if such a person were to present himself for Holy Communion, he would have to be denied - baptism by desire does not convey a sacramental seal, and if such a person were to realize the truth of the Catholic Faith he would have an obligation to receive baptism.

I ran out of room on the last post and wanted to address your point about the need for the person to receive the Sacrament of Baptism so as to recieve any of the other sacraments. Which is true.

But If one cannot receive any of the other Sacraments one is not one of the faithful:

Catechism of the Council of Trent, The Members of the Church Militant:
“The Church militant is composed of two classes of persons, the good and the bad, both professing the same faith and partaking of the same sacraments…”
cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tcreed09.htm

St. Francis De Sales, says the same:
“The Church is a holy university or general company of men united and collected together in the** profession of one same Christian faith; in the participation of the same sacraments…”**[The Catholic Controversy, p. 161]

And that Trent states that there is nothing wanting in the justified:
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, session 6, chapter 16
“For, whereas Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified,-as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches,-and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God,-we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified…”

If nothing is wanting to the justified then how is it that they need to be Baptized to receive the other sacraments?
The answer is that Trent is speaking of those who have recieved Baptism and there are no other justified persons since Pentecost–only those who are Sacramentaly Baptized are:
members of the Faithful
justified,
eligible to participate in the sacraments.

Earlier in the same Session, 6, chapter 8, it says:
“because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: **but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification.” **

Many will quote this as "proof’ of “Baptism” of Desire because it say ‘the root of salvation is faith’ but it is really saying the opposite of what “Baptism” of Desire advocates are saying, that the Faith of, for example, the catechumen, justifies, but it can’t be their faith as Trent points out (above) because nothing preceding justification suffices. So we are back to the Sacrament of Baptism only, that creates no conflicts with de fide teaching, also we receive Divine vitues of Faith Hope and Love from the Sacrament not before.

Finally even in mass we pray for "“those who have gone before us marked with the sign of faith.”
That mark is Baptism called the Seal of Salvation by the Fathers:
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 1,#3, 386AD:
“He gives not holy things to the dogs (Matthew 7:6); but where He discerns the good conscience, there He gives the Seal of salvation, that wondrous Seal, which devils tremble at, and Angels recognise” newadvent.org/fathers/310101.htm

 

[Cecilianus]

I was speaking theoretically about “Baptism” of Desire giving Sanctifying Grace.
In Unam Sancum the Church taught there is** no **forgiveness of sins outside the Church:
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302:
"Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins" papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm

Correct - there is no salvation outside the Church. However, also keep in mind the words of Archbishop Lefebvre in his book Against the Heresies (I’m quoting Lefebvre not because he is necessarily an authority - he was excommunicated for disobedience, after all - but because he of all pastors ought to be thought of as being irreproachably conservative and traditional):

This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned. It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church: ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’ When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell. Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This must be preached.

If a Moslem or Buddhist is saved, then he is saved through the Church, and so the words of Pope Boniface are true.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943 #22:
“Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration[Sacramental Baptism] and profess the true faith.” papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MYSTI.HTM

Again, two different understandings of and meanings of the word “Church”. One can be saved through the Church even if he is not perfectly a member of it.

The meaning of “subsists” in Vatican II has to mean those Sacramentally Baptized persons who have not separated themselves from the Church but by outward appearances appear to be outside the Church, for example a baptized Lutheran infant may appear to be Lutheran to many, but in fact, he/she is Catholic because the baby received the grace of being a member of the Church from the Sacrament and has put no opposition to the Church. But once that person reaches the age of discernment and rejects the Catholic Church he/she ceases to be a member. I think even Faith3Faith could accept this understanding, no ?

There is no reason to limit the words of Vatican II to mean that, and doing so impugns on God’s omnipotence. Vatican II was specifically vague because we cannot know who is in the state of grace and who is not. It is true that someone who is sacramentally baptized outside the Church (as I was) has still been baptized into it; but we also put them through the same liturgical process of being received into full communion whether they were at the “age of discernment” (whatever THAT is) or not. (I was 13, my brother was 9, and we went through the same ceremony during the Easter Vigil as did the adults, except that we were not chrismated yet.)

Oneofthewomen wrote:

First I would like to see a link to this assertion.
Secondly, even if he did say that, it is wrong:
St. Augustine, in his “Epistle to Boniface” says, “For it is not written ‘Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,’ but of water and the Holy Spirit” (Rouet de Journel: Enchiridion Patristicum: 98)

It is very common in the East as well as the West to speak of the tears of repentance as being like a second baptism. If I recall correctly, I first heard that analogy in the Baltimore Catechism. Your quote from Augustine is completely irrelevant. Of course we are born again of water and the Holy Spirit - but God’s love is still stronger than anything else.

The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, # 4:
4. “If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.” history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct05.html

This was condemning the Protestant heretics who rejected infant baptism. Since nobody is denying that baptism is necessary to wash away original sin, this quote is also irrelevant.

 

[Cecilianus]

I ran out of room on the last post and wanted to address your point about the need for the person to receive the Sacrament of Baptism so as to recieve any of the other sacraments. Which is true.

But If one cannot receive any of the other Sacraments one is not one of the faithful:

Catechism of the Council of Trent, The Members of the Church Militant:
“The Church militant is composed of two classes of persons, the good and the bad, both professing the same faith and partaking of the same sacraments…”
cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tcreed09.htm

St. Francis De Sales, says the same:
“The Church is a holy university or general company of men united and collected together in the** profession of one same Christian faith; in the participation of the same sacraments…”**[The Catholic Controversy, p. 161]

Again, nothing controversial here. It does not address the fact that there may be men saved by the Church who are not in full, visible and perfect communion with it.

And that Trent states that there is nothing wanting in the justified:
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, session 6, chapter 16
“For, whereas Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified,-as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches,-and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God,-we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified…”

This was really vague (like usual with Latin theology ). For one I don’t know what you guys mean by “justified”. It’s not a term we use. For another I don’t know the context, so I don’t know what point he was trying to make. To me it looks like he was simply repeating the sola gratia dogma, condemning Pelagianism again. Which is completely irrelevant.

If nothing is wanting to the justified then how is it that they need to be Baptized to receive the other sacraments?

If what he meant is that nothing is wanting for someone’s salvation than God’s grace, then this question is nonsensical. They need to be baptized because “baptism of desire” is an application of the graces of baptism which is still necessary to receive. If someone said “I received graces from my baptism, and am saved,” and then go on to refuse to actually be baptized before trying to receive the sacraments, they would not be saved through baptism of desire.

Earlier in the same Session, 6, chapter 8, it says:
“because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification.”

Many will quote this as "proof’ of “Baptism” of Desire because it say ‘the root of salvation is faith’ but it is really saying the opposite of what “Baptism” of Desire advocates are saying, that the Faith of, for example, the catechumen, justifies, but it can’t be their faith as Trent points out (above) because nothing preceding justification suffices. So we are back to the Sacrament of Baptism only, that creates no conflicts with de fide teaching, also we receive Divine vitues of Faith Hope and Love from the Sacrament not before.

What Trent said was that nothing merits salvation, but rather that it is a free and gratuitous gift of God. Completely irrelevant here. Nobody here is claiming that you earn salvation by your faith.

Finally even in mass we pray for "“those who have gone before us marked with the sign of faith.”

So?

That mark is Baptism called the Seal of Salvation by the Fathers:
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 1,#3, 386AD:
“He gives not holy things to the dogs (Matthew 7:6); but where He discerns the good conscience, there He gives the Seal of salvation, that wondrous Seal, which devils tremble at, and Angels recognise” newadvent.org/fathers/310101.htm

So? It is.

 

[Faith3Faith]

The meaning of “subsists” in Vatican II has to mean those Sacramentally Baptized persons who have not separated themselves from the Church but by outward appearances appear to be outside the Church, for example a baptized Lutheran infant may appear to be Lutheran to many, but in fact, he/she is Catholic because the baby received the grace of being a member of the Church from the Sacrament and has put no opposition to the Church. But once that person reaches the age of discernment and rejects the Catholic Church he/she ceases to be a member. I think even Faith3Faith could accept this understanding, no ?

I absolutely agree with your statement Chypmonk. :sad_yes: ,… The key words are “Sacramentally Baptized” which **cannot ** occur from baptism of desire, but instead **only through Water Baptism ** ,…This has always been the Universal and Constant teaching of the Holy Catholic Church