Salvation for Catholics only

[GerardP]

So, in your view there is no hope for anyone who dies before baptism?

Yes. This is what the magisterium of the Church teaches infallibly. It’s not asserted as such due to politics but that’s the teaching.

This means that the Catechumens of olden times who were martyred for the Christian faith died in their sins and went to Hell - is that what you believe?

If they got to Heaven, they got a Baptism either unrecorded or miraculously by an Angel or something.

If they didn’t, they went to Hell which might even be an exercise in mercy by God. Knowing all things, He might know that if they lived and obtained Baptism, and they wouldn’t persevere, their punishment would be even more severe being in Hell with the mark of Christ on them.

Or are you under the impression that they were somehow able to receive a physical baptism before death?

Yes. If they made it, they somehow got a physical baptism. God would not forget to provide for them.

 

[jmcrae]

If they got to Heaven, they got a Baptism either unrecorded or miraculously by an Angel or something.

If a person is still alive, only a human being who has the intent to do what the Church does can baptize him or her - angels have no authority to do so for the living - but no human being would have been able to do so, unless Caesar Nero for some insane reason formed the intent to save their souls and decided to baptize them. (Thus undermining the whole purpose of killing them in the first place, which was to cast them into Hell, as he thought.)

Surely the Early Church was well aware of this fact? In which case, it would have made sense for them to baptize Catechumens immediately, even before giving them any instruction, rather than waiting seven years, and risking that they would be martyred for the Faith, and yet still go to Hell - yet, they did not.

(And why would the Catechumens themselves have gone willingly to their deaths, proclaiming the salvation of Christ, if they knew or thought they were going to Hell?)

 

[SemperFidelis]

Oh, how I wish people would not rely on the miserable CCC. You cannot learn the Catholic faith from it. It’s editorials are designed to lead you away from the correct conclusion.

While I am not at all a fan of the CCC, what Catechism would you recommend? Because I am not aware of a Catechism in existence that does not teach Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.

 

[GerardP]

If a person is still alive, only a human being who has the intent to do what the Church does can baptize him or her - angels have no authority to do so for the living

Are you just making this up as you go along or are you referencing something? Angels are alive and can administer some sacraments validly. At least St. Thomas Aquinas thinks it’s possible and so do I.

• but no human being would have been able to do so, unless Caesar Nero for some insane reason formed the intent to save their souls and decided to baptize them. (Thus undermining the whole purpose of killing them in the first place, which was to cast them into Hell, as he thought.)

Nothing is impossible. You are forgetting about Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch. God sent Philip out into the desert specifically for the purpose of finding the Eunuch.

*Then Philip, opening his mouth, and beginning at this scripture, preached unto him Jesus.

36 And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water; and the eunuch said: See, here is water: what doth hinder me from being baptized? 37 And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still; and they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch: and he baptized him. 39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord took away Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more. *

Philip was brought out to the desert and spirited away like a ghost. God will supply whatever is needed.

Surely the Early Church was well aware of this fact? In which case, it would have made sense for them to baptize Catechumens immediately, even before giving them any instruction, rather than waiting seven years, and risking that they would be martyred for the Faith, and yet still go to Hell - yet, they did not.

Babies can be baptized right away because they are incapable of reasoning the faith. A Baptism without faith would be more damning if the person died in sin as I stated above.

(And why would the Catechumens themselves have gone willingly to their deaths, proclaiming the salvation of Christ, if they knew or thought they were going to Hell?)

Maybe because they did recieve a Baptism. There is a lot of speculation on the exact status of the catechumens.

 

[GerardP]

While I am not at all a fan of the CCC, what Catechism would you recommend? Because I am not aware of a Catechism in existence that does not teach Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.

I find the Trent Catechism to be the best written, most thorough of all the catechisms. Check it out online. Even the headings are lessons. The Catechisms contradict themselves on the BOD and BOB aspects.

The whole Baptism of Blood, Baptism of Desire thing is eventually going to have to be worked out infallibly by the Pope invoking the Magisterium on this issue.

But the Feeney position is doctrinally sound, it’s not heresy, it’s the safest and most prudent position and it will ultimately reveal a major error being unofficially pronounced in the Church. When the Church clears it up, probably a lot of grace will flow and a lot of persecution will begin.

 

[SyCarl]

The Council of Trent seems to have taught the baptism of desire.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html

Aquinas also taught baptism of blood and baptism of desire.

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 (65, 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 (62, 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 (60, 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.

newadvent.org/summa/4066.htm#11
[/quote]

 

[SemperFidelis]

I find the Trent Catechism to be the best written, most thorough of all the catechisms.

I agree it is the most thorough, but I like the Q’ and A’ format of the Baltimore and the St. Pius X Catechisms better.

Check it out online.

I’ve got a copy and have read a good bit of it. It is very good. Definitely the most important Catechism, and the “Father of all Catechisms.” No disagreements there.

The Catechisms contradict themselves on the BOD and BOB aspects.

This is the root of the problem as I see it. Feeneyites see BOD and BOB as contradicting EENS, and the rest of the Church doesn’t.

The whole Baptism of Blood, Baptism of Desire thing is eventually going to have to be worked out infallibly by the Pope invoking the Magisterium on this issue.

See, I think it has been settled. The Council of Trent clearly spoke of the desire for Baptism. There was some confusion over this after the fact, and I think the Holy Office and Pope Pius XII finally cleared this up once and for all. There are far too many Doctors, Early Church Fathers, Popes, Catechisms, Codes of Canon Law, theologians, and even a Council who have taught BOD and BOB, both before and after Trent, for BOD and BOB not to be considered an infallible teaching due to the Ordinary Magisterium. I once held to the Feeneyite stance on EENS. However, I came across way to many articles, books, and arguments that persuaded me that the Feeneyite position was untenable and wrong.

 

[TMC]

Oh, how I wish people would not rely on the miserable CCC. You cannot learn the Catholic faith from it. It’s editorials are designed to lead you away from the correct conclusion.

This is correct. God offers to all the possibility of entering His Church.

Now for the ever conflicted editorial that follows every doctrinal statement in the CCC:

But the problem is, it’s not necessary if they didn’t need it. Necessary means necessary not contingent.

These editorials in the CCC are the worst modernist junk imaginable.

Fr. Malachi Martin described the CCC very well as a "scam" he said he got his first edition in French and went through it page by page underlining everything that was Catholic in red. He said, “It’s all there. Everything that Gregory the Great or Leo XIII or Innocent III would have agreed with. But when you look at it with all of the red, you ask yourself, 'what’s the other stuff?” And he said, “The answer is a dizzying display of confused language designed to soften the faith and make things easy.” He described it as destroying the clarity of the faith.

He then recommended the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

And he was right, it’s “THE” Catechism as far as catechisms go.

Cardinal Schonborn who was instrumental in the production of the CCC even asked people to read the Trent Catechism.

I suppose that if you go through the Catechism and take what you want and reject what you want you can believe anything. But the CCC is the teaching of the Church. Where you disagree with it you disagree with the Church. I don’t have a problem with people saying they disagree, but to say that you get to decide what is “really” Catholic is just kidding yourself.

 

[GerardP]

See, I think it has been settled. The Council of Trent clearly spoke of the desire for Baptism.

I used to think that as well but Feeney’s arguments convinced me otherwise.

There was some confusion over this after the fact, and I think the Holy Office and Pope Pius XII finally cleared this up once and for all.

Again, there are numerous problems with this document in 1949.

There are far too many Doctors, Early Church Fathers, Popes, Catechisms, Codes of Canon Law, theologians, and even a Council who have taught BOD and BOB, both before and after Trent, for BOD and BOB not to be considered an infallible teaching due to the Ordinary Magisterium. I once held to the Feeneyite stance on EENS. However, I came across way to many articles, books, and arguments that persuaded me that the Feeneyite position was untenable and wrong.

You’re making an argument from popularity instead of an argument from fact. Speculations from Popes, Doctors and Catechisms are not revelation. What has been revealed is that Baptism with water is necessary.

The “Feeney” position is not heterodox. It is not heresy, he never had to recant. He died in full communion with the Church. His followers have not had to recant their position.

Until it’s clearly settled infallibly by a magisterial statement, it’s the most prudent position to take.

 

[GerardP]

I suppose that if you go through the Catechism and take what you want and reject what you want you can believe anything.

Where does “want” come into play? You’re making a bogus argument.

You open a book and it says 2+2=4 and you say, 'fine" and then it says, “But those who believe 2+2=5 must be welcomed and not discriminated against.” And you are supposed to not suspect something is wrong?

But the CCC is the teaching of the Church.

Yes. Mixed in with a bunch of worthless and harmful editorials.

Where you disagree with it you disagree with the Church.

False. It depends on what I disagree with or what is plainly wrong.

I don’t have a problem with people saying they disagree, but to say that you get to decide what is “really” Catholic is just kidding yourself.

Another false argument. I don’t claim to make the decision of what is really Catholic. I’ve been taught what is Catholic by the Church and I can discern right from wrong. This idea that the Catechisms are infallible or that Catholics cannot discern right from wrong is not Catholic.

 

[nkbeth]

I once held to the Feeneyite stance on EENS. However, I came across way to many articles, books, and arguments that persuaded me that the Feeneyite position was untenable and wrong.

God bless you! It is good to know of someone to whom this has actually happened. I know a few followers of Father Feeney who seem impossible to budge.

But I’m sure God helped with your persuasion! The best thing we can do is to pray…

 

[GerardP]

God bless you! It is good to know of someone to whom this has actually happened. I know a few followers of Father Feeney who seem impossible to budge.

But I’m sure God helped with your persuasion! The best thing we can do is to pray…

I have to say that I’m shocked that you would pray for people to give up on a Catholic belief and position that is perfectly legitimate to hold and more prudent than liberal “interpretations” of EENS.

 

[nkbeth]

God bless you! It is good to know of someone to whom this has actually happened. I know a few followers of Father Feeney who seem impossible to budge.

But I’m sure God helped with your persuasion! The best thing we can do is to pray…

I have to say that I’m shocked that you would pray for people to give up on a Catholic belief and position that is perfectly legitimate to hold and more prudent than liberal “interpretations” of EENS.

I am sorry to have shocked you.

Whatever else I said, “The best thing we can do is to pray…” surely can’t be wrong.

God will take my prayer to help persuade whoever really needs persuasion. If it is myself, then Amen.

I don’t hold to liberal “interpretations” of EENS; unless St. Thomas Aquinas and so many more Saints and Theologians (of past times) are just a bunch of “liberal Catholics”. You can say they are wrong, if you like, but they are not “liberal”.

I’ll probably say more in later posts.

Pray that we all come to the truth (sooner rather than later).