The Ultimate Loophole?

[MarianD]

Has anyone noticed this loophole before, and how has the Church closed it?

I think the earliest person to known have used this loophole is Constantine I (which is why I’m glad the Catholic Church doesn’t consider him a Saint).

Basically, here’s the loophole:

• Sins are washed away through Baptism
• Sins are also removed through Confirmation
• Therefore, it is possible for one to believe 100% in Christ, sin as much as he/she wants, and get Baptized and/or Confirmed while one his/her deathbed to remove the sins he/she committed while in health

Now the most common response to this loophole that I’ve heard is “Well if one really cared about Christ, that person wouldn’t sin”. Such an argument is weak to say the least, oversimplifies the complexity of the human struggle with sin, and mimics the faith-only Protestant argument (“if one really had faith, then that person would do good works, but faith is the only thing that saves us”).

Another response I could think of is “presumption is a sin”. While this is true, sins are washed away through Baptism and removed through Confirmation, so the sin of presumption would be removed as well.

So, in theory, I could commit as many sins as I want before I am confirmed, knowing that through my confirmation, these sins will be removed. Not saying I would do that, but I’m saying that it seems like I can.

So what’s the Church’s way of closing this loophole?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Has anyone noticed this loophole before, and how has the Church closed it?

I think the earliest person to known have used this loophole is Constantine I (which is why I’m glad the Catholic Church doesn’t consider him a Saint).

Basically, here’s the loophole:

• Sins are washed away through Baptism
• Sins are also removed through Confirmation
• Therefore, it is possible for one to believe 100% in Christ, sin as much as he/she wants, and get Baptized and/or Confirmed while one his/her deathbed to remove the sins he/she committed while in health

Now the most common response to this loophole that I’ve heard is “Well if one really cared about Christ, that person wouldn’t sin”. Such an argument is weak to say the least, oversimplifies the complexity of the human struggle with sin, and mimics the faith-only Protestant argument (“if one really had faith, then that person would do good works, but faith is the only thing that saves us”).

Another response I could think of is “presumption is a sin”. While this is true, sins are washed away through Baptism and removed through Confirmation, so the sin of presumption would be removed as well.

So, in theory, I could commit as many sins as I want before I am confirmed, knowing that through my confirmation, these sins will be removed. Not saying I would do that, but I’m saying that it seems like I can.

So what’s the Church’s way of closing this loophole?

Could you be gracious enough to cite the primary sources of information you used regarding Constantine in this matter?

 

[brotherjoe]

I doubt that you would receive the vivifying effects of confirmation if you were not truly sorry for your sins and that means to wish, for the glory of God, that you had never committed them.

 

[MarianD]

Could you be gracious enough to cite the primary sources of information you used regarding Constantine in this matter?

I thought it was common knowledge that Constantine was baptized on his deathbed?

Historians hypothesize that the only reason for this would be to go through this loophole. If he was truly “burning” with love for the Lord, he would’ve been baptized as soon as he won the battle, or so they believe.

Of course, there never is any way to be completely sure that he used the loophole. Perhaps he was just so afraid of his sins not being absolved that he decided to get baptized when he was no longer capable of sinning. No one but God knows for certain, and I am in no way judging Constantine or questioning his faith.

Regardless of if Constantine I used it or not, the loophole still exists.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I thought it was common knowledge that Constantine was baptized on his deathbed?

Historians hypothesize that the only reason for this would be to go through this loophole. If he was truly “burning” with love for the Lord, he would’ve been baptized as soon as he won the battle, or so they believe.

Of course, there never is any way to be completely sure that he used the loophole. Perhaps he was just so afraid of his sins not being absolved that he decided to get baptized when he was no longer capable of sinning. No one but God knows for certain, and I am in no way judging Constantine or questioning his faith.

Regardless of if Constantine I used it or not, the loophole still exists.

Are there other christian faith communities that are not catholic christians that believe in deathbead confessions?

 

[MarianD]

Are there other christian faith communities that are not catholic christians that believe in deathbead confessions?

Most Protestants do, and this is where the popular Protestant concept of “faith without works” for salvation is best questioned.

I can’t speak for Orthodoxy because I don’t know too much about their beliefs on salvation.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Most Protestants do, and this is where the popular Protestant concept of “faith without works” for salvation is best questioned.

I can’t speak for Orthodoxy because I don’t know too much about their beliefs on salvation.

I think, that together we have found the answer to this one.

Lacking primary sources of information on Constantine, and the fact that Most Protestants push this agenda on folks, we can take that information and go from there.

I also would like to hear from the Eastern Rite Catholics in communion with Benedict, as well as the Eastern Catholics not in communion with Rome on this matter.

 

[JimG]

Baptism is required in order to receive the other sacraments. One could not receive Confirmation without being baptized.

There is also a big issue of presuming on a peaceful death and having the opportunity for baptism before death, if one wishes to delay baptism until that point.

Still, I have heard that in some past ages it was not unheard of to delay baptism until near death. After all, baptism washes away ALL sin.

That’s one reason I often argue for having great trust in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, or Confession. Persons who were baptized at an early age or in infancy, and later fall away from the faith, must confess all their past sins upon repenting and returning to the Church. It can be difficult if not impossible for a person at that point in life to recount all serious sins, and the sacrament should be able to bring him peace and not worry. Even non-scrupulous Catholics can get too obsessive about this. We need to trust the sacrament.

There’s no need to delay Baptism, because after baptism, all one’s life can become a source of continuing grace through the sacraments.

 

[VetA]

Has anyone noticed this loophole before, and how has the Church closed it?

I think the earliest person to known have used this loophole is Constantine I (which is why I’m glad the Catholic Church doesn’t consider him a Saint).

Basically, here’s the loophole:

• Sins are washed away through Baptism
• Sins are also removed through Confirmation
• Therefore, it is possible for one to believe 100% in Christ, sin as much as he/she wants, and get Baptized and/or Confirmed while one his/her deathbed to remove the sins he/she committed while in health

Now the most common response to this loophole that I’ve heard is “Well if one really cared about Christ, that person wouldn’t sin”. Such an argument is weak to say the least, oversimplifies the complexity of the human struggle with sin, and mimics the faith-only Protestant argument (“if one really had faith, then that person would do good works, but faith is the only thing that saves us”).

Another response I could think of is “presumption is a sin”. While this is true, sins are washed away through Baptism and removed through Confirmation, so the sin of presumption would be removed as well.

So, in theory, I could commit as many sins as I want before I am confirmed, knowing that through my confirmation, these sins will be removed. Not saying I would do that, but I’m saying that it seems like I can.

So what’s the Church’s way of closing this loophole?

you have to be truly sorry for the sin to be forgiven in the first place, that might help

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Basically, here’s the loophole:

• Sins are washed away through Baptism
• Sins are also removed through Confirmation
• Therefore, it is possible for one to believe 100% in Christ, sin as much as he/she wants, and get Baptized and/or Confirmed while one his/her deathbed to remove the sins he/she committed while in health

Two things.

First, Confirmation does not remove sin.
When a non-catholic who has been validly baptized enters the Church they must go to Confession before their Confirmation and First Eucharist.

Second, I think this “loophole” has not been closed because of the danger of not getting a baptism before one died. If someone waited until they were on their death bed to be baptized they could not be sure they would receive such as they would not be a member of a parish so what priest would you call in to do it and would he make it there in time?

Does anyone who is a believer want to risk that?

 

[Catholic87]

One problem with that loophole is that you never know when your going to die…haha

 

[Cat_Herder]

• Sins are also removed through Confirmation

Negatory. The confusion may arise from the fact that Baptism and Confirmation were usually celebrated together in the early Church (and often still are in the East, and in the West for adult catechumens, e.g. me.)

So what’s the Church’s way of closing this loophole?

It isn’t a loophole, it’s a terrible risk. There is a reason why the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8) wanted to be baptized A.S.A.P. Knowingly refusing Baptism is refusing incorporation in the Body of Christ == mortal sin.

Of course, if Baptism is not available or if the sinner does not know that Baptism is necessary, it’s a different question.

Also, the Church has an obligation of “Easter duty” – confession of mortal sins and receipt of Communion once a year during the Easter season. Technically, a knowing refusal could be punished with excommunication (maybe not today). In that case, the excommunication would need to be lifted before receipt of any sacrament.

But, of course, Constantine was the emperor. Excommunicating the emperor who had just ended persecution of Christians would be a Bad Idea™. So that is how he slipped through.

 

[Victorious]

One problem with that loophole is that you never know when your going to die…haha

Indeed. St. Thomas More closes up this deathbed “loophole” in his Dialogue of Comfort against Tribulation with the following chilling story:

There’s a story about a fellow who always used to say, “As long as I live I’ll do as I please, for when I die, three or four words will make everything safe enough.” Well, it so happened that long before this fellow could get old, his horse stumbled on a broken bridge. He tried hard to rescue them both, but soon he saw that it would not be. He knew he would be flung headlong into the river below. And in sudden agitation he cried out, as he was falling, “Well, I’ll be damned!” So there he was, drowned with his three or four deathbed words on which, for all his wretched life, he had hung all his hope.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Also, the Church has an obligation of “Easter duty” – confession of mortal sins and receipt of Communion once a year during the Easter season. Technically, a knowing refusal could be punished with excommunication (maybe not today). In that case, the excommunication would need to be lifted before receipt of any sacrament.

At Baptism one enters the Body of Christ, the Church. The unbaptized are not members of the Church and hence can not be excommunicated nor do they have an “Easter duty”.

Also those who have not received First Eucharist do not have an “Easter duty”.

Excommunication separates one from the Sacraments and the Church.

 

[Cat_Herder]

At Baptism one enters the Body of Christ, the Church. The unbaptized are not members of the Church and hence can not be excommunicated nor do they have an “Easter duty”.

Also those who have not received First Eucharist do not have an “Easter duty”.

That’s the current canonical situation. As I understood it, baptized Protestants and others who had not received First Eucharist were dispensed from the Easter duty, not exempt; maybe a distinction without a difference.

I’ll admit to not being a canonist of the early church so perhaps my assumption that things were different back then is not right.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

That’s the current canonical situation. As I understood it, baptized Protestants and others who had not received First Eucharist were dispensed from the Easter duty, not exempt; maybe a distinction without a difference.

I’ll admit to not being a canonist of the early church so perhaps my assumption that things were different back then is not right.

Validly baptized Protestants are not Catholics and are not bound by Canon Law, when they enter the Church they do so by a profession of faith and then receive the Sacraments of Confirmation and First Eucharist.

 

[thirdworld]

I won’t lie…I was extremely thankful that I had never been baptized before I converted to Catholicism. It would take forever to remember 16 years worth of sins.

However if I was convinced that the Catholic Church was the one true Church and that I needed to be baptized to enter that church then I wouldn’t have delayed it.

I can’t imagine anyone who truly trusts Christ and loves Him would delay their Baptism (not saying this hasn’t happened). But they definitely have a developing love for and faith in God. It’s definitely a huge risk. You never know when you’re going to die.

 

[LilyM]

I won’t lie…I was extremely thankful that I had never been baptized before I converted to Catholicism. It would take forever to remember 16 years worth of sins.

However if I was convinced that the Catholic Church was the one true Church and that I needed to be baptized to enter that church then I wouldn’t have delayed it.

I can’t imagine anyone who truly trusts Christ and loves Him would delay their Baptism (not saying this hasn’t happened). But they definitely have a developing love for and faith in God. It’s definitely a huge risk. You never know when you’re going to die.

I was away from the church for roughly 12 years, my first confession after coming back wasn’t incredibly long.

The big sins tend to stick out in your mind

The smaller ones that don’t, don’t require confession as they’re venial rather than mortal.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

It is kind of humorous to think that you’re going to outsmart God. That is the kind of stuff that makes a good Greek tragedy but it isn’t how you would want to live your life.

 

[puzzleannie]

Has anyone noticed this loophole before, and how has the Church closed it?

I think the earliest person to known have used this loophole is Constantine I (which is why I’m glad the Catholic Church doesn’t consider him a Saint).

Basically, here’s the loophole:

• Sins are washed away through Baptism
• Sins are also removed through Confirmation
• Therefore, it is possible for one to believe 100% in Christ, sin as much as he/she wants, and get Baptized and/or Confirmed while one his/her deathbed to remove the sins he/she committed while in health

?

there is no loophole, the sacraments work according their work, they do what they say. Baptism removes all sin, actual (what you commit) and original no matter when it is received. Confirmation strengthens the grace of the Holy Spirit received in baptism and confers His special gifts to build up the Christian for the demands of discipleship. Confirmation does not remove sin. One must be in the state of sanctifying grace to receive it, or to benefit from it.

Yes it is true even on one’s deathbed one can experience conversion, or even at the moment of death there is even a possibility of baptism of desire. That is not a loophole, that is the essence of Christ’s saving grace.

read the parable of the workers in the vineyard. they all worked for the agreed upon wage, and all received that wage whether they worked 1 hour or 12.

and yes it was more common in the early days of the Church to gamble and wait until one was close to death to ask for baptism, a practice the Church strenuously addressed through better catechesis as soon as Constantine and most of his successors now allowed the Church to operate openly. As a matter of fact, before the persecutions ended, baptism was often quite likely to be followed by persecution and death, and the anointing of confirmation strengthened the new Christian to face that possibility with fortitude.

the next obvious question is “you gotta problem with that?”
Why would a Christian begrudge another convert receiving God’s mercy when it should be a cause of rejoicing?