D
duckbill
Guest
Are you trying to provoke an emotional outburst? Make a point from some official source and keep on subject and keep the character attacks to a minimum. You lost face it.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
Tradycja
Guest
Well you might not know who we are, but you should know who Boniface XIII, Pope Eugene IV, and Pope Innocent III are who infallibly declared there is no salvation outside the Church.I St. Thomas Aquinas
Also, your signature says you support the “Zogbhy Initiative”, do you, like Archbishop Zogbhy think that Vatican I was a Pseudo-Council and was not Infallible?
Look at this (clearly heretical):
74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:Mfk7DEC_H4kJ:www.geocities.com/derghazar/VATICAN1.DOC+%22vatican+I%22+Zoghby&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Because if you do think Vatican I is not infallible that would explain your difficulty to distinguish between infallible and non-infallible doctrine.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
There is also the Martyr Adrian of Nicomedia, husband of St. Natalia, who was baptized in his own blood.
If you actually knew what the Zoghby initiative actually said, you wouldn’t be making the asinine statments about him that you did.
I know who Kyr Elias is. Who are you?
If you actually knew what the Zoghby initiative actually said, you wouldn’t be making the asinine statments about him that you did.
I know who Kyr Elias is. Who are you?
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
I found the following letter from the Holy Office on line. Note that it does NOT excommunicate Fr. Feeney, but it does condemn a rigorist interpretation of EENS that we have seen here.
Emphasis added.
(BTW, there have been only two infallible papal statements. None of them have been referred to on this board.)
Letter from the Holy See to the Archbishop of Boston, August 8, 1949
To: Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of Boston.
LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE
From the Headquarters of the Holy Office, Aug. 8, 1949.
Emphasis added.
(BTW, there have been only two infallible papal statements. None of them have been referred to on this board.)
Letter from the Holy See to the Archbishop of Boston, August 8, 1949
Code:
[Given on August 8, 1949 explaining the true sense of the Catholic doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church. This important Letter of the Holy Office is introduced by a letter of the Most Reverend Archbishop of Boston.]
The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has examined again the problem of Father Leonard Feeney and St. Benedict Center. Having studied carefully the publications issued by the Center, and having considered all the circumstances of this case, the Sacred Congregation has ordered me to publish, in its entirety, the letter which the same Congregation sent me on the 8th of August, 1949. The Supreme Pontiff, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, has given full approval to this decision. In due obedience, therefore, we publish, in its entirety, the Latin text of the letter as received from the Holy Office with an English translation of the same approved by the Holy See.
Given at Boston, Massachusetts,
the 4th day of September, 1952
Walter J. Furlong, ChancellorLETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE
From the Headquarters of the Holy Office, Aug. 8, 1949.
Code:
Your Excellency:
This Supreme Sacred Congregation has followed very attentively the rise and the course of the grave controversy stirred up by certain associates of “St. Benedict Center” and “Boston College” in regard to the interpretation of that axiom: “Outside the Church there is no salvation.”
After having examined all the documents that are necessary or useful in this matter, among them information from your Chancery, as well as appeals and reports in which the associates of “St. Benedict Center” explain their opinions and complaints, and also many other documents pertinent to the controversy, officially collected, the same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from the fact that the axiom, “outside the Church there is no salvation,” was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities.
Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given:
We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office [Denzinger, n. 1792].
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.
**However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it.** For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.
Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20).
Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
Part 2:
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance [Denzinger, nn. 797, 807].
Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.”
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: “For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): “Faith is the beginning of man’s salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children” [Denzinger, n. 801].
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance [Denzinger, nn. 797, 807].
Code:
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
** These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, Mystici Corporis - On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.**
Code:
Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who “are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire,” and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition “in which they cannot be sure of their salvation” since “they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church” (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, Singulari quadam, [in Denzinger, n. 1641 ff.]; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, Quanto conficiamur moerore, [in Denzinger, n. 1677].
Code:
From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical "From the Housetops", fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.
From these declarations which pertain to doctrine, certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops “whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church” (Acts 20:28).
Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.
Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a “Defender of the Faith,” and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
Part 3:
Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the “imprimatur,“ which is prescribed by the sacred canons.
In conclusion, the subjects under discussion are not what I personally might think, or opinions of Kyr Elias, but the Catholic teachings of baptism of desire, baptism of blood, and just what EENS is understood by the Church to mean.
Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the “imprimatur,“ which is prescribed by the sacred canons.
Code:
Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after “Rome has spoken” they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church “only by an unconscious desire.” Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.
In sending this letter, I declare my profound esteem, and remain,
Your Excellency’s most devoted,
F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.
Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, Assessor.
Holy Office, 8 Aug., 1949.In conclusion, the subjects under discussion are not what I personally might think, or opinions of Kyr Elias, but the Catholic teachings of baptism of desire, baptism of blood, and just what EENS is understood by the Church to mean.
T
Tradycja
Guest
This statement, “Letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing of Boston”
Suprema Haec Sacra or Protocol 122/49, was:
Suprema Haec Sacra or Protocol 122/49, was:
- a letter written from one Bishop to another
- it was not published in the Acts of the Apostolic See (Acta Apostolicae Sedis), and so was not an official act of the Holy See.
- Subsequently not being an act of the Holy See it was never signed by Pius XII either.
T
Tradycja
Guest
cheetah.net/~ccoulomb/legalstatusoffeenyism.html
“Ten years after the passing of Fr. Feeney, the 14 sisters of St. Ann’s House were “regularized” (the word had replaced “reconciled”). That was in February, 1988. Soon after, a member of Bro. Francis’ community in Richmond, N.H., Mr. Douglas Bersaw, wrote to Bernard Cardinal Law, Archbishop of Boston, about the regularization. Rev. John B. McCormack, Secretary for Ministerial Personnel for the Archdiocese of Boston, answered Mr. Bersaw’s letter on behalf of Cardinal Law. When Mother Teresa of St. Ann’s House learned of Fr. McCormack’s answer, she communicated with Fr. Lawrence A. Deery, Vicar for Canonical Affairs and Judicial Vicar of the Diocese of Worcester. Fr. Deery thereupon wrote a letter to Fr. McCormack. We have earlier quoted a portion of the letter. Here it is in its entirety (it is dated May 4, 1988).
*** “1) The Sisters were asked to ‘understand’ the letter of the then Holy Office dated 8 August 1949. They were not asked to ‘accept’ its contents.***
“Ten years after the passing of Fr. Feeney, the 14 sisters of St. Ann’s House were “regularized” (the word had replaced “reconciled”). That was in February, 1988. Soon after, a member of Bro. Francis’ community in Richmond, N.H., Mr. Douglas Bersaw, wrote to Bernard Cardinal Law, Archbishop of Boston, about the regularization. Rev. John B. McCormack, Secretary for Ministerial Personnel for the Archdiocese of Boston, answered Mr. Bersaw’s letter on behalf of Cardinal Law. When Mother Teresa of St. Ann’s House learned of Fr. McCormack’s answer, she communicated with Fr. Lawrence A. Deery, Vicar for Canonical Affairs and Judicial Vicar of the Diocese of Worcester. Fr. Deery thereupon wrote a letter to Fr. McCormack. We have earlier quoted a portion of the letter. Here it is in its entirety (it is dated May 4, 1988).
Code:
“I write to clarify some aspects of the regularization which took place at St. Ann’s House in Still River this past February.
“Mother Teresa, Superior of the community, has expressed concern about your letter of 7 March 1988 to Mr. Douglas Bersaw who had asked Cardinal Law for a clarification of the Church’s teaching on the doctrine extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is Mother Teresa’s feeling that your letter implied a ‘walking away’ from Father Feeney’s teachings on their part.
“Several clarifications might prove helpful:
Code:
“2) The Sisters were asked to make a Profession of Faith. Nothing else was required.
**“It would seem that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith holds the doctrine to have been defined and consequently definitive. It is its theological interpretation and speculation which they see as problematical.**
“In our discussions with the Congregation it seemed rather clear that proponents of a strict interpretation of the doctrine should be given the **same latitude for teaching and discussion **as those who would hold more liberal views.
“Summarily, Mother Teresa and her community do a great deal more than keep the memory of Father Feeney. ***They now actively proclaim his teachings as they did before the regularization.***
“I do hope this information helps to clarify the status of these Sisters and their apostolate.”
REFERENCE:
Gary Potter, After the Boston Heresy Case,
Catholic Treasures Books, Monrovia, CA 1995
pp. 181-182
T
Tradycja
Guest
"…we have to admit…that the testimony of the Fathers, with regard to the possibility of salvation for someone outside the Church, is very weak. Certainly even the ancient Church knew that the grace of God can be found also outside the Church and even before Faith. But the view that such divine grace can lead man to his final salvation without leading him first into the visible Church, is something, at any rate, which met with very little approval in the ancient Church. For, with reference to the optimistic views on the salvation of catechumens as found in many of the Fathers, it must be noted that such a candidate for baptism was regarded in some sense or other as already ‘Christianus’, and also that certain Fathers, such as Gregory Nazianzen 57 and Gregory of Nyssa 58 deny altogether the justifying power of love or of the desire for baptism. Hence it will be impossible to speak of a consensus dogmaticus in the early Church regarding the possibility of salvation for the non-baptized, and especially for someone who is not even a catechumen. In fact, even St. Augustine, in his last (anti-pelagian) period, no longer maintained the possibility of a baptism by desire. 59 " (8)I found this site, which marshalls quotes from the fathers and other saints about baptism of desire and baptism of blood
- Rahner, Karl, Theological Investigations, Volume II, Man in the Church, Translated by Karl H. Kruger, pp.40,41, 57 Or. 40, 23 (PG 36, 3890), 58 ‘Sermo contra dilationem Baptismi’ (PG 46, 424), 59 Cf. Fr. Hoffmann, Der Kirchenbegriff des hl. Augustinus (Munich 1933), pp.221 sqq., 381 sqq., 464 sqq., New York, The Seabury Press, 1975.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
This was written by Abp. Marcel Lefebvre. Whatever certain of his actions may have been, there is no doubt that he taught and believed the traditional Catholic faith:
You have often heard it said, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”–a dictum which offends contemporary minds. It is easy to believe that this doctrine is no longer in effect, that it has been dropped. It seems excessively severe.
Yet nothing, in fact, has changed; nothing can be changed in this area. Our Lord did not found a number of churches: He founded only One. There is only one Cross by which we can be saved, and that Cross has been given to the Catholic Church. It has not been given to others. To His Church, His mystical bride, Christ has given all graces. No grace in the world, no grace in the history of humanity is distributed except through her.
Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian’s formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.
Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.
The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth."(Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics)
You have often heard it said, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”–a dictum which offends contemporary minds. It is easy to believe that this doctrine is no longer in effect, that it has been dropped. It seems excessively severe.
Yet nothing, in fact, has changed; nothing can be changed in this area. Our Lord did not found a number of churches: He founded only One. There is only one Cross by which we can be saved, and that Cross has been given to the Catholic Church. It has not been given to others. To His Church, His mystical bride, Christ has given all graces. No grace in the world, no grace in the history of humanity is distributed except through her.
Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian’s formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.
Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.
The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth."(Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics)
T
Tradycja
Guest
Well there is a doubt after reading this, LOL. Notice he does not cite a source for his implicit desire for baptism theory. This only proves he was a heretic as well as a schismatic.This was written by Abp. Marcel Lefebvre. Whatever certain of his actions may have been, there is no doubt that he taught and believed the traditional Catholic faith
One thing that this shows is the Baptism of Desire people cannot even define what BOD is. If I ask people what BOD is I get a ***different answer from every person.
Does it apply to catechumens? Does it apply to the ignorant native? Does it apply to people who explicitly reject baptism because “they would desire it if they knew what it is”?
One person I asked said it applies to the whole world!
Mons. Lefebvre’s belief here is the same as the so-called “Novus Ordo” priests he criticized.
After all if people can be saved even in other religions, why does the SSPX labor so much to convert people from the Novus Ordo to “Traditional Catholicism”. Why not just leave them in their ignorance?
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
Here are pertinent excerpts from articles on the Catholic Encyclopedia.
Links are given to the entire articles. You will notice that in one of them, the Council of Trent EXPLICITLY taught Baptism of Desire, and Pope St. Pius V condemned the contrary.
newadvent.org/cathen/15255a.htm
After Justina’s death Valentinian abandoned Arianism, became a catechumen, and invited St. Ambrose to come to Gaul to administer baptism to him, but was not spared to receive it. His body was brought to Milan, where the saint delivered his funeral oration, “De obitu Valentiniani consolatio”, in which he dwells on the efficacy of baptism of desire (P.L., XVI).
newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#X
Substitutes for the sacrament
The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.
The baptism of desire
The baptism of desire
The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The “baptism of the Holy Ghost” is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book “De Rebaptismate”. The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): “He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him.” And again: “If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him.” Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice “except by the washing of regeneration or its desire” (voto). The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.),** and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius.**
…
The baptism of blood
The baptism of blood (baptismus sanquinis) is the obtaining of the grace of justification by suffering martyrdom for the faith of Christ. The term “washing of blood” (lavacrum sanguinis) is used by Tertullian (On Baptism 16) to distinguish this species of regeneration from the “washing of water” (lavacrum aquæ). “We have a second washing”, he says “which is one and the same [with the first], namely the washing of blood.” St. Cyprian (Epistle 73) speaks of “the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood” (sanguinis baptismus). St. Augustine (City of God 13.7) says: “When any die for the confession of Christ without having received the washing of regeneration, it avails as much for the remission of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism.”
…
Links are given to the entire articles. You will notice that in one of them, the Council of Trent EXPLICITLY taught Baptism of Desire, and Pope St. Pius V condemned the contrary.
newadvent.org/cathen/15255a.htm
After Justina’s death Valentinian abandoned Arianism, became a catechumen, and invited St. Ambrose to come to Gaul to administer baptism to him, but was not spared to receive it. His body was brought to Milan, where the saint delivered his funeral oration, “De obitu Valentiniani consolatio”, in which he dwells on the efficacy of baptism of desire (P.L., XVI).
newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#X
Substitutes for the sacrament
The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.
The baptism of desire
The baptism of desire
The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The “baptism of the Holy Ghost” is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book “De Rebaptismate”. The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): “He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him.” And again: “If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him.” Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice “except by the washing of regeneration or its desire” (voto). The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.),** and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius.**
…
The baptism of blood
The baptism of blood (baptismus sanquinis) is the obtaining of the grace of justification by suffering martyrdom for the faith of Christ. The term “washing of blood” (lavacrum sanguinis) is used by Tertullian (On Baptism 16) to distinguish this species of regeneration from the “washing of water” (lavacrum aquæ). “We have a second washing”, he says “which is one and the same [with the first], namely the washing of blood.” St. Cyprian (Epistle 73) speaks of “the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood” (sanguinis baptismus). St. Augustine (City of God 13.7) says: “When any die for the confession of Christ without having received the washing of regeneration, it avails as much for the remission of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism.”
…
D
duckbill
Guest
Trent has been mistranslated often so that BOD is promoted:
“this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it…”
This mistranslation of the Latin word “sine” (= without) to “except through” alters the meaning of the passage to favor the error of baptism of desire. Because a negative clause before the conjunction “OR” causes the word to have “AND” meaning. This is important to keep in mind because this mistranslation is still being used all the time by baptism of desire apologists , including in recent publications of the SSPX and CMRI.
For example: There is no wedding without a Bride or Groom. Does that mean that a wedding can happen with just one or the other? No “or” has a “and” meaning.
The reason desire is mentioned is that the Spainish were force baptising Jews and and Muslims against their wishes. They would give them the choice of death or Baptism. Many theologians , especially Spanish , considered this a valid Baptism. Well they were not because there was no desire.
Spainish Legal definitions of the time theoretically acknowledged that a forced baptism was not a valid sacrament, but confined this to cases where it was literally administered by physical force but a person who had chosen to be baptized as an alternative to death or serious injury was still regarded as a voluntary convert, and accordingly forbidden to revert to Judaism.74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:butczKiGCqEJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_and_Portuguese_Jews+spanish+forced+baptism+edu.&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
The Spanish were starting to do the same in the New World as they did with the Jews so Trent made it clear there has to be a desire to receive the sacrament. This is why there is no further explanation. It seemed clear to them since they immediately quote John 3:5:
‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5)
also should notice that, in this passage, the Council of Trent teaches that John 3:5 is to be taken “as it is written” (Latin: sicut scriptum est), i.e. literally, which excludes any possibility of salvation without being born again of water in the Sacrament of Baptism. There is no way that baptism of desire can be true if John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written, i.e. literally, because John 3:5 says that every man must be born again of water and the Spirit to be saved, which is what the theory of baptism of desire denies. The theory of baptism of desire and an interpretation of John 3:5 as it is written ( literally) are mutually exclusive and every baptism of desire proponent should admit this. That is why most of them must – and do – opt for a non-literal interpretation of John 3:5.
“this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it…”
This mistranslation of the Latin word “sine” (= without) to “except through” alters the meaning of the passage to favor the error of baptism of desire. Because a negative clause before the conjunction “OR” causes the word to have “AND” meaning. This is important to keep in mind because this mistranslation is still being used all the time by baptism of desire apologists , including in recent publications of the SSPX and CMRI.
For example: There is no wedding without a Bride or Groom. Does that mean that a wedding can happen with just one or the other? No “or” has a “and” meaning.
The reason desire is mentioned is that the Spainish were force baptising Jews and and Muslims against their wishes. They would give them the choice of death or Baptism. Many theologians , especially Spanish , considered this a valid Baptism. Well they were not because there was no desire.
Spainish Legal definitions of the time theoretically acknowledged that a forced baptism was not a valid sacrament, but confined this to cases where it was literally administered by physical force but a person who had chosen to be baptized as an alternative to death or serious injury was still regarded as a voluntary convert, and accordingly forbidden to revert to Judaism.74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:butczKiGCqEJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_and_Portuguese_Jews+spanish+forced+baptism+edu.&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
The Spanish were starting to do the same in the New World as they did with the Jews so Trent made it clear there has to be a desire to receive the sacrament. This is why there is no further explanation. It seemed clear to them since they immediately quote John 3:5:
‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5)
also should notice that, in this passage, the Council of Trent teaches that John 3:5 is to be taken “as it is written” (Latin: sicut scriptum est), i.e. literally, which excludes any possibility of salvation without being born again of water in the Sacrament of Baptism. There is no way that baptism of desire can be true if John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written, i.e. literally, because John 3:5 says that every man must be born again of water and the Spirit to be saved, which is what the theory of baptism of desire denies. The theory of baptism of desire and an interpretation of John 3:5 as it is written ( literally) are mutually exclusive and every baptism of desire proponent should admit this. That is why most of them must – and do – opt for a non-literal interpretation of John 3:5.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
The theory of baptism of desire and an interpretation of John 3:5 as it is written ( literally) are mutually exclusive and every baptism of desire proponent should admit this. That is why most of them must – and do – opt for a non-literal interpretation of John 3:5.
Are you listing St. Ambrose among those who are opting for a non-literal (properly non-literalist) interpretation of John 3:5?
Are you listing St. Ambrose among those who are opting for a non-literal (properly non-literalist) interpretation of John 3:5?
D
duckbill
Guest
No.The theory of baptism of desire and an interpretation of John 3:5 as it is written ( literally) are mutually exclusive and every baptism of desire proponent should admit this. That is why most of them must – and do – opt for a non-literal interpretation of John 3:5.
Are you listing St. Ambrose among those who are opting for a non-literal (properly non-literalist) interpretation of John 3:5?
He believed in the literal necessity.
St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391 A.D.:
“You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he 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 the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”
Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2: 1323.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
In the funeral oration on the Emperor Valentine II, who died without Baptism,
St. Ambrose says: " Should he not acquire the grace for which he longed?
Certainly: As he desired it, he has attained it . . . His pious desire has
absolved him " (De obitu Valent. 51, 53).
I will close with a parable.
Once upon a time there was a man who insisted that he was dead. His family took him to a psychiatrist.
The psychiatrist showed him many medical books and other texts about circulation saying that dead men do not bleed.
The patient conceded his point.
The psychiatrist then took a lancet and pricked the man’s finger.
He watched the droplet of blood form, sighed, and then said, “Oh, my God! Dead men really DO bleed after all.”
St. Ambrose says: " Should he not acquire the grace for which he longed?
Certainly: As he desired it, he has attained it . . . His pious desire has
absolved him " (De obitu Valent. 51, 53).
I will close with a parable.
Once upon a time there was a man who insisted that he was dead. His family took him to a psychiatrist.
The psychiatrist showed him many medical books and other texts about circulation saying that dead men do not bleed.
The patient conceded his point.
The psychiatrist then took a lancet and pricked the man’s finger.
He watched the droplet of blood form, sighed, and then said, “Oh, my God! Dead men really DO bleed after all.”
A
adstrinity
Guest
…Didn’t this thread begin as what a jerk Vin Lewis is for thinking he’s better than anybody else? How did it get to who gets to Heaven? From the first post, Vin Lewis is a jerk for thinking he’s better than anybody else and for being proud enough to be patronizing about it SHOULD that be his actual statement.
D
duckbill
Guest
Was this written by Ambrose or written by someone else listenning to his sermon?In the funeral oration on the Emperor Valentine II, who died without Baptism,
St. Ambrose says: " Should he not acquire the grace for which he longed?
Certainly: As he desired it, he has attained it . . . His pious desire has
absolved him " (De obitu Valent. 51, 53).
I will close with a parable.
Once upon a time there was a man who insisted that he was dead. His family took him to a psychiatrist.
The psychiatrist showed him many medical books and other texts about circulation saying that dead men do not bleed.
The patient conceded his point.
The psychiatrist then took a lancet and pricked the man’s finger.
He watched the droplet of blood form, sighed, and then said, “Oh, my God! Dead men really DO bleed after all.”
Am I to take a comment that could be understood in a number of ways or when he is writing a theological treatise measuring every word he writes and seeking to teach correct doctrine? Or when he is trying to comfort the faithful who were distraught that the Emperor died without baptism?
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.”
Sounds very similar to St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391 A.D.:
“**You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. **For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he 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 the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”
Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2: 1323.
adstrinity has made a good point. If you would like to discuss this theme start another thread and then we can continue. We are way off topic.
I don’t think Vin is effective in his style and sometime his details are off but he in general is often times right that many Catholics and Protestants are willingly ignorant and just choose not to know and until confronted with their deceitfulness will not be open to the truth.
R
rfpapcun
Guest
The devolution of this thread into a BOD quarrel is unfortunate. Nonetheless, I am always struck at how the BOD proponents always seem to know God’s mind better than He knows it. All these tear-jerking scenarios are predicated on speculative assumptions and then on our conclusion of how unfair God is to let this or that person die without Baptism. Therefore, there must be some alternative.
Catechumens being killed in accidents just before they are to receive Baptism. What is being contended here? That God doesn’t know about the accident before it happens; or is it that He is powerless to do anything about the situation? I mean, at worst can’t God suspend natural laws and save the person through a miracle if He wished.
Natives in Africa, Indians in America, islanders in the South Pacific. How could they know?! Really, it is so unfair! But haven’t you people read the Old and New Testaments where God miraculously sent people to those of good will in similar situations?! Ah, the key is good will. Why would God miraculously send anyone to those without good will or who having been Baptized would then damn themselves anyway.
Anyway, BOD for whom? The Holy Office letter in the Father Feeney said that “perfect charity” was necessary – that’s no attachment to any sin, no matter how slight. Out of the many millions of people in the U.S. right now, how many have perfect charity. Fifty, ten, five, none? So even if BOD does exist, how many people will it avail? Hardly any.
Catechumens being killed in accidents just before they are to receive Baptism. What is being contended here? That God doesn’t know about the accident before it happens; or is it that He is powerless to do anything about the situation? I mean, at worst can’t God suspend natural laws and save the person through a miracle if He wished.
Natives in Africa, Indians in America, islanders in the South Pacific. How could they know?! Really, it is so unfair! But haven’t you people read the Old and New Testaments where God miraculously sent people to those of good will in similar situations?! Ah, the key is good will. Why would God miraculously send anyone to those without good will or who having been Baptized would then damn themselves anyway.
Anyway, BOD for whom? The Holy Office letter in the Father Feeney said that “perfect charity” was necessary – that’s no attachment to any sin, no matter how slight. Out of the many millions of people in the U.S. right now, how many have perfect charity. Fifty, ten, five, none? So even if BOD does exist, how many people will it avail? Hardly any.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.