Why not one more thread for EENS and Baptism of Desire?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CatholicCrusade
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CatholicCrusade

Guest
Just some things I think that all who support Baptism of Desire would profit by reading:

And excerpt from Br. André Marie, M.I.C.M.

catholicism.org/pages/arguingbod.htm

Why we do not have to believe in Baptism of Desire

At this point, I’ve spent enough time speaking against people who actually defend extra ecclesiam nulla salus, albeit wrongly. From here on out, I would like to attack the real enemies, the liberals.

I think that it’s important to answer, clearly and simply, two questions: The first is, “Why don’t we have to believe in Baptism of Desire?” The second is, “Why should we not believe in Baptism of Desire?”

**It has never been defined by the Church.

**In answer to the first question, “Why don’t we have to believe in Baptism of Desire?” I give two reasons. The first is that the Church has never defined it. No Pope ever defined it, either alone, or in an ecumenical council.

**It is not a universal teaching.

**Now it’s predictable that certain people when hearing me claim that no pope ever defined Baptism of Desire would say, “But you don’t just have to believe what’s been solemnly defined; that’s what the liberals say. You also have to believe the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, too.” This, is, of course, true; which is why my second reason for saying that we don’t have to believe in Baptism of Desire is that it is not a universal teaching of the Church. To be of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, something has to have been taught universally.

If Baptism of Desire were a universal teaching, then St. Augustine would not have said, "On considering which, again and again, I find that not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if recourse may not be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism for want of time. (BOOK IV, Chapter 22, De baptismo contra Donatistas) This phrase “on considering which, again and again,” shows that St. Augustine is using his own mental powers, not witnessing to an ancient tradition. Elsewhere, St. Augustine contradicted this view:

“How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized and are lost forever!” (Augustine the Bishop, Van Der Meer, p.150)

And here: “No matter what progress a catechumen may make, he still carries the burden of iniquity, and it is not taken away until he has been baptized.” (On the Gospel of St. John, Chapter 13, Tract 7)

St. Augustine, I should note, is one of the men St. Bernard calls the “two pillars” upon whom he rests his own opinion of Baptism of Desire. The other pillar is St. Ambrose. The oft-quoted funeral oration for Valentinian, in which Ambroseseems to perhaps maybe espouse Baptism of Desire, is not at all sufficient proof that he indeed held it. I would willingly go toe-to-toe with anyone who holds that St. Ambrose was definitively proclaiming his personal belief in Baptism of Desire in this oration. In addition, even if St. Ambrose was making such a proclamation, he himself contradicts it in a passage in his catechetical treatise,* De Mysteriis*. The great patrologist Père Migne cites two other works of St. Ambrose to justify his statement that “From among the Catholic Fathers perhaps no one insists more than Ambrose on the absolute necessity of receiving Baptism.”

Even were I to concede the funeral oration on Valentinian to the opposition, all they now have on their side is a St. Ambrose who contradicts himself. This is hardly a pillar I would count on to support myself. So even if he did at one time or another hold and teach Baptism of Desire, the same thing would hold for him as for his convert, St. Augustine. He was not giving clear witness to an apostolic teaching, but was working as a theologian, and a fallible one.

(continued)
 
(continued from above)

Again, if Baptism of Desire were a universal teaching, it would have made its way into the teachings of the Fathers Sts. Jerome, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzen, Basel the Great, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Gregory the Great, none of whom mention it. Actually, Gregory of Nazianzen does mention it in his “Oration on the Holy Lights,” but only to reject it.
The most that our enemies can really say about the Baptism of Desire theory is that it is a commonly held opinion. Fine. Common opinions are not universal teachings. Three examples of common opinions that have been wrong are—

the commonly held, now heretical, medieval opinion touching on the perpetual sinlessness of our Lady, the Immaculate Conception,

the commonly held, now heretical, opinion that Episcopal consecration was not a sacrament, and

the commonly held, now heretical, opinion that the matter for the sacrament of Holy Orders is the handing over of the sacred vessels and not the imposition of hands.

When you have an infallible Church and fallible theologians, today’s common opinion can be tomorrow’s damnable heresy. That’s just the way it is!

Why we should not believe in Baptism of Desire

Now I’ve just established that we don’t have to believe in Baptism of Desire. If that were all I did, I would be negligent. Now I would like to establish why we should not believe in Baptism of Desire.

**It leads to a contradiction of a defined dogma.

**I said that if no salvation outside the Church were not a dogma, we would be fools for arguing Baptism of Desire. It was Father Feeney’s defense of the dogma that led him to accept and champion the no compromise teaching on the issue of Baptism. This is why the first reason I will offer for why we should not believe in Baptism of Desire is that it contradicts a defined dogma.

St. Thomas’ belief in Baptism of Desire did not keep him from holding and teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church. The issue wasn’t staring him in the face. There weren’t people running around putting Jews and Mohammedans in heaven by virtue of what he said in his Summa. In the midst of sheer indifferentism, Father Feeney looked for causes, and when he saw everyone screaming “Baptism of Desire!” be began to question the opinion which he himself had been taught. Today, you can’t talk about no salvation outside the Church without someone bring up Baptism of Desire. To St. Thomas, ignorant natives on a desert isle were subjects of God’s providence and God would provide for them if they were of good will; but today, they are subjects of Baptism of Desire and they go to heaven worshipping whatever devil suits their fancy.

Still, there is a problem right there is St. Thomas. It is this, you cannot really hold that there is no salvation outside the Church without holding the necessity of the Sacrament. It destroys the reality of the Mystical Body. How? Baptism is necessary for admission into the Church. The popes assure us of this; Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas and Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, to name two recent examples. Nobody really challenges this. If the theology of the Mystical Body as it was taught by Pope Pius XII is to be defended, then Baptism of Desire has to be condemned.

I will reiterate a point I made two years ago at this conference in my talk on the doctrine of the Mystical Body: In the very same conversation with Nicodemus in which our Lord teaches the necessity of Baptism, he also says this: “And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that come down from heaven, even the Son of man who is in heaven.” Commenting on these words, the great St. Augustine, the doctor of the Mystical Body, says, “The spiritual birth shall be of such sort, as that men from being earthly shall become heavenly: which will not be possible, except they are made members of Me; so that he who ascends, becomes one with Him who descended. Our Lord accounts His body, that is, His Church, as Himself.”

(countinued)
 
(the final one)

It contradicts the plain meaning of Our Lord’s words in the Gospel of St. John.
The second reason we should not believe in Baptism of Desire — and the one that Father Feeney eventually adopted as his greatest apologetic — is that it contradicts our Lord’s words as recorded in the Gospel of St. John, “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the Kingdom of God.”

Our Lord did not make the statement, “Unless a man is baptized, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Had he said that, then the proponents of metaphorical baptisms may be able to apply his words to the non-sacramental types of baptism. No, our Lord referred to Baptism by its very constituent parts: the external rite and the internal workings of the Holy Ghost. In other words, he used a phrase which unambiguously refers to the Sacrament.

I’ll give you an example of another use of this same technique. If I wanted to make the statement that only angels were allowed to partake of the Beatific Vision before Ascension Thursday, I could simply say, “Only angels were allowed to partake of the Beatific Vision before Ascension Thursday.” But we know that there are metaphorical uses of the word “angel,” such as the prophesy about St. John the Baptist in the book of Malachias, quoted by St. Matthew, “Behold I send my angel and he shall prepare the way before my face.” If someone applied such a metaphorical meaning to my statement about the Beatific Vision, it would compromise the exactness of what I was trying to say. But if I said, “Only created pure spirits were allowed to partake of the Beatific Vision before Ascension Thursday,” I would then have defined the very essence of and angel. I would have preempted any metaphorical understanding of my statement. This is what our Lord did in saying “born again of water and the Holy Ghost” instead of “baptized.”

Now I can just hear the objection, “But that Scriptural passage has to be understood the way the Church understands it!” OK, fine. In infallible pronouncements, one in the Council of Florence, and three in the Council of Trent, the Church directly and literally applies these words to the Sacrament of Baptism. I have the citations if anyone wants to see get them. As an aside, even Vatican II applies John 3:5 to the Sacrament!

Conclusion
…
I would like to make a short meditation on the piercing of our Lord’s side, using these words from St. John’s Gospel, “But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.” This passage expresses the birth of the Church and the incarnate reality of the Sacraments — especially Baptism and the Holy Eucharist.
The meditation will consist of a mental exercise. I want to build a chapel in your minds. We can call it, in honor of the Saint commemorated by the Church today, St. Augustine’s chapel. We have an altar with a tabernacle, and high above it, a large, and vivid crucifixion scene, in the very graphic Spanish style. Our Lady and St. John are there, and St. John’s eyes are fixed on the miraculous issue of blood and water flowing from our Lord’s corpse. In the pulpit of our little chapel, stands a bishop named St. Augustine and he preaches on this scene, using the actual words he penned during his lifetime about our text from St. John’s Gospel.

“The Evangelist has expressed himself cautiously; not struck, or wounded, but opened His side: whereby was opened the gate of life, from whence the sacraments of the church flowed, without which we cannot enter into that life which is the true life; And forthwith came thereout blood and water. That blood was shed for the remission of sins, that water tempers the cup of salvation. This it was which was prefigured when Noah was commanded to make a door in the side of the ark, by which the animals that were not to perish by the deluge entered; which animals prefigured the church. To shadow forth this, the woman was made out of the side of the sleeping man; for this second Adam bowed His head and slept on the cross, that out of that which came therefrom, there might be formed a wife for Him. O death, by which the dead are quickened, what can be purer than that blood, what more salutary than that wound!”

In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
 
well where do i start —baptism of desire --is an implicit desire to follow God to the best of ones ability --thus if a person has the virute of faith which meanS if he knew the truth he would execpt it…i would say that u do have to beleive it as a catholic because of a number of reasons 1. u can certainly quote a number of documents that affirm "outside the church ther is no salvation…“4 th lateran council, florence unam sanctam, trent, athanasius creed etc… remeber though that church documents must be interpreted the way the church understands them…if u accept father feeny’s postion u must believe that these documents teach that explicit faith and water baptism are always always always absolutley necessary for salvation…THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE MAGISTERIUM, IN ITS ORDIANRY CAPACITY REJECTS THIS NOTION, UNDER PIUS XII THE HOLY OFFICE ISSUED A LETTER TO THE FAITH FUL IN THE FEENEY CASE AFFIRMING “OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION,” BUT ALSO SAID “THAT FAITH THAT LEADS TO SALVATION NEED NOT ALWAYS BE EXPLICIT…” SO THE HOLY OFFICE, APPROVED BY THE POPE INTERPRETTED “OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION,” CONTRARY TO LEONARD FEENEY … SO U MUST HOLD THAT THERE IS AT LEAST A POSSIBILITY THAT SOMEONE COULD HAVE IMPLICIT FAITH (BAPTISM OF DESIRE) ALTHOUGH U DONT HAVE TO ACTUALLY BELIEVE ANYONE IS “INVINCIBLY IGNORANT…” u could be in goodd standing by saying that " yes i beleive the church teaches that if someone is invincibly ignorant they can be saved, but i highly doubt anyone is actually invincibly ignorant…” u cannt say however that the church doesnt at all teach that an implicit desire, if it existed, would lead one to salvation…
 
40.png
marineboy:
well where do i start —baptism of desire --is an implicit desire to follow God to the best of ones ability --thus if a person has the virute of faith which meanS if he knew the truth he would execpt it…i would say that u do have to beleive it as a catholic because of a number of reasons 1. u can certainly quote a number of documents that affirm "outside the church ther is no salvation…“4 th lateran council, florence unam sanctam, trent, athanasius creed etc… remeber though that church documents must be interpreted the way the church understands them…if u accept father feeny’s postion u must believe that these documents teach that explicit faith and water baptism are always always always absolutley necessary for salvation…THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE MAGISTERIUM, IN ITS ORDIANRY CAPACITY REJECTS THIS NOTION, UNDER PIUS XII THE HOLY OFFICE ISSUED A LETTER TO THE FAITH FUL IN THE FEENEY CASE AFFIRMING “OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION,” BUT ALSO SAID “THAT FAITH THAT LEADS TO SALVATION NEED NOT ALWAYS BE EXPLICIT…” SO THE HOLY OFFICE, APPROVED BY THE POPE INTERPRETTED “OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION,” CONTRARY TO LEONARD FEENEY … SO U MUST HOLD THAT THERE IS AT LEAST A POSSIBILITY THAT SOMEONE COULD HAVE IMPLICIT FAITH (BAPTISM OF DESIRE) ALTHOUGH U DONT HAVE TO ACTUALLY BELIEVE ANYONE IS “INVINCIBLY IGNORANT…” u could be in goodd standing by saying that " yes i beleive the church teaches that if someone is invincibly ignorant they can be saved, but i highly doubt anyone is actually invincibly ignorant…” u cannt say however that the church doesnt at all teach that an implicit desire, if it existed, would lead one to salvation…
Click to expand...
The only faith that need not be explicit is that of infants. They have no ability to have faith; therefore, they can have an implicit Faith, if you can use hat terminology, but no one else can or does.

There are probably very few people if any that are invincibly ignorant, but if they are, they are not saved by being such. They are saved either by natural or supernatural means, which St. Thomas Aquinas said, could include God sending an angel, if necessary, to teach the person the truths of the Faith (which would, of course, include Baptism). For a natural means, of couse, He could send missionaries to such a person.

Did you read what Fr. Muller wrote, which I suggested to you in another thread?
 
**Why not one more thread for EENS and Baptism of Desire? **
Click to expand...
  1. We do not have the personnel to follow up on the implications (Missionaries for conversion.)
  2. With advances in science and communication, man has moved into automated salvation vs the old 1 by 1 conversion.
    Example:
    Our grandparents went thru the store checkout, put each item on the counter, the clerk typed in the price, then summed it up, then you put the cash on the counter, clerk counted it, bagged your stuff, helped you to your car (buggy).
    BUT today, we go to the self-serve counter, slide the stuff across a scanner, pay with a card in a slot, and bag it ourselves. No need to talk or listen to another human being!
    This is called Self-service Checkout.
    In this analogy, man has likewise progressed in salvation theology… you don’t have to go thru that lengthy conversion process. You just sincerely desire it, and it’s yours…lately, with further advances in theological technology, you only have to have an unconscious desire ie you don’t even have to think of it…none of that 19th cent. going to church, having catechesis, ceremonies and rites, getting washed in water, getting involved with other people, etc.
    And you get to skip the church with all the rules and study…you are now saved outside the membership in any church, since the only true church is the human race…since the Incarnation. We just discovered this, and thank g we did…with the busy schedules and all.
    This is called Self-Salvation.
    The last reason is:
    Everyone who has an opinion on these matters has cast it in stone. We call this mental rigor-mortice.
    VERY few will go back to the old “affirmations” (aka dogmas).
You can’t stop progress!
God Bless
 
I for one hold to the belief in baptism by desire in some form for two reasons:
  1. It is taught in the Catechism (par 1259). Since the catechism is a more sure norm of the Catholic faith than anyone’s opinion, this is the only reason a faithful Cathloic needs.
  2. I know of one Biblical example - the thief on the cross. He was not baptized and did not die for the faith, yet Jesus admitted him to heaven.
 
40.png
pnewton:
I for one hold to the belief in baptism by desire in some form for two reasons:
  1. It is taught in the Catechism (par 1259). Since the catechism is a more sure norm of the Catholic faith than anyone’s opinion, this is the only reason a faithful Cathloic needs.
  2. I know of one Biblical example - the thief on the cross. He was not baptized and did not die for the faith, yet Jesus admitted him to heaven.
Click to expand...
  1. The CCC is not infallible. In fact, it has been corrected nearly 100 (or possibly more) times. If you have a little white one, you can see how many times it was changed, since the corrections are in the back. Who knows if it will be changed yet again to bring this point into line with Tradition. It is clear, then, that no matter how many times it is said by the Pope or anyone else that the CCC is a “sure norm”, it does not make it such. How can it be sure if it is being corrected and changed? It is not sure; it is a changing document. I would stick with what is infallibly defined by the Church and what is infallibly defined as heretical by the Church, which if going by that, Baptism of Desire would be heretical.
  2. St. Dismas (the Good Thief) did not need to be baptized, for Baptism had not yet been instituted as necessary. The Great Commision had not yet been given by Christ to teach all nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. St. Alphonsus de Ligouri and St. Robert Bellarmine (among other Doctors, I believe, and basing their statements on the Council of Trent) have declared that the necessity for Baptism did not commence until Pentecost day. No matter what, though, it is impossible to assert that the requirement could have taken place before the Ascension, since just before it Christ gave the command to baptize all nations. Therefore, Baptism was not necessary until long after the death of St. Dismas.
In any event, it is only obvious that there had to be some point in history in which Baptism became necessary, for there must be a certain point in history in which the Old Law ceased to exist and the New Law superceded it. When the New Law superceded the Old, Baptism became necessary at this time, which according to the holy Saints and Doctors, was at Pentecost day, which makes sense since this is when the Apostles were able to fulfill the command of Christ by being able to communicate with those of divers tongues.
 
CatholicCrusade said:
1) . It is clear, then, that no matter how many times it is said by the Pope or anyone else that the CCC is a “sure norm”, it does not make it such. How can it be sure if it is being corrected and changed? It is not sure; it is a changing document. I would stick with what is infallibly defined by the Church and what is infallibly defined as heretical by the Church, which if going by that, Baptism of Desire would be heretical.
.
Click to expand...

I agree that the CCC is not infallable. I never said it was. I just trust it a lot more than your reasoning. You have said the Pope is wrong, the Catechism contains heresy and used Fr. Feeney’s arguement (who was excommunicated for heresy).
 
40.png
pnewton:
I agree that the CCC is not infallable. I never said it was. I just trust it a lot more than your reasoning. You have said the Pope is wrong, the Catechism contains heresy and used Fr. Feeney’s arguement (who was excommunicated for heresy).
Click to expand...
Fr. Feeney was not excommunicated for heresy. He was excommunicated for “disobedience” which was later rescinded, as it was clear that Father did not have any canonical obligation to go to Rome as Pius XII wanted him to, since he was given no reason, even after having requested one many times. This was clearly against Canon Law. For that reason, Paul VI lifted the “excommunication” (if it was even valid) that was imposed by Pius XII simply by Fr. Feeney reciting the Athanasian Creed, which, above all other Creeds of the Church, affirms the absolute necessity of the Church.

I ask you not to rely on my reasoning. On the contrary, simply listen to the Church’s infallible councils. That which is fallible (CCC) cannot trump that which is infallible and spoken from the mouth of God through the Church.
 
40.png
CatholicCrusade:
Why not one more thread for EENS and Baptism of Desire?
Click to expand...
  1. Because it’s been done to death.
  2. Because the supporters (at least here) of the rigorist Feeneyite position of EENS have no support in the Catechism or Canon Law.
John

“Oh, rubbish! You have no power here.” – Glinda, The Good Witch
 
catholicrusade unfortuanetley for u the church has ruled on the interpretation of extra ecclessiam nulla salus and the holy office uses the word salvation… read the letter of the holy office in the father feeney case…IT CANNOT BE REFERING TO INFANTS SINCE THE CONTROVERSY OVER FEENEY DEALT WITH ADULTS WHO COULD OR COULD NOT BE SAVED BASED ON THEIR IMPLICIT OR EXPLICIT FAITH… THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE CHURCH NO WHERE SAYS THESE EXACT WORDS “EXPLICIT FAITH IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSAR IN EVERY AND ALL CIRCUMSTANCES” OR “WATER BAPTISM IS NECESSARY IN EVERY AND ALL CIRCUMSTANCES” BUT WHAT IT DOES SAY IS THAT IMPLICIT FAITH CAN LEAD TO SALVATION–SO GUEES WHAT UR WRONG !!! READ THE LETTER THAT THE HOLY OFFICE ISSUED
 
The Holy Council of Trent

Canons on Baptism

Can V. If anyone saith that Baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation, let him be anathema.

Can II. If anyone saith that trure and natural water is not necessary for Baptism and thus wrests into some sort of meaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost”, let him be anathema.

Let us apply a simple Syllogism.

Water is necessary for Baptism.
Baptism is necessary for salvation.
Water is necessary for salvation.

The word “Baptism” is not qualified in the Canons. It MUST, then, be assumed that the word “Baptism” in Can. II is the same as in Can. V.

It really is not very difficult.

As you can see, the Church has said that water Baptism is absolutely necessary in all circumstances.

Moreover, as far as eliciting explicit Faith, the Church teaches that those who have come to the age of use must elict the Faith that God exists, that God is Remunerator (rewarder), the Incarnation, and the Blessed Trinity. This is what St. Thomas Aquinas defined as necessary, and these are at least commonly held among theologians as being necessary (at least those who believe in outside the Church no salvation, which is few if any of modern ‘theologians’).
 
40.png
CatholicCrusade:
Fr. Feeney was not excommunicated for heresy. He was excommunicated for “disobedience” which was later rescinded, as it was clear that Father did not have any canonical obligation to go to Rome as Pius XII wanted him to, since he was given no reason, even after having requested one many times. This was clearly against Canon Law. For that reason, Paul VI lifted the “excommunication” (if it was even valid) that was imposed by Pius XII simply by Fr. Feeney reciting the Athanasian Creed, which, above all other Creeds of the Church, affirms the absolute necessity of the Church.
.
Click to expand...
Citation, please. My understanding is that the excommunication was never lifted. Something occured before a notary, but nothing with the approval of a bishop or the Pope.
 
Crusader: I would be my understanding that the afforementioned canon of the Council of Trent is referring to the heresy that the ‘saving baptism’ is a solely spiritual event, as Evangelicalism teaches, rather than a sacrament. The canon is not referring to extraordinary situations, but simply the nature of salvic baptism mentioned in Scripture.
 
Why not one more thread?

marine boy and Catholic Crusade won’t listen. They have made their mind up on what they believe despite flying in the face of the teaching of the Church. The fact they deride the Catechism despite

scborromeo.org/ccc/prologue.htm#III

POSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
FIDEI DEPOSITUM

ON THE PUBLICATION OF THE

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

PREPARED FOLLOWING THE SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

JOHN PAUL, BISHOP
SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD
FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pt 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.

scborromeo.org/ccc/aposcons.htm

says it all. I’m not bothered that they hold these opinions, the problem is this attitude only further distances protestants from us who are genuinely approaching the Catholic Church. Ironic, certainly for marineboy, that his tactics only frustrate what he wants to achieve.

Again, rad trads, read carefully…

The Catholic Church makes claims about herself that are easily misunderstood, especially in the modern atmosphere of pluralism and ecumenism. Among these claims, the most fundamental is the doctrine of the Church’s necessity for salvation. Not unlike other dogmas of the faith, this one has seen some remarkable development, and the dogmatic progress has been especially marked since the definition of papal infallibility. It seems that as the Church further clarified her own identity as regards the papacy and collegiality, she also deepened (without changing) her self-understanding as the mediator of salvation to mankind…

Those who are privileged to share in the fullness of the Church’s riches of revealed wisdom, sacramental power, divinely assured guidance, and blessings of community life cannot pride themselves on having deserved what they possess. Rather they should humbly recognize their chosen position and gratefully live up to the covenant to which they have been called. Otherwise what began as a sign of God’s special favor on earth may end as a witness to his justice in the life to come.

Fr John Hardon SJ
ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ315.HTM
 
Objection 1. It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (John 3:5): “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” But those alone are saved who enter God’s kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.

Objection 2. Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: “We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism.” But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have the “faith that worketh by charity” (Gal. 5:6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.

Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary “without which something cannot be” (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that “some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit.” Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.

I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.

Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of “faith that worketh by charity,” whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: “I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for.”

Reply to Objection 1. As it is written (1 Kgs. 16:7), “man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart.” Now a man who desires to be “born again of water and the Holy Ghost” by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Rm. 2:29) that “the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God.”

Reply to Objection 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom “contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism,” i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without “faith that worketh by charity”), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, “but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire” as is stated 1 Cor. 3:15.

Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; “which, with God, counts for the deed” (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).

– Mark L. Chance, quoting Saint Thomas Aquinas
 
jgc–U ARE UNBELIEVABLE----READ MY EARLIER POSTS!!! I DISAGREE WITH CATHOLIC CRUSADER!!! I POINT OUT THE FACT THAT THE HOLY OFFICE INTERPRETED EENS OPPOSITE OF FATHER FEENEY!!! WHY DO U LINK ME WITH HIM—I SHOWED WHERE THE CHURCH UNDER PIUS THE XII STATES THAT, “FAITH THAT LEADS TO SALVATION NEED NOT ALWAYS BE EXPLICIT…” feeney believe it always had to be explicit READ MY POSTS----I AM NOT A FEENEYITE…SO PLEASE STOP SAYING IT!!! OK NOW CATHOLIC CRSADER THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT U CAN QUOTE ALL THE TRENT CANNONS U WANT…u the Church disagrees that water baptism and explicit faith are always necessary----the Holy office said no!!! so unless u can deal with that u have no argumentthe magisterium interpreted eens as opposite of ur position ----
 
40.png
marineboy:
jgc–U ARE UNBELIEVABLE----READ MY EARLIER POSTS!!! I DISAGREE WITH CATHOLIC CRUSADER!!! I POINT OUT THE FACT THAT THE HOLY OFFICE INTERPRETED EENS OPPOSITE OF FATHER FEENEY!!! WHY DO U LINK ME WITH HIM—I SHOWED WHERE THE CHURCH UNDER PIUS THE XII STATES THAT, “FAITH THAT LEADS TO SALVATION NEED NOT ALWAYS BE EXPLICIT…” feeney believe it always had to be explicit READ MY POSTS----I AM NOT A FEENEYITE…SO PLEASE STOP SAYING IT!!! OK NOW CATHOLIC CRSADER THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT U CAN QUOTE ALL THE TRENT CANNONS U WANT…u the Church disagrees that water baptism and explicit faith are always necessary----the Holy office said no!!! so unless u can deal with that u have no argumentthe magisterium interpreted eens as opposite of ur position ----
Click to expand...
No need to shout.

As I’ve said before, your posts contain much truth, albeit inarticulately stated, although often with your own twist, (i.e making it virtually impossible for protestants to be saved) which as I’ve told you before are not conducive to initiating or developing cordial dialogue with protestants. Your both wrong in different ways, Catholic Crusader is certainly worse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top