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

[JGC]

JGC:

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.

I’ve never said you are a feenyite either by the way.

 

[JGC]

marineboy, Quote by ‘robed with light’ - in response to one of your posts.

---

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=365805&postcount=17
Catholics are not too soft. You don’t necessarily win souls by simply “winning” arguments ! Any veteran Catholic apologist knows this too well.

You may “win” a debate but do you honestly think you can genuinely persuade a Protestant about the Truth in Catholicism by loudly and arrogantly telling him he’s dead wrong to his face?

Truth can be proclaimed and defended calmly and reasonably without waving your fists at their faces. Please do not confuse the method for the substance.

---

Excellent advice for you, marineboy

 

[CatholicCrusade]

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

Yes, St. Thomas, as a private theologian taught this doctrine as a SPECULATION. Moreover, he also taught that the Immaculate Conception was false. He taught nearly always correctly but not every single time. And in this he is clear that the desire is explicit, not implicit, such as the catechumens.

 

[mlchance]

CatholicCrusade:

Yes, St. Thomas, as a private theologian taught this doctrine as a SPECULATION. Moreover, he also taught that the Immaculate Conception was false. He taught nearly always correctly but not every single time.

Aquinas did not teach the Immaculate Conception was false. In fact, the principles of Aquinas provided the basis for the definition of the dogma, when it finally came. The key issue which causes this confusion is that Aquinas was very concerned to ensure that a dogma was not denied by those seeking to emphasise Mary’s sinlessness - and that dogma was the Redemption. Our Lord redeemed all men, without exception. St. Thomas’s emphasis that Mary too was redeemed is what has led to the controversy.

IOW, what Aquinas asserted that even the Blessed Virgin was redeemed. Since to claim the contrary is indeed a heresy, Aquinas was right to make this assertion. To quote Aquinas himself: “Purity is constituted by a recession from impurity, and therefore it is possible to find some creature purer than all the rest, namely one not contaminated by any taint of sin; such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin, who was immune from original and actual sin, yet under God, inasmuch as there was in her the potentiality of sin” (emphasis added).

And, now, back to Aquinas, quoting Augustine, both repeating the consistent teaching of the Church: “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’.”

This does not mean that Baptism (either by water, blood, or of desire) is sufficient for salvation. A baptised person, for example, who dies in a state of mortal sin forfeits salvation. But it does mean that, all things being equal, Baptism of desire can be the equivalent of the actual sacrament itself.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[mlchance]

CatholicCrusade:

Yes, St. Thomas, as a private theologian taught this doctrine as a SPECULATION. Moreover, he also taught that the Immaculate Conception was false. He taught nearly always correctly but not every single time. And in this he is clear that the desire is explicit, not implicit, such as the catechumens.

First point: Even if Aquinas was wrong about the Immaculate Conception, it doesn’t follow that he was wrong elsewhere.

Second point: Aquinas did not teach the Immaculate Conception was false, so your logically spurious red herring is doubly wrong.

The confusion about Aquinas’s teaching on the Immaculate Conception arises because Aquinas was quite concerned that with the Immaculate Conception people not deny an essential doctrine - namely that all people are redeemed by Christ Jesus.

Aquinas insisted that even the Blessed Virgin was redeemed by Christ Jesus, and that her sinlessness, to include not being affected by original sin, results only from this redemption.

To quote Aquinas: “Purity is constituted by a recession from impurity, and therefore it is possible to find some creature purer than all the rest, namely one not contaminated by any taint of sin; such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin, who was immune from original and actual sin, yet under God, inasmuch as there was in her the potentiality of sin” (emphasis added).

Now, back to Baptism of desire: “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’” (emphasis added).

Aquinas here, quoting Augustine of Hippo, merely reiterates the consistent teaching of the Church. Baptism, whether by blood, water, or of desire, is not sufficient for salvation, but it is necessary. Neither Aquinas nor anyone else posting in here that I’ve read is not saying that Baptism of desire automatically saves a person. That claim would be absurd, since the sacrament of Baptism itself cannot do that.

Instead, what the Church claims, and Aquinas and Augustine explain, is that Baptism of desire can do exactly that which the sacrament of Baptism does. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Now, given that almost all Protestant sects practice sacramentally valid Baptism, the real issue isn’t one of Baptism per se, but is rather one of reconciliation for sins committed after Baptism. Baptism of desire, like normative Baptism, is irrelevant to this question. After all, anyone, even if they are baptised, who dies in a state of mortal sin forfeits salvation.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[TNT]

CatholicCrusade:

Yes, St. Thomas, as a private theologian taught this doctrine as a SPECULATION.

Innocent question. Did Trent reference Aquinas in the canons on Baptism and justification?

Also, have hope. If St Thomas got to heaven while teaching the wrong theology, can’t we at least hope that we can too while teaching the wrong things?
Be it EENS heavy or EENS lite or EENS fat-free!

BTW: Lots of intelligent/famous prots. converted by believing in EENS-heavy. It did not drive them away. People come for all kinds of legitimate reasons, including those that have nothing to do with EENS. They just wanted to believe in what was true.
Bishop George Hay converted more Americans than any other clergy, including Bp Sheen. He was EENS-heavy. He wrote 2 books also, one, The Sincere Christian is a classic.
See:
catholictradition.org/salvation.htm
What a great read! A REAL Bishop in every sense.

The certitude of EESN-heavy keeping prots out of the RCC is really a feeling, not a fact.
I am not a hammer for any of the versions of EENS, but the lighter you get, the further you drift from Scripture which is the Prot’s. catechism.

God Bless
And a Happy and Holy Christmashttp://www.geocities.com/shangrala_shangy/holiday6.gif
http://www.geocities.com/shangrala_shangy/xmastree.gif
Animation by:
geocities.com/shangrala_shangy/agifs.html

 

[mlchance]

Gah! I have committed the unpardonable offense of the double negative!

mlchance:

Neither Aquinas nor anyone else posting in here that I’ve read is not saying that Baptism of desire automatically saves a person. That claim would be absurd, since the sacrament of Baptism itself cannot do that.

The emphasized word above should not be. The section should read:

mlchance:

Neither Aquinas nor anyone else posting in here that I’ve read is saying that Baptism of desire automatically saves a person. That claim would be absurd, since the sacrament of Baptism itself cannot do that.

Bad double negative! Bad!

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[TNT]

marineboy:

jgc–U ARE UNBELIEVABLE-Church disagrees that water baptism and explicit faith

are always necessary----the Holy office said **no!!!..**WHAT IT DOES SAY IS THAT IMPLICIT FAITH CAN LEAD TO SALVATION–

See! Don’t say I didn’t warn you Crusader:
See My 1st post.#6:

…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.

With the next level of theological advancement we hope to be able to remove that word ALWAYS:
-Church disagrees that water baptism and explicit faith are _____ necessary----the Holy office said no!!!..
Then this abominable keystone in the arch will be gone until judgement day. I can’t wait. We already have the Jews on safe ground by Card, Kasper.Maybe the next pope, for sure…
http://www.geocities.com/shangrala_shangy/kids2.gif

Now, read my Signature one more time

 

[CatholicCrusade]

“Also, have hope. If St Thomas got to heaven while teaching the wrong theology, can’t we at least hope that we can too while teaching the wrong things?
Be it EENS heavy or EENS lite or EENS fat-free!”

I assume this is a satire, since of course teaching: “this MIGHT be a possibility” (and before it had been completely defined out at Florence) and saying: there is no doubt; there is salvation outside the Church, are two bery different things.

It would be similar to saying: St. Augustine went to Heaven teaching that everyone must receive Holy Communion (without exception) to be saved, so we can teach it, too.

N.B. He taught that before he came to the “conclusion” that there are different ways of baptism–so that everyone knows he also said there is a forgiveness of sins through penance, so anyone who suffers would be said to have a baptism, as well. If you want to prescribe to St. Augustine on Baptism, then do it fully or not at all.

 

[TNT]

CatholicCrusade...Be it EENS heavy or EENS lite or EENS fat-free!":

I assume this is a satire

…
Yooh! If you read the whole post you can hardly miss it.

 

[TNT]

CatholicCrusade:

Be it EENS heavy or EENS lite or EENS fat-free!"
I assume this is a satire…

Yooh! If you read the whole post and #28, you can hardly miss it.

but the lighter you get, the further you drift from Scripture which is the Prot’s. catechism

 

[agent_grey]

I am no master of truth. But if I am not mistaken one doesn’t need a valid priest to perform valid baptism.

Therefor if one desires a baptism they simply get the closest person whom is willing to say(In the name of the Father, the name of the Son, the name of the Holy Spirit). Any Athiest, Catholic, or Prot you can find can confer a valid baptism. So How is baptism of desire even a discusion… Unless you are stuck in a desert and there is absolutely no rain or water to be found. Attempt a baptism in the desert and I bet you get rain.

 

[TMC]

CatholicCrusade:
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.

You have participated in so many of these discussions, how can you type this when you know it is untrue? Do you think we haven’t read Church documents. Your no Pope, and no Council argument is only true if John Paul II was not Pope, and Vatican II was not a Council.

 

[pnewton]

FYI - This thread is over three years old, so it is hard to hold posters to what the say, if they may have reversed opinions or have left.

 

[TMC]

FYI - This thread is over three years old, so it is hard to hold posters to what the say, if they may have reversed opinions or have left.

Yikes. My apologies to all. This thread got bumped back up and I didn’t check the date.

 

[agent_grey]

my bad… I stumbled across this from google and revived it without realizing it was a dead thread.

Sorry.