Can there be exceptions to Dogma?

The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; CCC 1257

1453 The contrition called "imperfect" (or "attrition") is also a gift of God, a prompting of the Holy Spirit. It is born of the consideration of sin's ugliness or the fear of eternal damnation and the other penalties threatening the sinner (contrition of fear). Such a stirring of conscience can initiate an interior process which, under the prompting of grace, will be brought to completion by sacramental absolution. By itself however, imperfect contrition cannot obtain the forgiveness of grave sins, but it disposes one to obtain forgiveness in the sacrament of Penance.

Jehanne wrote:Baptism of Desire does not provide "assurance" because it would not remit mortal sins where the individual only had imperfect contrition:

1453 The contrition called "imperfect" (or "attrition") is also a gift of God, a prompting of the Holy Spirit. It is born of the consideration of sin's ugliness or the fear of eternal damnation and the other penalties threatening the sinner (contrition of fear). Such a stirring of conscience can initiate an interior process which, under the prompting of grace, will be brought to completion by sacramental absolution. By itself however, imperfect contrition cannot obtain the forgiveness of grave sins, but it disposes one to obtain forgiveness in the sacrament of Penance.

From that time onward when our Saviour said, "If any one is not reborn from water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God," no one can receive either the kingdom of heaven or eternal life without the Sacrament of Baptism, apart from those who poured out their blood for Christ in the Catholic Church but without baptism...

The holy synod especially condemns and censures, in the book, the assertion which is scandalous, erroneous in the faith and offensive to the ears of the pious faithful, namely: Christ sins daily and has sinned daily from his very beginning, even though he avers that he does not understand this as of Christ our saviour, head of the church, but as referring to his members, which together with Christ the head form the one Christ, as he asserts. Also, the propositions, and ones similar to them, which the synod declares are contained in the articles condemned at the sacred council of Constance, namely the following. Not all the justified faithful are members of Christ, but only the elect, who finally will reign with Christ for ever. The members of Christ, from whom the church is constituted, are taken according to the ineffable foreknowledge of God; and the church is constituted only from those who are called according to his purpose of election. To be a member of Christ, it is not enough to be united with him in the bond of charity, some other union is needed. Also the following...

"Greater love than this no one has, that one lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13)

Jehanne wrote:Rasha,

....so Baptism of Desire and/or Baptism of Blood would only apply to those "who, through no fault of their own..."

RashaLampa said:

So if I follow your logic we must teach that there is No Salvation Outside the Church and everyone must be baptized with water, even though not everyone really needs to be baptized with water? There are no exceptions but there might be a few exceptions?

George wrote:
IF and I say if God granted that an aborted baby were to be in Heaven with Him that is NOT an exception to needing Baptism of water. God is not bound by His Sacraments.

“Children while in the mother’s womb have not yet come forth into the world to live among other men. Consequently they cannot be subject to the action of man, so as to receive the sacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be subject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification; as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb.” (Summa Theologica IIIa, q.68, a.11, ad 1)

By these measures the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools. (Council of Florence, Session 22 -- 15 October 1435)

Jehanne wrote:Columba,

Saint Thomas stated,

“Children while in the mother’s womb have not yet come forth into the world to live among other men. Consequently they cannot be subject to the action of man, so as to receive the sacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be subject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification; as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb.” (Summa Theologica IIIa, q.68, a.11, ad 1)

Likewise, the Council of Florence stated,

By these measures the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools. (Council of Florence, Session 22 -- 15 October 1435)

As stated above (3; 62, 5), the whole power of the sacraments flows from Christ's Passion, which belongs to Him as man. And Him in their very nature men, not angels, resemble; indeed, in respect of His Passion, He is described as being "a little lower than the angels" (Hebrews 2:9). Consequently, it belongs to men, but not to angels, to dispense the sacraments and to take part in their administration.

But it must be observed that as God did not bind His power to the sacraments, so as to be unable to bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament; so neither did He bind His power to the ministers of the Church so as to be unable to give angels power to administer the sacraments. And since good angels are messengers of truth; if any sacramental rite were performed by good angels, it should be considered valid, because it ought to be evident that this is being done by the will of God: for instance, certain churches are said to have been consecrated by the ministry of the angels [See Acta S.S., September 29]. But if demons, who are "lying spirits," were to perform a sacramental rite, it should be pronounced as invalid. (Summa Theologica III, q.64, a.7)

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." (Summa Theologica III, q.68, a.2)

Columba said:
If God DID grant that an non-baptized aborted baby entered heaven then that indeed would be an exceptrion to the need for Baptism. It matters not whether God binds himself to act exclusively through the sacraments of His Church (not all of which are necessary for all but at least one is necessary for all) the non-baptized baby entering heaven would remain an exception to the necessity of Baptism. If you say there are no eceptions how can this be?

George Brenner wrote:

Columba said:
If God DID grant that an non-baptized aborted baby entered heaven then that indeed would be an exceptrion to the need for Baptism. It matters not whether God binds himself to act exclusively through the sacraments of His Church (not all of which are necessary for all but at least one is necessary for all) the non-baptized baby entering heaven would remain an exception to the necessity of Baptism. If you say there are no eceptions how can this be?

There are many reasons for the Crisis of Faith that we are in today. The lack of consistent and proper catechesis during and after VCII has been either erroneous, contradictory or confusing. For the most part Catholics have not been taught the Faith and thus the deplorable decline in practicing Catholics versus Catholics in name only or worst yet smorgasbord Catholics.

Throughout the centuries the Church has taught the possibility of Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and invincible ignorance. Proper catechesis should have taught these as possibilities and not as choices that Catholics can be taught as options to choose from. The Baltimore Catechism teaches that a person could receive Baptism of Desire if they had decided to receive Baptism of water but that it was "IMPOSSIBLE " to receive the sacrament. The Baltimore catechism does not expound on why it might be impossible. Since Baptism of Desire is not known to us on earth, a situation like this along with that persons moral stature would be known only to God for judgement.

There are no exceptions to Baptism of water as being necessary for Salvation. So for me or anyone to say that God would be making an exception if He granted Salvation by Baptism of Desire, that would be very presumptuous at the very least. The truth of the matter is that we do not know and should not say that it would be an exception, addition , extention or any other word we might want to attach to this possibility.

As Jehanne has probably posted more than anyone that if God sent an angel to baptize or God baptized someone Himself or as Mike and I have posted many times that the methods and ways that God might use are not for us to judge and certainly not to speculate upon. God is God and we dare not limit or question his love, mercy and justice.

This topic is very important potentially in the SSPX and Vatican discussions but for all of us on this forum we will NEVER in all likelihood encounter anyone that we teach , answer , discuss, argue(hope not) or even post on forums on this subject other than that you must receive Baptism of water and that there is No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church......No Exceptions . Just for one example alone that if God Himself baptized with water we could not use the word Exception.

JMJ,
George

RashaLampa wrote:Cowboy, a quick Google search indicates that the "not bound to the sacraments" quote is from St. Thomas Aquinas. The EWTN website quotes it and indicates it is from the Summa. I just searched the Summa though and I cannot find it.

As taken from:
complete text available at: http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7mVQ59hPaioAYvtXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1ZzZoNnUxBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA01TWTAwOF8xMTQ-/SIG=12bg2d1eu/EXP=1339643856/**http%3a//www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/index.htm
Summa Theologica

by St. Thomas Aquinas

Translated by The Fathers of the English Dominican Province

[1947]

Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?

" Objection 1: It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (Jn. 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 (A[1]; Q[65], A[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 Kings 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 (Rom. 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). "

Missouri Mark wrote:Jehanne,

First you make the case that Angels can administer sacraments, then you make the case that persons can receive sanctification without man or angels administering the sacrament of baptism. If God says nobody can receive salvation without being water baptized in John 3:5, then are there exceptions to this truth? Why would God allow some persons to receive salvation without water baptism, when doing so would change what God says in John 3:5? In doing so, John 3:5 would no longer mean what it says. Also, why would you not think that God sends angels to baptize in every single case whereby man was unable to baptize? Wouldn't it make more sense to believe God sends Angels to baptize and therefore the meaning of John 3:5 remains the same?

Saint Aquinas is also on record saying "If need be, God would send an Angel to baptize"

cowboy wrote:

RashaLampa wrote:Cowboy, a quick Google search indicates that the "not bound to the sacraments" quote is from St. Thomas Aquinas. The EWTN website quotes it and indicates it is from the Summa. I just searched the Summa though and I cannot find it.

I've had the same experience. I can't find it in any original authoritative source. So I hope the baptism of desire advocates can and if they can't then it seems to be a construction just for the CCC. This would give it very little authority.

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." [III, 68, A2]

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). [III, 68, A2, ad 3]