How Many Church Fathers supported Baptism of Desire?

MarianLibrarian wrote:If you guys are going to keep messing with font colors, then Rasha needs to make the background white.

I second that... Hva thought for us of failing eyesight.

columba wrote:

MarianLibrarian wrote:If you guys are going to keep messing with font colors, then Rasha needs to make the background white.

I second that... Hva thought for us of failing eyesight.

My eyesight isn't failing... yet.

I just have to keep re-adjusting the settings on my monitor or highlight the text to read it without squinting.

MarianLibrarian wrote:
If you guys are going to keep messing with font colors, then Rasha needs to make the background white.

Oh my gosh, I would love to have a white background. This stuff bothers my 51 yr old eyes also.

I like to bold or highlight some things I write, because I know some people only have time to skim long posts. But the bold doesn't show up in white text and all the colors look blurry to me and are difficult to read. On my computer monitor the brown (that comes out looking reddish) is easy to read. So I settled on that color to highlight. If that one is bad too for others, then I am stuck.

Columba: “Speaking of Pascendi's. the last topic I got reading there before its suden demise was to do with "Flat earth vs Round earth." I bet you remember that one?
What I learnt from this was that an argument can be made for, or against almost anything.”

Oh, Columba, I certainly do remember fondly the “Curvature of the Earth” thread. When I watched online as Paul/Pascendi deleted it the night he deleted the whole forum, it made me sad. I told some friends here how surprised I was that that thread was the one I was going to miss the most. Elaine was a nice lady. Did you get to read the whole thread? I still have my posts in my Word file. But all of Mike’s beautiful pictures are all gone.

While it’s true that an argument can be made for just about anything, that doesn’t mean that a valid or legitimate or well proven or well thought out argument can be made for anything. I personally don’t like arguing, but I like seeking the truth. I think you may be the same.

Columba: “So, I'm wondering, can any of our positions on this topic be proved beyond doubt?
But isn't this exactly where the Church steps in and pronounces her verdict, which, is the same as God stepping in and pronouncing His verdict?
My contention is, that we are in fact discussing something that already has been definitively resolved by this means.”

No, of course not all of our positions on this topic can be proven beyond a doubt. Because the Holy Spirit has not yet revealed all the details of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood to the Church yet. So, like I just said on another thread, some of this is still a mystery. There is nothing wrong with holy mystery, which the Eastern Church embraces. We don’t need to know all the details to have faith and trust in the teachings of the Church. Just because we don’t understand how 2 truths can be reconciled doesn’t mean they can’t be reconciled and both be right. And the Holy Spirit will reveal the details when He sees fit, if He ever sees fit.

So maybe someone personally can’t understand how baptism is necessary for salvation, yet some may be saved through faith, charity, repentance and baptism of desire. But the Church teaches both, so we can trust that they can be reconciled.

Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that you have to understand it all for it to be true or for it to be taught by the Church. And don’t think you need to have an opinion on this right away. Take your time and pray about it. But don’t deny that the Church definitely has always taught Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood in some form and that it has formally taught it a millennium. Formally, but not defined. Not infallible, but needing assent.

It is ludicrous to think that the Church in all her catechisms since Trent has somehow been wrong on this point and doesn’t understand her own teachings. This isn’t some new Vatican II belief. There is no reason for any Catholic to run from it. Doesn’t mean anyone has to stand up and cheer it either. Just let it be. Assent to the POSSIBILITY that some souls MAY be saved in some mysterious way you do not understand by the power of our most merciful, just and omnipotent God.

I feel very comfortable that God can grant grace to His elect in the normal way through visible water baptism while one is conscious and that He may resurrect some miraculously to demonstrate both His power and rule and importance of His precepts.

And I am comfortable that God may baptize some of His elect (who He knows have explicit faith and are part of His Church) as He sees fit in a way that is invisible to us here on earth. Perhaps in the moments between life and death. Perhaps baptizing them Himself with His own holy water. (Someone on Pascendi’s website brought up the book of Revelation (ch 22) about “the river of life giving water” running through Heaven.) Or maybe our angels or a Saint or Our Blessed Mother may baptize a soul. Or, like I said to Rasha, maybe Our Lord baptizes these people with His own mother’s tears. “Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.”

There is nothing about the doctrine of Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood that denies the necessity of baptism or is contrary to the Church in any way. Really, do you think that the great theologians and Church authorities haven’t thought about these things? Yet they still declared these Saints Doctors of the Church who believed in Baptism of Desire.

Not one Church Father has EVER specifically denied Baptism of Desire. So we shouldn’t deny it either. Let it be. Trust in the Church’s formal teachings. All of them.

Even if you feel it’s not secure during a storm while you are in the barque of Peter, know that Our Lord is there to calm the winds when the need arises.

God bless you and all here.
Love,
Elisa

Jehanne,

I’m sorry it got too late to comment the other night on your very valid point about the Church Fathers always talking about Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood only when it relates to a catechumen.

While it is true that this was the case when they talked about “desire” per se and explicitly, I’m not sure it is ALWAYS the case when talking about salvation in general. Definitely most of the time when they talked about it though. I’m sorry I don’t have the time to look up the various quotes, but look at these that I posted here already.

St. Justin Martyr was talking about atheists and pagans belonging to the Church. St. Gregory of Nazienzen was saying his father, like others, belonged to the Church before their conversion. Seems like some sort of invincible ignorance type view.

More importantly is St. Augustine’s quote about the good thief on the cross. I’ve read several other quotes by Church Fathers about the good thief that are similar. Sorry I don’t have time to look.

St. Augustine:

“For neither was that thief crucified for the name of Christ, but as the reward of his own deeds; nor did he suffer because he believed, but he believed while suffering. It was shown, therefore, in the case of that thief, how great is the power, even without the visible sacrament of baptism, of what the apostle says, "With the heart man believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Romans 10:10 But the want is supplied invisibly only when the administration of baptism is prevented, not by contempt for religion, but by the necessity of the moment.”

But even with these, I still agree with you on the fact that only one of faith belonging to the Church would be saved. It might not be a formal catechumen, but I think that even these quotes show that the Saints believed that these people BELONGED TO THE CHURCH in some way, even if they were not formal catechumens. That they still have faith, repentance and desire and are willing to submit to whatever truths Christ reveals to them, including His one Church.

I have heard some say that the good thief doesn’t count because he was under the old law and would be like those Old Testament patriarchs in the bosom of Abraham. The problem I have with that is twofold. One, the Fathers that did discuss the thief never said that. It was not an issue for them about the thief. They wrote only that the thief was saved by the gift of “his faith” and his “desire.” Two, according to the Gospels the thief seems to have expired before Christ. Christ was already dead on the cross and for that reason was speared instead of having his legs broken like the thieves.

When actually talking about Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, the Church always talked about someone with faith belonging to the Church in some way. Either a formal catechumen or an informal one, who for what ever invincible reason was not yet a formal catechumen.

And again, while I believe it MAY happen, we need to pray and evangelize the truths of the Church as if it doesn’t happen. Because peoples’ salvation should never be left to “maybes.” There is only one sure path to salvation. Visible water baptism and faith in Christ within His one Church, along with charity and repentance.

You may think I’m “pounding on an open door,” but somehow it feels like I’m banging my head against a wall. lol Since, for some reason, Duckbill has asked for quotes and seems to be implying that baptism of desire was not always taught from the beginning, we are supplying the proof it was.

God bless you.
Love,
Elisa

(deleted; don't mind me)

Duckbill,

I wish I had the time and energy to say more to you tonight, but I simply can’t stay up so late anymore. I don’t have much time or access to the computer during the day.

So I will try and be brief. Your interpretations of the early Church Fathers is not the interpretation of the Church. You see denials of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood in their statements, but the Church doesn’t. The Church understands these things as well as you do and more. The Church has read all the Fathers and Church authorities, yet the Church teaches (formally, but not defined) baptism of desire and baptism of blood. The Church sees no contradiction or denial of the necessity of Baptism. No Father or Church authority has EVER contradicted or condemned any of the statements of the Fathers (including St. Thomas Acquinas) that talk of Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood. Instead they uphold them.

The Church has analyzed these statements for centuries and read them ALL. You said you have just started looking for all the Church Fathers’ quotes on this. A little early to form a hard opinion, especially one that is different from all the catechisms of the Church for at least the last 500 years.

You still have not shown me even ONE Church Father who specifically denied Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood. Not one. In context those quotes you posted simply talk about the necessity of baptism, which the Church has always taught and we all believe. In context those quotes are talking to catechumens who purposely delay baptism. After this I will repost what I’ve already said about St. Gregory.

Where is a statement from a Church Father or Church authority specifically saying that St. Augustine was wrong about “desire” or that St. Augustine didn’t mean Baptism of Desire? Where is a statement from a Doctor of the Church or Church authority specifically saying that St. Thomas Acquinas was wrong about baptism of desire or what he wrote about St. Augustine and St. Ambrose’s statements?

You are a good and loyal Catholic, Duckbill, and often I like the things you say about other topics. So don’t take what I am saying in the wrong way. I’m not saying you are Protestant. But I think you need to look at how you are approaching this topic.

Protestants interpret Sacred Scripture differently and apart from the way the Church interprets the Word of God. But the Church is the ONLY authority who can correctly interpret Sacred Scripture when there is a dispute.

Some SSPXers, sedes and a few radical Feeneyites (not all) at times interpret Sacred Tradition differently and apart from the way the Church interprets the Word of God. But the Church is the ONLY authority who can correctly interpret Sacred Tradition when there is a dispute.

Your interpretation of the Church Fathers is not the Church’s interpretation of them.

You said:

“I find the ones people usually use Ambrose and Augustine as really the weakest. Ambrose I doubt can even be used as a reliable source of proof.Even though Aquinas like it I find it weak.

Think about that. You are putting your opinion on the same level as St. Thomas Acquinas. Honestly, doesn’t that give you pause?

I will repeat this till I am blue in the face:

If you don’t want to believe in Baptism of Blood or Baptism of Desire, you don’t have to. No Catholic has to believe baptism of desire and baptism of blood are true or even likely or that a single case ever actually happened, but a Catholic should believe they are a POSSIBILITY. That they are not impossible.

All a Catholic has to do is assent to the POSSIBILITY of Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire, because the Church as ALWAYS (in one form or another since the beginning of the Church) said that it is POSSIBLE. Not that it definitely happened. And the Church taught this formally and consistently, but not in a defined way. Including every single catechism I know of since Trent’s, including the Baltimore Catechism of my youth and the Catechism of the Catholic Church today.

Good night, Duckbill. God bless you and all here.
Love,
Elisa

Repost about St. Gregory from another thread:

It is clearly as Mike said.

"It may be tempting to take St. Gregory out of context. But we should remember when he speaks of baptism of desire, he may have been talking about a mere wish and not a true will, as was common at the time with the high number of converts who arrived soon after the persecutions ended. In fact, this type of tepid “desire” was prevalent in St. Augustine before he finally converted. So if someone feels an inclination for baptism, but does not resolve firmly to be baptized and does not already conform his life to that of the faithful by a living faith, and puts off his baptism, he will not be rewarded by God (by entreaty) with an interior regeneration."

Elisa:

Remember St. Augustine said he prayed before his conversion, “give me faith, but not just yet.”

I do suggest that those who can, read both Orations for yourselves in their entirety. If you read only one, read 40, it is more pertinent to these discussions. If you read them both in context and in entirety you will clearly see that St. Gregory is not talking about everyone dying before being baptized losing their salvation. He is not denying baptism of blood and baptism of desire.

I especially like XX and XXI about the parable about the laborers in the vineyard. Apart from these discussions, these orations are well worth the read. “For from the day and hour at which each believed, from that day and hour he is required to work.”

He is basically saying not to wait to become a Christian and to do so when God calls you, on his time, not yours. I’m sure most of you know how back then many people waited until they were dying to be baptized. Because they wanted to live their lives the way they wanted and then at the end have the slate wiped clean of all their sins with baptism. Both forgiveness of sins and removal of temporal punishment. It is said that Constantine did this. They want to have their cake and eat it too. This is not from their heart for most and for others it’s just ignorance.

And he is also talking about the graces we receive in baptism being beneficial to us while we are still running the race. Because we receive the graces to strengthen u in life. And he warns that the covenant is to lead better lives and try and reframe from sin as much as possible so we do not need to be reconciled again after baptism, though contrition and penance. That is better than postponing baptism for only one reconciliation at the end of life. And he mentions that if you wait, you might change your mind later and not want baptism ever.

He is talking about those who postpone their baptism. Mostly on purpose and for evil, scheming, silly or ignorant reasons. Those who do not value it, may lose it.

St. Gregory talks about this in paragraph after lengthy paragraph. And in all of it, he only devotes a few short lines in one paragraph to those who die without baptism who “are prevented from receiving it, even if they wish,” including infants. He doesn’t say they are punished like the other people, but “will be neither glorified nor punished by the righteous Judge, as unsealed and yet not wicked, but persons who have suffered rather than done wrong. For not every one who is not bad enough to be punished is good enough to be honoured; just as not every one who is not good enough to be honoured is bad enough to be punished.”

So St. Gregory here is saying that not only do some infants go to limbo, some adults do as well. Some adults go to Heaven, some to Hell and some to a third place for all eternity? Limbo? Is this what you all believe? Is this what the Church has taught or is this a speculation by the great Saint and Doctor?

Another way to look at what he is doing is he is already putting people who desire baptism in a separate category. Not in Heaven, but not damned either.

But I wonder exactly who these people are that St. Gregory talks about. Because in his 2 Orations he doesn’t just talk about the water part of baptism, but being baptized with water and the Holy Spirit. Some people receive the grace for faith and charity and have the Holy Spirit before they receive baptism. (not infants) Others receive the grace during/after baptism. Some are justified before the sacrament.

Is St. Gregory talking about these people? Would an innocent, yet ignorant infant be in the same category as one of these?

Or when the Saint talks about those who “wish” or “desire” to be baptized, is he talking about good people who wanted to be baptized because in their minds they thought it was a good idea? They were on the path to receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit and being given the gift of faith, but didn’t have it yet in their hearts. They had good intentions, but did they have the desire burning in their hearts along with the Holy Spirit, like those people the Church talks about who may receive baptism of blood or baptism of desire? True faith and love of Christ. Those who had already been given grace, anticipating further grace, or those waiting for the grace for justification to be given?

This is all speculation, because, if you read the entire thing, St. Gregory isn’t really clear on this either way, not in such detail, as when he talks about those who are negligent or have evil intent. You come away feeling that what we call baptism of desire and baptism of blood was not his point in these orations.

He says, “You are speaking in riddles, if what you mean is that because of God's mercy the unenlightened is enlightened in His sight; and he is within the kingdom of heaven who merely desires to attain to it, but refrains from doing that which pertains to the kingdom.”

This line seems to indicate what I am trying to say. Is a justified catechumen “unenlightened?”

And he says, “Therefore do not delay in coming to grace, but hasten.”

What about those who already had the grace of the Holy Spirit and were awaiting the sacrament? Like some in the New Testament. They were not those “coming to grace,” but those coming to further grace and to be sealed.

Again I ask, how much “more august” would baptism of blood be, why superior to normal visible earthly water baptism, if some martyrs are not saved?

These orations were to be taken together, preached a day apart. They talk about the necessity and great gift of Baptism.


http://newadvent.org/fathers/310239.htm

Oration 39 Oration on the Holy Lights.


XVII. Now, since our Festival is of Baptism, and we must endure a little hardness with Him Who for our sake took form, and was baptized, and was crucified; let us speak about the different kinds of Baptism, that we may come out thence purified. Moses baptized Leviticus xi but it was in water, and before that in the cloud and in the sea. 1 Corinthians 10:2 This was typical as Paul says; the Sea of the water, and the Cloud of the Spirit; the Manna, of the Bread of Life; the Drink, of the Divine Drink. John also baptized; but this was not like the baptism of the Jews, for it was not only in water, but also unto repentance. Still it was not wholly spiritual, for he does not add And in the Spirit. Jesus also baptized, but in the Spirit. This is the perfect Baptism. And how is He not God, if I may digress a little, by whom you too are made God? I know also a Fourth Baptism— that by Martyrdom and blood, which also Christ himself underwent:— and this one is far more august than all the others, inasmuch as it cannot be defiled by after-stains. Yes, and I know of a Fifth also, which is that of tears, and is much more laborious, received by him who washes his bed every night and his couch with tears; whose bruises stink through his wickedness; and who goes mourning and of a sad countenance; who imitates the repentance of Manasseh Ninevites Jonah 3:7-10 upon which God had mercy; who utters the words of the Publican in the Temple, and is justified rather than the stiff-necked Pharisee; Luke 18:13 who like the Canaanite woman bends down and asks for mercy and crumbs, the food of a dog that is very hungry. Matthew 15:27


Oration 40 The Oration on Holy Baptism.
http://newadvent.org/fathers/310240.htm
Excerpts:
VIII. And since we are double-made, I mean of body and soul, and the one part is visible, the other invisible, so the cleansing also is twofold, by water and the spirit; the one received visibly in the body, the other concurring with it invisibly and apart from the body; the one typical, the other real and cleansing the depths. And this which comes to the aid of our first birth, makes us new instead of old, and like God instead of what we now are; recasting us without fire, and creating us anew without breaking us up. For, to say it all in one word, the virtue of Baptism is to be understood as a covenant with God for a second life and a purer conversation. And indeed all need to fear this very much, and to watch our own souls, each one of us, with all care, that we do not become liars in respect of this profession. For if God is called upon as a Mediator to ratify human professions, how great is the danger if we be found transgressors of the covenant which we have made with God Himself; and if we be found guilty before the Truth Himself of that lie, besides our other transgressions...and that when there is no second regeneration, or recreation, or restoration to our former state, even though we seek it with all our might, and with many sighs and tears, by which it is cicatrized over (with great difficulty in my opinion, though we all believe that it may be cicatrized). Yet if we might wipe away even the scars I should be glad, since I too have need of mercy. But it is better not to stand in need of a second cleansing, but to stop at the first, which is, I know, common to all, and involves no labour, and is of equal price to slaves, to masters, to poor, to rich, to humble, to exalted, to gentle, to simple, to debtors, to those who are free from debt; like the breathing of the air, and the pouring forth of the light, and the changes of the seasons, and the sight of creation, that great delight which we all share alike, and the equal distribution of the faith.
IX. For it is a strange thing to substitute for a painless remedy one which is more painful; to cast away the grace of mercy, and owe a debt of punishment; and to measure our amendment against sin. For how many tears must we contribute before they can equal the fount of baptism; and who will be surety for us that death shall wait for our cure, and that the judgment seat shall not summon us while still debtors, and needing the fire of the other world?
. . . . . . .

XI. Let us then be baptized that we may win the victory; let us partake of the cleansing waters, more purifying than hyssop, purer than the legal blood, more sacred than the ashes of the heifer sprinkling the unclean, Hebrews 10:4 and providing a temporary cleansing of the body, but not a complete taking away of sin; for if once purged, why should they need further purification? Let us be baptized today, that we suffer not violence tomorrow; and let us not put off the blessing as if it were an injury, nor wait till we get more wicked that more may be forgiven us; and let us not become sellers and traffickers of Christ, lest we become more heavily burdened than we are able to bear, that we be not sunk with all hands and make shipwreck of the Gift, and lose all because we expected too much. While you are still master of your thoughts run to the Gift. While you are not yet sick in body or in mind, nor seemest so to those who are with you (though you are really of sound mind); while your good is not yet in the power of others, but you yourself art still master of it; while your tongue is not stammering or parched, or (to say no more) deprived of the power of pronouncing the sacramental words; while you can still be made one of the faithful, not conjecturally but confessedly; and canst still receive not pity but congratulation; while the Gift is still clear to you, and there is no doubt about it; while the grace can reach the depth of your soul, and it is not merely your body that is washed for burial; and before tears surround you announcing your decease— and even these restrained perhaps for your sake— and your wife and children would delay your departure, and are listening for your dying words; before the physician is powerless to help you, and is giving you but hours to live— hours which are not his to give— and is balancing your salvation with the nod of his head, and discoursing learnedly on your disease after you are dead, or making his charges heavier by withdrawals, or hinting at despair; before there is a struggle between the man who would baptize you and the man who seeks your money, the one striving that you may receive your Viaticum, the other that he may be inscribed in your Will as heir— and there is no time for both.

. . . . . . . . .

But are you afraid lest you should destroy the Gift, and do you therefore put off your cleansing, because you cannot have it a second time? What? Would you not be afraid of danger in time of persecution, and of losing the most precious Thing you have— Christ? Would you then on this account avoid becoming a Christian? Perish the thought. Such a fear is not for a sane man; such an argument argues insanity. O incautious caution, if I may so. O trick of the Evil One! Truly he is darkness and pretends to be light; and when he can no longer prevail in open war, he lays snares in secret, and gives advice, apparently good, really evil, if by some trick at least he may prevail, and we find no escape from his plotting. And this is clearly what he is aiming at in this instance. For, being unable to persuade you to despise Baptism, he inflicts loss upon you through a fictitious security; that in consequence of your fear you may suffer unconsciously the very thing you are afraid of; and because you fear to destroy the Gift, you may for this very reason fail of the Gift altogether. This is his character; and he will never cease his duplicity as long as he sees us pressing onwards towards heaven from which he has fallen. Wherefore, O man of God, do thou recognize the plots of your adversary; for the battle is against him that has, and it is concerned with the most important interests. Take not your enemy to be your counsellor; despise not to be and to be called Faithful. As long as you are a Catechumen you are but in the porch of Religion; you must come inside, and cross the court, and observe the Holy Things, and look into the Holy of Holies, and be in company with the Trinity. Great are the interests for which you are fighting, great too the stability which you need. Protect yourself with the shield of faith. He fears you, if you fight armed with this weapon, and therefore he would strip you of the Gift, that he may the more easily overcome you unarmed and defenceless. He assails every age, and every form of life; he must be repelled by all.

XVII.Are you young? Stand against your passions; be numbered with the alliance in the army of God: do valiantly against Goliath. 1 Samuel 17:32 Take your thousands or your myriads; thus enjoy your manhood; but do not allow your youth to be withered, being killed by the imperfection of your faith. Are you old and near the predestined necessity? Aid your few remaining days. Entrust the purification to your old age. Why do you fear youthful passion in deep old age and at your last breath? Or will you wait to be washed till you are dead, and not so much the object of pity as of dislike? Are you regretting the dregs of pleasure, being yourself in the dregs of life? It is a shameful thing to be past indeed the flower of your age, but not past your wickedness; but either to be involved in it still, or at least to seem so by delaying your purification. Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let him be sanctified from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Fearest thou the Seal on account of the weakness of nature? O what a small-souled mother, and of how little faith! Why, Anna even before Samuel was born 1 Samuel 1:10 promised him to God, and after his birth consecrated him at once, and brought him up in the priestly habit, not fearing anything in human nature, but trusting in God. You have no need of amulets or incantations, with which the Devil also comes in, stealing worship from God for himself in the minds of vainer men. Give your child the Trinity, that great and noble Guard.

. . . . .

And in one word, there is no state of life and no occupation to which Baptism is not profitable. You who are a free man, be curbed by it; you who are in slavery, be made of equal rank; you who are in grief, receive comfort; let the gladsome be disciplined; the poor receive riches that cannot be taken away; the rich be made capable of being good stewards of their possessions. Do not play tricks or lay plots against your own salvation. For even if we can delude others we cannot delude ourselves. And so to play against oneself is very dangerous and foolish.
. . . .
XX. But some will say, What shall I gain, if, when I am preoccupied by baptism, and have cut off myself by my haste from the pleasures of life, when it was in my power to give the reins to pleasure, and then to obtain grace? For the labourers in the vineyard who had worked the longest time gained nothing thereby, for equal wages were given to the very last. You have delivered me from some trouble, whoever you are who say this, because you have at last with much difficulty told the secret of your delay; and though I cannot applaud your shiftiness, I do applaud your confession. But come hither and listen to the interpretation of the parable, that you may not be injured by Scripture for want of information. First of all, there is no question here of baptism, but of those who believe at different times and enter the good vineyard of the Church. For from the day and hour at which each believed, from that day and hour he is required to work. And then, although they who entered first contributed more to the measure of the labour yet they did not contribute more to the measure of the purpose; nay perhaps even more was due to the last in respect of this, though the statement may seem paradoxical. For the cause of their later entrance was their later call to the work of the vineyard. In all other respects let us see how different they are. The first did not believe or enter till they had agreed on their hire; but the others came forward to do the work without an agreement, which is a proof of greater faith. And the first were found to be of an envious and murmuring nature, but no such charge is brought against the others. And to the first, that which was given was wages, though they were worthless fellows; to the last it was the free gift. So that the first were convicted of folly, and with reason deprived of the greater reward. Let us see what would have happened to them if they had been late. Why, the equal pay, evidently. How then can they blame the employer as unjust because of their equality? For all these things take away the merit of their labour from the first, although they were at work first; and therefore it turns out that the distribution of equal pay was just, if you measure the good will against the labour.
XXI. But supposing that the Parable does sketch the power of the font according to your interpretation, what would prevent you, if you entered first, and bore the heat, from avoiding envy of the last, that by this very lovingkindness you might obtain more, and receive the reward, not as of grace but as of debt? And next, the workmen who receive the wages are those who have entered, not those who have missed, the vineyard; which last is like to be your case. So that if it were certain that you would obtain the Gift, though you are of such a mind, and maliciously keep back some of the labour, you might be forgiven for taking refuge in such arguments, and desiring to make unlawful gain out of the kindness of the master; though I might assure you that the very fact of being able to labour is a greater reward to any who is not altogether of a huckstering mind. But since there is a risk of your being altogether shut out of the vineyard through your bargaining, and losing the capital through stopping to pick up little gains, do let yourselves be persuaded by my words to forsake the false interpretations and contradictions, and to come forward without arguing to receive the Gift, lest you should be snatched away before you realize your hopes, and should find out that it was to your own loss that you devised these sophistries.
XXII. But then, you say, is not God merciful, and since He knows our thoughts and searches out our desires, will He not take the desire of Baptism instead of Baptism? You are speaking in riddles, if what you mean is that because of God's mercy the unenlightened is enlightened in His sight; and he is within the kingdom of heaven who merely desires to attain to it, but refrains from doing that which pertains to the kingdom.
. . . . .

XXIII. And so also in those who fail to receive the Gift, some are altogether animal or bestial, according as they are either foolish or wicked; and this, I think, has to be added to their other sins, that they have no reverence at all for this Gift, but look upon it as a mere gift— to be acquiesced in if given them, and if not given them, then to be neglected. Others know and honour the Gift, but put it off; some through laziness, some through greediness. Others are not in a position to receive it, perhaps on account of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circumstance through which they are prevented from receiving it, even if they wish. As then in the former case we found much difference, so too in this. They who altogether despise it are worse than they who neglect it through greed or carelessness. These are worse than they who have lost the Gift through ignorance or tyranny, for tyranny is nothing but an involuntary error. And I think that the first will have to suffer punishment, as for all their sins, so for their contempt of baptism; and that the second will also have to suffer, but less, because it was not so much through wickedness as through folly that they wrought their failure; and that the third will be neither glorified nor punished by the righteous Judge, as unsealed and yet not wicked, but persons who have suffered rather than done wrong. For not every one who is not bad enough to be punished is good enough to be honoured; just as not every one who is not good enough to be honoured is bad enough to be punished. And I look upon it as well from another point of view. If you judge the murderously disposed man by his will alone, apart from the act of murder, then you may reckon as baptized him who desired baptism apart from the reception of baptism. But if you cannot do the one how can you do the other? I cannot see it. Or, if you like, we will put it thus:— If desire in your opinion has equal power with actual baptism, then judge in the same way in regard to glory, and you may be content with longing for it, as if that were itself glory. And what harm is done you by your not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have the desire for it?
XXIV. Therefore since you have heard these words, come forward to it, and be enlightened, and your faces shall not be ashamed through missing the Grace. Receive then the Enlightenment in due season, that darkness pursue you not, and catch you, and sever you from the Illumining. The night comes when no man can work John 12:35 after our departure hence. The one is the voice of David, the other of the True Light which lights every man that comes into the world. And consider how Solomon reproves you who are too idle or lethargic, saying, How long will you sleep, O sluggard, Proverbs 6:9 and when will you arise out of your sleep? You rely upon this or that, and pretend pretences in sins; am waiting for Epiphany; I prefer Easter; I will wait for Pentecost. It is better to be baptized with Christ, to rise with Christ on the Day of His Resurrection, Matthew 24:50 to honour the Manifestation of the Spirit. And what then? The end will come suddenly in a day for which you look not, and in an hour that you are not aware of; and then you will have for a companion lack of grace; and you will be famished in the midst of all those riches of goodness, though you ought to reap the opposite fruit from the opposite course, a harvest by diligence, and refreshment from the font, like the thirsty hart that runs in haste to the spring, and quenches the labour of his race by water; and not to be in Ishmael's case, dried up for want of water, or as the fable has it, punished by thirst in the midst of a spring. It is a sad thing to let the market day go by and then to seek for work. It is a sad thing to let the Manna pass and then to long for food. It is a sad thing to take a counsel too late, and to become sensible of the loss only when it is impossible to repair it; that is, after our departure hence, and the bitter closing of the acts of each man's life, and the punishment of sinners, and the glory of the purified. Therefore do not delay in coming to grace, but hasten, lest the robber outstrip you, lest the adulterer pass you by, lest the insatiate be satisfied before you, lest the murderer seize the blessing first, or the publican or the fornicator, or any of these violent ones who take the Kingdom of heaven by force. Matthew 11:12 For it suffers violence willingly, and is tyrannized over through goodness.
. . . . .
XXVI. Let nothing hinder you from going on, nor draw you away from your readiness. While your desire is still vehement, seize upon that which you desire. While the iron is hot, let it be tempered by the cold water, lest anything should happen in the interval, and put an end to your desire.
. . . . .

XLVI. But one thing more I preach unto you. The Station in which you shall presently stand after your Baptism before the Great Sanctuary is a foretype of the future glory. The Psalmody with which you will be received is a prelude to the Psalmody of Heaven; the lamps which you will kindle are a Sacrament of the illumination there with which we shall meet the Bridegroom, shining and virgin souls, with the lamps of our faith shining, not sleeping through our carelessness, that we may not miss Him that we look for if He come unexpectedly; nor yet unfed, and without oil, and destitute of good works, that we be not cast out of the Bridechamber. For I see how pitiable is such a case. He will come when the cry demands the meeting, and they who are prudent shall meet Him, with their light shining and its food abundant, but the others seeking for oil too late from those who possess it. And He will come with speed, and the former shall go in with Him, but the latter shall be shut out, having wasted in preparations the time of entrance; and they shall weep sore when all too late they learn the penalty of their slothfulness, when the Bride-chamber can no longer be entered by them for all their entreaties, for they have shut it against themselves by their sin, following in another fashion the example of those who missed the Wedding feast with which the good Father feasts the good Bridegroom; one on account of a newly wedded wife; another of a newly purchased field; another of a yoke of oxen; which he and they acquired to their misfortune, since for the sake of the little they lose the great. For none are there of the disdainful, nor of the slothful, nor of those who are clothed in filthy rags and not in the Wedding garment even though here they may have thought themselves worthy of wearing the bright robe there, and secretly intruded themselves, deceiving themselves with vain hopes. And then, What? When we have entered, then the Bridegroom knows what He will teach us, and how He will converse with the souls that have come in with Him. He will converse with them, I think in teaching things more perfect and more pure. Of which may we all, both Teachers and Taught, have share, in the Same Christ our Lord, to Whom be the Glory and the Empire, for ever and ever. Amen.

Oh, Columba, I certainly do remember fondly the “Curvature of the Earth” thread. When I watched online as Paul/Pascendi deleted it the night he deleted the whole forum, it made me sad. I told some friends here how surprised I was that that thread was the one I was going to miss the most. Elaine was a nice lady. Did you get to read the whole thread? I still have my posts in my Word file. But all of Mike’s beautiful pictures are all gone.

While it’s true that an argument can be made for just about anything, that doesn’t mean that a valid or legitimate or well proven or well thought out argument can be made for anything. I personally don’t like arguing, but I like seeking the truth. I think you may be the same.

No Elisa I didn't get reading the whole of that thread but I thoroughly enjoyed what I did read.

You Can include me as a Truth Seeker to.

No, of course not all of our positions on this topic can be proven beyond a doubt. Because the Holy Spirit has not yet revealed all the details of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood to the Church yet. So, like I just said on another thread, some of this is still a mystery. There is nothing wrong with holy mystery, which the Eastern Church embraces. We don’t need to know all the details to have faith and trust in the teachings of the Church. Just because we don’t understand how 2 truths can be reconciled doesn’t mean they can’t be reconciled and both be right. And the Holy Spirit will reveal the details when He sees fit, if He ever sees fit.

Elisa this is a good point you make but I still have the following reservations. I believe that most of our faith is a mystery as is the dogma of the Blessed Trinity which we are bound to hold without reserve even though it still remains a mystery to us how this can be.
This mystery though does have a definition; There is one God but three Divine persons.
Still a mystery but I know what I must believe.
You probably guess where I'm going here. . I don't have a clear definition of baptism of desire in order to know what I must believe. As MarianLibrarian pointed out earlier, are we to bellieve this is available only to catachumens? Does it include the invincibly ignorant? When is this baptism given? What is the form and the matter? Who is the minister? At what point does it occur?
Is it really a baptism or is that just a word used to explain an unknowable infussion of grace?
If it is a baptism am I required to believe in three baptisms, Sacramental, Desire and Blood?
If so, must I include this as part of the creed or still hold to one baptism for the forgiveness of sins as the Church still does? and finally, is baptism of desire necessary for salvation if one does not receive sacramental baptism?

Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that you have to understand it all for it to be true or for it to be taught by the Church. And don’t think you need to have an opinion on this right away. Take your time and pray about it. But don’t deny that the Church definitely has always taught Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood in some form and that it has formally taught it a millennium. Formally, but not defined. Not infallible, but needing assent.

It's not that I don't understand it all. I really don't understand any of it in it's present form and that is the truth.

Assent to the POSSIBILITY that some souls MAY be saved in some mysterious way you do not understand by the power of our most merciful, just and omnipotent God.

Elisa if I assent to a POSSIBILITY I''m not really assenting to a doctrine. Can there actually be a doctrine concerning a possibility? If so, is there any other doctrine comparible that has been presented as a possibility that must be held as part of the faith? Limbo might be such a doctrine but with this I have a clear understanding of what is being proposed for belief. It has the same historical background as baptism of desire but with an actual definition that is easily understandable. It has also been included in catechisms but more or less rejected in the new catachism. The reason usually given for permitting it's rejection is that it was never proposed infallibly. Neither has baptism of desire been proposed infallibly, so it too can be defunct somewhere along the line thus proving it was never a doctrine in the first place

This is my whole contention, that baptism of desire is not a binding doctrine of the faith..

If these questions can be answered, and answered in conformity to the law of non contradiction, then at least I could believe with that faith that supercedes reason but does not contradict it.

Btw.. I can indeed understand why the contrary position to mine can be legitimately held and many can hold their position with out seeing contradictions or at least without being able to formulate the non contradictions into precise, understandable laymans language.

God Bless,

Columba.

columba wrote:
St Gregory of Nyssa [d. 395]: "You are outside Paradise, O catechumen! You share the exile of Adam." (Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, vol. IV, pp 46, 47)

Context, context, context.

Excerpt from Liturgical Studies, The Bible and the Liturgy by Jean Danielou, S.J., University of Notre Dame Press, Chapter Two, The Baptismal Rite, p. 18:

THE ceremonies that we have been studying form the remote preparation for Baptism. Cyril of Jerusalem [d. 386] devotes his first catechesis to them, Theodore of Mopsuestia his two first homilies. These ceremonies constitute a well-defined whole, characterized by the fact that they take place outside the baptistry; the candidate is treated as being still a stranger to the Church. The entrance into the baptistery marked the beginning of the immediate preparation for Baptism, and it included two preliminary rites: the laying aside of clothing and the anointing with oil. Then the actual Baptism took place, carried out by immersion in the baptismal pool. It was followed by clothing in the white robe, corresponding to the previous stripping. These are the rites whose symbolism we shall now study. At the beginning of the Procatechesis, St. Cyril says to those who come to be enrolled: "Henceforth you are in the vestibule of the palace. May you soon be led into it by the king" (XXXIII, 333 A). This is an exact description of the candidates' state. They were in the vestibule, "breathing already the perfume of beatitude. They are gathering the flowers of which their crowns will be woven" (XXXIII, 332 B). Here we find once more the symbolism of paradise. But they are not yet inside the sanctuary itself. The leading into the baptistry signifies the entrance into the Church, that is to say, the return to Paradise, lost by the sin of the first man: "You are outside of Paradise, O catechumen," says Gregory to those who would put off their Baptism. "You share the exile of Adam, our first father. Now the door is opening. Return whence you came forth" (P. G. XLVI, 417 C. See also 420 C and 600 A). In the same way, Cyril of Jerusalem says to the candidate: "Soon Paradise will open for each one of you" (XXXIII, 357 A) (http://www.scribd.com/doc/30733941/Jean-Danielou-Bible-and-the-Liturgy)

Further context:

FAITH OF OUR FATHERS

Baptism is Restoration to Paradise

‘Today you shall be with me in paradise,’ Jesus says to the thief, and where Christ is, there too is the Church. Richard Field (1561–1616), in his treatise Of the Church sees, in the thief’s acknowledgement of his sinful past and his prayer that Jesus remember him in his kingdom, a form of baptism. In the Primitive Church, baptism was seen as the restoration to paradise. Cyril of Jerusalem uses this symbolism of the baptismal rite. ‘When you renounce Satan, God’s paradise opens to you, the paradise he planted in the East and from which our first father was driven on account of his disobedience … the symbol of this is your turning from the East to the West’ (Catechetical Lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem, NPNF vol vii, Lect xix, p146). In contrast to Adam in Satan’s control and driven out of Paradise, the catechumen is freed by the New Adam from Satan’s dominion and reintroduced into Paradise. Turning to Christ is the act of faith required for Baptism. Entering the Baptistery signifies entrance into the Church, the return to Paradise. The catechumen is addressed, ‘You are outside of Paradise, O catechumen … you share the exile of Adam, our first father. Now the door is opening. Return whence you came forth.’ Cyril addresses each candidate, ‘Soon Paradise will open for each one of you.’ (http://trushare.com/92jan03/JA03FAFA.htm)

Mike,

I know that you are not "talking to me," and that's fine, so if you do not answer this question, I want others to feel free to answer it on your behalf or on their own belief, or both! Here's the question:

Do you think that it is at least possible (i.e., "not impossible") that all infants who have ended this life without sacramental Baptism since Pentecost are in Paradise? Or, do you think that it is de fide that at least some infants who have died without sacramental Baptism are in Hell (i.e., "not in Heaven")?

This is really a Yes/No question, so if you answer (or if someone else answers it for you), please respond with a "Yes" or a "No" first; you are free to comment as you like after that.

Jehanne,

First, let me say that on this forum anyone can participate and answer any way that they think or choose to do as long as they follow the Moderators rules of engagement.
Secondly, if your responses to me would have been of the same disposition that you showed Mike, I too would have cut you off.
Thirdly, Although you may think that you can dictate how an answer will be given, you are sadly mistaken. Just answer Yes or no. Give me a break. This is not school and you are not the instructor.
Fourthly, I had posted this direct quote before directly from the words of Father Feeney. What part of Fathers quote below did you question, agree or disagree with?
I personally agree with these words. And so Jehanne, if the Holy Innocents who are proclaimed saints were killed by the blade of the soldier and the aborted are killed with the blade of the abortionist what do you think happens ? Render to God the things that are God's and to us sinners complete trust in our God.

From Bread of Life pages 129 and 130

' As I give you this grammar-school course in pretentious theological thinking, naturally I expect you at times, to rebel and to say, Where is the mercy of God in all this? Are we saved or damned according to theological technicalities?
If you were to say to me, " Does it not seem odd that unbaptized children should never see the face of God? " I would have to say that it did seem odd, according to (my) standards. I do not know what scheme I would have made for unbaptized children, if I were God.
I only know what covenants God has made. I must seek first the Kingdom of God and His justice as He has revealed it, { Pay real close attention to what follows } AND LET HIM ADD HIS MERCIES BY HIMSELF... I am the servant of God , not His counsellor !
" Isaias inquires in Holy Scripture, in scorn and indignation ! Isa. 40:13

George,

I could care less if Mike responds to me or not; the same goes for you as well. He's not a recognized theologian of the Church, he's not a priest, and he's not a bishop. What he is, however, is one of the most belligerent and uncharitable individuals whom I have corresponded with on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, which includes some extensive correspondence with the Dimonds. If anyone needs to "apologize," it is him, but to clear my conscience, my use of the word "calumny" was, perhaps, a bit too strong or I acknowledge the fact that one could read it as such.

Yes, my question is "Yes/No"; perhaps you need to read it again. Aborted babies do not go to Heaven:

http://www.seattlecatholic.com/a051207.html

The de fide answer to my question is, "No."