Thief on the cross means faith alone?

Notice how the protestant "Faith Aloners" point to the thief on the cross as evidence of "Faith Alone ". Now notice how the baptism of desire crowd also point to the thief on the cross as evidence of "Baptism of Desire ". Hence, to believe in baptism of desire is the same as believing in Faith Alone. Think about it, baptism of desire is Faith Alone, just with a different title. Infact, the liberals in the Church are attempting to claim that those who have no Desire , actually have a Desire for Baptism. Its like saying those who have no Faith have Faith. Its total insanity.

Catholic_Truth wrote:Notice how the protestant "Faith Aloners" point to the thief on the cross as evidence of "Faith Alone ". Now notice how the baptism of desire crowd also point to the thief on the cross as evidence of "Baptism of Desire ". Hence, to believe in baptism of desire is the same as believing in Faith Alone. Think about it, baptism of desire is Faith Alone, just with a different title. Infact, the liberals in the Church are attempting to claim that those who have no Desire , actually have a Desire for Baptism. Its like saying those who have no Faith have Faith. Its total insanity.

Its total insanity so sit here and throw stones at the Catholic doctrine of “Baptism of desire” because, well, it must be the same “as believing in Faith Alone”, when it is no such thing.

Perhaps C_T has no idea what the doctrine of Baptism of desire actually is because, allegedly, it does not “exist” (it is some loopy theological construct and figment of the imagination dreamed up and perpetuated by some sentimental Fathers, Saints, Doctors, Theologians, Popes, Roman Catechisms, a Papal Allocution, the Holy Office, Canon law, etc. etc.).

But perhaps if he had paid attention he would have known that Baptism of desire is a “translation to the justice of His love” in the bonds of supernatural faith and perfect charity, which necessarily includes the resolve/intention/desire/vow for baptism (or there is no charity). As the Church has always understood and taught it, this translation cannot be effected without baptism, or its desire; with “desire” being that same charity/intention/desire taught by the Church.

While no can be justified without faith, without true charity -- faith can justify no one.

So perhaps C_T would be so kind as to show how Baptism is desire “is the same as believing in Faith Alone” when Faith Alone cannot become a living Faith without charity (contrition/intention/desire).

The example of St. Dismas is the quintessential example of “baptism of desire” in the true sense of its meaning: Dismas professed his faith and was filled with desire -- and our Lord responded with the promise and fulfillment of salvation. Whether or not this happened prior to the “promulgation of the Gospel” is irrelevant because the “Gospel” was hanging on the cross right next to Dismas (which led St. Augustine to even speculate whether some of our Lord’s Blood might have spilled onto Dismas -- another theory, but is it entirely relevant?).

Our Lord did not say, “I don’t have to bind Myself to the Law of Baptism because it has yet to be promulgated; but, in the future, those who profess their faith and love for Me, and even die for love of Me, without the materiality of the sacrament, are out of luck; for the Spirit of the Law is worth less than nothing if the Law is not materially fulfilled”.

Think about that.

Let’s stop with the demagoguery and stop playing so recklessly with the truth. You may not like the truth, but that does not give you the right to alter it because it does not conform to your Pharisaical mind-set.

MRyan,

Our Lord did not say, “I don’t have to bind Myself to the Law of Baptism because it has yet to be promulgated

True, but his mouthpiece, the Church, did say:

The Catechism of Trent

Baptism Made Obligatory After Christ's Resurrection

The second period to be distinguished, that is, the time when the law of Baptism was made, also admits of no doubt. Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave to His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.

This is inferred from the authority of the Prince of the Apostles when he says: Who hath regenerated us into a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead;' and also from what Paul says of the Church: He delivered himself up for it: that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life. By both Apostles the obligation of Baptism seems to be referred to the time which followed the death of our Lord. Hence we can have no doubt that the words of the Saviour: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, refer also to the same time which was to follow after His Passion.

I agree with you, Mike, that St. Dismas is an absolutely beautiful - and extremely moving - picture of the surpassing power of grace, contrition, faith, and charity, but when St. Dismas is used as an example to counter the "Feeneyites" on the necessity of baptism (I am talking the ordinary means of the sacrament), that example is is really irrelevant, if only in a temporal sense - we do live in time.

This St. Dismas argument still gets under my skin (reformed Feeneyite that I am) since, as the Church says in plain terms, the law being posited against his example didn't begin until he died. That's a pretty conclusive argument against his being used as an example against the position, even if his "example" - as we believe - still holds. His example just doesn't prove the "Feeneyites" are wrong, and doesn't get us far in the argument because of what the Church has said about when the "law of baptism became obligatory."

Of course, baptism of desire and baptism of blood meet the obligation as to the "intrinsic necessity," and the "extrinsic necessity" remains obligatory on all.

I'm learning, or rather, nuancing better.

tornpage

Tornapge,

I'm not sure I follow you.

I don’t see how it is a conclusive argument for or against anything except to say yes, its true that St. Dismas died before the promulgation of the Gospel. So? Does that mean that he fell under the Old Law and the law of circumcision, when the “Law” is being crucified right next to Him on the cross?

Let’s play it out to its logical extreme; technically, Dismas died under the Old Law, which means he could have only been “justified” through circumcision; you know, like the Holy Innocents example which is supposed to “negate” any pretense of Baptism of Blood (please). We have no idea if Dismas was a Jew or not; I doubt it, but do you see where this is going when one is focused on the “Law”, when the Law is nailed to the Cross and speaking directly to Dismas?

It’s ludicrous. Our Lord applied the merit of His Blood to the soul of Dismas. Whether actual blood from His passion was applied to Dismas is irrelevant. Our Lord read his heart and promised him the kingdom based on his repentance and faith. This was the only “law” Dismas had to worry about - the One who promised Him the Kingdom for a simple act of contrition, hope and faith: "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom" is the entire Gospel -- and the law of love that our Lord cannot refuse. What difference does it make what institutional or divine law was in effect when our Lord saved Dismas in the intrinsic bonds of faith and charity?

The Church has spoken; this straining at gnats looking for ways to satisfy the "law" (Old or New) seems just a bit odd to me.

MRyan,

I hear you; I hear you.

All I'm saying, if one takes the position that a person cannot be saved without baptism by water under the new dispensation, and the new dispensation started after Our Lord's Resurrection, an offering of the example of Dismas in opposition means nothing - Dismas was saved before the new dispensation! He can't possibly disprove the position - he existed before the law was passed.

Capiche?

tornpage

Sure I capiche; but it is still a straw-man. Dismas should never be offered as evidence of an “exception” to the new Law, but only as evidence that the translation to the justice of His love is not necessarily contingent upon the Law (old or new); but it is always contingent upon the intrinsic bonds of faith and charity.

That’s why those who say that the martyrdom of the Holy Innocents is not a credible example of baptism of blood since the children were already “justified” through circumcision -- are missing the bigger picture. If gentile children had been included in the slaughter … well, you get the idea ... no room at the heavenly Inn for the non-initiated; after all, where is their "mark" of membership?

Man, you're a bulldog. How about Canus Bullus Ryanus?

That’s why those who say that the martyrdom of the Holy Innocents is not a credible example of baptism of blood since the children were already “justified” through circumcision -- are missing the bigger picture

Well, when I was arguing for "the cause," that was never my argument. I simply dismissed Dismas and the Holy Innocents from my argument that all must be baptized since the law of baptism became obligatory because "Holy writers are unanimous in saying that

after the Resurrection of our Lord

. . . the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved." Checkmate.

And while my "cause" has changed, that argument is still - checkmate. Simple and blunt, my favorite kind of argument. Irrefutable on its terms, valid terms.

The problem with truth advancing is often advocates of the correct position using weak and refutable arguments that leave the other side content that their opponent is blowing smoke: after all, look at that easily refutable argument.

Not that I'm talking about you, Canus Bullus Ryanus. Boy, don't I know better - and glad that I do, glad that I do.

tornpage

[color=black]MRyan[/color] wrote:Sure I capiche; but it is still a straw-man. Dismas should never be offered as evidence of an “exception” to the new Law, but only as evidence that the translation to the justice of His love is not necessarily contingent upon the Law (old or new); but it is always contingent upon the intrinsic bonds of faith and charity.

That’s why those who say that the martyrdom of the Holy Innocents is not a credible example of baptism of blood since the children were already “justified” through circumcision -- are missing the bigger picture. If gentile children had been included in the slaughter … well, you get the idea ... no room at the heavenly Inn for the non-initiated; after all, where is their "mark" of membership?

I think he is more likely to have already been baptized than not to have been a Jew! MRyan, I am surprised at that stretch.
He was most likely a circumcised Jew and only need to be forgive is sins which obviously Jesus did.

tornpage wrote:Man, you're a bulldog. How about Canus Bullus Ryanus?

That’s why those who say that the martyrdom of the Holy Innocents is not a credible example of baptism of blood since the children were already “justified” through circumcision -- are missing the bigger picture

Well, when I was arguing for "the cause," that was never my argument. I simply dismissed Dismas and the Holy Innocents from my argument that all must be baptized since the law of baptism became obligatory because "Holy writers are unanimous in saying that

after the Resurrection of our Lord

. . . the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved." Checkmate.

And while my "cause" has changed, that argument is still - checkmate. Simple and blunt, my favorite kind of argument. Irrefutable on its terms, valid terms.

The problem with truth advancing is often advocates of the correct position using weak and refutable arguments that leave the other side content that their opponent is blowing smoke: after all, look at that easily refutable argument.

Not that I'm talking about you, Canus Bullus Ryanus. Boy, don't I know better - and glad that I do, glad that I do.

tornpage

Your right on this one "the Good Thief" and "the Holy Innocents" are no argument.

duckbill wrote:
I think he is more likely to have already been baptized than not to have been a Jew! MRyan, I am surprised at that stretch.

He was most likely a circumcised Jew and only need to be forgive is sins which obviously Jesus did.

Sure, Duckbill; Dismas, the murdering thief condemned to death under Roman Law was more likely to have been baptized than NOT to have been a Jew. And you know this how? And you call the salvation of Dismas directly by our Lord through the bonds of Faith and charity a “stretch”.

So, if he was not a circumcised Jew, our Lord would not have forgiven his sins and promised him the kingdom since he did not satisfy the letter of the Old Law.

Oy vey! And here I though our Lord said He came not for the salvation of the Jews only; but also for the salvation of the gentiles.

Yeah, what a stretch, that.

So Dismas was baptized already or a circumcised Jew? Good grief, Duckbill!!! All you need to say is that Dismas is irrelevant to your position since the law you hold obligatory (though you interpret it wrongly) wasn't even obligatory until after Dismas died.

But no, you just can't help but reveal the flaws in your own Pharisaical position!!! He was a goner if he wasn't baptized or circumcised, eh?

Good grief.

tornpage

The Good Thief cannot be used as an example of baptism of blood primarily because the Good Thief died under the Old Law, not the New Law,...he died before the Law of Baptism was instituted by Jesus Christ after the Resurrection. For that reason, the Good Thief, like the Holy Innocents, constitutes no argument against the necessity of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation.

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”[cdxlvi]

In fact, when Our Lord said to the Good Thief, “This day you will be with Me in paradise,” Jesus was not referring to heaven, but actually to Hell(Hades). As Catholics know, no one entered heaven until after Our Lord did, ...which is after His Resurrection. On the day of the Crucifixion, Christ descended into hell(Hades), as the Apostles’ Creed says. He did not descend to the Hell of the damned(Lake of Fire), but to the place in Hell(Hades) called the Limbo of the Fathers, the waiting place of the Just of the Old Testament, who could not enter Heaven until after the Savior came.

1 Peter 3:18-19 “Christ also died once for our sins… In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison…”

To further prove the point that the Good Thief did not go to Heaven on the Day of the Crucifixion, there is the fact that on Easter Sunday, when Mary Magdalene met the Risen Lord, He told her, “Do not touch Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father.”

John 20:17- “[On the Day of the Resurrection] Jesus saith to her; Mary. She turning, saith to him; Rabboni, (that is to say, Master). Jesus saith to her; Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father…”

Our Lord hadn’t even yet ascended to Heaven on the Sunday of the Resurrection. It is therefore a fact that Our Lord and the Good Thief were not in Heaven together on Good Friday,....they were in the Limbo of the Fathers, the prison described in 1 Peter 3:18-19.

Catholic_Truth wrote: The Good Thief cannot be used as an example of baptism of blood

Did someone say that he was an example of “baptism of blood”?

So you begin with a false premise and build upon this a mountain of straw.

You’re a little late to the party.