The Fathers on Baptism of Blood

MRyan,

Columba,

Roguejim never said anything as silly as “Mikes arguments are based on his belief that the Roman Pontiff enjoys personal indefectibility” and I don’t remember DeSelby making any such comments either.

I was browsing through some older threads the other day looking for a particular quote when I came across the comment but as I can't recall which thread it was I will have to leave it unverified until I find it again. The surprising thing was the fact that you did not reply and the comment was left unchallenged. There's no mechanism on his forum (to my knowledge) that permits one to check the posts of individual members when conducting a search so I will have to leave to chance my stumbling upon it again.

I suspect this is just one more of your gross distortions of what “Mike said”, when Mike said no such thing. Your incessant distortion of the definition of religious submission of the mind and will to non-defined doctines, by alleging that “Mike believes that baptism of blood and baptism of desire are de fide binding matters of Faith” is a classic case in point.

I'm well aware of what you believe concerning religious submission of the mind and will but the practical application of your belief (as deduced frm your writings) seems to go over and above your own definition.

The gift of a never-failing faith has nothing to do with personal indefectibility or impeccability, and the pope, being human, is capable as a theologian of falling into serious error while making some of the most wildly irresponsible gaffes. But he is not capable of losing the Catholic faith by becoming an obstinate and pertinacious heretic – that’s what the charism of a never-failing-faith actually means. Why don’t you actually read what I wrote on the subject and respond with something more than misleading and even false characterizations.

I haven't written anything misleading. I just disagree with your statement, “But he is not capable of losing the Catholic faith by becoming an obstinate and pertinacious heretic – that’s what the charism of a never-failing-faith actually means.”
I, rather believe that the limits you set for this never-failing-faith are actually broader than those traditionally accepted, to the point where despite your admission that a pope can be guilty of wildly irresponsible gaffes, you seem to believe that these very “gaffes” themselves can be reconciled in an orthodox way. Whether you believe this or not, it comes across that way.

However, you seem to have a real problem separating actual Magisterial teachings from orientations, personal “off-the-record” statements and changes in policy which may in fact appear to be imprudent, wrong-headed and the opposite of what we believe the Church needs. You are forever citing some less than magisterial personal statement of the pope and passing this off as “questionable but personal views held by a Pontiff” that “creep into catechisms or non-official ‘official’ teachings of the Church which are more presumed than defined”. Even when the pope clearly states he is not speaking in his capacity of universal teacher, you run with it, as do all of his enemies, as if he is speaking for the universal Church as Christ’s Vicar.

I think it is you Mike who have this difficulty in separating actual Magisterial teachings from the off-the-record statements. In theory you hold such statements as “gaffes” but in practice you then reconcile them with the never-failing faith of Peter.
Even when the pope clearly states he is not speaking in his capacity of universal teacher, the resulting confusion is no different than if he had not inserted the caveat. So in practical terms the pope (however he may try) cannot divorce himself from his office without the danger of promoting error and, when he does so he falls outside the protection granted him by Our Lord and therefore he actually does promote error in reality.

As I said, you do not seem capable of responding with anything but your own private distortions and “perceptions” of what a defined dogma and magisterial teachings actually are -- and you keep getting it wrong.

Ditto

I have also demonstrated your hypocrisy with respect to the clear meaning (of the words) of an ex cathedra negative prescription condemning the very idea you and Jehanne promote – that some other union is necessary for salvation for someone already united to Christ as His member in charity. As I demonstrated, your private interpretation is taken from your distortion of a non-defined section of Cantate Domino that you pass off as an ex cathedra definition that does not even say what you allege.

There is no distortion when Cantate Domino is read in context with "proper" ex cathedra pronouncements. You have not demonstrated any hypocrisy on my part or anyone elses; rather you have demonstrated an exceptional ability to do the very thing you accuse most others here of; that is, taking an argument and misrepresentng it while beating the created straw man to death.

Your contempt for the authority of the Doctors and theologians is also quite regrettable, but predictable.

My contempt for the distortion of the teachings of Doctors and theologians as per Vat 2 and its pastoral care of the faithful is predictable. If this be pastoral care then give me the traditional understandings any day.

Having said all that, Where your arguments ARE good, they're good and I still have a few such to respond to from a previous thread. I will get round to that.

Jehanne wrote:
It does not disturb me one bit to say that Pope Pius IX erred just as it does not disturb me one bit to say that Pope Gregory XIV erred when he, in 1591, reversed Pope Sixtus V's bull Effraenatum, stating that a fetus conceived earlier than 120 days did not have a soul, therefore, abortion was not murder, a position that was not reversed until 1869, by (you guessed it!) Pope Pius IX.

And this really does demonstrate how totally inept is your reasoning and ecclesiology. If we can say that Pope Gregory XIV “erred”, he erred, like Pope John XXII, on a matter that was never defined or settled -- and was thus still open to debate. And of course, you also present it as if Pope Gregory XIV was actually sanctioning abortion during any stage of the fetus, which he never did.

However, your entire argument in making the accusation of error against Pope Pius IX rests on your assertion that he erred (through his magisterial teaching office) in his interpretation of an already defined dogma.

If I do not appear to have much tolerance or appreciation for the grappling by columba and Jehanne on such critical fundamentals (when they appear to be immune from any moderation by the Church), this is the perfect example of why such tolerance and appreciation is lacking.

What disturbs me is the blissful nonchalance and righteous ignorance of Jehanne as he says it does not disturb him “one bit” to accuse Pope Pius IX of error (heresy) on a dogma of faith.

MRyan wrote:What disturbs me is the blissful nonchalance and righteous ignorance of Jehanne as he says it does not disturb him “one bit” to accuse Pope Pius IX of error (heresy) on a dogma of faith.

That's because I believe (unlike you, apparently) that Catholic dogmas are their own interpreter, that is, the very words of the dogmas are self-evident, kind of like the US Constitution, as all US Supreme Court justices have recognized. This is why the Justices of the Court issue opinions about the Law, because they recognize that they could be wrong in what they are saying, and that the US Constitution, in spite of the fact that it is man-made, has its own "immutable" aspects to it.

A Pope claiming that someone could be saved as a non-Catholic is like President Obama saying that the US Constitution does not condemn slavery, even though the 13th-Amendment says so, explicitly. When the Fourth Lateran Council said "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved," they meant what they said and they said what they meant. The Council's very own words are there own interpreter. The "no one at all" (note the double negative) excludes everyone outside the Church, including the invincibly ignorant, all the unevangelized, and everyone who dies without Baptism.

If it is true, as you claim, that only the Pope can interpret the past dogmas of the Church, who, then, will interpret the Pope's words, and who will interpret that person's words, and so forth? In the end, Mike, our perception of what the Pope (or anyone else, for that matter) says will be one of private interpretation. If I say to you, "I am drinking a 12-once can of Pepsi," (true as I am typing this, by the way) can you possibly interpret my words as meaning that I am, in fact, drinking a glass of lemonade? No jurist or lawyer thinks this way, which is why Bill Clinton was deemed to have committed perjury by a federal judge.

I reject in voto desire because not only does it contradict Revelation but because it contradicts all logic, reason, and human experience. How can one "desire" that which one does not know, or in the case of non-Catholics, explicitly rejects? And, how can one possibly "get rid" of his/her in voto desire and/or "change" his/her mind, as an act of that person's own free will? In either case, we are back to denying human free will or at least saying that, in matters of faith, we can make unconscious choices. No military and/or civilian lawyer believes that one can be an "unconscious traitor," and I do not see how one can be an "unconscious Catholic" while denying Catholic dogmas that even the modern Popes (allegedly) profess. As the Inquisitions realized, there are no "invincibly ignorant" persons, once Catholic dogma has been explained to them. How could a baptized person who rejects the authority of the Pope be any different than a native-born American who rejects the authority of the President? Either way, the One and Triune God's Revelation to His Creation is insufficient and/or individuals baptized outside of the Church do not have free will. Take your pick.

I think, as does the SSPX, that the "choice" that you and other neo-cons are giving us is a false dichotomy -- accept modernistic teachings that come from the authentic Magisterium (which, we believe, can contain error) or become seds. If I am forced to choose, then, fine, I choose the latter, and the sedes have provided decent arguments to all of your quotes from Vatican I, but as I am not a sede (not yet, at least), I see no reason to even venture down that path.

Blind, servile obedience, that's what you advocate. Okay, fine. To each his own, I suppose. Your arguments must have some merit (even though I cannot see it, how hard I try -- guess that I am "invincibly ignorant" of the Truth!), as some board members seem to have embraced what you have said. "Peter speaks the Truth," so you say, but I think that he speaks with a "forked tongue." By the way, a lot of Protestants, Orthodox, Muslims, Jews, atheists, etc. agree with me. Just Google "Catholic contradictions" (or something similar) and you will find scores of websites that document Holy Mother Church saying one thing from one of God's Vicars and something else from another of His Vicars. (You never answered my question about what "teaching" should we, as faithful sons and daughters of the Church, accept about the Earth's movement.) I do not believe that the One and Triune God is the "author" of such chaos; man, certainly, God, no way.

As for you "dogmatic" quotes from Vatican I, so what?? "Twice nothing is still nothing." Liberals play the same games with Vatican II. "Look at the 79 out of 80 traditional schemas (conciliar drafts) that Vatican II rejected!" they say; "see, that 'proves' that Vatican II changed Church teaching." To quote a liberal acquaintance from long ago, "Today's dissent is tomorrow's dogma." After 2,000 years, the Church does not know what she believes. Ha!

P.S. Theological error does not always equate to heresy. Pope Pius IX's words can be read in different ways -- in complete accord with Tradition or with the in voto understanding.

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:
It does not disturb me one bit to say that Pope Pius IX erred just as it does not disturb me one bit to say that Pope Gregory XIV erred when he, in 1591, reversed Pope Sixtus V's bull Effraenatum, stating that a fetus conceived earlier than 120 days did not have a soul, therefore, abortion was not murder, a position that was not reversed until 1869, by (you guessed it!) Pope Pius IX.

And this really does demonstrate how totally inept is your reasoning and ecclesiology. If we can say that Pope Gregory XIV “erred”, he erred, like Pope John XXII, on a matter that was never defined or settled -- and was thus still open to debate. And of course, you also present it as if Pope Gregory XIV was actually sanctioning abortion during any stage of the fetus, which he never did.

However, your entire argument in making the accusation of error against Pope Pius IX rests on your assertion that he erred (through his magisterial teaching office) in his interpretation of an already defined dogma.

If I do not appear to have much tolerance or appreciation for the grappling by columba and Jehanne on such critical fundamentals (when they appear to be immune from any moderation by the Church), this is the perfect example of why such tolerance and appreciation is lacking.

What disturbs me is the blissful nonchalance and righteous ignorance of Jehanne as he says it does not disturb him “one bit” to accuse Pope Pius IX of error (heresy) on a dogma of faith.

This is a fine example of what I said in my previous post concerning Mike and his straw men.

He has taken Jehanne's words and contorted them into a false representaion of what he (Jehanne) was actually saying.
When Jehanne stated that Pope Gregory XIV erred, he merely highlighted the fact that Pope Gregory got it wrong and to get something wrong is to err.
He didn't say or even insinuate that Pope Gregory was guilty of heresy or mortal sin, he merely stated the truth that the pope got it wrong. That's why he's no need to be greatly bothered. If Pope Gregory XIV didn't err, then Mike must believe that Pope Pius IX erred when he stated that the soul is present from conception.
How this makes Jehanne an enemy of the Church and one who refuses moderation by the Church is beyond me. It's a typical response from MRyan when someone makes a valid observation to blow this up out of all proportion to the extent that the person making the point (in his eyes) is a proximate heretic, even when what's being said doesn't at all interfere with Mike's own understanding of the Church.

Misrepresentation works both ways.

Yeah know MRyan you're kind of a jerk.

Columba, as far as I have seen, has never insulted you or called you names, but you can't seem to keep yourself from insulting him any chance you get.

You do the same to Jehanne, or whoever doesn't agree with you. I hope you don't treat your kids and wife this way!


I mean you use all this emotional language and insults to try to win an argument like sophist. It really gets tiring.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:
It does not disturb me one bit to say that Pope Pius IX erred just as it does not disturb me one bit to say that Pope Gregory XIV erred when he, in 1591, reversed Pope Sixtus V's bull Effraenatum, stating that a fetus conceived earlier than 120 days did not have a soul, therefore, abortion was not murder, a position that was not reversed until 1869, by (you guessed it!) Pope Pius IX.

And this really does demonstrate how totally inept is your reasoning and ecclesiology. If we can say that Pope Gregory XIV “erred”, he erred, like Pope John XXII, on a matter that was never defined or settled -- and was thus still open to debate. And of course, you also present it as if Pope Gregory XIV was actually sanctioning abortion during any stage of the fetus, which he never did.

However, your entire argument in making the accusation of error against Pope Pius IX rests on your assertion that he erred (through his magisterial teaching office) in his interpretation of an already defined dogma.

If I do not appear to have much tolerance or appreciation for the grappling by columba and Jehanne on such critical fundamentals (when they appear to be immune from any moderation by the Church), this is the perfect example of why such tolerance and appreciation is lacking.

What disturbs me is the blissful nonchalance and righteous ignorance of Jehanne as he says it does not disturb him “one bit” to accuse Pope Pius IX of error (heresy) on a dogma of faith.

This is a fine example of what I said in my previous post concerning Mike and his straw men.

He has taken Jehanne's words and contorted them into a false representaion of what he (Jehanne) was actually saying.
When Jehanne stated that Pope Gregory XIV erred, he merely highlighted the fact that Pope Gregory got it wrong and to get something wrong is to err.
He didn't say or even insinuate that Pope Gregory was guilty of heresy or mortal sin, he merely stated the truth that the pope got it wrong. That's why he's no need to be greatly bothered. If Pope Gregory XIV didn't err, then Mike must believe that Pope Pius IX erred when he stated that the soul is present from conception.
How this makes Jehanne an enemy of the Church and one who refuses moderation by the Church is beyond me. It's a typical response from MRyan when someone makes a valid observation to blow this up out of all proportion to the extent that the person making the point (in his eyes) is a proximate heretic, even when what's being said doesn't at all interfere with Mike's own understanding of the Church.

Misrepresentation works both ways.

You really should concern yourself with responding to my actual responses to your flawed ecclesiology, rather than continue to expose your total “cluelessness” and disregard for what I actually said in my response to Jehanne. You don’t even know what this exchange is all about, and you totally distort what is being said because of this. But Jehanne knew what I was saying, as his subsequent post indicates where he said:

That's because I believe (unlike you, apparently) that Catholic dogmas are their own interpreter, that is, the very words of the dogmas are self-evident, kind of like the US Constitution, as all US Supreme Court justices have recognized.

I did not make any false representations of what Jehanne actually said, but pointed out the egregious error of comparing the innocent error on a non-defined doctrine (ensoulment) to the “error” of Pope Pius IX on an already established defined dogma – we are talking about implicit faith being opposed to a defined dogma, not whether a pope can err on a matter never defined by the Church that is in no way opposed to an already defined dogma. Neither did I say that Jehanne said that Pope Gregory XIV was endorsing abortion for those prior to their “ensoulment”, but only that it could be easily construed that way by the way he presented it.

So why do you make a big deal over the error of Pope Gregory and why do you present the argument as if we are debating whether Pope Gregory can be wrong and Pope Pius IX correct on the true understanding of when conception (ensoulment) begins (which remains undefined, btw)? Is that supposed to prove something we do not already know, that popes can err on undefined matters which until then remained open to debate, and that can be settled at a latter date, even if not definitively? Only after a non-defined matter is definitively settled by the magisterium, in whatever form she decides to settle it, does an opposing opinion become “error” in the heretical sense.

And that is precisely what Jehanne is saying when he says Pope Pius IX “erred” with his “low-level” magisterial teachings within his allocution and encyclicals on invincible ignorance. That he does not necessarily call it “heresy” is irrelevant, he maintains that an implicit faith in our Lord that does not become explicit before death is “formal heresy”.

Jehanne does not dispute this, or my presentation of his doctrine, so what are you doing here with your gross distortions and total misrepresentation of this debate?

Cowboy, take my advice and butt out - you are in way over your head. You're calling me a "jerk" means nothing to me - so go somewhere else and spread your vapid theology on justification and charity. If you could have responded to my deconstruction and analysis of your Feeneyite-sede cut and paste presentation of doctrine, you would have, but we both know you are incapable of responding with anything resembling sound apologetics. Not on this subject, and not ever.

You can make excuses like I am some sort of bully, but we both know the truth of the matter.

Ok sorry you're not kind of a jerk, -- you are a jerk !

As proved by your last post.

You totally disregard the advice of St. Peter in scripture to be kind. You exhibit no love of Christ, or humility, just a passion to argue, because it makes you feel important.

People can slip up in the way they express things and at times let their emotions get the better of them, but you my sir, are pathologically angry and don't desire to help people but only to crush them. You are a small man.

Jehanne wrote:
Blind, servile obedience, that's what you advocate. Okay, fine. To each his own, I suppose.

This is the counter-argument of a desperate man who has nothing left in his quiver with which to return fire. I see this all the time from "trads" who use this tired cliche against anyone who presents and defends the magisterial teachings of the Church; as they imagine themselves little heroic reincarnations of St. Athanasius as they huddle with the "remnant" of true believers from whence they cast their ultimatums and aspersions against the pope and his authentic teaching authority.

You've said enough, Jehanne.

Moderators,

Please ignore cowboy ... I am not going to respond. You can lock the thread if you wish, but some progress is actually being made, despite this sudden ugly turn.

Well, it is true that things can get heated at times and I share the blame for that.
Despite my disagreements with Mike and contrary to how I may come across, I love the man. and not being privy to the trials and tribulations of each other while debating and arguing, I've no doubt that we all are subject to such and often when having a bad day my posts reflect that and I tend to forget that others too can be having a similar day. The contents of posts may not suffer but the tone certainly can at times.

Back to business.
Mike I had a revelation last night concerning Trent chapter 4. It came to me in a flash when I weren't even thinking of the subject.
I don't put much faith in private revelations (unless they're my own ) but I think I've found the true meaning of "or" which I will have to present in a coherent way. I haven't time now but will later.
More sparks afoot.

Columba,

I don't mind the heat either. I just wish people would acknowledge critical responses to their posts instead of weighing in weeks later with off-the-wall accusations.

Besides, I can never stay angry at you ... you have a built-in likeability charism, you're Irish.

Oh, and I can hardly wait for your private revelation on the true meaning of "or" in Session 6, Ch. 4 of Trent.

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:
Blind, servile obedience, that's what you advocate. Okay, fine. To each his own, I suppose.

This is the counter-argument of a desperate man who has nothing left in his quiver with which to return fire. I see this all the time from "trads" who use this tired cliche against anyone who presents and defends the magisterial teachings of the Church; as they imagine themselves little heroic reincarnations of St. Athanasius as they huddle with the "remnant" of true believers from whence they cast their ultimatums and aspersions against the pope and his authentic teaching authority.

You've said enough, Jehanne.

Pope Pius IX's words can be read either way. From my blog:

What about Pius IX?

Some were surprised by the election of Pope Pius IX to the Pontificate, who allegedly had some liberal tendencies, Catholic liberalism, of course, having spawned into Catholic (sic) intellectual circles out of the Enlightenment. Here is what Pope Pius IX said:

And here, beloved Sons and Venerable Brethren, it is necessary once more to mention and censure the serious error into which some Catholics have unfortunately fallen. For they are of the opinion that men who live in errors, estranged from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life. This is in direct opposition to Catholic teaching. We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace. For God, Who reads comprehensively in every detail the minds and souls, the thoughts and habits of all men, will not permit, in accordance with his infinite goodness and mercy, anyone who is not guilty of a voluntary fault to suffer eternal torments (suppliciis). However, also well-known is the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church, and that those who obstinately oppose the authority and definitions of the Church, and who stubbornly remain separated from the unity of the Church and from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff (to whom the Saviour has entrusted the care of His vineyard), cannot attain salvation. ( Quanto conficiamur, 7-8 )

The Church clearly declares that the only hope of salvation for mankind is placed in the Christian faith, which teaches the truth, scatters the darkness of ignorance by the splendor of its light, and works through love. This hope of salvation is placed in the Catholic Church which, in preserving the true worship, is the solid home of this faith and the temple of God. Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control. The Church teaches and proclaims that if sometimes we can use human wisdom to study the divine word, our wisdom should not for that reason proudly usurp to itself the right of master. ( Singulari quadam, 7 )

If we take the Holy Pontiff at his word (depending on which translation you are reading!), then no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church (and those individuals who are outside the Church cannot hope for salvation unless they are "excused through ignorance beyond their control"), which would, of course, include the "invincibly ignorant," which means that the "beyond their control"-group mentioned in Singulari quadam must still become Catholic to be saved. So, we can conclude that the One and Triune God will give the "beyond their control"-group divine light and grace so that these individuals can become Catholic!

Still, the Pope's words were at least somewhat ambiguous. Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors would, of course, come after the above two statements. Coming over a century later, the Catechism of the Catholic Church nowhere even footnotes the Syllabus. I will leave it to the reader to check what the CCC does reference from Pope Pius IX.

Okay, my interpretation does not agree with the supposed "official" one given at the First Vatican Council, but does that make my interpretation heretical or even wrong? Would Pope Pius IX disagree with it? As I have said before, ad nauseam, Catholic liberalism had begun in the 18th-century, so it should be no surprise to anyone to have seen it present at the Vatican I Council, where prelates were openly denying the dogma of the Primacy of the Pope.

And if it must be supplied (fulfilled), even through something else, then its necessity is NOT one of precept alone where ignorance and inaccessibility excuse one from its fulfillment.

Baptism (regeneration) is an absolute necessity. Baptism in water is only relatively necessary. So the relatively necessary can be substituted for by its place being taken by the absolutely necessary, baptismal regeneration by repentance in the Spirit or by blood.

I just don't like the terminology, and it makes no sense to me. I would simply say that baptismal regeneration in the Spirit is necessary by an absolute necessity of means, and this "necessity" may be met in 3 ways, baptism of desire, baptism of blood or the sacrament. Nice and easy.

In my opinion, the whole reason why the theologians came up with this terminology is because of the tradition regarding the absolute necessity of water baptism. I wish I had immediate access to that great quote from Father Jenkins or Jurgens in his book on the Fathers - where's Nadie? The theologians had to deal with this tradition and the quotes that the rigorists throw at them, and they came up with these distinctions. They're a thorn in my eye.

I could have been spared a lot of trouble, Lord, you if simply said what I said above ("baptismal regeneration in the Spirit is necessary by an absolute necessity of means, and this "necessity" may be met in 3 ways, baptism of desire, baptism of blood or the sacrament").

The theologians sometimes make the whole enterprise sound like a game, and give credence to guys like Hitchens. And I know and understand why Jehanne posted that video excerpt awhile back.

tornpage wrote:

And if it must be supplied (fulfilled), even through something else, then its necessity is NOT one of precept alone where ignorance and inaccessibility excuse one from its fulfillment.

Baptism (regeneration) is an absolute necessity. Baptism in water is only relatively necessary. So the relatively necessary can be substituted for by its place being taken by the absolutely necessary, baptismal regeneration by repentance in the Spirit or by blood.

I just don't like the terminology, and it makes no sense to me. I would simply say that baptismal regeneration in the Spirit is necessary by an absolute necessity of means, and this "necessity" may be met in 3 ways, baptism of desire, baptism of blood or the sacrament. Nice and easy.

In my opinion, the whole reason why the theologians came up with this terminology is because of the tradition regarding the absolute necessity of water baptism. I wish I had immediate access to that great quote from Father Jenkins or Jurgens in his book on the Fathers - where's Nadie? The theologians had to deal with this tradition and the quotes that the rigorists throw at them, and they came up with these distinctions. They're a thorn in my eye.

I could have been spared a lot of trouble, Lord, you if simply said what I said above ("baptismal regeneration in the Spirit is necessary by an absolute necessity of means, and this "necessity" may be met in 3 ways, baptism of desire, baptism of blood or the sacrament").

The theologians sometimes make the whole enterprise sound like a game, and give credence to guys like Hitchens. And I know and understand why Jehanne posted that video excerpt awhile back.

Well, no surprise here, but I disagree with your assessment. This is not a game for theologians who like to argue about how many angels can stand on the tip of a pin; the theological distinctions are critical to a proper understanding of the necessity of Baptism. Just as you do not like the terminology of the theologians, I don’t like your “baptismal regeneration in the Spirit” precisely because it removes the emphasis from “Baptism” to a specific description of Baptism – “regeneration in the Spirit”. Baptism is “easy”; baptismal regeneration in the Spirit, not so much. I understand your expression, and do not disagree with it, but I don’t like it. The word “optional” and “baptism in the Spirit” keeps popping up in my mind when I read it and the ONE Baptism seems to be lost in translation (watch columba get a kick out of that).

Even the Catechism of Trent calls Baptism a “universal and absolute necessity”, and defines Baptism as:

The Sacrament of regeneration by water in the word. By nature we are born from Adam children of wrath, but by Baptism we are regenerated in Christ, children of mercy. For He gave power to men to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name, who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God”, and says “the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

The section on Baptism alone is over 30 pages, and but for one or two sentences within the section titled “Ordinarily They Are Not Baptized At Once”, anyone who read the entire instruction on Baptism would never in a million years "assume" that water baptism was not absolutely essential for salvation, no exceptions. The language is that strong, and yet, there it is … the lone and rather brief “qualification” explaining how God will provide for those who are properly disposed when the sacrament is impossible to receive. And yet, the Catechism exhorts prelates to emphasize in their catechetical instructions the absolute necessity of Baptism; after all, the Church knows of no other means (at her disposal) that can assure salvation, even if baptism of blood and baptism of desire assure the salvation of those who may actually benefit from them.

You make it appear as if the theologians made up these distinctions out of whole cloth in order to come up with a creative way for holding on to the “true” understanding of the Fathers while providing a loophole for baptism of desire. You don’t have to wait for Nadie, I have the same citation by Jurgens and know what you are looking for, but it does not prove anything that is not already taught by the Catechism of Trent. A careful reading of the Fathers does not point to a bunch or “rigorists” who would have “rejected” baptism of desire, but to a period of the Church when such complex distinctions were not exactly a priority when so many of the soon-to-be-Baptized were adult converts; not all of whom understood that an undue delay in sacramental Baptism was not in their best interests.

As the Catechism of Trent teaches: “For since it is written, delay not to be converted to the Lord, and defer it not from day to day, they are to be taught that in their regard perfect conversion consists in regeneration by Baptism.” A misunderstanding of baptism of desire, precisely as my rigorist protagonists falsely present it, may have only provided the less-than wholly ardent converts (e.g., attrition vs sincere contrition) with one more justification for delaying their baptism should it prove to be an inconvenient necessity, but not so necessary when Baptism would mark them as a target, or reduce their standing in the community, rather than mark them as one of the spiritually elect.

And it is this somewhat lackadaisical attitude (not uncommon when there are so many conversions, and especially during periods of heavy persecution) that the Fathers were forever railing about; thus the strong and almost exclusive language on absolute necessity. And for good reason; for anyone who was not ardent in their desire for baptism could not have the proper dispositions for baptism of desire in the first place, so why give them a reason that could serve as just another delaying tactic? St. Augustine’s "Lord, make me chaste, but not yet" comes to mind.

A careful reading of the early Fathers and one can see that the qualification in the Catechism of Trent is not some late medieval accretion or imposition of the theologians, for they always understood that God provides for those of good heart who do not have material and logistical access to the Gospel (and the sacraments), contrary to Feeneyite lore.

And I doubt that there is even one Father who believed that “promulgation of the Gospel” could only be understood as a specific moment in time that had a no-exceptions universal application ... meaning, absolutely no allowance for baptism of desire for those to whom “promulgation” is also personal (faith by hearing), and might be lacking through no fault of their own.

The terminology of the theologians on the distinctions leading to a correct understanding of "necessity of means" is fine by me.

MRyan wrote:A careful reading of the early Fathers and one can see that the qualification in the Catechism of Trent is not some late medieval accretion or imposition of the theologians, for they always understood that God provides for those of good heart who do not have material and logistical access to the Gospel (and the sacraments), contrary to Feeneyite lore.

I can see why people are getting irritated with you, Mike. I know that I am:

http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/CenterReview/3_2005_Native.pdf

"Everyone is bound to believe something explicitly...even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to Divine Providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or he would send some preacher of the faith to him as He sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20). (The Disputed Questions on Truth, Q.14, a.11)"

I have cited this quote from Aquinas ad nauseam. Do you understand what Saint Thomas is teaching here, Mike? The "theologians," of course, do not like Saint Thomas' teaching, because it would involve "too many miracles" and/or "too many private revelations," and so they find their "answers" in rationalistic materialism, just like they deny the literal existence of Adam & Eve and The Deluge. Have you checked on your "theological friends" about their beliefs in those areas of Catholic teaching? Please report back to us on this one.

“

baptism in the Spirit” keeps popping up in my mind when I read it and the ONE Baptism seems to be lost in translation (watch columba get a kick out of that).

The necessary regeneration or rebirth by the Holy Ghost is the one baptism. This can be met by the sacrament, baptism of desire or baptism of blood. You agree, right?

I know what you're saying, and I understand your frustration. You sense I'm wandering from the "company line." But in reality it sounds to me like water baptism is a substitute for the, as you say, "not easy" perfect contrition and baptism in the Spirit, not the other way around. The sacrament is a gift from God to men, who can be justified thereby by meeting the less onerous burden of righteousness which a proper disposition for baptism entails.

And I doubt that there is even one Father who believed that “promulgation of the Gospel” could only be understood as a specific moment in time that had a no-exceptions universal application ... meaning, absolutely no allowance for baptism of desire for those to whom “promulgation” is also personal (faith by hearing), and might be lacking through no fault of their own.

Nonsense. Why would St. Thomas believe that all men were required to come to an explicit faith in Christ, even if the gospel wasn't personally preached to them then? I'll tell you: because it had been promulgated once and for all. I could add the statements of St. Augustine, who also believed that one could not be saved without faith in Christ, even if one hadn't had the gospel preached to him.

And, though he's not one of the ancient fathers, but how about St. Robert Bellarmine, doctor of the Church:

"The law making Baptism necessary for salvation was promulgated on Ascension Day or, if you will, on Pentecost, simultaneously for the whole world, and at once became binding upon all nations." (On Baptism, Chapter 5).

And the Catechism of the Council of Trent also indicates that the law of Baptism became obligatory on all after the Passion or promulgation of the Gospel, I forget which. And the only exception the Catechism allows is for catechumen who, obviously, have faith in Christ.

The promulgation of the Gospel is done for purposes of determining the necessary elements for salvation of everyone in the Gospel age.

duplicate post