Baptism of Desire & Our Blessed Mother

http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2011/10/text-of-letter-prophesied-to-father.html

Saturday, October 15, 2011

Text of the letter prophesied to Father Hermann Cohen by the Curé of Ars.


Rev. Fr. Hermann Cohen, O.C.D.

The last moments for Mrs. Cohen arrived on 13 December 1855. Father Hermann was preaching Advent in Lyons at the time and he announced this sad news to his friend in these terms:

"God has struck a terrible blow to my heart. My poor mother is dead ... and I remain in incertitude! However we have so much prayed that we must hope that something has passed between her soul and God during these last moments that we cannot know about. ..."

We can easily imagine the pain of Father Hermann in learning of the death of his mother. He had so much prayed and so much had prayers said for her conversion, and she came to appear before the tribunal of God without having received holy Baptism! ...

"I also have a mother," would he write one day, "I have left her to follow Jesus Christ, she no longer calls me her 'good son'. Already her hair is silvered, already her brow is furrowed, and I am afraid to see her die. Oh! no I would not like to see her die before loving Jesus Christ, and already for many years I await for my mother that which Monica awaited for Augustine..."

God seemed to have despised all his prayers and rejected his loving and legitimate desires. His faith and his love were put through a harsh trial. Nevertheless, if his sorrow was deep, his hope in the infinite goodness of God would not allow itself to be struck down. ...


Saint Jean Marie Vianney
Curé of Ars

A short time later, he confided to the Curé of Ars his disquiet about the death of his poor mother who died without the grace of Baptism. "Hope!" replied the man of God, "hope; you will receive one day, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception a letter that will bring you great consolation."

These words were almost forgotten, when, on the 8th December 1861, six years after the death of his mother, a Father of the Company of Jesus handed to Father Hermann the following letter.

(The person who wrote this letter died in the odour of sanctity; she was well known in the religious and ascetical world by her written works on the Eucharist.)

The letter read:

On the 18th October, after Holy Communion, I found myself in one of those moments of intimate union with Our Lord, where he made me so feel his presence in the sacrament of His love that Faith seemed no longer necessary to believe him there.

After a short time, He had me hear His voice and He wanted to give me some explanations relative to a conversation that I had had the night before.

I remember that, in that conversation, one of my friends had manifested her surprise that Our Lord, who has promised to accord everything to prayer, had however remained deaf to those of Reverend Father Hermann who had so many times addressed Him to obtain the conversion of his mother; her surprise went almost as far as discontentment, and I had had difficulty in having her understand that we must adore the justice of God and not to seek to penetrate its secrets.

I dared to ask of my Jesus how it was that He, who was goodness itself, had been able to resist the prayers of Father Hermann, and not grant the conversion of his mother.

This was His (Our Lord's) response:

Why does Anna always want to sound the secrets of my justice and why does she seek to penetrate mysteries that she cannot comprehend?

Tell her that I do not owe my grace to anyone, that I give it to whom I please and that in acting in this way I do not cease to be just, and justice itself.

But that she may know that, rather than not keep the promises that I have made to prayer, I will upset heaven and earth, and that every prayer that has my glory and the salvation of souls for object is always heard when it is clothed in the necessary qualities.

He added: "And to prove to you this truth, I willingly make known that which passed at the moment of the death of the mother of Father Hermann".

My Jesus then enlightened me with a ray of His divine light and had me understand or rather to see in Him that which I want to try to relate.

At the moment where the mother of Father Hermann was on the point of rendering her last breath; at the moment that she seemed deprived of awareness, almost without life; Mary, our good Mother, presented Herself before Her Divine Son, and prostrate at His feet, She said to Him: "Pardon and mercy, o my Son! for this soul who is going to perish. Yet another instant and she will be lost, lost for eternity. I beseech you, do for the mother of my servant Hermann, that which you would like to be done for your own, if She was in her place and if you were in his. The soul of his mother is his most precious good; he has consecrated her to me a thousand times; he has consecrated her to the tenderness and solicitude of my heart. Could I suffer her to perish? No, no, this soul is mine; I will it, I claim it as an inheritance, as the price of your blood and of my sufferings at the foot of your Cross."

Hardly had the sacred suppliant ceased speaking, when a strong, powerful grace, came forth from the source of all graces, from the adorable Heart of our Jesus, and came to enlighten the soul of the poor dying Jewess; instantly triumphing over her stubbornness and resistances.

This soul immediately turned herself with loving confidence towards Him whose mercy had persued her as far as the arms of death and said to Him: "O Jesus, God of the Christians, God whom my son adores, I believe, I hope in Thee, have pity on me."

In this cry, heard by God alone and which came from the intimate depths of the heart of the dying woman, were enclosed the sincere sorrow for her obstination and for her sins, the desire of baptism, the express will to receive it and to live according to the rules and precepts of our holy religion, if she had been able to return to life.

This leap of faith and hope in Jesus was the last sentiment of that soul; it was made at the moment when she brought towards the throne of the divine mercy. Breaking away the weak bonds which held her to her mortal casing, she fell at the feet of Him who had been her Saviour (a moment) before being her Judge."

After having showed me all these things, Our Lord added:

"Make this known to Father Hermann; it is a consolation that I wish to accord to his long sorrows, so that he will bless, and have blessed everywhere, the goodness of the heart of my Mother and Her power over mine."

Totally unknown to Reverend Father Hermann, the poor invalid who has just now penned these lines is happy to think that she has perhaps spread a little consolation and balm on the still bleeding wound of the heart of this son and priest. She dares to ask the alms of his fervent prayers, and she likes to believe that he will not refuse to one, who, even though unknown to him, is united to him by the sacred bonds of the same faith and of the same hopes. ..."

What appears to add great authority to this letter, is that it had been announced six years in advance by the venerable Cure of Ars.

Mike,

That's beautiful - it has so many truths within it.

That is a very moving story.

What appears to add great authority to this letter, is that it had been announced six years in advance by the venerable Cure of Ars.

On the other hand, what appears to discredit the notion that this good woman entered heaven without Baptism is the words of Our Lord Himself,
Jesus answered: "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)

Therefore to reconcile the mercy of God with His Just decree concerning the necessity of water, one could go a step further and believe that Our Lord, who did not withhold the grace of Final repentance to the good priest's mother. would also not deprive her of the water ("For with God nothing shall be impossible. Luke 1:37).

columba wrote:
On the other hand, what appears to discredit the notion that this good woman entered heaven without Baptism ...

That didn't take long.

The above has been "making its rounds" on the Internet. In any case,

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

So, perhaps the woman was baptized in her infancy or by an angel or by someone else. As the late Carl Sagan used to say (a phrase which he borrowed), "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:
On the other hand, what appears to discredit the notion that this good woman entered heaven without Baptism ...

That didn't take long.

What we have is a private revelation which seems to be contradicting public revelation. My point is that the two can be reconciled very easily. (and it doen't take long ot state the obvious).

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:
On the other hand, what appears to discredit the notion that this good woman entered heaven without Baptism ...

That didn't take long.

What we have is a private revelation which seems to be contradicting public revelation. My point is that the two can be reconciled very easily. (and it doen't take long ot state the obvious).

No, what we have is a very credible private revelation that confirms the very public revelation concerning Baptism and the understanding thereof by tradition and the Church.

So what we have is credible private revelation that stands in contradiction to your very private interpretation of public revelation, with your fallible authority being imposed over the authority of the Church.

Your attempt at a "reconciliation" simply negates or "discredits" the obvious sense of the private revelation by all concerned ... though you can believe whatever you want.

But, what else is new?

You're in your own little tiny camp, too, Mike; just so that we are clear on that. Studies have shown that most, if not nearly all, Catholics (sic) reject the Church's teachings on a whole host of subjects, even those which you yourself would admit are "definitive." In fact, "mainstream" Catholics have very little differences as compared to other religious groups in America and throughout the World. For most, it's a "Christmas and Easter thing."

I am not going to derail this thread; the information for my claims is easily attainable from numerous sources. Please stop trying "to paint" traditional Catholics into a corner; your "corner" isn't any bigger.

Jehanne wrote:You're in your own little tiny camp, too, Mike; just so that we are clear on that.

Just so we're clear, my tiny little camp places me squarely in the camp of communion with Peter, the same "Roman Pontiff" you acknowledge, but have taken away his supreme Apostolic Primacy and won't give it back until he abides by your Catholic (sic) standards for papal orthodoxy.

Jehanne wrote:
Studies have shown that most, if not nearly all, Catholics (sic) reject the Church's teachings on a whole host of subjects, even those which you yourself would admit are "definitive." In fact, "mainstream" Catholics have very little differences as compared to other religious groups in America and throughout the World. For most, it's a "Christmas and Easter thing."

And that is suppose to prove what? I will stack the faith, charity and zeal ("for My Father's House") of my local Novous Ordo Church against any "independent" TLM community out there. I guess my Church never got the message that they are "Christmas and Easter" Catholics.

Jehanne wrote:I am not going to derail this thread

That would be a first, and totally uncharacteristic.

Jehanne wrote:Please stop trying "to paint" traditional Catholics into a corner; your "corner" isn't any bigger.

I'm not "painting" anyone anywhere. My "corner" is the visible Roman Catholic Church and her visible head, Peter; who, as VCI infallibly and dogmatically proclaimed, presides even to "this day" over the universal Church with our Lord acting through him as his sure guide.

You can't say the same about your little pope-less invisible Church.

In this cry, heard by God alone and which came from the intimate depths of the heart of the dying woman, were enclosed the sincere sorrow for her obstination and for her sins, the desire of baptism, the express will to receive it and to live according to the rules and precepts of our holy religion, if she had been able to return to life.

Our Lord can apply the merit of His Redemption and even a seal of this same regeneration (of the Holy Ghost) upon anyone He so chooses, without the sacrament of water Baptism. He has as much freedom in this regard as He does in dispensing grace to whomsoever He chooses.

However, prayer “when it is clothed in the necessary qualities” has a certain power over Him, especially the prayer of His Blessed Mother, the inherent qualities of which He cannot refuse.

Oh, if only to hear those words at death: “this soul is mine; I will it, I claim it as an inheritance, as the price of your blood and of my sufferings at the foot of your Cross."

“I will it …”

O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee … now and at the hour of our death, Amen.

MRyan wrote:You can't say the same about your little pope-less invisible Church.

Great; just realize that you are in a very small "Church." As for my position, I have made that clear. I do believe that the present, visible Pontiff does have the Keys of Kingdom (someone has to have them), so yes, I think that he can correct his errors and those of his predecessors, as well as the errors that permeate almost all of the universal Church. Until then, I want nothing to do with him. Even if he is not a heretic, he is certainly acting like one.

I do not believe in your religion, Mike; sorry. If was forced to chose, I suppose that I would choose to become something other than a Catholic. Your view does not make sense to me; sorry. The fact that it is the "teaching" of the CCC makes no difference; I think that it is ridiculous, self-contradictory, and absurd, and more to the point, it's not what I believe to be the Truth. As a matter of fact, I think that atheistic materialism makes more sense than does the current CCC; at least that philosophy, however false, is consistent with itself.

In any event, traditional Catholicism provides for me at least a much more logical and consistent view of things. Even many prominent Catholic (sic) theologians, such as Hans Urs von Balthasar, admit that the Church has changed her (its) teachings; virtually all Protestant, Orthodox, atheistic, etc. scholars/authors also agree that Rome has contradicted itself. So, we traditional Catholics have those who are both on the "inside" and those who are on the outside who support our position. Your position is supported by an even tinier minority of scholars, and I doubt that even at your N.O. parish that you will find many people who will agree with you.

Please stop "preaching" at me; I am done "preaching" at you. It is time for me at least to move on.

One thing we need to remember is the Church is a lot more tolerant that we appreciate. It is a big tent in some ways, with a lot of divergence within it - acceptable and orthodox divergence. And I am talking pre-Vatican II Church, lest someone pipe in and say, "yeah, since Vatican II."

Two issues - baptism of desire is no longer an issue with me; MRyan's right and the Feeneyite's are wrong; it's just a matter of their coming to terms with it - where it really hits home is explicit faith in Christ and the whole issue of grace and God's decree and Predestination. These issues are important to me not as an academic exercise or scholarly diversion: they go to the very heart of the nature of God and his purpose and redemptive plan, His sovereignty, etc. They bear directly for me on God's majesty, glory and instill a genuine "fear" (with awe) of Him, which His majesty and glory call for.

I am free to believe in the necessity of explicit faith in Christ (even if perhaps I must call it a "necessity of infallibility" rather than means), and also free to believe in something like negative reprobation, with Banez, Alvarez, Gonet (for details on that, you can follow other threads) and other orthodox Catholic theologians. Many (probably 99% on the later view) Catholics also orthodox in their faith would reject those views.

My point is, we tend to think of Catholicism as demanding a lock step unison on everything with regard to the faith - if one is to hold "orthodox" views. But that is not the case. There is more liberty here they we recognize.

Not sure if that point is relevant to the discussion but it's something I wanted to say. The realization of this point is helpful to me at the moment, and may perhaps be so for others.

I posted a good piece from the sede John Daly I believe on the tolerance issue - I'll bump it if I can find it.

As I'm sure everyone has noticed here, the search feature on this site stinks. If anyone has had success with it, please let me know.

tornpage wrote:Two issues - baptism of desire is no longer an issue with me; MRyan's right and the Feeneyite's are wrong; it's just a matter of their coming to terms with it - where it really hits home is explicit faith in Christ and the whole issue of grace and God's decree and Predestination.

Yeah, sure, how long has it been since Father Fenney's death? (Answer: 33 years) If angels exist (if they don't, then Catholicism is a lie), then they can sacramentally baptize. We know this to be so, because angels can do other things. Realize it or not, your argument is self-contradictory and absurd, which means that it is stupid. I would sooner become an atheist before I would accept that individuals who sincerely desire Baptism die without it. Now, Mike will tell me that "I don't know anything about Feeneyism," but what I do, apparently, know was "good enough":

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

You are free to "believe in/assume that negatives occur"; no one else thinks that way. Mike (and, apparently, you, also) will continue to pound on "open doors" and tell us things that we already know -- "desires saves," yes, truly, it does; for infants, a miraculous baptism will suffice. But our God is a big God, not the deistic cosmic by-standard that you and Mike make him out to be, and there is no reason to suppose let alone "believe" that the One and Triune God will not provide Baptism to those who sincerely desire it. Mike, of course, has to jettison centuries of Catholic teaching and belief (e.g. "temporal punishment due those who die without Baptism," "infants going to Hell/Limbo," etc.) to make his theology "fit." His is truly a new religion. One can only stand in awe as to how the Church, the Bride of Christ, could have been so wrong about so many things for so long.

Mike's theology is, however, one of atheistic materialism. They deny human free will ("my neurons made me do it"), just as Mike says that implicit desire is all that is needed. I have more respect (and, no, I am "not preaching" here) for the former than I do for the latter; at least materialists are consistent in what they define as human action or inaction. As for Mike's "implicit desire," no one can tell us what it is or what it isn't or how one acquires it or gets rid of it. If it is just "doing God's will," we know where such ought to lead and where it will not lead; after all, God is the One who is "doing the leading," isn't He?

Freud has been discredited, even among materialists. His philosophy is solely in the domain of modernist Catholic theology.

Mike's theology is, however, one of atheistic materialism

You don't know squat about Mike's theology.

Mike's right about what the Church teaches. To the extent you or anyone here says that one must be baptized in water to be saved, they're wrong: the Church teaches otherwise.

I should have said about the Church's "big tent" that one may believe that no one is in fact saved who does not receive water baptism (another "necessity of infallibility") and one is also free to believe that people may be saved by a baptism of desire without water baptism.

Realize it or not, your argument is self-contradictory and absurd, which means that it is stupid.

My argument? I said Mike was right and the Feeneyite's were wrong. Quite an argument - yes, I really opened myself up to absurdity and stupidity there. Not to mention contradiction.

Your argument is stupid comes to Mt. Tabor and is transfigured into Jehanne stupid.

A true miracle you are, a rare device.

tornpage wrote:

Mike's theology is, however, one of atheistic materialism

You don't know squat about Mike's theology.

Mike's right about what the Church teaches. To the extent you or anyone here says that one must be baptized in water to be saved, they're wrong: the Church teaches otherwise.

I should have said about the Church's "big tent" that one may believe that no one is in fact saved who does not receive water baptism (another "necessity of infallibility") and one is also free to believe that people may be saved by a baptism of desire without water baptism.

I have never disputed the fact that Mike is right about what "the Church teaches." Gee, if you think that this is what this forum is about and/or at least my participation on it, then you should really reconsider your belief that there are "50 states" in America.

The Church does teach Baptism of Desire, implicit faith, infants going to Heaven without Baptism, etc. And, there are several possibilities:

1) The Church is wrong. Catholicism is a lie, and boy, if true, we have really been wasting our time here, haven't we?! It's one thing to attend a N.O. parish and meet good-looking women who like to wear skirts/dresses, have fellowship, and cookies/cool-aid, but this! Wow, what a waste of time if none of this is true.

2) God speaks with a forked tongue. God is real, but either he/she/it did not reveal himself/herself/itself through the Church, or if he/she/it did, then he/she/it just cannot make up his/her/its mind. If this option is true, then God must be a woman!

3) Human beings messed things up. This is what I think is true. Mike will acknowledge that the Church universally taught and believed for centuries "such and such," but because "it wasn't defined," therefore, "it doesn't count." Now, however, since the Church is teaching this, "this" must be true, even though it is not universally taught nor believed.

4) Doctrine just develops but just does so strangely. Once upon a time, 2+2 = 4 but now 2+2 = 5 (or 10, or a 100, whatever!), or, once upon a time, 2+2 = 5 (or whatever) but now 2+2 = 4, or at least we think that it does. I find this position to be strange and stupid, both at the same time. After all, did Jesus, if He was truly God, know about any of this? If one of His Apostles would have asked Him, "Hey, Master, do infants who die without Baptism go to Heaven?", what would He have said? Don't you think that those individuals who were closer to the Source would have the correct answer?

I

have never disputed the fact that Mike is right about what "the Church teaches."

Oh, yes, you "never" disputed that. And when did you become a sede? Yesterday?

So, prior to becoming a sede, you understood that Mike was right about what the Church taught, but it taught wrong, and yet it was still the Church and presided over by the Vicar of Christ, albeit now teaching "error" regarding the faith . . .

He says my argument is stupid.

tornpage wrote:

Realize it or not, your argument is self-contradictory and absurd, which means that it is stupid.

My argument? I said Mike was right and the Feeneyite's were wrong. Quite an argument - yes, I really opened myself up to absurdity and stupidity there. Not to mention contradiction.

Your argument is stupid comes to Mt. Tabor and is transfigured into Jehanne stupid.

A true miracle you are, a rare device.

Your "argument" is that there are people who desire Baptism and who die without it. Yes, sure, the Church teaches this (at least implicitly), and the Church (that is, the Pope) is stupid. Don't believe me? Just ask Richard Dawkins. He thinks that it is stupid. Do you think that theology is respected within the Academy? Guess what? It's not. Dawkins respects people like me (I know this to be so, because Richard has said so); he doesn't respect "the liberals" (his words.) He does not even consider theology to be an "academic discipline." (You can look these quotes up yourself.)

Why do you think that Dawkins has said these things?

tornpage wrote:I

have never disputed the fact that Mike is right about what "the Church teaches."

Oh, yes, you "never" disputed that. And when did you become a sede? Yesterday?

So, prior to becoming a sede, you understood that Mike was right about what the Church taught, but it taught wrong, and yet it was still the Church and presided over by the Vicar of Christ, albeit now teaching "error" regarding the faith . . .

He says my argument is stupid.

No, you're putting words in my mouth. If I thought that the Pope was a true Pope, then, yes, like Mike, I would owe him obedience. I do not think that he is a true Pope, in the sense that he professes the True Faith. Clearly, he does not; I do not think that there is any dispute about that. But, what about the "Keys of the Kingdom," if those truly exist? Are they in the basement somewhere in the Vatican? No, someone, a person, must be "holding" them, if only metaphorically, and that person must be Pope Benedict XVI, the visible head of the Church. I do not dispute that, never have.

So, is he the Pope? Yes, absolutely, in virtue of his office. Is he a Catholic? No, I do not think that he is, therefore, I, as a Catholic, owe him no obedience. It would be like saying that I, as an American, owe obedience to a traitorous President.

How to make sense of this? Easy. Which is of higher authority? The President or the Constitution? Well, duh, it's the latter. The same is true of the Pope; the Ordinary and Supreme Magisterium of the Church is of a higher authority. The Pope can correct all of this, this afternoon (or morning where he is), if he wanted to, by making the necessary ex cathedra pronouncements. Catholic (sic) liberals know this, of course, which is why they are doing everything in their power to diminish the dogma of Papal Infallibility. So, yes, the Pope holds they Keys; he's just not using them, and until he does, I want nothing to do with him.

Call me what you will -- sede, schismatic, disobedient, conscientious objector, etc. Those are all just "labels."

[quote="MRyan"]

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:
On the other hand, what appears to discredit the notion that this good woman entered heaven without Baptism ...

That didn't take long.

What we have is a private revelation which seems to be contradicting public revelation. My point is that the two can be reconciled very easily. (and it doen't take long ot state the obvious).

No, what we have is a very credible private revelation that confirms the very public revelation concerning Baptism and the understanding thereof by tradition and the Church.

Lets see what in fact we really do have regarding this story.

Fact one: The priest's grief at his Mother's death was compounded with the knowledge that she had departed this life without any visible sign of having had a change of heart.

Fact two: He bemoaned the fact that she departed this life without Baptism. This was in the year 1855 (not that long ago) which would lend much credibility to the belief that at that time the absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism was considered de fide.

Fact three: Even though the good priest knew of his mothers plight he obviously didn't consider baptizing her secretly without her consent (as perhaps he could have done as she lay on her death-bed) knowing this would render the sacrament invalid as per Trent 6-4, " the desire for it" must be present in an adult; and what a temptation that must have been when we consider that it was his own beloved mother.

Fact four: Even in his distress at his mothers death he never consoled himself with the possibility that despite her non-conversion she may have harbored an implicit desire (in so far as if she had really understood what was on offer she would never have rejected it) and that his own prayers for her conversion would have -by the mercy of God- made that desire explicit and thus she could be saved by the desire alone. Nay; no such considerations are recounted in the story.

Far from adding weight to the speculation as to the salvific merits of baptism of desire, it would appear that at that time they were never even considered. (so much for it being a long-held doctrine of the Church).

Conclussion: It was revealed (via private revelation) that this woman was saved.
I personally believe that many such are saved through final penatance in consideration of the prayers we pray for all sinners "now and at the hour of our death" and that such are miraculously regenerated through water and the spirit in accord with the infallible word of God as to the necessity of this.

So what we have is credible private revelation that stands in contradiction to your very private interpretation of public revelation, with your fallible authority being imposed over the authority of the Church.

Nope.. What we have is opinions as to what the authority of the Church actually teaches and how long she has taught it. One thing we can say for sure that we do have is the dogmatic pronouncements concernig the absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism of which the Church (to this day) knows of no other means by which a soul can be saved.

Your attempt at a "reconciliation" simply negates or "discredits" the obvious sense of the private revelation by all concerned ... though you can believe whatever you want.

The "all concerned" becomes quite a minority when the majority of them can be found in post-conciliar Catholicism.

But, what else is new?

You tell me Mike?

columba wrote:
Lets see what in fact we really do have regarding this story.

Fact: You are playing fast and loose with the facts.

columba wrote:
Fact two: He bemoaned the fact that she departed this life without Baptism. This was in the year 1855 (not that long ago) which would lend much credibility to the belief that at that time the absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism was considered de fide.

Nonsense. Any Catholic who does not bemoan the fact that one of their loved one’s departed this life without Baptism is probably guilty of the sin of presumption. Hope in the divine mercy of God does not take away from the grief of seeing a close relative leave this life without the sacrament, especially an immediate relative who never professed or gave any inclination whatsoever that she wanted to profess the Catholic faith.

So why in the world would this priest dare to presume that his mother was saved by an “implicit desire” and why would he NOT be distraught after bombarding heaven all of those years with his prayers and mortifications without a single sign that heaven heard his prayer?

The absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism, in so far as it absolutely binds all men to its reception (but it does not bind God), has always been “de fide”, and it still is. However, it is absolutely false for you to suggest that in 1855 baptism of desire was not an accepted doctrine of the Church or to pretend that the doctrines are opposed. You just cannot make this stuff up as if it were true – when we know darn well that it is false.

columba wrote:
Conclussion: It was revealed (via private revelation) that this woman was saved.
I personally believe that many such are saved through final penatance in consideration of the prayers we pray for all sinners "now and at the hour of our death" and that such are miraculously regenerated through water and the spirit in accord with the infallible word of God as to the necessity of this.

Our Lord does not have to perform "miracles" in order to regenerate anyone in the Spirit of water baptism (the spirit of baptismal re-birth and regeneration). And I really don’t care what you “believe” except when you turn the words of our Lord into an indictment against the Church as if she is a habitual liar who has been lying to the faithful ever since the Council of Trent – and before.

Here you are telling us once again what has been dogmatically and infallibly revealed by our Lord, and accusing the Church of being so doctrinally inept so as not to realize that she has been teaching a false heretical doctrine for centuries on end that stands in direct opposition to the words of our Lord and to her own dogma.

One of you is wrong; guess what, it’s not the Church.

But, what else is new?

Columba, I was about to reply to your comments, ... that at that time, baptism of desire was never even considered. Fortunately however, Mryan beat me to it and covered many of my own thoughts. So I'll just ask you a question. Fr Hermann was aware that his mother had not been baptised prior to her death. Why then did he say, "that we must hope that something has passed between her soul and God during these last moments that we cannot know about. ..."
Why then also, did Saint Jean Marie Vianney, (knowing she had died without baptism), advise Fr Hermann to "HOPE"?
On what did both of these people place their 'hope', if in the year 1855, they only believed in, "the absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism"?

simple Faith wrote:Columba, I was about to reply to your comments, ... that at that time, baptism of desire was never even considered. Fortunately however, Mryan beat me to it and covered many of my own thoughts. So I'll just ask you a question. Fr Hermann was aware that his mother had not been baptised prior to her death. Why then did he say, "that we must hope that something has passed between her soul and God during these last moments that we cannot know about. ..."
Why then also, did Saint Jean Marie Vianney, (knowing she had died without baptism), advise Fr Hermann to "HOPE"?
On what did both of these people place their 'hope', if in the year 1855, they only believed in, "the absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism"?

I'll take your post first S.F as it is shorter.

question. Fr Hermann was aware that his mother had not been baptised prior to her death. Why then did he say, "that we must hope that something has passed between her soul and God during these last moments that we cannot know about. ..."

One would need to ask Fr Hermann himself in order to be 100% sure as to what his hope was. He may well have been hoping for a miracle (which was of course was realized) and that miracle would not rule out Baptism.

Why then also, did Saint Jean Marie Vianney, (knowing she had died without baptism), advise Fr Hermann to "HOPE"?
On what did both of these people place their 'hope', if in the year 1855, they only believed in, "the absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism"?

Where do you conclude from the story that Baptism was impossible?
If it was impossible then the angel Gabriel was wrong when he said to the Blessed Virgin, "For nothing is impossible with God."

I conclude that the hope he (St. Jean Marie Vianney) held was that she would be miraculously baptized. Why would I think such a think? Precisely because it was this very saint who preached so much on the fewness of the saved and used as examples the poor pagans who inhabit the upper reaches of hell who had never known Christ or baptism to highlight the depths of hell in which the reprobate baptized Catholics reside who bear the mark/seal of baptism upon their souls.
He would also have been aware of the miraculous interventions throughout history where actual corpses were raised from the dead to receive baptism by certain saints. (your man St Patrick being one such miracle worker).

MRyan wrote:
Nonsense. Any Catholic who does not bemoan the fact that one of their loved one’s departed this life without Baptism is probably guilty of the sin of presumption. Hope in the divine mercy of God does not take away from the grief of seeing a close relative leave this life without the sacrament, especially an immediate relative who never professed or gave any inclination whatsoever that she wanted to profess the Catholic faith.

Exactly Mike. It is presumption to make de fide that which has not been revealed as a truth of the faith. It is not however presumption to hope that God can miraculously save a soul from damnation within the confines of His own infallible word regarding the truth spoken from His own lips, "Truly Truly/Verily Verily/Amen Amen, I say to you, unless a man be born again of WATER and the Spirit, he CANNOT enter the kingdom of God."

So why in the world would this priest dare to presume that his mother was saved by an “implicit desire” and why would he NOT be distraught after bombarding heaven all of those years with his prayers and mortifications without a single sign that heaven heard his prayer?

Well Mike (no sarcasm intended) but don't you believe that implicit desire can save?

The absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism, in so far as it absolutely binds all men to its reception (but it does not bind God), has always been “de fide”, and it still is. However, it is absolutely false for you to suggest that in 1855 baptism of desire was not an accepted doctrine of the Church or to pretend that the doctrines are opposed. You just cannot make this stuff up as if it were true – when we know darn well that it is false.

I can't help but notice the contradiction. "The absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism, in so far as it absolutely binds all men to its reception (but it does not bind God)."
The very reason we know that it "binds all men" is because we know the infallible word of God to be true. To say that it does not bind God is like saying that God would contradict His own word.
Regarding making stuff up: It is a stretch of the known facts to presume that baptism of desire was a doctrine of the faith in 1855. Reason alone would dictate it could not/cannot be, for we already agree that even if it does exist it is known only to God and unknown to man, therefore, that which is unknown can't claim the high title of "de fide."

Our Lord does not have to perform "miracles" in order to regenerate anyone in the Spirit of water baptism (the spirit of baptismal re-birth and regeneration). And I really don’t care what you “believe” except when you turn the words of our Lord into an indictment against the Church as if she is a habitual liar who has been lying to the faithful ever since the Council of Trent – and before.

I object; the Lord indeed does have to perform "miracles" in order to regenerate anyone in the Spirit of water baptism (the spirit of baptismal re-birth and regeneration) and miracles in the truest sense of the word; the same caliber of miracle that brings about transubstantiation.
I don't for a second consider the Church to be a habitual liar because a habit takes a long time to develope and the lying is only of recent origin and merely by some (though influential) modernists within the Church who care nothing for sound doctrine.

Here you are telling us once again what has been dogmatically and infallibly revealed by our Lord, and accusing the Church of being so doctrinally inept so as not to realize that she has been teaching a false heretical doctrine for centuries on end that stands in direct opposition to the words of our Lord and to her own dogma.

Not at all. I'll let the CCC talk for itself where it states true Catholic teaching before retracting it again in a proceeding paragraph.

1214: This sacrament is called Baptism, after the central rite by which it is carried out: to baptize (Greek baptizein) means to "plunge" or "immerse"; the "plunge" into the water symbolizes the catechumen's burial into Christ's death, from which he rises up by resurrection with him, as "a new creature

1215: This sacrament is also called "the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit," for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God."7

One of you is wrong; guess what, it’s not the Church.

None of us is wrong (me nor the Church that is) as I am in agreement with what she teaches. What I'm not in agreement with is the modernist misinterpretations even within her own non-infallble documents.

But, what else is new?

You tell me?

Taken from the {Lect. 148- Year A} yesterdays Gospel most appropriate!



October 23, 2011 Thirtieth Sunday in Ordinary Time



" Somtimes Our Catholic Faith seems complicated. There are so many rules and commandments, cermonies, Deposit of Faith, Doctrines and Mysteries. Who can understand it all? We wish we could ask Jesus to simplify everything. This is exactly what the Pharisees do in today's Gospel; they ask Jesus which commandment is the greatest. Jesus puts everything into a nutshell, saying, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind." Then He adds, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Such simplicity!........ When we love others as ourselves, our relationships are transformed by the mighty power of love, and we will live in peace, joy and harmony. Nothing will seperate or divide us. No longer will we suffer doubt, conflict, or division. Instead we will live wholeheatedly in love with God and each other.

How will you love God today with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself? "





Mother Anglica said it is not a difficult formula to skip purgatory and go directly to Heaven. Mother said we must do the will of God at the present moment.



How much better our time would be spent in being true Defenders of the Faith, with our efforts placed in helping and supporting great Priests like Father Michael Rodriquez and truly living and sharing our Faith with others throughout the world.





There is one of two possibilties in the Catholic Church. Either the Deposit of faith on such teachings as No Salvation Outside The Catholic Church and Baptism of Water being necessary for Salvation along with the teachings to be held by all on Baptism of Desire and Blood and Invincible ignorance are in contradiction with Church teachings and therfore wrong or heretical or they are proper and pure teachings of our faith protected by Christ's words and the supernatural guideance of the Holy Spirit. Futhermore the inescapable conclusion is that either Church teachings do contradict each other which would mean that the large number of Catholic Popes, Theologians, Doctors and Fathers of the Church were schizophrenics, liars, feeble minded persons and/or heretics. But if we assume as we should that they did not suffer from such problems, then they are correct in their teachings and that we must and should readily accept Baptism of Desire and Blood along with invincible ignorance as the Church understands them.The following links below is one of the best comparisons of Church Teachings, that I have found, as compared to the direct words of Saints and Popes of the Church such as, Saint Cyprian, Saint Cyril, Saint Ambrose, Saint Augustine, Saint Fulgentius, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, Saint Thomas Aquinas, The Council of Trent, Saint Robert Bellarmine, Pope Paul V, Saint Alphonus Di Liguori, Blessed Pope Pius IX, Pope Pius X and Pope Benedict XV. You can be sure on these matters there are no contradictions. Our Church will always be in safe harbor on Church teachings to be held as true by all the faithful of the One True Church. Through the centuries the Church has never condemmed or said there is any error in the teachings of Baptism of Blood, Desire and invincible ignorance. But we must understand them as the Church understands them.



For most if not practically all of us understanding or grasping everything is not meant to be, that is no problem, so just humbly accept them with faith. If we are not meek and humble of heart we stand a great risk to put our souls in peril by trying to be our own self proclaimed mini-theologians. Few truly rise to that station in life. That certainly is not my calling. Another great error is to fall in love with someones writtings teachings or beliefs rather then the collective body of Our Church along with our great Popes and Saints. All religions other than Our One True Catholic Faith were started by men or women who thought they knew better. We can take great comfort in the fact that Jesus founded our Catholic Faith........ Jesus is Catholic.



Links I feel that are really good to read, taken from Our Lady of the Rosary, Parish bulletin/ February 1998

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=how%20lonf%20has%20the%20church%20taught%20baptism%20of%20desire&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CGQQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rosarychurch.net%2Fanswers%2Fqa021998b.html&ei=RXilTtyqBYaIsQKml_nxBA&usg=AFQjCNE_NSmRyH66ulixkP_rOPjUVzE8lA



From above link, there is another link that I feel important to click on from orginal link page, it reads:{ There is no conflict between the two concepts }

One line reads: " Purgatory may intercede between death and Heaven"

George Brenner wrote:
Links I feel that are really good to read, taken from Our Lady of the Rosary, Parish bulletin/ February 1998

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=how%20lonf%20has%20the%20church%20taught%20baptism%20of%20desire&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CGQQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rosarychurch.net%2Fanswers%2Fqa021998b.html&ei=RXilTtyqBYaIsQKml_nxBA&usg=AFQjCNE_NSmRyH66ulixkP_rOPjUVzE8lA

George,

One word of caution. The article is very good, but the link will take you to Our Lady of the Rosary Old Roman Catholic Church, “a parish of the Old Roman Catholic Diocese of Florida. It was founded several years after the Second Vatican Council to maintain the presence of the traditional Catholic Mass, doctrines, and moral teachings in Southeast Florida.”

That noted, this only proves how universal the teaching of baptism of desire actually is.

My only issue with the otherwise sound article is with footnote 4 to the mention of implicit desire of Pope Pius IX, which says:

4. While the pronouncements of an orthodox Pope [?], even those made privately, demand the reverent attention of the Faithful, those in question, addressed as they are to a small segment of the Church, do not command the belief of Catholics.

The teachings within the Papal Encyclical or Allocution of Pope Pius IX "demand" more than "the reverent attention of the Faithful", they require the religious submission of the mind and will.

There are no "invincibly ignorant" people; it's saying that one could be "invincibly ignorant" of the existence of the Moon. If one is following "divine light & grace," then one must become Catholic. It is a denial of the Perfection of the One and Triune God to say that there are individuals striving to do His will who are outside His Mystical Body, which is the Catholic Church. By His Omniscience, His Omnipresence, and His Omnipotence, He can lead anyone striving to know Him to the One True Faith and the One True Church, outside of which no one at all will be saved. Just as God would not allow anyone to "suffer eternal torments" who is not guilty of "voluntary sin," so, too, He would never allow someone who is truly worthy of Baptism to die without it and without knowledge of His One and Only Son, Jesus Christ, and not in union with His Mystical Body, the Church.

Therefore, the category of "invincibly ignorant" persons must constitute a null set. QED.

Hi Jehanne,

You are exactly right about Our Lady of the Rosary. In fact they follow The Traditional Latin Mass of Pope St. Pius V. It is my prayer that they return to the true Catholic Faith and be submissive to the Pope. On their home page Q&A , one answer reply is that they would return to be obedient to the Pope if He Solemnly ordered them do so. Hopefully this can be accomplished by whatever means in short order. What I found helpful was that there were so many useful quotes and information. I posted the link for some concise information that I could not easily find elsewhere and yes the chaff must be sperated from the wheat on this and probably many linkups.

JMJ,

Your friend,

George