Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Tornpage wrote:

Columba,

John 3:5 refers to the new birth and regeneration in Christ that is necessary to enter the kingdom of heaven. You are interpreting the "water" to mean baptism. Of course the water of baptism is one way to achieve this regeneration. But the Church herself has rightly given us the meaning of this Scripture, and it is not yours:

If I interpret the water as referring to Baptism in John 3:5, it's only because Trent is referring to Baptism when citing John 3:5, otherwise the reference would make no sense in the context of the teaching.

This regeneration referred to by Our Lord was prophesied by Ezekiel: the "water," comprehensively understood to include "desire," as it does, simply means the necessary cleansing from our old sinful natures which is wrought by regeneration in Christ, which is a necessary component of the rebirth:

Ezekiel's words seem also to be prophesying the establishment of the Catholic Church to which membership is gained through the waters of Baptism.
Are you saying that Trent ses 6 chap 4 in its reference to the Laver of Regeneration, and John 3:5 are not referring to Physical water?

As Trent told us, "desire" can provide this "water" of cleansing.

As you already know, I disagree with your view that the word "desire" is meant to be taken as a substitute for sacramental Baptism.

Tornpage wrote:

columba wrote:
Or, lets say the pope said, "I know of no other means except a boat by which a monkey can get from Ireland to America" but then in the next breath he says, "I do know of another way a monkey can get to America." Would you not say that this pope is confused?

The pope never said a "monkey" could get to heaven without a "boat." In fact, he said the opposite: a monkey couldn't get to heaven without a boat. He said a man could.

Nice try.

Actually . . . no, pretty poor. Very Happy

And where did he say "a man does?" I don't see it.

I wasn't trying anything. I was sticking with exactly what the pope said and haven't added anything to his words. Because by adding meanings in your own mind that are not included in the text, you make a huge leap of faith in concluding that the pope is declaring that Baptism is not a necessity of means.
Do you agree that if the devil could make a single act of love, hell would cease to exist? Do you agree that by the infallible teaching of Christ and His Church that it is not possible for the devil (or the damned) to make a single act of love?
In the same way I am in agreement with you, for I also believe that an act of love would suffice for the lack of Baptism. All you have to do now is find that unbaptized soul who has made this act of love by proving that there is such a soul in heaven.

Go on... give it a nice try.
If you find him I'll owe Mike a huge apology and will have to edit my wee story; the one he didn't like.

columba wrote:
I do get what you mean Tornpage. It would be possible to read those words as contradicting the necessity of sacramental Baptism,

You can’t even get finish one sentence without fumbling your way into error. Pope Pius XII confirms the necessity of Baptism for all men, but makes the distinction between the adult who can make an act of love that suffices for the lack of baptism, and the infant who cannot make such an act of love.

The “necessity” of water to effect regeneration into Christ, in your fundamentalist mind, is of the type where the end absolutely cannot be obtained without it; meaning, only actual ablution, and not regeneration of the heart when necessity precludes ablution, is absolutely intrinsic to sanctification and salvation such that without it, eternal beatitude is impossible.

Since you admit that the OT just received the remission of sins and the merits of the Redeemer to come, whereby the Holy Ghost dwelled and resided by sanctifying grace in the souls of the just; you have yet to answer how the OT just could be justified and saved without actual sacramental ablution. If water Baptism is absolutely intrinsic to eternal beatitude, then every single soul in heaven would have had to have received the same Sacrament; which means every single one of the OT just would have had to have been raised from dead and materially Baptized prior to their entrance into Heaven.

Please demonstrate where Scripture, Tradition and/or the Church have ever taught any such thing that even remotely suggests that a divine and ecclesiastical precept became intrinsic to salvation with the promulgation of the Gospel, and was not intrinsic to eternal beatitude for those who were sanctified and saved prior to the Gospel.

Here comes the columba Irish two-step; I can't wait.

columba wrote:
but by Pius XII restating what was already always known, that is, that an act of love can suffice for salvation, it would also suffice for one who lacked baptism (and I believe this) with the implication if it were possible for such a one to make a supernatural act of love. But he doesn't state that this act of love is "in fact" possible and I for one don't believe that it is. But if it were possible it would suffice even for the unbaptized.

The mind reels with the stomach at such nonsense. Pope Pius XII, following tradition and Church teaching, said in very clear and unambiguous words that an act of love suffices for the LACK OF the sacrament of Baptism and places one in a state of salvific sanctification, which is absolutely essential for salvation; for without sanctifying grace, the end (eternal beatitude) cannot be.

But you would actually have us believe that Pope Pius XII actually meant to say that this same act of love WOULD suffice for the LACK OF water Baptism IF it were actually possible; which of course, it is NOT possible, you say, without first having received the Sacrament.

Do you think Pope Pius XII was so hopelessly confused that he can teach such a mind-numbing doctrine that means the very opposite of what he clearly articulates, or is it just the members of this Forum who are so so brain-dead that you think you they will take this mindless duplicity seriously?

And where have Scripture, Tradition and the Church ever taught than an “act of love” that places one in a state of salvific sanctifying grace is impossible without first having received the Sacrament of Baptism, when not only does tradition and the Church teach otherwise, we know for a fact that the OT just could make such an act of love; and act of love which vivified their faith in the Redeemer to come?

columba wrote:
I have heard it taught that if the devil could make a single act of love, hell would cease to exist, but we know infallibly that this is not possible; in the same way we also know infallbly that "unless a man be born again of water etc.." therefore the pope could have (if he had so wished) included the damned in his statement and his statement would still hold true.

The angels in heaven made such an act of love, while the fallen angels did not and will not – their fate is sealed for all eternity -- and they live as they were condemned – in the hatred of God, and especially of His Son.

Your “theology” is as appalling as your ecclesiology.

columba wrote:
All sacraments are necessary for salvation though not all necessary for everyone, but at least one sacrament is necessary for ALL. That sacrament must be Baptism. Without Baptism no other scrament can be received.

Quite so, Baptism is necessary to all in re, and at least in voto when “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace [‘Supernatural life’] and to supply the lack of baptism”, as the Church teaches.

You say the 1949 Holy Office Letter that was approved by Pope Pius XII and teaches the same doctrine as in the Allocution of the same pope is not “infallible”, and thus, it can be rejected with the Allocution for teaching doctrinal error, just as the same fallible doctrine taught by a host of Fathers, by St. Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, Peter Lombard and all of the medieval theologians and by every subsequent Doctor and theologian ever to comment on the doctrine (to include Sts. Bellarmine and Liguori); by the Council of Trent, by its Catechism (which spells it out ever more clearly), by the Rheims Scripture Commentaries, by the Douay Catechism, by the 1917 Code of Canon Law, by the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, by at least two Letters from other Popes, and by the Magisterium still today in the documents of VCII, the CDF, the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and of course the Catechism of the Catholic Church and its official Compendium, and the same doctrine which enjoys the universal consent of the Bishops in union with the Pope, can also be rejected for teaching the same fallible and erroneous doctrine of faith appertaining to a matter of salvation.

Sure, and every one of these testimonies of the true faith on the same universal doctrine, which is supported and taught by the authentic Magisterium of the Church, is false and opposed to the Church’s own dogma on water Baptism, which allegedly declares that no one who has not been baptized in water is capable of making an act of love that suffices for the lack of Baptism, and that water Baptism is an intrinsic necessity of means such that without its actual reception in water, the end (regeneration into Christ and salvation) cannot be; just ask the OT just who never received water Baptism and are among the blessed in heaven.

And just ask the non-baptized martyrs whose baptism in blood was to no avail, despite the testimony of the Church’s own “fallible” Liturgical texts and the official authentic teaching of the Magisterium. See, the Church allows and even encourages Catholics to believe in heresy – just ask Columba and Foot.

And why is it necessary that the OT blessed souls in heaven have the right to receive the other sacraments of the Church? And why is necessary for those souls who, through “an act of love”, which, as the Church teaches, “suffices for the lack of baptism”, and who die as members of the Church Triumphant, that they must have the right to receive the other Sacraments?

Jehanne wrote:A honest reading of Trent is that one cannot choose not to be Baptized. Question is, "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment," (Hebrews 9:27) would a Sovereign God allow someone to end this life without Baptism who was truly worthy of it? We are certainly allowed to hope that such is never the case.

You can “hope” in whatever you want; but the Church actually teaches that an act of love does in fact suffice for the lack of baptism. This is not, despite columba’s feeble and ridiculous assertion to the contrary, some impossible “null set” that would be true if it were actually possible; this is an objective truth that any "honest reading of Trent" would confirm as a doctrine of Catholic Faith of the same ordinary and infallible authority which says “He who hears you, hears Me”.

Mike,

I accept both Baptism of Desire and/or Blood. I do not know how many times and in how many different ways I can tell you this. "Null set or not," how many individuals are in Paradise who have died without Baptism is anyone's guess. Such does not effect the mission of the St. Benedict Center one iota, as Father Harrison has rightly noted. As you yourself have acknowledged, as has the Council of Trent and even the CCC have both taught, imperfect contrition does not suffice for the forgiveness of mortal sins. For that, the actual reception of a Sacrament, whether Baptism or Penance, is necessary for forgiveness. So, for a catechumen or anyone else, it is better to die with Baptism than without it.

Even if individuals such as Columba are "wrong," they are still right, for they commit no injustice in telling the unbaptized that their sole and only hope for eternal life is to be Baptized.

MRyan wrote:
You can’t even get finish one sentence without fumbling your way into error. Pope Pius XII confirms the necessity of Baptism for all men

That's what I said. You say that he doesn't confirm the necessity of Baptism for all men; that an act of love is possible outside of baptism and so baptism is not necessary. Speaking of fumbling into error...

The “necessity” of water to effect regeneration into Christ, in your fundamentalist mind, is of the type where the end absolutely cannot be obtained without it; meaning, only actual ablution, and not regeneration of the heart when necessity precludes ablution, is absolutely intrinsic to sanctification and salvation such that without it, eternal beatitude is impossible.

My fundamentalist mind is in accord with the mind of Christ and His Church; "Those who believe and are Baptized will be saved," (Mark 16:16), and from Trent 6. 4, "..as it is written," 'Unless a man be born again of water and the spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:5).

Since you admit that the OT just received the remission of sins and the merits of the Redeemer to come, whereby the Holy Ghost dwelled and resided by sanctifying grace in the souls of the just; you have yet to answer how the OT just could be justified and saved without actual sacramental ablution. If water Baptism is absolutely intrinsic to eternal beatitude, then every single soul in heaven would have had to have received the same Sacrament; which means every single one of the OT just would have had to have been raised from dead and materially Baptized prior to their entrance into Heaven.

Yes I have answered this before and will do so again.
A thing becomes absolutely intrinsic to salvation the moment the Lord declares it so. Whether it was intrinsic before or not, it now becomes intrinsic.
It was not intrinsic for our salvation that Christ become incarnate, suffer and die. God could have chosen another way if He so wished. Because he chose as He did it now becomes intrinsic to our salvaton and without this action of Christ being applied as a remedy to our fallen nature, no one at all could be saved, neither in the old covenant or the new. All are bound by the methods which God Himself decides upon.

Please demonstrate where Scripture, Tradition and/or the Church have ever taught any such thing that even remotely suggests that a divine and ecclesiastical precept became intrinsic to salvation with the promulgation of the Gospel, and was not intrinsic to eternal beatitude for those who were sanctified and saved prior to the Gospel.

I just did.

The mind reels with the stomach at such nonsense. Pope Pius XII, following tradition and Church teaching, said in very clear and unambiguous words that an act of love suffices for the LACK OF the sacrament of Baptism and places one in a state of salvific sanctification, which is absolutely essential for salvation; for without sanctifying grace, the end (eternal beatitude) cannot be.

Show me where I disagreed with this?
You'll need to find the real cause of your ailing stomach.

But you would actually have us believe that Pope Pius XII actually meant to say that this same act of love WOULD suffice for the LACK OF water Baptism IF it were actually possible; which of course, it is NOT possible, you say, without first having received the Sacrament.

I made the point that Christ said it were not possible and His Church of course agrees as He and His Church are one.
You don't agree? Well then you have the problem, not me.

Do you think Pope Pius XII was so hopelessly confused that he can teach such a mind-numbing doctrine that means the very opposite of what he clearly articulates, or is it just the members of this Forum who are so so brain-dead that you think you they will take this mindless duplicity seriously?

I dare say there exists a member on this forum who has not experienced your acusations of implied brainlessness but I think they're all quite above average intellegence (except Simple Faith of course but that should go without saying).
Pope Pius XII didn't in fact articulate anything. He made a statement without any articulation as to how it is to be understood, therefore we understand it as the Church has always understood it.

The angels in heaven made such an act of love, while the fallen angels did not and will not – their fate is sealed for all eternity -- and they live as they were condemned – in the hatred of God, and especially of His Son.

And the Baptized are those who have entered into the kingdom of God on earth, the Roman Catholic Church. The unbaptized are those outside this Church and therefore outside the scope of salvation. If they remain so they will live condemned as children of wrath and enemies of God, especially of His Son who suffered and died that they might obtain the grace to enter in, ".for unless a man be born agian of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

Your “theology” is as appalling as your ecclesiology.

I know. I haven't quite mastered the douible-speak post conciliar language.

You say the 1949 Holy Office Letter that was approved by Pope Pius XII and teaches the same doctrine as in the Allocution of the same pope is not “infallible”,

Yes. And are you saying it is?

and thus, it can be rejected with the Allocution for teaching doctrinal error, just as the same fallible doctrine taught by a host of Fathers, by St. Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, Peter Lombard and all of the medieval theologians and by every subsequent Doctor and theologian ever to comment on the doctrine (to include Sts. Bellarmine and Liguori); by the Council of Trent, by its Catechism (which spells it out ever more clearly), by the Rheims Scripture Commentaries, by the Douay Catechism, by the 1917 Code of Canon Law, by the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, by at least two Letters from other Popes, and by the Magisterium still today in the documents of VCII, the CDF, the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and of course the Catechism of the Catholic Church and its official Compendium, and the same doctrine which enjoys the universal consent of the Bishops in union with the Pope, can also be rejected for teaching the same fallible and erroneous doctrine of faith appertaining to a matter of salvation.

All of which are understood in light of, and in agreemant with, all the infallible dogmatic pronouncements of the same Church. Contrary to your assertion, unanimous agreement is not given to your version of those dogmatic teachings.

Sure, and every one of these testimonies of the true faith on the same universal doctrine, which is supported and taught by the authentic Magisterium of the Church, is false and opposed to the Church’s own dogma on water Baptism, which allegedly declares that no one who has not been baptized in water is capable of making an act of love that suffices for the lack of Baptism, and that water Baptism is an intrinsic necessity of means such that without its actual reception in water, the end (regeneration into Christ and salvation) cannot be; just ask the OT just who never received water Baptism and are among the blessed in heaven.

And just ask the non-baptized martyrs whose baptism in blood was to no avail, despite the testimony of the Church’s own “fallible” Liturgical texts and the official authentic teaching of the Magisterium. See, the Church allows and even encourages Catholics to believe in heresy – just ask Columba and Foot.

And why is it necessary that the OT blessed souls in heaven have the right to receive the other sacraments of the Church? And why is necessary for those souls who, through “an act of love”, which, as the Church teaches, “suffices for the lack of baptism”, and who die as members of the Church Triumphant, that they must have the right to receive the other Sacraments?

See above replies for answers.

Jehanne wrote:
imperfect contrition does not suffice for the forgiveness of mortal sins.

This is a good point Jehanne.

We are told that baptism of desire takes away (I was going to say "washes away" but there was no water available) original sin but does not take away all temporal punishment due to sin. If then there is still punishment due (a time in purgatory) then that would mean that the unbaptized catechumen did not possess perfect contrition. If that unbaptized catachumen had any mortal sins on his soul then nothing (save the reception of the sacrament of penance or an act of perfect contrition) could suffice to remove this mortal sin. If one were to make an act of perfect contrition, this act would also satisfy for all temporal punishment due to sin and so the catechumen would be in the exact same position as the newly baptized and go straight to heaven upon death. If the catechumen did not go straight to heaven but had to undergo some temporal punishment in purgatory, it would mean that the catechumen had not perfect contriton. If the catechumen had not perfect contrition then he would have needed sacramental absolution to remove any mortal sin; if not, the mortal sin would remain unforgiven and so the catechumen would go straigt to hell upon death.

We must hold then (as a logical conclussion from this) that a catechumen saved by baptism of desire must have had perfect (as opposed to imperfect) contrition. How then can it be said of those who are saved by baptism of desire that they do not have the temporal punishment for sin removed? If that be the case none of them can be saved as temporal punishment is what's due to imperfect contrition and once again, if contrition was imperfect then only sacramental absoluton would suffice for salvation.

baptism of desire is fraught with contradictions and the only way to prolong the error is by producing new errors that lead to such fancies as Invincible Ignorance, and only the Lord knows what new error needs inventing to sustain the belief in Invincible Ignorance. The only possible bottom line to all this wil be the rejection of all the sacraments as a necessary means for us mortals in obtaining salvation and ultimately the rejection of Christ Himself as savoir of the world.

Even if I were wrong (which I'm not), the very possibility of this ever escalating to the embracing of a "one world church" is enough reason to abandon this modernist crusade even at the risk of throwing out some babies with the bath water. If not, the final baby to go will be the one born in Bethlehem. One doesn't need to be a prophet to see this. All one need is a little measure of common sense which the "HACS" sufferers of this world are deprived of, poor souls. As george would say, if more effort were put into combatting the causes of the crisis and less into in-fighting our time would be much more constructively occupied. The problem is, the very subject of all the in-fighting is the actual cause of the crisis and the crisis will continue as long as there is no addressing the cause. Try and tell any modern day Catholic that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation and they will immediately tell you that this is not true. Try it some Sunday outside a Novus Ordo Church and see if I'm wrong.

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

I accept both Baptism of Desire and/or Blood. I do not know how many times and in how many different ways I can tell you this.

Then stop commenting on my posts as if you don't.

Jehanne wrote:Even if individuals such as Columba are "wrong," they are still right, for they commit no injustice in telling the unbaptized that their sole and only hope for eternal life is to be Baptized.

Columba is wrong, and being "wrong" in matters of faith can never be right; so let’s end that nonsense right now. There is only one arbiter of truth and tradition, and it is NOT columba.

Why you always appeal to the laudable mission of the St. Benedict Center is beyond me. Is that the issue being discussed, or is that the excuse for teaching error?

As far as Fr. Harrsion goes, he appears to have only conduced a superficial examination of the writings of the St. Benedict Center, and has yet to comment on their real error, that of denying the salvific efficacy of “an act of love” found in baptism of blood and baptism of desire; and rendering a state of sanctifying grace (since the promulgation of the Gospel) as incapable of translating a soul into the state of divine son-ship without water Baptism.

Huge, huge error in doctrine. I know you don’t care, but there it is.

MRyan posted on January 27th, 2011..... not so long ago

Baptism of Desire.

Trying to force contradictions in the teachings of St. Augustine where there really are none is no different from taking the teachings of certain Fathers on the absolute necessity of water baptism (just as St. Aquinas taught) and inferring from this that they "rejected" baptism of desire and baptism of blood. This overreaching is based on the false assumption that when a St. Augustine teaches "Take away the water, and there is no Baptism", or "nor can they be said to have been otherwise saved in the ark except by water” that this positively "contradicts" his clear and consistent teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire, when it does no such thing.

This no different from accusing the Church of contradiction and error when she teaches that she knows of no way other than water baptism by which anyone can be assured of their salvation, while also teaching that she has always held the firm conviction that baptism of blood and baptism of desire bring about the essential fruits of baptism.

This is no different from accusing the Church of contradiction and error when she teaches that no one can be a member of the Mystical Body other than by faith, baptism and incorporation; and also teaching that one may be invisibly united to the Mystical Body through the essential bonds of faith and charity.

It works something like this: Take the definition of membership in the Mystical Body of Pope Pius XII, and then take his clear teaching on baptism of desire in his Allocution to midwives, and then accuse him of "contradiction" and "error" by suggesting that he was so ignorant or confused that he was not aware that these respective teachings stand in contradiction.

Now, simply apply this same reasoning to the teachings of St. Augustine and presto, we have a Saint who was in "error" and who clearly "contradicted" himself.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ JMJ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


As Mike says in just a portion of the above post, there are no contradictions ever in official Church teaching. Period. That's the guarantee.

So here we have a Doctor of the Church who struggled with Baptism of Desire during his lifetime and rightly so as it is a very difficult concept or possibility to understand. This discussion has been going on for centuries. So swallow your pride. You are not a Doctor of the Church. You do not have to understand baptism of desire, baptism of blood and IG. Simply leave their possibility at the Blessed Trinity's gate to Heaven. We may find out in eternity what happens before, near and at deaths arrival. Shock will be the reaction. I have no worries about aborted babies for they are in the hands of God. I have no worries about the possibility of baptism of desire, baptism of blood and IG for if they exists(ed) they would be in the hands of God. I am owed no explanation from God on these subjects and there is enough specific things to remedy in the current crisis of faith. I am more then satisfied and at peace knowing that there is No Salvation outside the Catholic Church and Baptism by water is the instruction and mandate by Jesus. Teach it. I some times wander if there is an unconscious jealousy by some of who or who are not deserving and will be judged worthy to enter Heaven. What if a very loved relative arrives in Heaven by baptism of desire as applied in judgement by God Himself. Then what would you say.

Oh you, Sad you bees

On this subject, For me, I simply say Goodnight Irene!

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

I accept both Baptism of Desire and/or Blood. I do not know how many times and in how many different ways I can tell you this.

Then stop commenting on my posts as if you don't.

Jehanne wrote:Even if individuals such as Columba are "wrong," they are still right, for they commit no injustice in telling the unbaptized that their sole and only hope for eternal life is to be Baptized.

Columba is wrong, and being "wrong" in matters of faith can never be right; so let’s end that nonsense right now. There is only one arbiter of truth and tradition, and it is NOT columba.

Why you always appeal to the laudable mission of the St. Benedict Center is beyond me. Is that the issue being discussed, or is that the excuse for teaching error?

As far as Fr. Harrsion goes, he appears to have only conduced a superficial examination of the writings of the St. Benedict Center, and has yet to comment on their real error, that of denying the salvific efficacy of “an act of love” found in baptism of blood and baptism of desire; and rendering a state of sanctifying grace (since the promulgation of the Gospel) as incapable of translating a soul into the state of divine son-ship without water Baptism.

Huge, huge error in doctrine. I know you don’t care, but there it is.

What does it matter? In promulgating this error, what harm is being caused to the Faith? And, if the Church thought that Father Feeney's (alleged) errors were harmful, why did Pope Paul VI allow him to be reconciled to the Church?

Jehanne,

Of course you should teach No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church and Baptism by water, as Jesus commanded us

I have several books written by Father Feeney. There has been much speculation on what Father said or did not say; on what he thought and did not think on some issues. On what was said and discussed at the lifting of the excommunication. On what Father saw coming in the great crisis and watering down of Faith. I will post more at another time on a different thread but for now I thought these EXACT words from Father Feeney will help. Church history as I have said before should be very kind to him as I believe Heaven already has. (IMHO)

From Bread of Life pages 129 and 130

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

Columba,

Do you agree that if the devil could make a single act of love, hell would cease to exist?

Yes. Do you want to get into God's eternal decrees? We know the devil won't.

The devil has the capacity, just as men do. The devil won't make that act, and you are arguing that no man will make that act without baptism. I understand your argument. We disagree.

I now believe men do make such an "act of love" without receiving baptism. We both agree - I think - that it is immutably decreed by God who will be saved and who won't. Thus, there is really no logical tension between your view and mine. I believe all of the elect will at least make an "act of love" that includes the explicit embracing of Christ (explicit faith) before death, and you believe they will be baptized.

However, I think your view flies in the face of the very teaching of the Magisterium and it's authoritative interpretation, how it understands the "act of love," and whether it holds that it indeed happens or not. I agree with you that the Magisterium has not taken a stand such that a view that no one of the elect departs this life without baptism runs afoul on doctrinal grounds. However, I think the view that one could (in theory) make an act of love that supplies for the lack of baptism but in fact it never happens creates tensions that are not easily resolved, and that these tensions create cracks or faults in the theology of someone who rejects the actuality of such acts of love in the real world. I think that is the point that Mike is making quite effectively.

Of course, I say that as someone who recognizes that his theology was quite cracked in this regard.

I'll likely make that my last response on the topic.

Right.

Tornpage,

Before you take leave of this thread do you have any comments on the following from my previous post? (I would ask mike but... ).

We are told that baptism of desire takes away (I was going to say "washes away" but there was no water available) original sin but does not take away all temporal punishment due to sin. If then there is still punishment due (a time in purgatory) then that would mean that the unbaptized catechumen did not possess perfect contrition. If that unbaptized catachumen had any mortal sins on his soul then nothing (save the reception of the sacrament of penance or an act of perfect contrition) could suffice to remove this mortal sin. If one were to make an act of perfect contrition, this act would also satisfy for all temporal punishment due to sin and so the catechumen would be in the exact same position as the newly baptized and go straight to heaven upon death. If the catechumen did not go straight to heaven but had to undergo some temporal punishment in purgatory, it would mean that the catechumen had not perfect contriton. If the catechumen had not perfect contrition then he would have needed sacramental absolution to remove any mortal sin; if not, the mortal sin would remain unforgiven and so the catechumen would go straigt to hell upon death.

We must hold then (as a logical conclussion from this) that a catechumen saved by baptism of desire must have had perfect (as opposed to imperfect) contrition. How then can it be said of those who are saved by baptism of desire that they do not have the temporal punishment for sin removed? If that be the case none of them can be saved as temporal punishment is what's due to imperfect contrition and once again, if contrition was imperfect then only sacramental absoluton would suffice for salvation.

Does Perfect contrition (for pure love of God) remit all sin and with it all temporal punishment that was due those sins?
Do you think an unbaptized catechumen can be saved with imperfect contrition only?
Do you think that baptism of desire while being a remedy for original sin does not howeveer take away temporal punishment due to actual sin?

Thanks.

Columba,

This is worth looking into. A quick response without any "research": isn't it the case that you can't be forgiven of your sins with something less than perfect contrition if you don't get the sacraments of baptism or penance? So "perfect contrition" provides not remission of all temporal punishment for those who are not baptized but the forgiveness and remission of the sin (but not the penalty) which would be impossible otherwise without baptism. You need something other than the perfect contrition to pay for the punishment I believe; perfect contrition can just remove the stain of sin, not it's punishment.

Doesn't perfect contrition simply get one the forgiveness that would otherwise be impossible without baptism? The punishment remains . . . no?

Tornpage,

It's hard to find information on this. I was relying on my early years of catechesis were I was taught that perfect contrition fulfills all that the justice of God requires of a soul and removes all impediments to that soul's entry into heaven.

I found this article by a Rev. F. Quirijnen, S.J. entitled "Perfect Contrition."
Here's are a few pertinent extracts:

"Perfect Contrition justifies; it restores the supernatural life of grace to the soul.— According to a generally accepted opinion, through perfect contrition the soul receives again all the sanctifying grace it had before and also an increase of grace in recompense for its act of Perfect Contrition. The words of holy Scripture seem to imply this: ―The wickedness to the wicked shall not hurt him in what day soever he shall turn from his wickedness.‖ Perfect Contrition also restores to life the merits of good works performed in the previous state of grace but destroyed by sin."

"―As a fire which has taken possession of a forest cleanses it out thoroughly, so the fire of love (contained in Perfect Contrition), where it falls, takes away and blots out everything that could injure the divine seed (sanctifying grace).‖—‖Such is the efficacy of true contrition,‖ the Roman Catechism teaches, ―that by its benefit we at once obtain from the Lord the pardon of all, our sins.‖—Perfect Contrition works in us the spiritual miracle promised by the Holy Ghost through the Prophet: ―When you shall seek the Lord with all your heart and in the affection of your soul . . ., if your sins be as scarlet, they shall be made white as snow: and if they be red as crimson, they shall be white as wool."

"The more intense the love of God which animates contrition, the greater is the part of temporal punishment which is taken away. ―It may even happen, St. Thomas teaches, ―that contrition which follows from charity merits . . . the remission of ALL punishment . . . because contrition although finite in its intensity, derives infinite power from the charity, whereby it is quickened."

http://www.catholicpamphlets.net/pamphlets/Perfect%20Contrition.pdf

Columba,

You opened up a good one.

Father Francis Xavier Weninger, The Feast of All Souls, Part 4

http://catholicharboroffaithandmorals.com/All%20Souls%20Day%20Part%204.html

The eternal punishment which we deserve by a mortal sin, will be remitted by a good confession, or, if we cannot confess, by perfect contrition; but the temporal punishment still remains, as the Catechism teaches us and as Holy Writ clearly shows.

This was my gut feeling. That's part of what makes baptism unique: the elimination of the temporal punishment.

First time I stumbled across that site. From the Mission Statement:

All of our sermons, prayers and teachings date long before the heretical Council of Vatican II (1962-1965), relying primarily upon the infallible teachings from the Council of Trent (1545-1563).

and,

In conformity with truth, Catholic Harbor rejects the systematic dismantling of the visible Church brought about by the last five anti-popes (from anti-pope John XXIII to Benedict XVI). St. Vincent of Lerins declares "All novelty in faith is a sure mark of heresy" and "when a foulness invades the whole Church, we must return to the Church of the past."

Supply your own emoticons.

columba wrote:
If one were to make an act of perfect contrition, this act would also satisfy for all temporal punishment due to sin and so the catechumen would be in the exact same position as the newly baptized and go straight to heaven upon death.

And, you should be able to see now why your assumption is wrong.

I once said that a "perfect contrition" has varying degrees of "perfection" depending on one's state at the time one makes a sincere contrition. It should be obvious, for example, that those who have been Baptized and Confirmed, and have lived the life of grace but have fallen, are more capable of, and are expected to demonstrate a greater degree of contrition/charity than those who have never received the full influx of gifts one receives in the Sacraments.

Does that mean that the contrition of a non-baptized soul who (by grace) humbly but fervently seeks to love God with his whole heart lacks that "perfection" that prevents our Lord from responding to this entreaty of faith and "act of love" by saying:

"If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him" (John 14:23)?

Yes, Columba, the desire and resolve to receive baptism ("he will keep My word") is inherent, even implicitly, within this entreaty of love. However, when this entreaty is not of the "perfection" and sincerity God desires (e.g., attrition instead of contrition), then God may withhold making His abode with him until he receives the Sacrament of Baptism.

The very fact that those under the Old Law could make such acts of love for the remission of sins and to be justified by grace proves that such acts of love are not strictly dependent upon the grace of the Sacraments before they can be realized, and are sufficiently pleasing to God in the sense of John 14:23.

Hopefully you'll bear with me on this one Mike that we may both reach an understanding of what is meant by the word "perfect" in the theological term "perfect contrition."
Here is my understanding and the implications from this understanding of mine.

My present understanding of the matter (and of all matters of faith) is that understanding which I first received from kindergarten days, and having departed from (to my utter confusion) those earlier understandings in my later post vat II catechesis, I think I can now see where and why this confusion set in.
The original teachings -although basic- were the foundations on which later understandings of the faith should have been (as they say, organically) derived . I must say that I believe I -and others of my age group- had a better understanding of Catholicism from 6 yrs old till 11 than the majority of today's speculative theologians. (Matt 11:25 springs to mind here, “I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to the little ones”) and would sooner now be taught from the mouths of those babes and sucklings (Matt 21:16) or even from nature itself, (“..that if these shall hold their peace, the very stones will cry out.” Luke 19:40) before ever subjecting myself again to the instruction (or should I say destruction) of conciliar encyclicals and catechisms.

Having gotten all that off my chest I still hold to my earliest understanding of perfect contrition and what it achieves and rewards to the soul possessing it until such times as it be proved incorrect. That understanding has been, that perfect contrition remits all sin and even the temporal punishment due to the sin because it contains within it a perfect act of Love of God and the total abandonment of all self interest to the extent that one would prefer to burn in hell for all eternity if that were most pleasing to God.
Imperfect contrition (if sacramental) remits all sin but doesn't however remove all debt owed to God in His justice as one still retains a certain self-interest even if genuinely sorry. This self interest must yet be purged. This is my earliest understanding and it doesn't present any contradiction to the intellect and is in accord with the definition of the word “perfect.” If any thing is lacking in perfect contrition that would still require more of the soul in fulfilling all that is due to the justice of God, then the contrition would be of the imperfect type.

Considering too that the reason for the existence of purgatory is the purification of the soul so that it may be rendered perfect for heaven (as St. Padre Pio said, “A soul that is not yet perfected in love cannot enter heaven” ) it would seem that if perfect contrition did not suffice for immediate entry into heaven then the soul would require more than perfect love of God (which would be impossible) and that purgatory for that soul would neither benefit the soul in question nor render any more satisfaction to the justice of God than was present in its act of perfect contrition.

The question still remains then: “Does an unbaptized catechumen who receives “baptism of desire” have to undergo purification in purgatory if his act of perfect contrition sufficed for salvation., remembering that we are told that baptism of desire removes original sin but does not remove the temporal punishment due to actual sin, while bearing in mind also that outside sacramental absolution, perfect contrition is the only remedy for a soul in mortal sin? The catechumen in question would have to have lived without committing any mortal sin (remembering too that Invincible Ignorance -if it exist at all- does not absolve one from personal sin against the natural law written on all mens hearts) and even if he hadn't committed any mortal sin, his act of perfect contrition (perfect love of God) should have fulfilled all those dispositions of soul which God required for immediate entry into heaven.
Does imperfect contrition then suffice for salvation outside the sacrament of Baptism?

Mike,

Having read your posts now for quite some time, I can honestly say that what you are saying is truly the "mind of the Church," along with all of her Doctors, Saints, Councils, and Popes. However, I do not see any fundamental contradiction between what you are saying and what Father Feeney taught that would amount to anything more than "theological hair-splitting." Perhaps this is what caused the late Brother Thomas Mary to observe:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says in its section on Baptism: "The Church does not know of any other means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude. " This is a perfect summary of Father Feeney's position on the absolute necessity of Baptism of Water for salvation; it is almost as if he wrote it himself. The implication is that what follows, and what follows is St. Thomas on Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, is not known by the Church with the certitude she knows the sacrament of Baptism. These teachings are of lesser or no authority, or as I have been calling them, theological speculations.

http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/laisneyism.html

If we agree that imperfect contrition on the part of a catechumen or anyone else would not be sufficient to obtain the forgiveness of mortal sins prior to Baptism, then there really is no argument here, as far as I am concerned at least. If "perfect charity" is sufficient to guarantee the cathecumen everlasting life if he/she should die without Baptism, then the knowledge (and hence, certainty) that one is in an actual state of perfect charity is impossible for one to know, at least with absolute certainty. (Indeed, to claim such "certainty" would be arrogant, which would mean that one did not possess perfect charity!) No doubt this is why the Roman Catechism taught:

In Case Of Necessity Adults May Be: Baptised At Once

Sometimes, however, when there exists a just and necessary cause, as in the case of imminent danger of death, Baptism is not to be deferred, particularly if the person to be baptised is well instructed in the mysteries of faith. This we find to have been done by Philip, and by the Prince of the Apostles, when without any delay, the one baptised the eunuch of Queen Candace; the other, Cornelius, as soon as they expressed a wish to embrace the faith.

No doubt that you will want to continue to argue about this; to "what end," I do not know.

columba wrote:Hopefully you'll bear with me on this one Mike that we may both reach an understanding of what is meant by the word "perfect" in the theological term "perfect contrition."
Here is my understanding and the implications from this understanding of mine.
[...]

Columba,

Thank you for that thoughtful response.

I'm going to take a short (I hope) hiatus, so please be patient with me if I do not respond as soon as I should.

Columba said:
I must say that I believe I -and others of my age group- had a better understanding of Catholicism from 6 yrs old till 11.....

I agree 100 % with this brief portion of your post along with other parts not quoted here. The Mission of the Church for all times is to teach (go forth and teach all nations) the faith and baptize with water. I know many do not agree with me but I believe the confusion and lack of clear understanding coincides and is the punishment from warnings from previous Popes on modernism, tampering with the perfect Sacrifice of the Mass and the the Third secret of Fatima. And now we got what we deserved. Why in the world would the CCC 846 in addressing, No Salvation outside the Catholic Church want to say "Re-Formulated postively....." I mean unless you go to sub definitions when you look up re formulated it means to formulate in a different way; alter or revise: to reformulate our plans etc? Like Protestant Reformulation for instance.

We are blessed that we have Mike on this forum who is able to explain the Doctrine and truth of our unchangeable Deposit of Faith which remains perfectly and Divinely intact in spite of the complexity of language and yet non remedied clarity in teaching to the faithful.
The Mass will be restored. The Clergy will be restored. The faithful will be taught in simple terms. The Crisis of Faith will pass. The pain is yet to be determined but the toll taken has been severe. We must remain on the Ark, fight and pray for our Holy Father.


JMJ,

George

tornpage wrote:Columba,

You opened up a good one.

Father Francis Xavier Weninger, The Feast of All Souls, Part 4

http://catholicharboroffaithandmorals.com/All%20Souls%20Day%20Part%204.html

The eternal punishment which we deserve by a mortal sin, will be remitted by a good confession, or, if we cannot confess, by perfect contrition; but the temporal punishment still remains, as the Catechism teaches us and as Holy Writ clearly shows.

This was my gut feeling. That's part of what makes baptism unique: the elimination of the temporal punishment.

Thanks Tornpage.

My gut feeling (which is actually in conformity with what I had learnt) concerning perfect contrition is that it (perfect contrition) is itself unique in that it also remits that which would have been due in the case of imperfect contrition, i.e. temporal punishment.

Supply your own emoticons.

seems appropriate

Columba,

Imperfect contrition is not sufficient for the forgiveness of mortal sins:

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

Saint Thomas and Peter Lombard both taught that catechumens who died without Baptism would at least suffer temporary punishment in Purgatory unless they were martyred. In their view, a catechumen who died with perfect contrition but without Baptism would go to Purgatory; catechumens who died with only imperfect contrition and without Baptism would go to Hell.

Jehanne wrote:

Columba,

Imperfect contrition is not sufficient for the forgiveness of mortal sins:

I believe this also Jehanne.
I'm trying to find out if we're all singing from the one hymn sheet.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote

columba wrote:
Yes I have answered this before and will do so again.

A thing becomes absolutely intrinsic to salvation the moment the Lord declares it so. Whether it was intrinsic before or not, it now becomes intrinsic.

It was not intrinsic for our salvation that Christ become incarnate, suffer and die. God could have chosen another way if He so wished. Because he chose as He did it now becomes intrinsic to our salvaton and without this action of Christ being applied as a remedy to our fallen nature, no one at all could be saved, neither in the old covenant or the new. All are bound by the methods which God Himself decides upon.

Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Let’s follow the “logic”:

Water baptism is intrinsic to salvation in the same way that our Lord’s Redemption is intrinsic to salvation; for, while it was not necessary for God to send His Son to Redeem us, once He did so, no one can “be saved, neither in the old covenant or the new” without “this action of Christ being applied as a remedy to our fallen nature”, and hence, “All are bound by the methods which God Himself decides upon.”

Yes. The blood of Christ is intrinsic to the salvation of all and the water, the blood and the spirit are inseparable. I stand with St. Ambrose on this who in the fourth century was well aware of the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation:

"You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace."

All “Feeneyites” say they stand with St. Ambrose, while forcing a non-traditional (and opposite) meaning on his very clear words in his funeral oration about the slain Emperor who was supposed to have been baptized by the Bishop’s own hand, but was not. St. Ambrose said:

But I hear that you grieve since he [Valentinian] did not receive the sacrament of Baptism. Tell me, what else is in your power but the desire, the petition? But even for a long time he had this desire, that when he came into Italy, he should be baptized, and recently he made known that he wanted to be baptized by me, and so he thought I should be summoned for this reason, before other reasons. Surely because he asked, he received, and hence there is the Scripture: "The just man by whatsoever death he may be overtaken, his soul shall be at rest".... If [martyrs] are washed in their own blood, his devotedness and intention washed him.

Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it [the grace he desired] because he asked for it.

I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for.

Saints Augustine, Aquinas and Bernard, as well as Hugh St. Victor (and many others) all cite this same Oration as a clear reference to Baptism of Desire, and so we ask who is in a better position to “interpret” the clear meaning of his words? After all, as St. Augustine taught:

"When any die for the confession of Christ without having received the washing of regeneration, it avails as much for the remission of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism." (De Civ. Dei, XIII, vii)

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches:

As it is written (1 Kgs. 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Rm. 2:29) that "the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."

And, it is here that your failure to grasp what “intrinsic” necessity actually means shines through; for, by your logic, a woman under the Old Law could be justified/sanctified by a circumcision of the heart, but the male could not; and if a Jewish male were to die before he could receive circumcision, he would be lost, while the woman would not, for that is what our Lord allegedly declared under the Law by reason of intrinsic necessity.

And it is the same under the new law of grace, where anyone who dies, no matter their faith, charity and intention, without the sacrament of Baptism, is lost, for that is what our Lord meant in John 3:5 by making water Baptism an intrinsic necessity for salvation. As you said:

If an act of love were possible before incorporation into Christ through Baptism, then that act of love would suffice. The very reason for the existance of Baptism is to make this act possible for it is obvious that for many even baptism will be received to no effect.

Where has the Church ever taught that “the reason for the existence of Baptism is to make this act [of love] possible”?

Actually, one of the reasons why the sacrament was instituted was not because an efficacious act of love is impossible (made possible by entreaty prior to Baptism, and by the theological virtues after Baptism), but because our fallen natures make it difficult.

Certainly one could make the quite valid and common sense argument that the charity our Lord expects in those who have fallen after having been fully regenerated and Confirmed in the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation, is of a greater quality than that which can be expected by those who have not been so regenerated and Confirmed in the abiding and substantial Habitation with the munificent gifts inherent within; but that does not mean that Our Lord does not accept such acts of love that are elicited with all the fervency an unregenerate soul can muster (made possible by the grace of God), without Baptism.

In point of fact, one need not possess a fervent charity in order to receive the graces bestowed in the Sacrament, and one can be sanctified/regenerated with only an attrition rather than a sincere contrition (an act of love), such is the power of the Sacrament; and THAT is the more accurate reason for the existence of the Sacrament – not to make unity with and life in Christ more difficult to attain by removing what was always available to the sincere heart by charity and replacing it with an exclusive physical instrumental and intrinsic means of transmission for this sanctification, but to make regeneration into Christ available to everyone, even those who do not approach our Lord with a fervent faith and charity.

So the divine and ecclesiastical precept our Lord demanded by intrinsic necessity (that you envisage) imposes a heavier burden on those who would be saved after the promulgation than before, is that right?

But, the path to salvation is made easier by the lifting of the burden of inequity on the entire human race that was assumed and destroyed by Christ ... that need now only be actualized individually in fact or in desire … for our Lord did the rest and everything since the Redemption has changed, even justification itself; which is not even of the same kind, for the Holy Ghost was never given in the abiding substantial manner as He is now.

Our Lord promised that he would come and make His abode with those who seek and love Him, and the love of God in a certain soul cannot impel our Lord to unite Himself with that same soul unless and until the sacrament of Baptism is conferred? Since when?

Is that what “changed” since the promulgation of the Gospel?

Just so we understand you, but it bears repeating; under the new law of grace, what was possible before is no longer possible. And no longer can anyone be sanctified and saved by a fervent faith, charity and intention, for no longer are such dispositions even possible without first having received water Baptism, for no longer can any man make a sincere act of contrition that in ages past always represented a “circumcision of the heart”; for God so decreed that in water Baptism alone can be found the supernatural faith and virtues that can redound to one’s justification and salvation – and that is what is meant by our Lord’s words in John 3:5 (and never mind what the Church actually teaches; and never mind that the Magisterium is the sole authority for the authentic interpretation of Scripture, contrary to Columba’s Protestant sounding contention to the contrary).

And so, when in verses John 3:3-8, Christ speaks of Baptism five times but Baptism of water only once (such as the man "who is born of the spirit" {6, 8}), no one can be “born of the spirit” without being born of water, for God so decreed it in John 3:5. And when Jesus replied in John 14:23, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them”, He meant to add, “but only through water Baptism”.

And, when the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches that “should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness”, we know by John 3:5 that this is simply a “fallible” error that crept into the flawed minds of the Council Fathers appointed by the Holy Father to lead the Catechism Commission, because clearly, there is no “intention and determination to receive Baptism” and there is no “repentance for past sins” that can “avail them to grace and righteousness” as it could in ages past, without their being physically “washed in the salutary waters”.

And about such a flagrant “error”, you say: “we shall see how many more doctrines must be made up in support of baptism of desire before the error becomes so obvious that it can no longer be sustained.” The Fathers of the Council of Trent who served on the Catechism Commission simply “made it up” -- and their “error” has “become so obvious that it can no longer be sustained.”

Actually, no one could make up such arguments as yours, and no one of any theological weight and authority ever has.

Let’s try a different tact, Columba, and place this into a context which at one time had you “pinned”, when I wrote about “explicit faith”. I will simply change “faith” to “Baptism”:

Columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:

Let me see if I have this right: Though, as St. Thomas teaches, regeneration into Christ was at all times necessary for salvation, anyone who died immediately prior to the promulgation of the Gospel could have been saved by a “circumcision of the heart”, i.e., faith in the Redeemer to come and an “act of charity”. However, someone of the same immediate family who died just after the promulgation of the Gospel who never heard the Gospel and the necessity of Baptism, or, heard of the Gospel and of Baptism but died before he could receive the Sacrament, but had the same faith and good dispositions, could not be saved unless he received the Sacrament of Baptism; and the faith and good dispositions he possessed which could have saved him just prior to the promulgation of the Gospel could no longer do so, and are in fact incapable of being able to effect the same end without water Baptism.

There's a hole in this somewhere and I'm off to find it, but in the meantime, you have me pinned (but I am tired right now)

To help place this into further context, St. Augustine wrote in Tract. xxix in Joannem, 6:

What, then, is to believe in God? — It is to love Him by believing, to go to Him by believing, and to be incorporated in His members. This, then, is the faith which God demands of us; and He finds not what He may demand except where He has given what He may find.

Columba, you wrote:

Again, the application of the merits of Christ are as intrinsic as the redemptive action of Christ. Why? Because Christ Himself says so. (John 3:5).

I couldn’t agree more that “the application of the merits of Christ are as intrinsic as the redemptive action of Christ”, but with respect to the mode of transmission, the Church has never understood our Lord’s words to mean that to be “born again” is restricted to ablution via the Sacrament, for that is why we have a Magisterium in the first place, to provide for the authentic interpretation of Scripture:

To the Apostles our Lord gave the charge to "teach all nations" and the faithful were commanded to hear and believe them (St. Mark xvi. 16.) This commission was accompanied by a promise that he would be with them in this office of teaching to the end of time (St. Matth. xxviii. 19, 20.) From these expressions it is clear that their lawful successors were also included in the commission and promise given to the Apostles. It follows then that the authoritative interpretation of Scripture made by the lawful successors of the Apostles is the true one, and truly the word of God; a contradictory interpretation must therefore of necessity be false, and is not the word of God; because a thing under the same aspect cannot be true and untrue at the same time, for truth in all things is one, and the contradiction of it is error.

Hence St. Peter condemns private interpretation of Scripture, saying: "No prophecy (or explanation) of Scripture is made by private interpretation" (2 St. Peter i. 20.) Those who refuse to hear and to follow the legitimate interpretation, and the faith of the Church, often, instead of the word of God, that is, what God really meant in Holy Scripture, have only their own inventions and errors, and these they mistake for the word of God. (http://catholicharboroffaithandmorals.com/Self%20Interpretation%20of%20the%20Bible.html

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

Speaking of former posts, allow me to repeat once again what I wrote before, with minor edits:

I know this will be a bit tedious (for you, repetitious), but please bear with me; I think it is very important to a correct understanding of necessity of means:

When we say something is a necessity of means, we mean that it is so essential that without it, the end cannot be (in this case, the end is salvation). By "intrinsic” we mean things like faith, charity and sanctifying grace, which are intrinsic to justification and glorification – unity with our Lord in all eternity.

We also mean by necessity means those divinely appointed institutions by which we arrive at the same end, such as the Mystical Body of Christ and Baptism.

However, as the 1949 Holy Office Letter declared:

In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807).

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

The obligation of actual ablution in water baptism is necessary as an extrinsic necessity of means because the external components of the sacrament (matter and form) are not intrinsic to salvation as is the grace or fruit of the sacrament; however, no one can be justified and saved without the sacrament, at least in desire (explicit or implicit) because no one can be saved without being regenerated (born again) in Christ.

Like the Church herself, the sacraments are divine helps or aids instituted for our benefit as the ordinary and chief means of sanctification. As divine institutions (we are not speaking about their mystical components), they will not always exist; thus, they cannot be intrinsic to the essence of our state of glorification in all eternity.

This is why St. Thomas could say about the sacrament of Baptism that it is absolutely necessary for salvation, while realizing he was referring to the fruit of the sacrament, and not the temporary (from an eternal perspective) external components (matter and form) that render it valid; through which the grace of salvation is ordinarily transmitted.

As Fr. Adolphe Tanquerey put it,

Baptism of water is really necessary by necessity of means, but extrinsically only, according to the positive will of God. But what is necessary only extrinsically can be supplied through something else; it was altogether fitting that this would be supplied through charity or perfect contrition, which are the best depositions". (A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, Vol II, 1959, Pg. 229)

While the grace of salvation can be supplied “through something else” called “charity”, the desire for the sacrament must be rooted in charity/contrition, and is at all times necessary.

In the same way, the sacrament of Penance is an extrinsic necessity of means for the Baptized who have fallen from grace. Not one of the Baptized fallen can be restored to grace without Sacerdotal absolution (extrinsic necessity), at least in desire and intention (intrinsic necessity).

This is why St. Thomas could say that an explicit faith in Christ was at all times necessary for salvation, but this necessity would vary for the individual depending on his proximity to the act of Redemption and the promulgation of the Gospel. The same applies to the Law of Baptism; after all, “This, then, is the faith which God demands of us; and He finds not what He may demand except where He has given what He may find.

As St. Alphonsus Liguori teaches,

In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament.

Now where have we heard this common doctrine before?

As I said, columba, you simply cannot make up your own definition of “intrinsic necessity” by appealing to John 3:5, for you are not the authoritative interpreter of Scripture.

Mike, that is an excellent post and probably includes most of the arguments for, and those which could be raised against, the doctrine of baptism of desire. In order to respond adequately (and to keep things at an acceptable length) I'll respond in a few separate posts taking two or three points at a time in each post.

MRyan wrote:
All “Feeneyites” say they stand with St. Ambrose, while forcing a non-traditional (and opposite) meaning on his very clear words in his funeral oration about the slain Emperor who was supposed to have been baptized by the Bishop’s own hand, but was not. St. Ambrose said:

But I hear that you grieve since he [Valentinian] did not receive the sacrament of Baptism. Tell me, what else is in your power but the desire, the petition? But even for a long time he had this desire, that when he came into Italy, he should be baptized, and recently he made known that he wanted to be baptized by me, and so he thought I should be summoned for this reason, before other reasons. Surely because he asked, he received, and hence there is the Scripture: "The just man by whatsoever death he may be overtaken, his soul shall be at rest".... If [martyrs] are washed in their own blood, his devotedness and intention washed him.

Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it [the grace he desired] because he asked for it.

I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for.

Saints Augustine, Aquinas and Bernard, as well as Hugh St. Victor (and many others) all cite this same Oration as a clear reference to Baptism of Desire, and so we ask who is in a better position to “interpret” the clear meaning of his words?

First off I would need to address the apparent contradiction in the stance taken by St Ambrose concerning the (presumably) unbaptized martyr as quoted above, vs his discourse on the absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism which I'll quote here again:

"You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace."

Obviously when reading the two side by side the contradiction is unavoidable, therefore both assertions cannot be correct. Either one of those assertions is true and the other false or, both of them are false, but for sure, both of them cannot be true.
This brings us to a consideration that is nearly always overlooked when contradictions such as these appear in the writings of the saints and Doctors or even in magisterial documents themselves. This consideration will be relevant not just here but also in dealing with issues you bring up later in your post.

We know that God in His providence provided for His Church in her capacity as teacher and interpreter and gave her a certain gift (or grace) to assist her in this capacity, that being, the charism of infallibility. The understanding of this and how and where it operates is of utmost importance when confronted with two diametrically opposed teachings such as those above. In this particular case the charism of infallibility does not apply and neither the first nor the second assertion of St Ambrose are divinely guaranteed to be totally error free. So then, which of his two teachings do we accept and which should we reject. Even without comparing each with those dogmatic pronouncements of the Church (divinely guaranteed to contain no error whatsoever) we could deduce by reason alone which of his statements is most likely to be true. His first assertion of the absolute necessity of water Baptism is more likely to be true because when we look at the circumstances surrounding the leniency afforded the unbaptized catachumen, we can see that his love for Valentinian could possibly have tainted his judgment. On balance then I would hold his first assertion to be that which is true and unaffected by any emotional factors that could have been present (even unknown to St Ambrose) in the latter.

Even when "Saints Augustine, Aquinas and Bernard, as well as Hugh St. Victor (and many others)" make mention of this latter teaching of St Ambrose as referring to baptism of blood, they do not refer to it as an infallible truth of the faith. Before you suggest that I'm using every means foul and fair to refute the possibility of baptism of blood I will readily admit that I am. But not for mere reasons of stubbornness or fear of being seen to be wrong, but for the simple reason that I actually believe it to be a false doctrine. That the Lord would permit His saints and Doctors to be wrong on certain matters of speculative opinion, or occasionally wrong in their reasoning process (as both Saints Thomas and Augustine were on rare occasion) is no bad reflection on the saints and Doctors themselves but rather a marked sign by God as to where His infallible guarantee is to be found in its perfection and fulness.

MRyan wrote:
St. Thomas Aquinas teaches:

As it is written (1 Kgs. 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Rm. 2:29) that "the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."

St Thomas is teaching something here that I've actually addressed before and in which I am not in contradiction with the Angelic Doctor. He says that such a man “is regenerated in heart though not in body.” Such a man is not then totally regenerated in Christ who Himself was both body and soul but rather partially regenerated and awaiting sacramental baptism for its completion. Likewise, a man who is regenerated in body only but who's heart is far from God, is no better off than one who has received neither. Thus it is not hard to see why a man who has turned to God with all his heart will not be refused the laver of regeneration in Baptism. Neither is it not hard to figure out why. Men are not angels. The body is as intrinsic to mortal man as is the soul. Both require regeneration in Christ as both will reign with Christ as one inseparable unity. For what other reason would God require an indispensable material element in all of His divinely instituted sacraments if not in acknowledgment of both body and soul combined in one man. I've read on this before and for the life of me I can't remember where but I have an inkling it may have been Tertullian.

I'll continue again soon.

Continued from above:

MRyan wrote:
And, it is here that your failure to grasp what “intrinsic” necessity actually means shines through; for, by your logic, a woman under the Old Law could be justified/sanctified by a circumcision of the heart, but the male could not; and if a Jewish male were to die before he could receive circumcision, he would be lost, while the woman would not, for that is what our Lord allegedly declared under the Law by reason of intrinsic necessity.

There is a certain mystery in this as to how the merits of Christ have been applied throughout time.
We know however, that the redemption wrought by Christ is applicable to all humanity from Adam and Eve on (inclusive) and within each ones grasp whether under the old law or the new. Circumcision, regardless of any infused virtue that may or may not be attached to it was foremost a physical sign of belonging; in this case as being marked out as belonging to the chosen people of God,; a people set apart. Those without the mark were gentiles and alien to the promises and privileges guaranteed to the chosen. Without the mark of circumcision (at least in the male) there would be no tangible sign of belonging and no differentiation between Jew and Gentile. As for women under the old law, there were indeed rites specific to Jewish women (Purification springs to mind immediately) that marked them out as belonging to (or at least under) the same body and laws as the circumcised men. Whatever you may say regarding the intrinsic necessity of circumcision, it was certainly intrinsic for salvation to be part of the one body which God Himself had created in the Jewish people. Were all Gentiles lost? There is no record in the Old Testament of any being saved or finding favor with God. If any were saved then we don't know about it.

MRyan wrote:

And it is the same under the new law of grace, where anyone who dies, no matter their faith, charity and intention, without the sacrament of Baptism, is lost, for that is what our Lord meant in John 3:5 by making water Baptism an intrinsic necessity for salvation. As you said:

columba wrote:
If an act of love were possible before incorporation into Christ through Baptism, then that act of love would suffice. The very reason for the existence of Baptism is to make this act possible for it is obvious that for many even baptism will be received to no effect.

Where has the Church ever taught that “the reason for the existence of Baptism is to make this act [of love] possible”?

Where has the Church ever taught that this act of love IS possible without Baptism? The burden of proof is as much upon you as it is me, but I have far more solid reasons for believing that my position is the correct one. In fact I have not a few dogmatic declarations confirming this but also the words of Christ Himself whom you say is not to be understood as is written.

MRyan wrote:
Actually, one of the reasons why the sacrament was instituted was not because an efficacious act of love is impossible (made possible by entreaty prior to Baptism, and by the theological virtues after Baptism), but because our fallen natures make it difficult.

I go further and say that our fallen nature makes it impossible. Thus, what was impossible for Man became possible by the perfect fulfillment of the law in Christ, and all that was merited for us in our fallen state was applied through the laver of regeneration in Christ through the sprinkling of the waters of Baptism, so that, “Unless a man be born again of water etc...”

Certainly one could make the quite valid and common sense argument that the charity our Lord expects in those who have fallen after having been fully regenerated and Confirmed in the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation, is of a greater quality than that which can be expected by those who have not been so regenerated and Confirmed in the abiding and substantial Habitation with the munificent gifts inherent within; but that does not mean that Our Lord does not accept such acts of love that are elicited with all the fervency an unregenerate soul can muster (made possible by the grace of God), without Baptism.

The problem here is the assumption that an non-regenerated soul can muster any supernatural virtue never mind an act of perfect charity. If Baptism does in fact make things easier, this would be (according to your logic) offset by the more strict account needing to be rendered to God for the greater blessing received. That's why I say that Baptism makes possible something that was impossible before its reception and the just soul seeking God with all its heart will be brought by God to the waters of Baptism that it may achieve in reality what it so hoped for and desired but was powerless to accomplish without being incorporated into Christ trough Baptism.

In point of fact, one need not possess a fervent charity in order to receive the graces bestowed in the Sacrament, and one can be sanctified/regenerated with only an attrition rather than a sincere contrition (an act of love), such is the power of the Sacrament; and THAT is the more accurate reason for the existence of the Sacrament – not to make unity with and life in Christ more difficult to attain by removing what was always available to the sincere heart by charity and replacing it with an exclusive physical instrumental and intrinsic means of transmission for this sanctification, but to make regeneration into Christ available to everyone, even those who do not approach our Lord with a fervent faith and charity.

That is in fact truly one of the great blessings of Baptism, that through it Christ will make up for what's lacking in man's response to grace providing grace itself is not despised, and regnerated man will make up (in his own body) for what's lacking in the sufferings of Christ the Head through His body the Church.
(Col 1:24)

So the divine and ecclesiastical precept our Lord demanded by intrinsic necessity (that you envisage) imposes a heavier burden on those who would be saved after the promulgation than before, is that right?

No. It makes possible what hitherto was impossible because outside the Church salvation (and hence supernatural charity) is not possible, and one enters the Church through Baptism. If there be another known way of admission to the Church you would need to provide the evidence for this.

CCC, 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

CCC, 1266: The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification:- enabling them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him through the theological virtues;- giving them the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit through the gifts of the Holy Spirit;- allowing them to grow in goodness through the moral virtues. Thus the whole organism of the Christian's supernatural life has its roots in Baptism.

CCC, 1277: Baptism is birth into the new life in Christ. In accordance with the Lord's will, it is necessary for salvation, as is the Church herself, which we enter by Baptism.

CCC, 1254: ...Preparation for Baptism leads only to the threshold of new life. Baptism is the source of that new life in Christ from which the entire Christian life springs forth.

Forguive me for having to resort to quoting the CCC which does contain orthodox Catholic teaching even if it does dismiss and contradict its own words in order (I suspect) to make it PC friendly.

But, the path to salvation is made easier by the lifting of the burden of inequity on the entire human race that was assumed and destroyed by Christ ... that need now only be actualized individually in fact or in desire … for our Lord did the rest and everything since the Redemption has changed, even justification itself; which is not even of the same kind, for the Holy Ghost was never given in the abiding substantial manner as He is now.

Now who's sounding Protestant? The burden of inequity is lifted by Christ by the forgiveness of sin and the forgiveness of sin requires repentance and repentance requires love of God even imperfect love, but only perfect love can suffice for those who cannot avail themselves of sacramental absolution and perfect love (this side of the grave ) is a rare thing indeed that only the baptized saints have ever been known to achieved.. If there be hope for the unbaptized it lies in an act of perfect charity. If they can achieve this then they would be saved. I believe since the promulgation of the gospel, the only way to achieve this is through Baptism.


Will continue soon.

Continued from above: Gettin' there slowly but surely.

MRyan wrote:
Our Lord promised that he would come and make His abode with those who seek and love Him, and the love of God in a certain soul cannot impel our Lord to unite Himself with that same soul unless and until the sacrament of Baptism is conferred? Since when?

Is that what “changed” since the promulgation of the Gospel?

Something definitely has changed since the promulgation of the Gospel; if not, then the promulgation of the Gospel brought nothing new that wasn't already available under the old law. To understand what has changed we need look no further than what was promulgated in that very Gospel which was; the founding of the Catholic Church, the institution of the sacraments, the necessity of rebirth though Baptism in order to enter this Church and avail of the other sacraments and by this means become eligible to share in eternal life.

The Jews, (to whom this Gospel was first preached but rejected) who to this day remain under the old law, remain outside the scope of salvation. If they were to believe in Christ then the Lord would indeed unite Himself to them by means the laver of regeneration for “Anyone who believes and is baptized will be saved. .” (Mark 16:16). If they are baptized without believing they will not be saved; if they believe and are not baptized they will not be saved; if they both believe and are baptized they will be saved. Yes, that's what has changed since the promulgation of the Gospel. The apostles believed this, the early Church believed this, Fr. Feeney believed this, and the Church still teaches this and if anything be taught contrary it is either not the Church teaching it, or, it is the Church speculating beyond her knowledge which would be outside the divine guarantee of infallibility and hence her speculation could be erroneous. The latter is most likely the case for the teaching authority of the Church still maintains that she “knows no other means apart from the sacrament Baptism etc...”

Just so we understand you, but it bears repeating; under the new law of grace, what was possible before is no longer possible. And no longer can anyone be sanctified and saved by a fervent faith, charity and intention, for no longer are such dispositions even possible without first having received water Baptism, for no longer can any man make a sincere act of contrition that in ages past always represented a “circumcision of the heart”; for God so decreed that in water Baptism alone can be found the supernatural faith and virtues that can redound to one’s justification and salvation – and that is what is meant by our Lord’s words in John 3:5 (and never mind what the Church actually teaches; and never mind that the Magisterium is the sole authority for the authentic interpretation of Scripture, contrary to Columba’s Protestant sounding contention to the contrary).

Under the old law the circumcision of heart could only have been possible by the belief in the Savior to come (even implicit faith as the fulness of the plan of redemption had not yet been revealed) and by the very merits of that same Savior who was to come. The fulness of the plan of redemption has since been revealed and now explicit faith is possible and also necessary and the definition of Faith is; the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed, and that Holy Mother Church proposes for our belief.
Christ has revealed to us that “Unless a man be born again of water etc...” (John 3:5) and Holy Mother Church believes this as it is written (Trent ses 6, chap 4),

And in answer to your question “or God so decreed that in water Baptism alone can be found the supernatural faith and virtues that can redound to one’s justification and salvation – and that is what is meant by our Lord’s words in John 3:5 (and never mind what the Church actually teaches; and never mind that the Magisterium is the sole authority for the authentic interpretation of Scripture, contrary to Columba’s Protestant sounding contention to the contrary).

Yes. This is what is meant and this is what the Church actually teaches infallibly. If you want me to sound Protestant then I can do so by inverting the order of authoritative teaching and subjecting the infallible dogmatic truths of the faith to the those non-infallible speculative teachings which have yet to be promulgated as binding on all the faithful.

And so, when in verses John 3:3-8, Christ speaks of Baptism five times but Baptism of water only once (such as the man "who is born of the spirit" {6, 8}), no one can be “born of the spirit” without being born of water, for God so decreed it in John 3:5. And when Jesus replied in John 14:23, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them”, He meant to add, “but only through water Baptism”.

I believe you've got that right Mike. When Jesus said, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them”, He was indeed speaking of an inward dwelling which would be accomplished through the laver of regeneration by the invocation of the Holy Trinity, “I Baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” Is there another way by which this inward renewal can take place? The Church knows of no other.

Thus far Mike (if I understand you correctly) we are to believe that Baptism (if it achieves anything) makes it easier for a soul to attain salvation. The nonbaptized, though finding it more difficult, they too can still attain salvation. The condition upon which the unbaptized can attain salvation is by the desire for the sacrament of Baptism accompanied by an act of love of God and also that he have perfect contrition.

These same requirements are also necessary for the Baptized: 1) That he desires Baptism. 2) That he loves God, and 3) That he have perfect contrition. However in his case imperfect contrition (or attrition) will suffice, but only if it be present during the sacrament of penance. Outside the sacrament of penance he too would require an act of perfect contrition (if he have serious sin on his soul) accompanied by the resolve to receive sacramental absolution if the opportunity arises.

So really what distinguishes the Baptized from the non-baptized is not that one is inside the Church and the other is outside? Not that one has put on Christ and the other has not? Not that one has gone into the tomb with Christ and rose again with Him and the other has not? Not that one has been washed clean by the water of regeneration and the other has not? Not that one has been set free from the sin of his first parents and his bondage to the devil and the other has not? Not that one can partake of the Body and Blood of the Lamb and the other can not? No. the difference between the Baptized and the non-baptized is attrition vs contrition.
If desire alone can achieve all the above but cannot achieve what is granted through one sacramental confession, i.e, forgiveness through attrition only; Why is this?

columba wrote:Mike, that is an excellent post and probably includes most of the arguments for, and those which could be raised against, the doctrine of baptism of desire. In order to respond adequately (and to keep things at an acceptable length) I'll respond in a few separate posts taking two or three points at a time in each post.

MRyan wrote:
All “Feeneyites” say they stand with St. Ambrose, while forcing a non-traditional (and opposite) meaning on his very clear words in his funeral oration about the slain Emperor who was supposed to have been baptized by the Bishop’s own hand, but was not. St. Ambrose said:

But I hear that you grieve since he [Valentinian] did not receive the sacrament of Baptism. Tell me, what else is in your power but the desire, the petition? But even for a long time he had this desire, that when he came into Italy, he should be baptized, and recently he made known that he wanted to be baptized by me, and so he thought I should be summoned for this reason, before other reasons. Surely because he asked, he received, and hence there is the Scripture: "The just man by whatsoever death he may be overtaken, his soul shall be at rest".... If [martyrs] are washed in their own blood, his devotedness and intention washed him.

Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it [the grace he desired] because he asked for it.

I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for.

Saints Augustine, Aquinas and Bernard, as well as Hugh St. Victor (and many others) all cite this same Oration as a clear reference to Baptism of Desire, and so we ask who is in a better position to “interpret” the clear meaning of his words?

First off I would need to address the apparent contradiction in the stance taken by St Ambrose concerning the (presumably) unbaptized martyr as quoted above, vs his discourse on the absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism which I'll quote here again:

"You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace."

Obviously when reading the two side by side the contradiction is unavoidable, therefore both assertions cannot be correct. Either one of those assertions is true and the other false or, both of them are false, but for sure, both of them cannot be true.

This brings us to a consideration that is nearly always overlooked when contradictions such as these appear in the writings of the saints and Doctors or even in magisterial documents themselves. This consideration will be relevant not just here but also in dealing with issues you bring up later in your post.

The whole problem with your analysis is your unwarranted assumption that there is a contradiction, when none actually exists. For example, when St. Ambrose states that if you withdraw any one of the essential elements for a valid Baptism, the Sacrament does not exist, no one disputes that, and no one is suggesting that baptism of blood and baptism of desire are Sacraments.

So the entire context of his discourse on Baptism is related directly to the Sacrament itself, and the assumption here is that the Sacrament is available to the Catechumen who, should he unduly delay his baptism would be suspect for having "sloth" or “contempt” towards his obligation to receive the Sacrament; and thus, St. Ambrose is not addressing the “circumcision of the heart” as was assumed to be present, according to the same St. Ambrose, in his Catechumen -- the Emperor.

In other words, he is referring in general to Catechumens as a whole who may in fact believe in the cross of Christ, but many of whom may not receive the sacrament (when it is available to him) and/or may not possess a fervent faith and charity, and thus, “cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”

You might say that I am embellishing the words of St. Ambrose, but I would say that I am placing his words into the same context as that of his peers who used similar language for each of two respective but different scenarios, the first being that of the Catechumen in general; not all of whom approached the reception of the Sacrament with a fervent faith and desire -- and to whom assumptions of charity are not generally given, and the second being the clear case of the fervent Catechumen or martyr who dies confessing Christ while manifesting a profound charity.

For example, there is absolutely no doubt that St. Thomas Aquinas taught baptism of blood and baptism of desire; and yet it is the same St. Thomas who taught:

"It is not enough merely to believe. He who believes and is not yet baptised, but is only a catechumen, has not yet fully aquired salvation." (Cantena Aurea. St Thomas Aquinas, ed, J. Nicolai, Paris: 1896)

Rather than seeing a “contradiction” in the mind of the Angelic Doctor, we can easily discern the distinction St. Thomas is making, for he is not addressing the possibility of the extraordinary circumstance of baptism of desire in this instance, but is assuming that the Sacrament is ordinarily available to the Catechumen whose own “desire” for the Sacrament is entirely subjective, and he should not unduly delay his baptism for fear of losing salvation.

So long as the Sacrament is available (and even when it is not available, the obligation remains), St. Thomas is absolutely correct to say he “has not yet fully acquired salvation” until reception of the Sacrament, and even then, he must die in a state of grace to be assured of his salvation.

St. Gregory of Nazianzus, in The Oration on Holy Baptism (Oration 40), speaks about approaching the Sacrament of baptism in the same context as Sts. Ambrose and Aquinas:

XXVI. Let nothing hinder you from going on, nor draw you away from your readiness. While your desire is still vehement, seize upon that which you desire. While the iron is hot, let it be tempered by the cold water, lest anything should happen in the interval, and put an end to your desire. I am Philip; do you be Candace's Eunuch. Acts 8:36 Do you also say, See, here is water, what does hinder me to be baptized? Seize the opportunity; rejoice greatly in the blessing; and having spoken be baptized; and having been baptized be saved; and though you be an Ethiopian body, be made white in soul. Do not say, A Bishop shall baptize me—and he a Metropolitan,— and he of Jerusalem (for the Grace does not come of a place, but of the Spirit),— and he of noble birth, for it would be a sad thing for my nobility to be insulted by being baptized by a man of no family. Do not say, I do not mind a mere Priest, if he is a celibate, and a religious, and of angelic life; for it would be a sad thing for me to be defiled even in the moment of my cleansing. Do not ask for credentials of the preacher or the baptizer. For another is his judge, 1 Samuel 16:7 and the examiner of what you can not see. For man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.

XLIV. … The Spirit is eager, the Consecrator is ready, the Gift is prepared. But if you still halt and will not receive the perfectness of the Godhead, go and look for someone else to baptize— or rather to drown you: I have no time to cut the Godhead, and to make you dead in the moment of your regeneration, that you should have neither the Gift nor the Hope of Grace, but should in so short a time make shipwreck of your salvation. For whatever you may subtract from the Deity of the Three, you will have overthrown the whole, and destroyed your own being made perfect.

And it is the same St. Gregory Nazianzen who, in his funeral Oration 18 for his father, and in Oration Eight, Funeral Oration on his Sister Gorgonia, taught there are those who already belong to the Church who are not visibly united to her:

Oration 18: 6. Even before he was of our fold, he was ours. His character made him one of us. For, as many of our own are not with us, whose life alienates them from the common body, so, many of those without are on our side, whose character anticipates their faith, and need only the name of that which indeed they possess. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.iii.x.html)

And, in Oration Eight:

"Her whole life was a purification for her, and a perfecting. She had indeed the regeneration of the Spirit, and the assurance of this from her previous life. And, to speak boldly, the mystery (baptism) was for her practically only the seal, not the grace."

So we can see that there is no reason to assume that St. Ambrose was speaking in absolute terms, but only generally about Catechumens, lest they be the cause of their own ruination by being slothful in their preparation to receive the sacrament.

And we should keep in mind that this is the same St. Ambrose who taught:

"Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity. They may, however, have an undisclosed exemption from punishments; but I do not know whether they can have the honor of the kingdom. (Abraham, 387 A.D, The Faith of the early fathers, Vol 2, pg. 169)

Does that sound like a "rejection" of baptism of blood and baptism of desire? It is an honest admission that while affirming that no one is excepted from the divine precept to receive Baptism, he simply does not know if infants and adults can have the honor of the kingdom without the sacrament; so he definitely does not close the door, for he is speaking only in general terms; however, his testimony elsewhere suggests he held the door open:

Although we are baptized with water and the Spirit, the latter is much superior to the former, and is not therefore to be separated from the Father and the Son. There are, however, many who, because we are baptized with water and the Spirit, think that there is no difference in the offices of water and the Spirit, and therefore think that they do not differ in nature. Nor do they observe that we are buried in the element of water that we may rise again renewed by the Spirit. For in the water is the representation of death, in the Spirit is the pledge of life, that the body of sin may die through the water, which encloses the body as it were in a kind of tomb, that we, by the power of the Spirit, may be renewed from the death of sin, being born again in God" (The Holy Spirit 1:6[75-76] – 381 AD)

And again, in his Funeral Oration for the Emperor Valentinian, St. Ambrose said:

Did he, then, not have the grace which he desired? Did he not have what he eagerly sought? Certainly, because he sought it, he received it. What else does it mean: ‘Whatever just man shall be overtaken by death, his soul shall be at rest [Wisdom 4]’?" (Sympathy at the Death of Valentinian – 392 AD)

What just man shall be overtaken by death, his soul shall be at rest. He shall have received the grace he desired in Baptism, precisely as the Catechism of Trent, and the Church, teaches. And, St. Aquinas makes the same reference to this teaching of St. Ambrose:

I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.

Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for." (Stl, III, Q. 68, A. 2)

Here is how another Doctor of the Church, Saint Robert Bellarmine, taught the same “true understanding” of the doctrine:

Perfect conversion and penitence is rightly called baptism of desire, and in necessity at least, it supplies for the baptism of water. It is to be noted that any conversion whatsoever cannot be called baptism of desire; but only perfect conversion, which includes true contrition and charity, and at the same time a desire or vowed intention of baptism. (De Sacramento Baptismi, Liber I cap. VI).

And yet, Columba, what St. Bellarmine (and the Church) affirms, you specifically reject, that a “perfect conversion” of heart, meaning “a true contrition and charity, and at the same time a desire or vowed intention of baptism” is possible prior to Baptism, “and in necessity at least, it supplies for the baptism of water.”

The words of St. Bellarmine are virtually identical to the words of Pope Pius XII who said “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism”.

And you have the audacity to say:

Where has the Church ever taught that this act of love IS possible without Baptism? The burden of proof is as much upon you as it is me, but I have far more solid reasons for believing that my position is the correct one. In fact I have not a few dogmatic declarations confirming this but also the words of Christ Himself whom you say is not to be understood as is written.

This is sheer nonsense. I supply the magisterial proof, and you simply reject it by pretending it does not say what it clearly says.

You have not a single magisterial (let alone dogmatic) declaration that confirms that an act of love is impossible without baptism, and I have a magisterial affirmation from Trent, from its Catechism, from the Allocuation of Pope Pius XII and from the CCC that such an act of love is possible without Baptism. And neither does John 3:5 suggest that such an act is impossible, you are simply applying the columba Protestant spin to Scripture as if you have the authority to do so.

And, what I have is the clear consistent teaching of the Doctors and theologians of the Church, beginning with St. Cyprian and confirmed by a whole litanty of subsequent saints, theologians and doctors who most definitely taught that an efficacious act of love was possible without Baptism.

And you have the nerve to say that you have “the more solid reasons” to discredit this universal affirmation of the Saints, Doctors, Councils and the Allocution of Pope Pius XII.

If you haven’t figured it out yet, I am not buying into your disgraceful re-writing of the Allocution of Pope Pius XII. His words are absolutely clear and unambiguous, and there is absolutely no doubt that he taught that for adults AN ACT OF LOVE SUFFICES FOR THE LACK OF BAPTISM. And what does this act of love suffice to replace for the lack of Baptism?

He tells us – it is sufficient “to communicate that [supernatural] life …sanctifying grace” since “the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open.”

The way that it is not open to the unborn or newly born is an act of love that suffices for the lack of baptism and places one in a state of sanctifying grace, without which “salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible.”

Really, columba, what is it about his clear unambiguous words of the Pope you do not understand? To even suggest that “Pope Pius XII didn't in fact articulate anything. He made a statement without any articulation as to how it is to be understood, therefore we understand it as the Church has always understood it” is simply ridiculous, for not only did Pope Pius XII clearly articulate his meaning, that same meaning is articulated by the universal consensus of saints and theologians, as well by the Church who tells us that she has always held this firm conviction.

But wait, I forgot that you actually believe that the entire universal testimony of the Saints, theologians, universal Roman Catechisms, local Catechisms (to include the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X), Canon Law, Papal Letters, a Papal Allocution, official Scripture Commentary, the Holy Office and the unanimous universal testimony of Bishops in communion with the Pope do NOT represent the teaching of the Catholic Church “as the Church has always understood it”; meaning the Catholic Church has always understood the doctrine to mean just the opposite of what all of the aforementioned holds and teaches, that, contrary to this, an act of love does not and cannot suffice for the lack of Baptism.

And you will cite John 3:5 and a dogmatic canon or two along with the Council of Florence as if these solemn truths in any way support your contention, when it is obvious to the less deluded that they most certainly do not. You see “contradiction” everywhere, while you, a remnant of at least three persons, hold fast to the true doctrine while the rest of the Church stands in contradiction to her own dogmas.

How does one respond to such utter nonsense? How can anyone in their right mind contest the universal consensus of the saints and theologians and the mind of the Church in her understanding of baptism of blood, for example, when the tradition is so well established not even Fr. Feeney (or the St. Benedict Center) challenges its traditional pedigree “as the Church has always understood it”?

Speaking of St. Robert Bellarmine, in Mystici Corporis Christi, Pope Pius XII speaks of this same act of love:

73. "God is charity and he that abideth in charity abideth in God and God in him." The effect of this charity - such would seem to be God's law - is to compel Him to enter into our loving hearts to return love for love, as He said: "If anyone love me..., my Father will love him and we will come to him and will make our abode with him." Charity then, more than any other virtue binds us closely to Christ.

79. It must also be borne in mind that there is question here of a hidden mystery, which during this earthly exile can only be dimly seen through a veil, and which no human words can express. [color=cyanThe Divine Persons are said to indwell inasmuch as they are present to beings endowed with intelligence in a way that lies beyond human comprehension, and in a unique and very intimate manner which transcends all created nature, these creatures enter into relationship with Them through knowledge and love.[/color][160]

EndNote 160 is a reference to the Summa Theologica, I, q. 43, a.3, which reads:

I answer that, The divine person is fittingly sent in the sense that He exists newly in any one; and He is given as possessed by anyone; and neither of these is otherwise than by sanctifying grace.

For God is in all things by His essence, power and presence, according to His one common mode, as the cause existing in the effects which participate in His goodness. Above and beyond this common mode, however, there is one special mode belonging to the rational nature wherein God is said to be present as the object known is in the knower, and the beloved in the lover. And since the rational creature by its operation of knowledge and love attains to God Himself, according to this special mode God is said not only to exist in the rational creature but also to dwell therein as in His own temple. So no other effect can be put down as the reason why the divine person is in the rational creature in a new mode, except sanctifying grace. Hence, the divine person is sent, and proceeds temporally only according to sanctifying grace.

Again, we are said to possess only what we can freely use or enjoy: and to have the power of enjoying the divine person can only be according to sanctifying grace. And yet the Holy Ghost is possessed by man, and dwells within him, in the very gift itself of sanctifying grace. Hence the Holy Ghost Himself is given and sent.

Now, keeping in mind Pope Pius XII’s teaching that “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism”, St. Aquinas goes on to confirm the same doctrine:

III, Question 66. The sacrament of Baptism; Article 11. Whether three kinds of Baptism are fittingly described--viz. Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit?

I answer that, As stated above (Question 62, Article 5), Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this it is written (Isaiah 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism.

In summary:

1. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches an act of love (“forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins”) is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and “takes the place of Baptism”;

2. St. Robert Bellarmine teaches that an act of love (“Perfect conversion and penitence is rightly called baptism of desire”) is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and “supplies for the baptism of water”, and

3. Pope Pius XII teaches that “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism”; but the Pius XII does NOT articulate what he really means, according to columba.

Or perhaps neither did St Aquinas nor Bellarmine articulate what they really meant, for they could have meant the opposite of what they said -- that an act of love could supply for the lack of baptism - if such an act were possible, but it is not possible – though columba cannot show us where any of the above said any such thing in contraction to their clear teaching that it is in fact possible.

Welcome to the bizzaro world of columba. Next, he'll be telling us that adult members of the Orthodox Church who have not fallen into columba's definition of obstinate heresy or schism, are external members of their respective Orthodox Church, as well as being external members of the Roman Catholic Church (in communion with the Pope and the RCC faithful - though they don't know it).

Continuing ...

columba wrote:
We know that God in His providence provided for His Church in her capacity as teacher and interpreter and gave her a certain gift (or grace) to assist her in this capacity, that being, the charism of infallibility. The understanding of this and how and where it operates is of utmost importance when confronted with two diametrically opposed teachings such as those above [St. Ambrose]. In this particular case the charism of infallibility does not apply and neither the first nor the second assertion of St Ambrose are divinely guaranteed to be totally error free. So then, which of his two teachings do we accept and which should we reject. Even without comparing each with those dogmatic pronouncements of the Church (divinely guaranteed to contain no error whatsoever) we could deduce by reason alone which of his statements is most likely to be true. His first assertion of the absolute necessity of water Baptism is more likely to be true because when we look at the circumstances surrounding the leniency afforded the unbaptized catachumen, we can see that his love for Valentinian could possibly have tainted his judgment. On balance then I would hold his first assertion to be that which is true and unaffected by any emotional factors that could have been present (even unknown to St Ambrose) in the latter.

Even when "Saints Augustine, Aquinas and Bernard, as well as Hugh St. Victor (and many others)" make mention of this latter teaching of St Ambrose as referring to baptism of blood, they do not refer to it as an infallible truth of the faith. Before you suggest that I'm using every means foul and fair to refute the possibility of baptism of blood I will readily admit that I am. But not for mere reasons of stubbornness or fear of being seen to be wrong, but for the simple reason that I actually believe it to be a false doctrine. That the Lord would permit His saints and Doctors to be wrong on certain matters of speculative opinion, or occasionally wrong in their reasoning process (as both Saints Thomas and Augustine were on rare occasion) is no bad reflection on the saints and Doctors themselves but rather a marked sign by God as to where His infallible guarantee is to be found in its perfection and fulness.

So how does it reflect on the “fallible” Magisterium when she proposes to the universal Church the same so-called “speculative opinion” proposed by a universal moral consensus of Saints, Doctors and Theologians through her various and numerous magisterial organs for transmitting Catholic truth on a matter of salvation?

This is not a simple matter of an errant universal “speculative opinion” that God allows in order to demonstrate where the true arbiter of truth actually resides, this is a matter of doctrinal truth that goes right to the heart of having a correct understanding of the Church’s own salvation dogmas.

Speaking of what God allows, let's cite Mke Malone in Chapter One of his The Only Begotten, where he says, "If we can rely on the authority of the eight Popes who approved and authorized the revelations of Ven. Mary of Agreda, it was Our Lord Himself Who told this venerable Spanish mystic:

Very often I permit and cause differences of opinions among the doctors and teachers. Thus, some of them maintain what is true, and others ~ according to their na-tural disposition ~ defend what is doubtful. Others still again are permitted to say even what is not true, though not in open contradiction to the veiled truths of faith which everyone must hold. Some of them also teach what is possible according to their supposition. By this varied light, truth is traced, and the mysteries of faith become more manifest. Doubt serves as a stimulus to the understanding for the investigation of truth. Therefore, controversies of teachers fulfill a proper and holy end. They are also permitted in order to make known that real knowledge dwells in My Church more than in the com-bined study of all holy and perfect teachers."[27]

Context, what a beautiful thing.

And columba sees "open contradiction to the veiled truths of faith which everyone must hold" in the teachings of the greatest Doctors of the Church, as well as in the "fallible" Magisterium of the Church on the correct understanding of her salvation dogmas "which everyone must hold".

You say that the doctrines on the absolute necessity of water Baptism and on the Baptisms of Blood and Desire stand in open contradiction, meaning only one of them can be correct. And that which is opposed to a dogma is heresy – there is no way around it. Of course, there is no contradiction except in your errant theology.

In The Only Begotten, Mike Malone cites St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori’s classic Exposition of Trent in order to refute the Baptism of Desire that the same St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori holds as de fide per the Council of Trent and tradition:

What is found to have its origin in the opinion of some Holy Father or particular Council is not a Divine Tradition, even though it should be celebrated throughout the entire Church. For, if we did not attend to this rule, we would have to admit new revelations regarding Faith or Morals, something always abhorred and impugned in the Church ... Hence, the Sovereign Pontiffs, the Councils, and the Fathers have been most careful to reject all novelties or new doctrines on matters of Faith which differed from those already received ... We ought not regard as divine a tradition which teaches a dogma on the authority of one or a few modern or ancient writers, even though they be men of sanctity and learning, in opposition to the common opinion.

Is the doctrine on the Baptisms of Blood and Desire based “on the authority of one or a few modern or ancient writers”, and does it stand “in opposition to the common opinion”?

Of course not, for, as St. Liguori knew, it is THE common doctrine about which the Church tells us she has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament; an authoritative statement that is supported by the universal testimony of the saints, Doctors and theologians, as well as by the Church herself in her other authoritative magisterial teachings.

And if we turn to the authority of the Church Fathers we find that their unanimous moral consent gives us a sure certitude for this teaching since:

the unanimity of the Fathers (Consensus Patrum), in matters of faith and morals, begets complete certainty and commands assent, because they, as a body, bear witness to the teaching and belief of the infallible Church, representing the Church herself. So the authority of the Fathers is binding only when they all agree upon a question of faith and morals. The consensus, however, need not be absolute; a moral agreement suffices, as, for instance, when some of the greatest Fathers testify to a doctrine of the Church, and the rest, though quite aware of it, do not positively oppose it.” (Manual of Patrology, by Rev. Bernard Schid, O.S. B, Herder Book Co., 1917, Pg. 31.)

In fact, in the same Exposition on the Council of Trent cited by Mike Malone, St. Alphonsus Liguori teaches the following with regard to the sacrament of Baptism (Pg. 128 -129):

Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament.

So, if what you are telling us is correct, columba, and God allows a “speculative opinion” that has a direct bearing on the correct understanding of the salvation dogmas which, if this understanding is false, represents “new revelations regarding Faith or Morals, something always abhorred and impugned in the Church”, where is the “careful rejection” of this “novelty or new doctrine on a matter of Faith which differed from those already received...” by “the Sovereign Pontiffs, the Councils, and the Fathers" when the same "Sovereign Pontiffs, the Councils, and the Fathers" attest to the truth of the common doctrine on baptism of desire?

In his Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Sylvester J. Hunter, S.J. (1896, Vol III, No. 696, Pg. 228) teaches the constancy of this same common doctrine which has been taught by doctors of the Church throughout her history from the earliest days down to recent times:

the Doctrine that Baptism of Water may be replaced by the Baptism of desire or by Baptism of Blood is not, as is some times supposed, a recent development of doctrine, it is taught for instance by St. Gregory Nazianzen in a sermon preached in 381,(Orat. 39, In Sancta Lumina, 17; P.G. 35; 356) where mention is made of the Baptism of water, of Martyrdom and of tears. It must be observed that we do not hold that there are three kinds of Baptism, for in the creed read in the Mass, we confess one Baptism for the remission of sins, the actual reception of which, however, may be replaced in either of the two ways mentioned."

Of course, columba rejects all of this, and we are back to his schizophrenic Church which allegedly has her dogmatizing a doctrine that once and for all time positively and dogmatically precludes an act of love from sufficing for the lack of Baptism (the not-so “careful rejection”), while at the same time and in various magisterial forms the authority of the ordinary ecclesia docens presents the correct understanding of the dogma (the common opinion of the theologians and the Schools on baptism of desire) that says in point of fact that, with respect to necessity, an act of love suffices for the lack of water Baptism.

Columba, your problem is that you cannot distinguish, as the Church and her Saints, Doctors and theologians distinguish, between that which is absolutely necessary to live the life of grace in the sacraments of the Church, and that which is absolutely necessary to salvation.

Peter Lombard (1160 AD) teaches with tradition, for example, that “God did not bind his power by the Sacraments” (Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique) in order to draw men to the Kingdom. St. Thomas Aquinas affirms the same doctrine when he teaches “It belongs to the excellence of Christ power, that He (Christ) could bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the exterior sacrament” (Stl, III, Q. 64, Art. 3), and elsewhere, “God did not bind his power to the sacraments, so as to be unable to bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament’ (Ibid, Art. 7).

So when St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori teach, for example, that with respect to Baptism, the necessity is absolute, one simply needs to read the given context of what is meant by "necessity". For example, since I am on a roll with Mike Malone, he provides the following citations and commentary, beginning with St. Liguori:

As regards Baptism, the necessity is absolute; for, since Baptism is not only the first in order among the Sacra-ments, but it is also the most necessary of all others. It is of the greatest consequence, because a person cannot receive the others if he has not been previously baptized. [9]

After all:

The Eucharist depends on Baptism, since no one can re-ceive the Eucharist unless he has been baptized. There-fore, Baptism is greater than the Eucharist. This argu-ment proceeds on the ground of necessity; for thus Bap-tism, being of the greatest necessity, is the greatest of the Sacraments; for, there is no reason a thing should not be greater from a certain point-of-view, although not greater absolutely speaking. (St. Thomas Aquinas [10])

Hence:

If anyone says that these seven Sacraments are so equal to each other that one is not for any reason more excel-lent than the other: let him be anathema. (Council of Trent [11])

But what makes baptism the most consequential of all other Sacraments is precise-ly that indelible Stamp which is its "chief effect" according to St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori.(12) This sacramental effect, St. Thomas admits, even "baptism of blood cannot achieve."(13) In another place, the Angelic Doctor speaks of baptism as though "its effect cannot be supplied by anything else," thus contradicting some of his own stated opinions on baptism of desire as well.(14) Therefore:

All Catholics have to admit that the Sacrament of Bap-tism is the gate to the other Sacraments, and that this is so because of the Character which it imprints. (Fr. Bernard Kelly, CSSP [15])

"Consequently, the sacramental Character is of exceedingly great and far-reaching importance in the sacramental organism of the Church," declares Father Matthias Scheeben; "we must realize that, in the Sacraments by which it is produced, it is the center of their causality and significance; and, in the others, it is the basis and point-of-departure of their whole activity."(16) Miss out on this, and all further future graces are morally worthless in the eye of eternity. (The Only Begotten, Ch. 10, p. 204)

What is simply mind-boggling is the alleged “contradiction” in the teachings of St. Aquinas who clearly makes the distinction between absolute necessity with respect to Baptism as the gateway to sacramental life, and relative necessity with respect to salvation and the absolute necessity of water baptism with respect to the essential fruits of the sacrament (intrinsic), with its external components for its transmission (matter and form) being extrinsic as a necessity of means.

Just to demonstrate the absurdity of Malone’s thesis, not only does St. Aquinas stand in alleged "open contradiction" to his own teaching, so does St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori, so does Fr. Bernard Kelly and so does Fr. Mathias Joseph Scheeben, not to mention the Council of Trent and its Catechism and all of the other theologians and saints Malone selectively cites while ignoring their clear teachings on the Baptisms of Blood and Desire (such as Fr. Cornelius Lapide, St. John Eudes, Fr. Hardon, Frs. Wilhelm and Scannel, Fr. Arthur Devine, Fr. Ernest Mura, Fr. Migne, Fr. James Meagher, Dom Prosper Gueranger, Fr. Emile Mersch, Archbishop Patrick Kenrick, Fr William Humphrey, etc. etc.).

All of whom "are permitted to say even what is not true, though not in open contradiction to the veiled truths of faith which everyone must hold"; you know, like the veiled dogmatic truth which everyone must hold that says that an act of love does NOT suffice for the lack of baptism.

Oops.

And, I am sure columba will find common cause with Malone when he writes:

We should note from this the efficacy of the Sacrament of Baptism, which not only adorns us with graces and gifts, but also with Christ Himself. What have Protestants to say to this? They make Baptism to be a bare sign of righteousness already received by Faith! (Fr. Cornelius Lapide, SJ [6])

In virtually identical fashion, modern heretics consider Holy Baptism nothing more than a means to achieve righteousness, its efficacy terminating solely in Sanctifying Grace.

But, we’ve become accustomed to such gross caricatures of the Baptisms of Blood and Desire by those whose own theology is so weak that they attribute "open contradiction” to the authentic ordinary magisterium of the Church, as well as to every single saint and theologian they cite in support of their “dogma” that says no one can be saved (or sanctified, according to columba) without actual ablution in the Sacrament.

Let’s face it, the Saints, Doctors and Theologians had to be grossly incompetent and massively ignorant not to realize the so-called direct dogmatic contradiction to their own teachings on baptism of blood and baptism of desire.

And of course, the “modern heretics” Malone refers to includes all of the Saints and Theologians named above, to include Fr. Lapide who definitely taught the Baptisms of Blood and Desire without any sense of contradiction whatsoever:

You may ask why Christ says, except a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, and did not rather say, of water and the form of baptism ? For water is the matter of baptism, but the form is, baptize thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. For the sacrament of baptism consists of its matter and form, as its essential parts. I reply, because Christ wished to describe to Nicodemus, a prejudiced old man, the new teaching of spiritual life and generation, by means of the analogy and similitude of natural generation, in which a father and mother concur. So in like manner to spiritual regeneration, which takes place in baptism, water as it were the mother concurs, and the Holy Ghost as the Father. For He is the chief agent and producer of grace and holiness, by which the children of God are born again in baptism.

… Lastly, born of water ought here to be understood either in actual fact, or by desire. For he who repents of his sins, and desires to be baptized, but either from want of water, or lack of a minister, is not able to receive it, is born again through (ex) the desire and wish for baptism. So the Council of Trent fully explains this passage (Sess. 7, Can. 4). (The great commentary of Cornelius à Lapide, Volume 5)

Oh dear, just one more among the universal cadre of “modern heretics”, beginning with St. Cyril of Jerusalem and extending to St. Ambrose and all of the other Saints, Doctors and Theologians throughout the ages who taught the absolute necessity of Baptism on one hand, and are accused of being in open contradiction with the other, all because the theologically obtuse cannot distinguish between the various types of “necessity” as the Church and her theologians understand it, and have always understood it.

As I pointed out at least once before, this type of duplicity in accusing the saints and theologians of “contradiction” is made manifest in the example of Father James O'Kane, esteemed mid-nineteenth century theologian and Senior Dean of St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, who Malone cites against baptism of desire, thus:

150. The word water in this text (John 3:5) has always been understood by the Fathers of the Church in the literal sense, and the Council of Trent has anathematized those who, with Calvin, distort its meaning by taking it metaphorically. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the meaning of Our Savior's words, "to be born again of water," is simply "to be regenerated by Baptism," and this is declared necessary to salvation.

151. Moreover, the expression implies that it is necessary, not merely as a fulfillment of a precept is necessary because its voluntary omission would be a sin (necessitate precepti), but that it is absolutely necessary as a means positively conducing to salvation, so that without it salvation could not be attained, even though its omission were involuntary (necessitate media). This is shown by the universality of the form "Nisi quis" [unless everyone], by which it extends to all. (Rubrics of the Roman Ritual; Dublin: Duffy & Co., 1922)

Mike Malone leaves it there, but Fr. O'Kane completes this discourse by providing the true understanding as it is taught by the Church and her Doctors and theologians:

152. But though Baptism is thus necessary to salvation, its defect in those who, through no fault of their own, are unable to receive it, may be supplied in two ways, according to the common doctrine of the Fathers:

1° by an act of perfect charity which includes the desire of Baptism, and which is called Baptismus Flaminis;
2° by martyrdom, which is called Baptismus Sanguinis, and by which even infants, who are put to death for Christ, as were the Holy Innocents, may be saved.

There is no other means of supplying for the Baptism of water, or Baptismus Fluminis, which is always meant by the word Baptism, when used simply and without any adjunct, and which alone is a sacrament.

“Obviously”, columba will say again, “when reading the two side by side the contradiction is unavoidable, therefore both assertions cannot be correct. Either one of those assertions is true and the other false or, both of them are false, but for sure, both of them cannot be true.”

Of course the open contradiction to the veiled truths of faith which everyone must hold" by the greatest theologians of the Church is unavoidable to those Fr. Harrison calls the “theologically deficient” (like those who say baptism of desire is condemned by a sacred dogmatic canon for rendering the Sacrament "optional"; which is why the Church still teaches the same doctrine on baptism of desire as she did during the Council of Trent, and made sure that she taught it in her Catechism of Trent).

Mike Malone writes, “Even should doubt be cast against that which is De Fide by someone of the eminence of an Augustine or an Aquinas, let us bear in mind the words of Pope Pius XII in their regard:

‘The Church has never accepted the most holy and most eminent Doctor, and now accepts not even a single one of them, as the principal source of truth. Certainly, the Church considers Thomas and Augustine great Doctors, and accords them the highest praise, but the Church recognizes infallibility only in the inspired authors of the Sacred Scriptures. By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the scriptures, and the Depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the en-trance to salvation; She alone, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth. [27])’”

Yes, let us bear in mind his words; just as we bear in mind his words when this same Pope Pius XII teaches in an Allocution that “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism”; and let us bear in mind that the Pope is “the interpreter and guardian of the scriptures, and the Depository of Sacred Tradition living within her”; and let us bear in mind his words when he teaches:

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. (Humani Generis, #20)

But this seems to be the precise argument Columba is making, that because Pope Pius XII did “not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority” in inculcating (in his Allocution) on a matter of salvation which “already … appertains to Catholic doctrine”, it “does not of itself demand consent”.

Columba will deny this by saying he understands “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supplythe lack of baptism;” to mean “if such an act of love were actually possible”; and of course, Pope Pius XII allegedly taught the “common understanding” as the Church actually understands it elsewhere where he allegedly denied that an act of love is possible without water Baptism, though columba can’t demonstrate where Pope Pius XII actually said this.

In fact, columba has yet to explain why Pope Pius XII would explicate on a doctrine as if it were not only possible, but true; when he actually (allegedly) believes and teaches elsewhere that it is not possible, and therefore, it cannot be true.

Very strange, that.

But columba is good at “inference” and adding words even to dogmatic formulas; after all, as the arbiter of truth and tradition, he has the authority to “interpret” dogma and doctrine as he says “it is written”, even if it is not written the way he says, or written with the meaning the Church gives it and has always understood it.

And when the Church teaches that she has always understood it and held it with firm conviction, and in the same way the theologians and the Schools hold it; well, the Church is just as confused on a matter appertaining to our salvation as the theologians and the Schools who have been openly contradicting themselves on this matter since the 3rd century.

Very good last post, MRyan

You go to great length to document and clearly explain baptism of desire and baptism of blood as the Church has taught for many many centuries. This is NOT a Vatican II issue. This is an ongoing continuation of beliefs through the ages. To condemn the possibility of baptism of desire and baptism of blood is anti Catholic and anti Church teaching plain and simple. All need to enter the Church with no known exceptions and be baptized with water. This is the clear mission and instruction from Jesus Himself. We must leave all the possibilities of baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible Ignorance in the loving hands of our merciful and just God. His judgement is always perfect on this topic or any topic. Speculation on changing the words known to God to known to us is never permissible. No Salvation outside the Catholic Church and necessity of Baptism of water is all that must be and should ever be taught as the means of Salvation. Only someone who has been proclaimed a Saint is known to us, to be in Heaven. Also it would not be wise to speculate on the reasons or time a person may have to spend in Purgatory, but then that is a whole different subject.

George,

In spite of everything that Mike writes, there are communities and followers of Father Feeney who are in full communion with Rome who "fully adhere" to his teachings. Let the Magisterium pass judgment and not anyone else. End of story.

George Brenner wrote:
Very good last post, MRyan

You go to great length to document and clearly explain baptism of desire and baptism of blood as the Church has taught for many many centuries. This is NOT a Vatican II issue. This is an ongoing continuation of beliefs through the ages. To condemn the possibility of baptism of desire and baptism of blood is anti Catholic and anti Church teaching plain and simple. All need to enter the Church with no known exceptions and be baptized with water. This is the clear mission and instruction from Jesus Himself. We must leave all the possibilities of baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible Ignorance in the loving hands of our merciful and just God. His judgement is always perfect on this topic or any topic. Speculation on changing the words known to God to known to us is never permissible. No Salvation outside the Catholic Church and necessity of Baptism of water is all that must be and should ever be taught as the means of Salvation. Only someone who has been proclaimed a Saint is known to us, to be in Heaven. Also it would not be wise to speculate on the reasons or time a person may have to spend in Purgatory, but then that is a whole different subject.

George,
A couple of questions for you:

First off.
In that one sentence George (highlighted above) you have proposed two contradictory statements as both being true at the same time
Do you not see the contradiction?

Do you agree with the Church when she says, (CCC. 1257) "The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude"?

If you do agree with the Church on this then why do you want everyone to "listen to Mike" and hold with him that the Church does know of another means?

If a good disposition of heart and the desire for Baptism is present in a soul, then (according to the Church) it is unknown if this good disposition and desire can suffice for salvation. Do you agree?

If you do agree then you are with me in holding that baptism of desire is not a doctrine of the faith as it can't be known if it be efficacious for salvation and the Church could not bind the faithful to believe in that which the Church herself says she has no revealed knowledge of.

If you disagree then your gripe is not with Jehanne, me or any feeneyite, your gripe is with the Church, and if any teaching office within the Church takes issue with me for refusing to believe that the Church does know of another means that assures salvation then again, their gripe is not with me but with their own confirmation of traditional Church teaching (as quoted above from the CCC 1257)
which stands in contradiction to their later assertion (within the same document) that there is another means.

Mike,

I'm getting to offering you a response. Your last two posts are quite long and contain many points that would need to be dealt with individually. I don't know if I'll get the time to do this but I will take the most pertinent points to begin and see if I can get to them all later. I still haven't finished with your prior posts but to avoid repetition I'll stick with your latest.

Stay posted.

Good post, Columa; you hit the nail "on the head." Mike will come back and say that Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are de fide ecclesiastica, and he has chastised me, saying that the Church does "not teach null sets." However, that infants who die without Baptism not going to Heaven is both de fide ecclesiastica and de fide definita, and yet both George and Mike are prepared to say that teaching constitutes a "null set."

On our side, we have Saint Augustine (see below); on Mike's side, he has #1261 in the CCC whose reference in the index is to "Limbo" and not "Heaven," which, in the CCC index, does not even reference #1261 but does reference at least a dozen other CCC paragraphs.

that infants who die without Baptism not going to Heaven is both de fide ecclesiastica and de fide definita, and yet both George and Mike are prepared to say that teaching constitutes a "null set."

I don't know about George and Mike, but the erosion of the traditional teaching on this was inevitable. For, as St. Alphonsus recognized:

If then God wills all to be saved, it follows that He gives to all that grace and those aids which are necessary for the attainment of salvation, otherwise it could never be said that He has a true will to save all.

if unbaptized infants who die in infancy without baptism are not saved, there is a huge problem with this. They do not receive baptism, nor any other grace or aid necessary for the attainment of salvation. Ergo . . .

Mike and I really got into that awhile back. It appears one of those threads disappeared. The other one is here: https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t467-1-timothy-24

I recently posted Father Harrison's view (which accords with yours and mine) in that thread.

Columba,

What I have found myself doing the last several weeks is reading many of the older posts. I have found great joy , knowledge and insight into all of us that post on this forum. It also gives me the mental picture of hamsters on the wheel going round and round. The need to be right is never the same as being right. I would recommend to anyone to go back often and read or re read exchanges on subjects of interest. I have saved one in particular that I would really prefer not to post that shows how all over the board one can be. Columba, you have mentioned that what I posted is a contradiction, but in going over past postings it seems that you use that argument quite often. I mean you have asked this same basic question over and over and over again, To a degree we are all guilty of this but I suppose that it is done out of the quest for truth and that falls under the seek and you shall find challenge. The question of baptism of blood, baptism of desire and Invincible Ignorance is behind me personally. I am at complete peace with what I believe and will still find tremendous value in this forum on other topics. For me there is so much more to do in trying to be a better Catholic and help others. We will be held accountable for what we believe and the influence those beliefs have on others. Thanks to everyone but especially, Mike, Simple Faith and others to be determined for your help.

So lest I make a mistake at which time I will recant and correct, here we go yet again.

The efficacy of the baptism of desire is not disputed. In principle (de jure ) it must be accepted. De facto (in reality) we do not know any case which can be an exception to the dogma which says all need to enter the Church.

No where does Pope Pius XII or Vatican Council II state that those saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience are explicitly known to us or that they are explicit exceptions to the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus.

So when a supporter of Fr.Leonard Feeney alleges ‘ that any adult who does not become a Catholic after achieving the age of reason is resisting the grace of the Holy Spirit…’ he knows that there are no known exceptions on earth.{ But does not know the will of God in Heaven}
It is accepted in principle that a non Catholic can be saved in invincible ignorance and with a good conscience. LG 16 does not claim that we know these specific cases, that they are explicit or that they are an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

There is the possibility that a man may be saved OUTSIDE THE FORMAL MEMBERSHIP of the Catholic Church. This possibility is left completely in God's loving hands and eternal outcome is not known to us. There is no exception to No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church. I never have and never will have a discussion with anyone that I do not tell that they must be a member of the Catholic Church and be baptized properly with water. baptism of desire is NOT an exception to be taught or take refuge in for these situations when and if they exist fall under the care of the Blessed Trinity. To deny this possibility is charitably, wrong. Don't forget what happened to Moses and the fact that he was not allowed to enter the promised land.

Only God can know who 'knows' or who is in invincibly ignorant. The dogma says every one needs to enter the Church. baptism of desire and Invincible ignorance can only be granted in the transition from earth to eternity. Once again there are no exceptions to NSOCH and Baptism of Water. Even declared Sainthood occurs well after the transition from earth to eternity as professed by Holy Mother Church.

We do not know any case of a non Catholic saved in invincible ignorance so it is not an exception to the dogma. This is not a defacto exception. So it should not be implied that these are exceptions to the dogma or Vatican Council II.

Columba , what do you make of these exact words from Father Feeney?

From Bread of Life pages 129 and 130

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

October 19,2011

Tornpage said:
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.

MRyan said:
Trent plainly teaches that the means are different "since the promulgation of the gospel", and those means are, as you acknowledge, baptism or the desire thereof. Both effect the same end, regeneration in Christ as sons of God and heirs to the kingdom. As a divine and ecclesiastical institution, the sacrament of baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation; in other words, it is necessary to all men without exception. No one is exempt from the law. However, this necessity of means does not necessarily mean that its essential effect cannot be effected by another means because, as the Church teaches, God is not bound by His sacraments to effect the same end - regeneration.That is not a contradiction, it is recognizing the distinction between intrinsic necessity (“without which something cannot be”) and extrinsic necessity (arriving at the same end by another means). In each case it is God who effects the same end for the justice of God is the alone formal cause of our justification and He does not necessarily bind Himself to the instrumental cause of water baptism. And in each case we “are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one's proper disposition and co-operation.” (Trent , Sess. 6, Ch 7)

tornpage wrote:

that infants who die without Baptism not going to Heaven is both de fide ecclesiastica and de fide definita, and yet both George and Mike are prepared to say that teaching constitutes a "null set."

I don't know about George and Mike, but the erosion of the traditional teaching on this was inevitable. For, as St. Alphonsus recognized:

If then God wills all to be saved, it follows that He gives to all that grace and those aids which are necessary for the attainment of salvation, otherwise it could never be said that He has a true will to save all.

if unbaptized infants who die in infancy without baptism are not saved, there is a huge problem with this. They do not receive baptism, nor any other grace or aid necessary for the attainment of salvation. Ergo . . .

Mike and I really got into that awhile back. It appears one of those threads disappeared. The other one is here: https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t467-1-timothy-24

I recently posted Father Harrison's view (which accords with yours and mine) in that thread.

Tornpage, yes, we have gone over this and I still see in your analysis a logical fallacy that attributes to the words of St. Liguori a conclusion that does not necessarily follow from the premise.

Your somewhat logical fallacy goes like this:

- God wills all to be saved
- It follows that he gives to all (to include infants) the grace and those aids which are necessary to that end
- Ergo, infants are saved

Or,

- since infants cannot receive the grace of Baptism, not even in an act of love (desire), they cannot attain salvation.
- Ergo, God does not will the salvation of unbaptized infants
- Ergo, God does not will all to be saved

But, neither conclusion necessarily follows from the premise, for God may still have a true will to save unbaptized infants, but may allow contingencies to play out in the providential natural order of time and circumstance in order to manifest His goodness in ways that redound to His glory (in ways unknown to us); that allows, in other words, through no merit or personal fault of the infant, the grace of salvation to reach them, or not.

This is a mystery, but we can say with certitude that in either case, God’s will is the same – the salvation of all men: “God wills all men to be saved by His antecedent will, which is to will not simply but relatively; and not by His consequent will, which is to will simply.” (Stl, I, Q. 23, A.4, 3)

And:

Whence Augustine says (Tract. xxvi. in Joan.): "Why He draws one, and another He draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err." Thus too, in the things of nature, a reason can be assigned, since primary matter is altogether uniform, why one part of it was fashioned by God from the beginning under the form of fire, another under the form of earth, that there might be a diversity of species in things of nature. Yet why this particular part of matter is under this particular form, and that under another, depends upon the simple will of God; as from the simple will of the artificer it depends that this stone is in part of the wall, and that in another; although the plan requires that some stones should be in this place, and some in that place. Neither on this account can there be said to be injustice in God, if He prepares unequal lots for not unequal things. This would be altogether contrary to the notion of justice, if the effect of predestination were granted as a debt, and not gratuitously. In things which are given gratuitously, a person can give more or less, just as he pleases (provided he deprives nobody of his due), without any infringement of justice. This is what the master of the house said: "Take what is thine, and go thy way. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will?" (Matthew 20:14-15). (Stl, I, Q. 23, A.5, 3)

However, the (errant) objections of Fr. Harrison notwithstanding, the authoritative, living and ordinary magisterium the Church has not remained silent on this mystery, and teaches in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Fr. Harrison is simply mistaken when he says “the optimistic doctrinal thesis of #1261 should have no ‘weight’ at all; for it ‘already possessed’ none whatsoever prior to its appearance in the Catechism.”

Fr. Harrison seems to be suggesting that there can be no true development in doctrine on a non-defined aspect of salvation for infants - because, allegedly, tradition and the "common doctrine" have already settled the matter, and can offer no hope to unbaptized infants.

I would suggest that Fr. Harrison is reading more into the common doctrine than what is actually there; for there is a profound difference between holding the common opinion that presumes the loss of salvation for unbaptized infants because the Church does not know of any means other than water baptism that can assure their salvation, and the development in doctrine that says while the Church still does not know of any other way, Scripture, Liturgical tradition and theological developments give us reasonable grounds for hope that God may find a way to save these same infants.

In fact, to even suggest that a teaching of the authoritative ordinary magisterium on a matter of salvation has “no weight at all” seems extreme, for Fr. Harrison seems to be suggesting that “[n]either the Roman Pontiff [n]or the College of Bishops” are exercising “their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act" (or that this same authentic Magisterium is teaching error) when they ERRANTLY say we are allowed to have hope in the salvation of unbaptized infants; for this teaching is NOT “presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium”; and “Such teachings are [NOT], however, an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops and therefore [do NOT] require religious submission of will and intellect. (CDF Doctrinal Commentary of the Professio Fidei)

Really?

Fr. Harrison would have us believe that this same teaching “set forth by the [NON-]authentic ordinary Magisterium in a non-definitive way”, requires NO degree “of adherence differentiated according to the mind and the will manifested” because the mind and will manifested by the “Roman Pontiff” and “the College of Bishops” is opposed to tradition and the common doctrine of the Church; so the contrary mind and will of the Roman Pontiff and the universal false consent of the Bishops manifested in a universal Catechism is “shown especially by the [errant] nature of the [non-authoritative teaching within the] documents, by the [non-]frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the [false] tenor of the verbal expression.”

I don’t think so.

Excuse me for responding to this here, when it belongs more properly to the thread https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t467p50-1-timothy-24; but it seemed appropriate.

Even though Mike is not responding to me, I would invite all interested parties to have a look in the Index of the CCC. Note first the entry 'Heaven' and the number of paragraphs that are referenced. Note that #1261 is not referenced in that section. Now, of course, note the section on 'Limbo,' its sole reference being #1261. So, is the logical conclusion that #1261 is not talking about Heaven but about Limbo? See this for more details:

http://www.saintbenedict.com/apostolates/mancipia-press/8-pointpamphlet/31-point-january-2001.html
http://www.saintbenedict.com/apostolates/mancipia-press/8-pointpamphlet/30-point-january-2006.html

In particular, this section:

How about the New Catechism?

Recent catechisms of the Church explain that the infant dying without Baptism can hope for the mercy of God. This is not a contradiction of Church tradition because as we have explained above, Limbo is a merciful part of God’s salvific plan. “The present or ‘current’ teaching of the Church does not admit of a development that is either a reversal or a contradiction.” (Pope John Paul II)

Mike would have us believe that centuries of Church teaching on Limbo was, in fact, nothing more than a description of a "null set," and it is absurd to say that the Church teaches "null sets."

Jehanne wrote:George,

In spite of everything that Mike writes, there are communities and followers of Father Feeney who are in full communion with Rome who "fully adhere" to his teachings. Let the Magisterium pass judgment and not anyone else. End of story.

What kind of narcissist, who happens to be a Third Order MICM tertiary who was supposed to have vowed to remain in communion with the pope (who admits he is not in “full communion” with the Roman Pontiff and has “no qualms about attending a Mass said/sung by a [sedevacantist] CMRI, SSPV, etc., priest”), would have us believe that this thread is all about the various factions of St. Benedict Center and their “full communion” with Rome?

He takes his single agenda with him to every thread, and simply can’t resist.

It is the same narcissist who makes the slanderous accusation of calumny, but can’t back it up, and really does not care since any disagreement with Fr. Harrison on what the St. Benedict Center NH actually promotes as it “official position” constitutes “calumny”.

In other words, any one who would dare to suggest that Fr. Harrison “appears to have conducted only a superficial examination of the writings of the St. Benedict Center, and has yet to comment on their real error, that of denying the salvific efficacy of ‘an act of love’ found in baptism of blood and baptism of desire”, or says he “seems unaware of the 'official position' of the St. Benedict Center NH” is guilty of calumny – “end of story”.

After all, when Br. Andre provides an explication on his public web blog that clearly spells out his position on the non-salvific efficacy of the Baptisms of Blood and Desire; with this clarifying explanation linked directly to the “official” article “The Status of Fr. Feeney’s Doctrinal Position”, the same narcissist tells us that to cite his qualifying comments is "quote mining" and “laughable and pathetic”, and that we should “stick with his official essays and do not try to ‘selectively cherry-pick apart’ what he might state in some comment section”, just as we should also ignore the “official essays” of Brother Michael, M.I.C.M who provides the rationale for this “cherry-picked” official position.

So if Br. Andre and Br. Michael publicly state they “do not accept the salvific nature of Baptism of Desire and of Blood (without the sacrament)”, with the latter providing an “official” explanation (Reply to Verbum) as to the salvific insufficiency of an alleged state of non-fulfilled sanctifying grace that does not truly make one an adopted son and heir to the kingdom, and Fr. Harrison says they do not “exactly” deny the salvific efficacy of the Baptisms of Blood and Desire, we can trust that Fr. Harrison knows the “official” position of Br. Andre and the St. Benedict Center NH better than Br. Andre and the St. Benedict Center NH, and any challenge to this “fact” is calumny.

Just ask the resident narcissist and Third Order tertiary who is not in “full” communion with Rome. After all, what’s the big deal in “promulgating error” anyway? This error in doctrine is “irrelevant” and is not part of “our divine calling” at the St. Benedict Center and all of the Third Order tertiary members in “full communion with Rome”. Well, most of them, anyway.

Why he thinks I really care is beyond me. But, error is error – and its best to pretend it doesn’t exist since it is “irrelevant” to “our divine mission”.

Well, my response to the pompous ass would be the following:

1) My opinions are my own, always have been. I do not speak for the St. Benedict Center, never have, and never have claimed to.

2) If anyone goes out to the St. Benedict Center's website, you can find Brian Kelly's article:

http://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html

To say that it is contrary to the "official" St. Benedict Center position is just absurd.

3) The Catholic hierarchy can decide who is (and who is not) in communion with Rome. So far, the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire has an assigned priest with an approved Mass. They labor under no canonical sanctions whatsoever.

4) Father Harrison can speak for himself. I think that he did an excellent job of portraying the issues in his recent essays. Readers can judge for themselves:

http://www.rtforum.org/lt/index.html

5) Father Harrison states that the Dimond Brothers may only be "materially schismatic"; so far as I know, they labor under no canonical penalties from Rome whatsoever.

6) The SSPX bishops and priests were excommunicated but that excommunication was lifted a few years ago. That's all that matters.

7) I formally withdraw my claim of "calumny" against Mike, but retain the "pompous ass."

8 ) Mike is not my judge; ultimately, that "job" is for Jesus Christ Himself and for those who govern His Church. I labor under no canonical penalties, so far as I know.

9) Brother Andre can expel me from his order at any time. So far, he has not done that. He knows what my views are.

George Brenner wrote:

You go to great length to document and clearly explain baptism of desire and baptism of blood as the Church has taught for many many centuries. This is NOT a Vatican II issue. This is an ongoing continuation of beliefs through the ages. To condemn the possibility of baptism of desire and baptism of blood is anti Catholic and anti Church teaching plain and simple. All need to enter the Church with no known exceptions and be baptized with water. This is the clear mission and instruction from Jesus Himself. We must leave all the possibilities of baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible Ignorance in the loving hands of our merciful and just God. His judgement is always perfect on this topic or any topic. Speculation on changing the words known to God to known to us is never permissible. No Salvation outside the Catholic Church and necessity of Baptism of water is all that must be and should ever be taught as the means of Salvation. Only someone who has been proclaimed a Saint is known to us, to be in Heaven. Also it would not be wise to speculate on the reasons or time a person may have to spend in Purgatory, but then that is a whole different subject.

I haven’t been reading the posts lately, until today! I scrolled way down the page to read todays posts, got floored in the process, when I stopped and read the above quote from George, which was quoted in Columbas post from yesterday.

My goodness, George, that quote is something else.

George Brenner wrote:

Only someone who has been proclaimed a Saint is known to us, to be in Heaven.

What will you do George, when Benedict XVI “canonizes” JPII, which event should be coming up here very shortly? Will you accept this canonization? Will you venerate JPII along with the Saints of the Catholic Church? Will you venerate him along with, for example St. Anthony of Padua, or St Pius X? No need to reply, I already know the answer.

George Brenner wrote:

Columba , what do you make of these exact words from Father Feeney?

From Bread of Life pages 129 and 130

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

I agree with everyone of them.

George as you didn't answer any of my questions I'll provide what I think your answers would be and then you can tell me if I've read you correctly or not.

1. Do you agree with the Church when she says, (CCC. 1257) "The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude"?

Your answer: No. I do not agree.
Why I believe your answer is No is because you believe that the Church does in fact know of another means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude. This alternative means you call, Baptism of Desire; and like Mike you believe that everyone else should believe this too.
So having established that you do not agree with the Church when she says she knows of no other means other than Baptism, why then should I take advice (as you suggest) and listen to someone who disagrees with the Church?

You obviously then do not agree with these following statements from the CCC.

CCC, 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

CCC, 1266: The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification:- enabling them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him through the theological virtues;- giving them the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit through the gifts of the Holy Spirit;- allowing them to grow in goodness through the moral virtues. Thus the whole organism of the Christian's supernatural life has its roots in Baptism.

CCC, 1277: Baptism is birth into the new life in Christ. In accordance with the Lord's will, it is necessary for salvation, as is the Church herself, which we enter by Baptism.

CCC, 1254: ...Preparation for Baptism leads only to the threshold of new life. Baptism is the source of that new life in Christ from which the entire Christian life springs forth.

George the people who wrote these statements themselves do not agree with their own words and apparently they believe/hope that everyone else will not agree with them too.
Fortunately for me I've no problem in agreeing with those statements because they reiterate the traditional teaching of the Church concerning Baptism and its necessity for salvation and are true and revealed by the Lord Himself to be true.
When these same people procede to contradict their own words, they do so not only at their own peril (as Fr. Harrison pointed out concerning the doctrine on Limbo) but also at the peril of the souls who because of them allow themselves to become lax in their practicing of the faith due to the unscheduled widening of the previously narrow road.
By believing in baptism of desire, you and Mike, also endevour to open a new road to salvation of which the Church has stated she has no Knowledge of the existance of such a road.

Columba said:
1. Do you agree with the Church when she says, (CCC. 1257) "The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude"?

It is obvious to me that the reasons that you and Mike have gone back and forth on the same issues over and over again is because you do not like the answers or explanations and not that you do not understand them. I am not as patient as Mike although I am constantly working at it. You even answer my questions for me after they have already been answered in my post. And then you get it wrong. Your question # 1 had been answered numerous times in my post, so please if you are so inclined read it again. I mean how many times did I use the word " Know ", and No Exceptions in my answer to you. I think you only read and see what you want to see to confirm your stance and convictions.

Of course I agree and believe and personally teach all those I have ever come into contact with that (CCC. 1257) "The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude." and we leave to God's mercy and judgement the possibilities of baptism of desire and invincible Ignorance. We do not know and never can confirm or teach these possibilities but assuredly do leave these (dejure) possibilities in the loving hands of God. Even the Church would dare not limit or question God's mercy, nor should you.

What part of what I believe is not clear to you on this issue? Columba it is apparent to me that after so many posts that you are not going to change your mind, so it is what it is.

And of course if Holy Mother Church proclaims Blessed John Paul II a Saint , then it is so. That is not the case yet......

Your somewhat logical fallacy goes like this:

- God wills all to be saved
- It follows that he gives to all (to include infants) the grace and those aids which are necessary to that end
- Ergo, infants are saved

Or,

- since infants cannot receive the grace of Baptism, not even in an act of love (desire), they cannot attain salvation.
- Ergo, God does not will the salvation of unbaptized infants
- Ergo, God does not will all to be saved

No wonder you think there's a logical fallacy - you make one. For it doesn’t go like that, it goes like this:

a) if God desires to save all men, he must give all men the sufficient opportunity (the necessary graces) to reach salvation;

b) God doesn’t give infants who die in infancy without baptism the sufficient opportunity or necessary graces to reach salvation; and,

c) therefore, God doesn’t desire to save all men.

St. Ligouri clearly understands what is at stake, and recognizes the necessity of premise a) to the whole argument. If God does not provide that opportunity, it cannot be said that he truly has a will to save all men. Btw, that’s a necessary conclusion from the necessary premises, and it’s not me who says that: as St. Ligori said, if a) is not true, then “it could never be said that He has a true will to save all.”

I'll get into this in more detail later, as time permits.

Let me say now that the current magisterium is right, logically, for permitting such hope of salvation for unbaptized infants who die infancy. Because if you maintain that God truly wills the salvation of all men in the sense of giving them all the opportunity (graces) for salvation, YOU HAVE TO MAINTAIN THAT HOPE. In fact, I believe you have to say all such infants are SAVED, otherwise the Molinist/Arminian scheme is exposed for the sham I think it is.

With Jehanne and Father Harrison, I think the tradition of the Church and the past statements of the Magisterium bar that. And that is a huge PROBLEM. Huge.

Jehanne wrote:Even though Mike is not responding to me, I would invite all interested parties to have a look in the Index of the CCC. Note first the entry 'Heaven' and the number of paragraphs that are referenced. Note that #1261 is not referenced in that section. Now, of course, note the section on 'Limbo,' its sole reference being #1261. So, is the logical conclusion that #1261 is not talking about Heaven but about Limbo? See this for more details:

http://www.saintbenedict.com/apostolates/mancipia-press/8-pointpamphlet/31-point-january-2001.html
http://www.saintbenedict.com/apostolates/mancipia-press/8-pointpamphlet/30-point-january-2006.html

In particular, this section:

How about the New Catechism?

Recent catechisms of the Church explain that the infant dying without Baptism can hope for the mercy of God. This is not a contradiction of Church tradition because as we have explained above, Limbo is a merciful part of God’s salvific plan. “The present or ‘current’ teaching of the Church does not admit of a development that is either a reversal or a contradiction.” (Pope John Paul II)

Mike would have us believe that centuries of Church teaching on Limbo was, in fact, nothing more than a description of a "null set," and it is absurd to say that the Church teaches "null sets."

This has to be one of the lamest deconstructions of a teaching within the Roman Catechism ever attempted.

It is pure Jehannian logic in all of its nonsensical splendor, and goes like this:

- The CCC Index does NOT reference #1261 under “Heaven”, but “Limbo”.

- Ergo, when #1261 states “Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,’ allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism”, it is NOT talking about a way of salvation in heaven, it is talking about a way of salvation in Limbo.

And he says this with a straight face – and we can only conclude that he thinks the members of this forum really are so dense as to believe that the Catholic Church teaches that Limbo = salvation.

But, at least he poses it as a question, so let's provide an answer.

The linked St. Benedict Center articles prove nothing except the St. Benedict Center rejects #1261. The first article (St. Benedict Center, Still River) says the punishment for unbaptized infants is “the deprivation of seeing and being with God”; which teaching the Church still allows since “hope” is not “assurance”, but only hope -- after all, the CCC Index references #1261 as “Limbo”, not “Heaven”; meaning that the doctrine of Limbo is still valid even if the CCC stresses the hope of salvation to the exclusion of the punishment of Limbo in the actual text of #1261.

Someone should break the news to Jehanne that “the deprivation of seeing and being with God” is not the “salvation” of Limbo, it is the punishment commonly called Limbo.

This excerpt from the first article is most telling:

Although various saints have speculated on what Limbo is like, never have they denied its existence. It is part of the infallible, ordinary teaching of the Church because of its unanimity and universality from ancient Doctors of the Church, such as St. Augustine

First of all, #1261 does not deny the existence of Limbo (after all, the Index references #1261 under “Limbo”).

Second, if the Limbo of Infants doctrine was not forged until the turn of the 12th-13th century, it would be difficult for a saint prior to this to "deny" the existence of something that did not exist.

And, various saints and theologians have speculated that God may provide a means to save unbaptized infants.

It is true that the doctrine of Limbo is “infallible” in the general sense of not being capable of being opposed to the Faith or of giving harm (but it has not been defined as a revealed truth or made definitive as being intimately related to Revelation); as such, it is part of the infallible ordinary teaching of the Church.

I couldn’t agree more, just as the Baptisms of Blood and Desire “are part of the infallible, ordinary teaching of the Church because of its unanimity and universality from ancient Doctors of the Church”. The difference being the latter doctrines do not offer hope alone, they assure the salvation of those who die in the state of sanctifying grace through either means (the same act of efficacious love).

It is also true that Augustine's doctrine on sense suffering ("eternal torments") for unbaptized infants held sway for at least eight centuries and was the "common doctrine"; as such, it was infallible in the same sense as not being opposed to the Faith, even if it was reformable, and was reformed by a common consensus - even as the Church defended a theologians right to teach either doctrine.

However, precisely because the doctrine of Limbo has never been defined or made infallibly definitive, it is reformable; and to allow the hope of salvation as a result of a true organic development cannot be opposed to the Faith or give harm. That “hope” lacks a common universal consensus does not mean that it can be opposed to the Faith, or that its Theological, Liturgical and Scriptural foundations are false (though they remain reformable).

The St. Benedict Center article states:

How about the New Catechism?

Recent catechisms of the Church explain that the infant dying without Baptism can hope for the mercy of God. This is not a contradiction of Church tradition because as we have explained above, Limbo is a merciful part of God’s salvific plan. “The present or ‘current’ teaching of the Church does not admit of a development that is either a reversal or a contradiction.” (Pope John Paul II)

The “Recent catechisms” are the editions of the universal Roman Catechism of the Catholic Church, and it is absolutely true that “the infant dying without Baptism can hope for the mercy of God … because … Limbo is a merciful part of God’s salvific plan”; and #1261 does not dispute this; neither does this fact contradict its teaching that “Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,’ allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism”.

So the point the St. Benedict Center article is making is that Limbo is also part of God’s merciful plan; but it is not salvation. However, in stating with Pope JPII that “The present or ‘current’ teaching of the Church does not admit of a development that is either a reversal or a contradiction”, it suggests that allowing hope is a “reversal” or a “contradiction” when it is neither; it is a development in the doctrine of “hope” in the salvific mercy of God, while leaving the common doctrine of Limbo in tact.

The second article (also from Still River) is more of the same, and neither does it suggest that #1261 is referring to “hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism” as being a “hope that there is a way of salvation called Limbo”.

The article says “If anything is certain in the Catholic Faith it is that unbaptized souls do not go to Heaven.”

No, it is certain that this is the common doctrine and it is certain that the teaching cannot be opposed to the Faith, but “certainty” of fact with regard to immutable truth is reserved for the Church alone to determine¸ and never has she made a definitive judgment approaching the “certainty” of immutable non-reformable truth.

If he means “theologically certain”; fine, but this is just his opinion which has no bearing on the actual teaching of #1261 itself.

It is “certain” that “The idea of Limbo, which the Church has used for many centuries to designate the destiny of infants who die without Baptism, has no clear foundation in revelation, even though it has long been used in traditional theological teaching.” (International Theological Commission)

It is also “certain”, as the Theological Commission also says, that “none of the considerations proposed in this text to motivate a new approach to the question may be used to negate the necessity of baptism, nor to delay the conferral of the sacrament. Rather, there are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible to do for them that what would have been most desirable— to baptize them in the faith of the Church and incorporate them visibly into the Body of Christ.”

Furthermore, that fact that “Original Sin deprives them of the vision of God” is not a valid argument against the doctrine of hope, for if unbaptized infants are saved by the mercy of God, the stain of original sin is removed by the salvific grace of regeneration in a manner known to God alone. As the ITC says: “Infants will not enter the Kingdom of God without being freed from original sin by redemptive grace.”

Finally, the St. Benedict Center article says “However there was never any debate and it has always been believed that unbaptized children do not go to Heaven”, which, while generally true, is a bit misleading.

The Greek Fathers, for example, acknowledged that unbaptized infants are deserving of neither eternal punishment, nor the same salvific status of the Baptized – and left their fate to the mercy and justice of God.

The actual doctrine on the Limbo of the Infants, and a place of “natural happiness’ (Scotus and Aquinas) was not forged until “the turn of the 12th-13th century to name the ‘resting place’ of such infants (the ‘border’ of the inferior region)”, which represented a development from the harsher doctrine of Augustine; and, even St. Ambrose said he did not know if unbaptized infants can have the honor of the Kingdom.

In conclusion, there is absolutely no logical reason that would compel anyone to suggest that #1261 is referring to the hope of “salvation” as “Limbo” rather than "Heaven"; the idea is actually quite absurd. The fact that Limbo is not opposed to the mercy of God is beside the point; for neither is the doctrine of hope opposed to His justice.

Forum members may want to bookmark the following link on the Commentaries on the Four Books of Sentences of Master Peter Lombard by St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio: http://www.franciscan-archive.org/bonaventura/opera/bon04031.html#QUAESTIO_I

St. Bonaventure concludes, for example, that prior to the Law of Moses, “Under the law of Nature, the unformed faith of parents probably could have been the remedy for little ones”, so the theological conception for such a remedy is not new, even if it has never been officially approved by the Church.

I just want to cite another comment that highlights what is at stake here on this issue of a "true" will in God to save all men (St. Alphonsus Liguori).

St. Alphonsus says that to have a "true" will to save all men, God must "give[] to all that grace and those aids which are necessary for the attainment of salvation."

Father Garrigou-Lagrange, in his book, Predestination, says it this way:

"[w]hat is due to each one, what God refuses to nobody, is sufficient grace for salvation" (page 204-05).

Same idea, same necessary premise.

Again, puts the issue of the unbaptized infants, and God's "true" will to save "all men," into its true context.

Mike,

As you have said repeadedtly, the Church does not teach "null sets":

“The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name Limbo of the Children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of fire, just as if by this very fact, that those who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state, free of guilt and punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk: [Condemned as] false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools (Denz. 1526).”

Are you saying that the "Limbo of the Children" is empty and devoid of any souls?

Tornpage wrote:
Let me say now that the current magisterium is right, logically, for permitting such hope of salvation for unbaptized infants who die infancy. Because if you maintain that God truly wills the salvation of all men in the sense of giving them all the opportunity (graces) for salvation, YOU HAVE TO MAINTAIN THAT HOPE. In fact, I believe you have to say all such infants are SAVED, otherwise the Molinist/Arminian scheme is exposed for the sham I think it is.

I appreciate your acceptance, but do not agree with your reasons. The only "sham" may be in your flawed logic, for I do not accept your "either/or" absolutes or your accusation that Molinist/Arminian scheme is a "sham".

Tornpage wrote:
With Jehanne and Father Harrison, I think the tradition of the Church and the past statements of the Magisterium bar that. And that is a huge PROBLEM. Huge.

The only HUGE problem is to reject the authentic teaching of the ordinary magisterium on a matter of salvation as having absolutely no weight whatsoever; thus, Catholics are free to reject the doctrine of hope as completely bogus.

The problem is not with having legitimate cause for a disagreement on a non-defined and reformable matter, but with the outright promotion of disobedience to the authority of the teaching Church.

Fr. Harrison is wrong - plain and simple; and I stand by my stated reasons in my post addressing his argumetns. That Feeneyites and the more radical traditionalists find common cause with him (some going so far as to accuse the Church of teaching heresy) is irrelevant; but it is just part of the bigger problem with those who believe they are the arbiters of truth and tradition, and not necessarily the flawed and fallible Magisterium.

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

As you have said repeadedtly, the Church does not teach "null sets":

“The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name Limbo of the Children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of fire, just as if by this very fact, that those who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state, free of guilt and punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk: [Condemned as] false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools (Denz. 1526).”

Are you saying that the "Limbo of the Children" is empty and devoid of any souls?

No, I am not saying that, and never have. If Limbo exists, it is not empty. If it does not exist, then it does not exist and unbaptized infants are either eternally punished by being deprived of the beatific vision, or they are untied to Christ in heaven. The Church now offers them the hope of salvation, without denying the common doctrine of Limbo. So the doctrine of Limbo, as a place in hell, does not change their eternal destiny - they are either saved, or they aren't.

You might as well ask me if Augustine's doctrine on eternal sense suffering for unbaptized infants, no matter how "slight", constitutes a "null set". My answer is the same.