This is mainly for Ian, since the other threads he has written on are now much too long to keep track of.

I have read the book you mentioned by Fr. Francois Laisney. It was very good.

Especially I appreciated the beginning section about pagans being in bondage to false, heathen religious systems, and how they need freedom from that--missionaries to spread the Gospel them. Amen.

And the distinction he makes between interior and exterior bonds of communion was helpful.

However, I did not appreciate his quip about the "innovators of Vatican II", since it smacks of dishonoring the living Magisterium. I don't think Vatican II has to contradict much of what he wrote.

And I disagree with his assessment of the faith of Protestants, on page 114, that they have the object of faith but not the motive. Well, is that so? I revered my pastor for years as the authorized messanger of God's Word, and, more importantly, *the Word Itself* speaks to the heart and demands assent. Fr. Laisney should realize that the Word of God is living and active, and works even when it is not spoken by a Catholic priest. For this reason, the Fathers of Vatican II rightly said that Protestant "ecclesial communities" have the Word of God, the life of prayer, etc., and that this was the true Grace of God at work in their lives for salvation.

I don't believe that Lutheranism or any other protestant sect teaches according to the fulness of Catholic and Christian truth. But I will stake my soul that the Word of God can be preached in such communities--with life-transforming power. The problem with modern mainline Protestants is that they have abandoned and dropped the Word of God, and are not sufficiently responding to the gracious overtures of Rome.

But for me the book was a good reminder that we don't take anyone's salvation for granted, and must be active in evangelism and missionary apostolates, to bring many to Christ.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 27, 2005

Answers

Ian, if you read this, please note also my comments from yesterday on the Sungenis-Matatics thread, germaine to this discussion.

Regards,

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 27, 2005.

I'll just take this opportunity to advertise again Francis Sullivan's Salvation Outside the Church?: Tracing the History of the Catholic Response as a very in-depth and detailed exposition of the subject.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), January 27, 2005.

Dear Anon,

Many thanks for the reference to Fr. Sullivan's book, which I will endeavor to obtain. May I ask, does he do a good job of helping one understand how the Medieval Councils (e.g. Florence) may be reconciled with the newer model and understanding, on this subject?

I am presuming that here we have two sides to one coin, or something akin to the theological conundrum in relating the human and Divine natures of Our Lord. Yet both are true.

And for myself, I have *seen* the powerful work of God's grace among Protestants assuredly, some of whom are quite saintly. And I have heard accounts of some who are materially in other religions but whose lives seem permeated by Grace. On the other hand, I see also examples of bigotry and hypocrisy among Protestants as well, and know that various religious systems (Islam, Hinduism, etc.) are real systems of bondage. So, I simply take it that we are to work for conversion of those we can influence, while praying for the salvation and well-being of the rest.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 27, 2005.

I confess I'm only half-way through the book itself. Sullivan takes the long view of things. I'll quote you a paragraph, but I hope you take a look for yourself sometime:

[quote of the Council of Florence]

"The alert reader will no doubt recognize the first sentence of this conciliar decree as one which we have quoted previously from a work of St. Augustine's sixth century disciple, Fulgentius of Ruspe. The final sentence is likewise a quotation from the same work by Fulgentius. As we have seen above, Fulgentius followed Augustine even in his more extreme theories concerning the consequences of original sin [i.e., predestination]. However, there is no reason to think that the bishops at the Council of Florence who cited this text of Fulgentius would have agreed with him that people who lacked Christian faith because they had never heard the message of the gospel could be condemned to the torments of hell for the guilt of original sin alone. This would be contrary to the new understanding of the nature and consequences of original sin which had been officially sanctioned by Pope Innocent III." (Sullivan, p. 67)

The Innocent III reference points to a citation of Innocent's letter (on p. 46 of the text) advocating "limbo" ("lack of the vision of God"), rather than hell, as the punishment for original sin.

Anyway, Sullivan isn't putting forward a cheap answer to the problem like some people do; the book is a very in-depth and historical examination of the whole Church's understanding of salvation, from Jerusalem to Vatican II.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), January 27, 2005.

Many thanks, Anon!

BTW, Limbo is an interesting idea, is it not? I have heard St. Thomas Aquinas thought it might even have the greatest *natural happiness*, yet not the Beatific Vision. In which case, not all of hell is totally bad! Of course, other parts sound extremely bad. ;-)

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 27, 2005.

For the record, I don't believe in limbo, and it doesn't really make any sense. Any permanent deprivation of God is hell itself. It also doesn't have any support from Scripture or the Fathers.

The current Catechism wisely counsels only good hope in the mercy and justice of God with respect to infants who die without baptism (and the hundreds of millions of aborted babies).

But limbo was the only psychologically acceptable response for the early medieval theologians and bishops.

The important thing to keep in mind is that not everything Augustine taught became official Catholic doctrine. Notably, his belief in predestination and infant damnation never became mainstream. Also, the Jansenist doctrine that Augustine was infallible was condemned.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), January 27, 2005.

Ha! I doubt there is a Limbo also, and know it was never a dogma. And it heals my soul to believe there is a way for unbaptized infants to attain heaven--my wife recently suffered a miscarriage, and that question is very dear to my soul. I do prefer to trust in the mercy of Christ, who said, "It is not the will of your Father in heaven that one of these little ones shall perish."

But, Anon, I *rejoice* and *thank* you from the depths of my heart for your recommendation of a book that is serious, scholarly, and takes seriously the entire Catholic tradition, from the Fathers and Augustine, through Innocent III, onto Eugenius IV, and--yes!--even the Fathers of Vatican II!

The Holy Spirit has *not* ceased to bless and guide His Church!

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 27, 2005.

Anon

thanks for the book recommendation. i, too, will be reading it sooner rather than later.

as for : "For the record, I don't believe in limbo, and it doesn't really make any sense. Any permanent deprivation of God is hell itself. It also doesn't have any support from Scripture or the Fathers."

there's actually quite a lof of stuff from the Fathers on "Limbo", though that name may have not been used. see, for example, here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

furthermore, Limbo makes a great deal of sense because (A) it posits a scenario where the innocent child need not suffer on account of an inherited Sin; but (B) it does so whilst remaing true to the Deposit of Faith.

this is because the Fathers that have discussed this have focussed on the nature/ extent of the "punishment", rather than attempting to establish a non-Sacramental basis for Salvation: because to "award" Salvation would nullify the doctrine of Original Sin and Justification....

..whereas, to envisage truly perfect and eternal natural happiness sits squarely with Dogmatic definitions, which tell us that Hell offers a spectrum of torment - Stalin, Hitler, perhaps suffering the most unimaginable spiritual torment, but the innocent children suffering **no** spiritual punishment.

St Gregory [4th century] says: "It will happen, I believe . . . that those last mentioned [infants dying without baptism] will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked. . . . For from the fact that one does not merit punishment it does not follow that one is worthy of being honored, any more than it follows that one who is not worthy of a certain honor deserves on that account to be punished."

this is from the link i provided above.

i think that most people would struggle to understand the pure, eternal, perfect natural happiness of Limbo as posited by St Thomas, let alone the experience of the Beatific Vision. therefore, the child that is unaware of what he is missing in Limbo [St Thomas' idea again] will be experiencing something that no person on earth has ever experienced.

my kid, lost in 1st Trimester - well, had he/ she made it out into the world, would he/she have made it to Heaven? i pray for the Miracle, but i see so many Church Fathers that provide arguments that suggest at an outcome not involving the eternal fires of Hell. tht's a deal more concrete that the "hope" suggested in the CCC.

Hell is real. it's where most of us are going, make no mistake. ..and a fear of Hell is not a bad thing; in fact, it's a good thing.

Limbo -- to my knowledge - is a theory that sits easily alongside Dogma. that's a pretty good thing, isn't it?

Michael,

yes, i have posted yr post from the Matatics thread over at the thread at Ask Jesus. this thread, however, is really quite serene so far. long may it last.

i hope we can carry on our discussion here. my general comment on the SSPX book is that it is heavy on theory concerning the Invincible Ignorance stuff, yet that is the root, according to my research thusfar, of this new meaning of the "Church of Christ". Dominus Iesus is exploring to undestand how the Church, the OLNY way to salvation, provides for salvation for those in other Churches, yet it denies that those other Churches provide a way to Salvation. that's just word-play, imho, and a play on Invincible Ignorance -- but i do need to read more.

as far as the SSPX preach Baptism by Desire and Water, then i have studied the St Thomas stuff but i have yet to see it in Dogmatic form or really fully comprehend how it can ever be seen as Dogmatic. if you read Trent from start to finish, you get a pretty firm picture.

that's not to say that i don't see your point - Good Protestants and Bad Catholics. don't get me wrong, the protestants that go out on the missions to nurture the poor and the dying, and to spread their word. i can't comprehend why such people cannot be saved. i really can't. but am i supposed to have the answers?

more research needed.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 29, 2005.

Blessings, Ian!

I am not a computer whiz, and it takes me a long time to get to that other thread.

Fr. William Most noted, in a book on Catholic Apologetics he wrote, that Vatican II mentioned that "all who receive Christ's Spirit coalesce into one Church", presumably a reference to Romans 8:14. Note also that VII says, "The Church of Christ *subsists* in the Catholic Church". The original schema had said "is" but the Fathers substituted the word "subsists" in order to recognize that at times there were Christians (those good Protestants) who have an *interior* bond of communion with the Church, without the full *exterior* bond. So, it may not be cut and dried.

Also, in light of the (just healed!) great Schism fresh in the mind of the Fathers (East and West) of Florence, it really does seem to me that Pius IX's word "stubbornly" comes into play here. Yes, if you know that Christ's Church is manifested institutionally as the Catholic Church and refuse to be a part of it, or stubbornly leave it, then, yes, of course your salvation is at stake. But if you don't know about it, I don't think you are accountable. Your earlier solution of this being a special case of mortal sin still makes sense to me, Ian.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 29, 2005.

here's some more from Florence:

"Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the **sacrament of baptism**, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people, but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently, but so that, when danger of death is imminent, they be baptized in the form of the Church, early without delay, even by a layman or woman, if a priest should be lacking, just as is contained more fully in the decree of the Armenians."

St Thomas, when proposing Baptisms of Desire and Blood, argues that they are not Sacraments, but that they have the effect of the Sacrament. for thi reason, St Thomas appears to contradict Dogma and therefore his non-Sacramental Baptisms are exposed as theory.

however, Limbo does not cut across Dogma and may well, therefore, belong to the Deposit of Faith.

the context for this piece from Cantate Domino is given in the preceding sentences - circumcision is "replaced by" Baptism, but Baptism not to be delayed because it is a Sacrament, not a mere symbol of something spiritual. it has a real effect and a real significance.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 29, 2005.

Yet, Ian, this "theory" of Aquinas was the common theological property and teaching of the Catholic Church for centuries, endorsed also by Trent.

Are you talking about children here or about Protestants? Or both? I'm just trying to keep track.

(And my unbaptized, miscarried daughter begs your grace and due consideration here: this question is not theoretical for me. Although I think I know how *Christ* would respond, as witnessed always in His gracious life.)

Blessings,

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 29, 2005.

",, unbaptized, miscarried daughter begs your grace and due consideration ..."

she has my prayers friend. be assured.

as i said to you, i believe in Miracles. i pray for a Miracle for my own child that died 1st Trimestre.

Mary is a Mother in the most basic, physical sense - She understands what its like to survive your own off-spring, i fanyone does. if i could have (A) all the Jesuits in the world praying for the unbaptised, or (B) all the Jesuits in the world trying to re-invent Catholic theology [even if it did make a whole lot of people feel better in this world], i'd chose (A). that's just how i see it.

i must emphasis that i am not trying to change your mind on anything. i am sharing views. further, were it not for the laborious typing that would be required, just about every sentence i post would be preceded by a disclaimer along the lines of "humanum est errare".

i hope to spend some more time on the posts you have made, and to give you my specific responses.

in the meantime, thanks for staying with this. at least, i think, we agree that the subject is well worth discussing - and that it can be discussed in a convivial atmosphere.

prayers for yr daughter at Mass tomorrow, i promise. and a prayer to Mary tonight.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 29, 2005.

Ian,

The first thing to remember is that St. Thomas was not an innovator where it comes to baptism of blood/desire; such notions had as much respect among the Fathers, if not more, than limbo.

Additionally, I believe that Florence took this doctrine (baptism of desire) for granted, and there is strong evidence for this. Consider the paragraph on the Baptism of infants:

"With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or a woman in the form of the church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the decree on the Armenians." [Council of Florence, Session 11]

I think it's plain to see: it would be impossible for the Council to defer baptism for "some people" unless sacramental baptism was not "the only remedy available to them."

It's almost as if the Council fathers had the very words of St. Thomas in mind: "On the other hand, adults have a remedy in the mere desire for Baptism..." (Source).

It's as simple as cake: If there is no baptism of desire then there is no justification for deferment of sacramental baptism of adults.

Ergo, to affirm the deferment of baptism for adults is to affirm that the baptism of desire is available to them.

Otherwise, Florence would be condemnding to Hell the Catechumenates who died before their baptism.

It's a necessary logical consequence.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), January 29, 2005.

I should also add: The Council of Florence actually quotes, St. Thomas's very article affirming the Baptism of desire.

St. Thomas: "...for no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism" (Source).

Florence: "...the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism" (Source).

Ian, the words you used to 'expose Aquinas's ideas as theory' are St. Thomas's very own words from his very own article affirming them. Now either Florence had a ridiculous taste for irony, of they're saying something here...

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), January 29, 2005.

My prayers for your dear child as well, Ian!

A miracle? Well, sure. Ian, if I could only tell you, my life has been *full* of miracles. I believe in them! Most of all, I believe in the boundless love and grace of God, so beautifully revealed to us in Christ Jesus. So, when I pray for a miracle for both our children, I pray with *utmost* confidence and come "boldly to the Throne of Grace" as Hebrews says.

God is not bound by His own means, and His lovingkindess is greater than we deserve or can imagine.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 29, 2005.

Anon,

I am so thankful for you. I wish I knew who you were; you sound both erudite and faithful: a fine combination. God bless you. If you ever want to e-mail me directly, just use your address. And BTW I am so excited about the Sullivan book. Even though I agree with Ian that Jesuits should be praying for unbaptized souls, I am not beyond buying a book from one of their greatest scholars!

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 29, 2005.

That should be, "use my address". I promise not to give away your anonymity.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 29, 2005.

Michaael;

A respite from the troubles in the Church. I can truly empathize with your feelings about your unborn child. A very close relative of mine has 4 children but in hoping for a 5th they have had 4 miscarries. I too, truly hope with them that their little unborns will see the face of God. There is hope for the 4000 of them every day. Unwanted by their mother but surely wanted by their Creator.

God bless you and all .

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 29, 2005.

still here. been away.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 31, 2005.

Welcome back Ian.

-- JS (A@A.com), January 31, 2005.

Hello Ian!

You probably won't hear a lot from me until I've had a chance to get the book by Francis Sullivan, read it and digest it.

If you want to contact me, just use my e-mail directly.

Blessings, dear friend.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 31, 2005.

Michael

noted. come back soon!

Anon

you're making the case for Limbo.

JS

Ta!

generally -- i've got a reasonable handle on the book now. i will try to post some stuff in coming days. time is a bit tight for me at the moment.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 02, 2005.

Ian,

There is nothing in the world that could be said to force you to change your mind, since you seem dead-set on limbo (which is fine, but your denying baptism of desire is disordered). I'm telling you, Florence presumed Thomas's baptism of desire when it affirms the deferment of baptism for adults. It even quotes his article.

THOMAS DENIES LIMBO. Therefore, his words "...for no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism," are not, not, not, not an argument for limbo. On the contrary, they are his very argument in support of baptism of desire.

Check it out: It's even highlighted for you.

Your justification for thinking Florence rejected Baptism of desire comes from Thomas's article affirming Baptism of desire. Don't you see how ludicrous that position is? Isn't it right in front of you? Deferring baptism for adults = teaching Thomas's baptism of desire? I mean, cripes, they quote his article, man!!!

I mean, just use your reason for a little bit. Sheesh.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 02, 2005.

bold off.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 02, 2005.

Anon

"I mean, just use your reason for a little bit. Sheesh"

these things fly both ways, sir.

as does this:

"There is nothing in the world that could be said to force you to change your mind,.."

..and you seem dead set on your ways. the rock and the hard place! the irrestible force and the unmoveable object! God and the weight that He can create yet not lift! Ian and Anon? mmmm.

...but let's just go through it on the Dogma.

...and, sincerely, thanks for getting back so timeously. i will respond to you in the next few days.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 02, 2005.

Anon

"Limbo"

just to be clear, there is no third place: there's just Heaven and Hell. Limbo does not therefore describe a third destination, just a state of being - in Hell, but suspended in a state of perfect natural happiness.

Florence:

"But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. "

if St Thomas, in his theological speculation, could concieve of no other remedy for children, it follows that he believed that the burden of original sin would, through no fault of the child, deny salvation to the child.

whether or not there is a Baptism of Desire or Blood, St Thomas could think of no remedy that would get the babies to Heaven.

read this: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

"Baptism of Desire"

it seems to me that you are picking on one little phrase from Florence. yes, it looks like it was copied from Summa, but, from one phrase, you are doing what the Council did not do: you are presuming that St Thomas's writing accorded with the Deposit of Faith.

that little phrase is, of course, entirely true - there is no remedy.

but here is more from Florence:

"Holy baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments, for it is the gate of the spiritual life; through it we become members of Christ and of the body of the church. Since death came into the world through one person, ***unless we are born again of water and the spirit***, we cannot, as Truth says, enter the kingdom of heaven. ***The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water, either hot or cold***."

furthermore, by the time of Trent, the Church was called upon again to explain more fully the essence of the Sacrament. it was regarded as a mere symbol, by some of the protestants. many placed the emphasis on faith - faith alone justifies and saves. well, under Baptism of Desire, faith, it would appear, can save. or can it?

the Church came out with the clearest of pronouncements:

On Baptism

CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

these are as clear as can be.

the practice of delaying the baptism of the catuchumens rests on the knowledge that the Sacrament of Faith requires, from an adult, faith also. read Trent on Justification. IOW, there is simply NO point in baptising someone who does not have the Faith - an understanding and acceptance of the teachings of the Church.

for children, their faith is the faith of the Church. the Baptism can be performed immediately, and should be. children are vulnerable to illness. there is no obstacle to their baptism.

on this basis, both Florence and Trent, unequivocally, demand baptism by **water and the Holy Ghost**. they ignore St Thomas' teaching on Baptism by Desire, just as the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception cuts across St Thomas a millenium or so later.

now, as this is all from Councils, it is de fide - it's what Catholics MUST believe. if we also hope and pray for other outcomes, we place out trust in the Mercy of God and implore Miracles from Him.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 03, 2005.

Ian,

The Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches the efficacy of the baptism of desire:

"On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; 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."

Oops, did Pius V teach a heresy? Did he break from Tradition? *_* It doesn't matter if the Catechism is not infallible--if Pius V taught a heresy under a document meant to be "authoritative," he is de-facto an anti-Pope.

Of course, we can believe that. We can believe, if we want to, that up until the Protestant Reformation everybody happily believed that unexpectedly killed catechumens were denied Heaven--and all this talk of "intention and determination" was a radical break from Tradition, or the first time any Ecclesial authority had ever affirmed what was only "theological speculation" and hearsay before.

And then we would have to believe that Pius X broke it again, and Pius XII broke it AGAIN, and Vatican II was a heretical council and the devil prevailed against the gates of the Church, and OH NOES__WE HAF TO RESTART CATHOLICISM!!!11

Uh, or, we can just look at the obvious evidence that:

*Limbo is never mentioned in a Council OR a Roman Catechism.

*Baptism of Desire was the only widely accepted theological explanation for the deferment of Baptism of adults; and moreover was never contradicted or corrected, while the deferment of Baptism of adults was consistently upheld and practiced.

*The very words used by the Council of Florence that Trads always quote were also used by St. Thomas in his article affirming Baptism of Desire--THEREFORE they cannot possibly be used alone as an argument against it. There is NO CONTRADICTION between (a) 'infants need the sacrament' and (b) 'adults have a remedy in the desire for baptism'. Trads demonstrate pathological and willing ignorance when they merely reply with "(a)" over and over again.

*Trent ALSO affirmed the deferment of Baptism for Adults, and it's Catechism explicitly lays down the reason why: "intention and determination," conclusively exposing what was always the rationale for deferment, from the very earliest days of the Church. The Church has never believed or taught that Catechumens who died were denied Heaven.

*The Catechism of Trent was the universal standard of Catholic education FOR FOUR CENTURIES--and NOBODY ever regarded this teaching as "speculation" or "hearsay", and NOBODY believed that it contradicted the Bible or any previous Conciliar dogmas.

*THEREFORE: The belief that "baptism of desire" is an errant theological idea without a legitimate OFFICIAL status in the canon of Tradition, is merely a recent construct of ideological Traditionalist Catholics who will always interpret everything they see as evidence that the Magisterium of the Holy Roman Catholic Church is no longer an authoritative and trustworthy shepherd of souls; hence they spread dissent and schism through baseless and empty fears and warnings.

Ian, you do NOT know how much Trad arguments make me very angry. I know the world has gone wholesale to Hell in the last 50 years; I know that renewal is necessary--but to go where you're going is not an option. If I did that I would be interiorly guilty of rejecting Vatican II.

It's not about "affirming limbo"--the Church has never condemned limbo (but it cannot serve as a substitution for what she has already always believed). The only thing I question is why someone affirm limbo; and the only answer can be that they fear and distrust Holy Mother Church and seek instead the comfort of a lot of angry nostalgic Trads.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 04, 2005.

italics off

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), February 04, 2005.

"On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; 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."

"Oops, did Pius V teach a heresy?"

No. Read what it says: avail them to grace and righteousness. That's justification. The state of justification is not the same as salvation and the Beatific Vision.

"...if Pius V taught a heresy under a document meant to be "authoritative," he is de-facto an anti-Pope."

That, also, is a theological speculation: that a pope who speaks heretically loses the papacy? Theological speculation. This is not dogma.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 04, 2005.

"The belief that "baptism of desire" is an errant theological idea without a legitimate OFFICIAL status in the canon of Tradition, is merely a recent construct of ideological Traditionalist Catholics who will always interpret everything they see as evidence that the Magisterium of the Holy Roman Catholic Church is no longer an authoritative and trustworthy shepherd of souls; hence they spread dissent and schism through baseless and empty fears and warnings."

Actually, they spread devotion to the Blessed Sacrament and to the Theotokos. They, or at least traditionally-leaning Catholics, pound for pound, carry the greater weight of Eucharistic adoration in this town, at least. Trads are doers. The talkers never show up where it counts.

"...the magisterium of the Holy Roman Catholic Church is no longer an authoritative and trustyworthy shepherd of souls..." I don't believe that's true at all. That's pretty much a baseless charge. But then again, I don't have this idea that Magisterium is people or a person, either. It isn't.

"Ian, you do NOT know how much Trad arguments make me very angry."

Why? See below, second to last paragraph.

"I know the world has gone wholesale to Hell in the last 50 years; I know that renewal is necessary--but to go where you're going is not an option."

Where's that?

"If I did that I would be interiorly guilty of rejecting Vatican II."

Rejecting what in Vatican II?

"The only thing I question is why someone affirm limbo; and the only answer can be that they fear and distrust Holy Mother Church and seek instead the comfort of a lot of angry nostalgic Trads."

St. Thomas Aquinas feared and distrusted Holy Mother Church? I doubt it.

Most trads I know are young. I was born in 1966. Way to late to be nostalgic. Nostalgic can't possibly be predicated of the majority of them, who have grown up in the Kumbaya environment.

And angry? Nah. But you just said you were angry though, I noticed. Why?

Trent always describes the state and disposition of a soul preceeding the reception of the sacraments in context of reality of actual reception of said sacraments. The desire must be present, and must culminate in actual reception of the sacrament to be complete. All of Trent affirms this fact, canon by canon. It's all about the necessity of the Sacraments.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 04, 2005.

Nor is topic something only recently discussed and debated. Here's an interesting quote:

"It is obvious that we must grieve for our own catechumens should they, either through their own unbelief, or through the neglect of their neighbors, depart this life without the saving grace of baptism." --John Chrysostom

Now that's something you don't see quoted a whole lot. I wonder why. This next one is very, very interesting. It deserves a very careful read:

"Of those who fail to be baptized, some are utterly animal or bestial, according to whether they are foolish or wicked. . . . Others know and honor the gift of Baptism; but they delay, some out of carelessness, some because of insatiable passion. Still others are not able to receive Baptism, perhaps because of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circumstance which prevents their receiving the gift, even if they desire it..."

"I think the first group will have to suffer punishment, not only for their other sins, but also for their contempt of Baptism. The second group will also be punished, but less, because it was not through wickedness so much as through foolishness that they brought about their own failure. The third group will neither be glorified nor punished by the Just Judge; for, although they are un-Sealed, they are not wicked. They are not so much wrong-doers as ones who have suffered a loss..."

"If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder solely by his intention and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one who desired Baptism without having received Baptism. But, since you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter?"

If you prefer, we will put it this way: if, in your opinion, desire has equal power with actual Baptism, then make the same judgment in regard to Glory. You would then be satisfied to desire Glory, as though that longing itself were Glory. Do you suffer any damage by not attaining the actual Glory, as long as you have a desire for it? I cannot see it! --St. Gregory of Nazianzen

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 04, 2005.

Emerald

read, when you have time, p65 of the SSPX book on Fr Feeney. it quotes St Gregory, then poists that St Gregory is setting forth - and supporting [!!!] - the basics of Baptism of Desire. the real action is on p66.

its just intellectual chicanery. shocking.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 04, 2005.

Reading now...

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 04, 2005.

Ian, when you have a chance, in the mean time, go to page 19. Starting at "Now if someone..." down the the sentence "We must rather...". Especially that sentence.

Note the constant reference to the word "helps".

Compare with Trent 7, canon 5:

Canon 5. If anyone says that these sacraments have been instituted for the nourishment of faith alone, let him be anathema.

Also related:

Canon 8. If anyone says that by the sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred ex opere operato, but that faith alone in the divine promise is sufficient to obtain grace, let him be anathema.

Helps vs. necessities.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 05, 2005.

The sentence on page 19 starting with "We must rather hold...":

Regarding sacraments seen as helps vs. seen as necessities, also this obvious one from Trent:

Canon 4. If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 05, 2005.

Emerald,

i see the point. it's clear.

i think this is why, at the outset, they use the argument that BoD [and BoF] is "like a Miracle" - as in, this their implicit acknowledgment that BoD cuts across Trent in these many various ways...

.....but when they say it's "like a Miracle", it stops being a Miracle: it just becomes a routine exception to Trent, that is nowhere to be found in Trent, and that is contradicted in so many ways by Trent. surely?

here are some paragraphs that show how they do it.

"In the natural order God sometimes produces an effect by-passing the ordinary secondary causes He has established: this is called “a miracle.” In a similar way also, He sometimes produces grace in souls by-passing the ordinary secondary causes, i.e., without the exterior sign of the sacrament: this is ***like a miracle*** in the supernatural order."

"That some receive sanctifying grace before baptism of water is not only a possibility, it is ***a fact***! St. Augustine speaks of Catholic catechumens “burning with charity,” giving the example of the Centurion Cornelius (Acts 10:44,47) who was “filled with the Holy Ghost before his baptism.”"

"This is the reason why I wrote that baptism of desire ***is like a miracle***: its proper cause is God, and as such it does not exceed the power of its proper cause; but it by-passes the ordinary means set by God to produce the effect of the supernatural birth, and as such it is ***like a miracle***."

then, on page 103, BoD seems to become a full blown Miracle: "But a miracle is not opposed to another miracle! It is not because God performed one kind of miracle that He does not perform other kinds of miracles."

then on page 110 we get a further - different - approach, in which there is no Miracle, just an alleged failure to grasp the difference between necessity of means and precept.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 05, 2005.

I noticed that about the miracle angle. I'm kind of jumping around in the book, but not finished yet. I noticed that. It's too early to tell, but ascribing it to a miracle seems to kill the argument for by switching to an alternate explanation that's too much of a freebie or a way out, so to speak. It is other in kind than the main lines of argument put forth.

In all this, the best speculation is overlooked. And it's so simple, and violates no dogma of Faith, and, it better addresses the most pressing of all objections.

As for the objections, it seems to go something like this. People have what seems a natural aversion to these things:

1. Believing in a God that saves or damns based on technicalities, as people might imagine the case to be. In other words, if they hold to the principles of Faith, it seems to create the charicature of a God of technicalities. "Imagine" and seems being the operative qualifiers here of course.

2. They dislike the thought that person "A", by apparent happenstance, seems more in a position to obtain the means of salvation than person "B". That seems "unfair" to many. Forget about the fact that no one deserves anything, for a minute. Because of original and actual sin. Forget that for a minute. I mean, in terms of "now that salvation is available, "how come person A had access, and person B doesn't" ...that sort of fairness.

3. They look around and see many people who are naturally virtuous, at least from their perspective, and indeed many of these people they know are, or at least, seem to be. People who would sacrifice themselves for the sake of another, and yet, do not hold the Faith. Or even reject it. This puzzles them.

There are many more than the above three natural aversions that lead people to want to tend seek an alternate means for souls to be saved. Many arising out of observation of the goodness of people, whether real or perceived; others arising out of reflections on the nature of God as a good and merciful God, according to their limited imaginings of such a Being.

This is all natural enough, it seems. These are fair questions. Hence the desire to "find a way" for these people to be incorporated somehow into the salvific plan in a way that is readily apparent to them. Something they can sink their teeth into and feel good about; something soothing.

I would never knock any of these real questions and concerns, or sentiments. They're legit in their own right.

The question is, how does one go about answering them. How can someone safely speculative. And of course, above all, what's the doggone truth. How does one properly speculate. Or, how about this: should one speculate? On the one hand, you've got to hold inviolate these divinely revealed principles, these dogmas of the Catholic Faith. We have to hold them tight. Let them go, and the Faith is rendered null and void. Clearly we can't go that route; there is no reason to believe at the point when this happens. We can't do that.

But we continue to wonder, naturally enough. Why am I so special that I have access to the saving sacriments, we might ask. I know I'm an ingrate and a sinner. "Why me" (in the positive)?

But all we need to do is really believe this: if there is a truly justified soul, God will get the actual sacraments to them. We don't need to see it, we don't need to know how it happened. We just need to say that if they were saved, it was done via the prescribe means.

Job done. Here is a speculation that calls into question absolutely none of the dogmas of the Faith; not one. Plus, as extra bonus points, it does this, in response to the most popular of concerns:

It is an explanation that most truly "does not limit God". Instead of us limiting God by feeling we need to concoct alternate paths other than the Sacraments, we allow Him our full-on measure of confidence that He can do anything He wishes: even the ability to be able to provide the real and actual sacraments in cases where it seems impossible to us. This seems the best way to not limit God! We don't limit Him, in this situation, by our own limitations of understand. And we violate no dogma in speculating this way.

Just some thoughts in the course of jumping ahead. I'll jump back tomorrow and read more of the book.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 06, 2005.

"It is an explanation that most truly "does not limit God". Instead of us limiting God by feeling we need to concoct alternate paths other than the Sacraments, we allow Him our full-on measure of confidence that He can do anything He wishes: even the ability to be able to provide the real and actual sacraments in cases where it seems impossible to us. This seems the best way to not limit God! We don't limit Him, in this situation, by our own limitations of understand. And we violate no dogma in speculating this way."

"Some groups had tried to get a few Popes to promote ***"Without the Church---No Grace"*** But for obvious reasons this crossed way over the line getting into Gods territory of who gets what, as opposed to we won't let you in if your not on our team, but fact is the Church does not judge that is not their function however what is their function is to make people stop and Really think twice and look at what they stand to lose vs gain. This is part of the political side which you will see throughout the History, BUT this under no condition demeans the Full Benefits, and to be assured of the Truth with greater knowledge and understanding of relationship of man and God. -- Michael G. January 19, 2005"

sanctify--1 : to set apart to a sacred purpose or to religious use : 2 : to free from sin : 3 a : to impart or impute sacredness, inviolability, or respect to b : to give moral or social to 4 : to make productive of holiness or piety

grace--1 a : unmerited divine assistance given humans for their regeneration or sanctification b : a virtue coming from God c : a state of sanctification enjoyed through divine grace

sacrament--1 a : a Christian rite (as baptism or the Eucharist) that is believed to have been ordained by Christ and that is held to be a means of divine grace or to be a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality

**Emerald, Very nice breakdown and conclusion on your post--My only concern is that you are starting to come to the same conclusions which I have. So I'm not sure if this is good or bad. (personally I think it's good) lol!. Nice Job!

"It is obvious that we must grieve for our own catechumens should they, either through their own unbelief, or through the neglect of their neighbors, depart this life without the saving grace of baptism." --John Chrysostom"

Don;t forget that he was at odds with the Church over Baptism he felt that even if someone was baptised somewhere else that they HAD to be baptised again in the Catholic Church. In short if they were not baptised in the Church they were NOT Baptised at all. So his people were often Baptised twice.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 07, 2005.

Michael G

thanks for chiming in. and be sure to have a bath in Holy Water everytime you find yourself agreeing with Emerald!

this is getting really interesting. i have several questions that i am strugggling to formulate. i will do my best to post them soon.

thanks everyone.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 08, 2005.

Here are 2 extremely badly formulated questions, with some commentary that might make it clearer. the ideas came forward after i had watched the movie "The Village".

Qu 1: is "de fide" the same as "actual truth".

View #1: the Church is designed, by God, in the way it is to get as many souls to Heaven. the belief that there is no salvation outside the church PERIOD - de fide - ensures that sould who are tempted to jump ship and take their chances elsewhere have a material incentive to stay. the carrot - the Sacraments, the stick, eternal damnation.

however, at the final reckoning, we may be surprised.....

View #2: they are the same. anyone not in the Church is toast. PERIOD.

Qu 2: is the fact that it seems unfair or arbitrary that good souls are lost due solely to their being outside the Church completely irrelevant?

View: God gave us a planet which, through no fault of our own, creates volcanoes, tsunamis etc - and lots of people die. we can try to reason round that, but should we bother? it's impossible to understand. it's the same with the Faith. it's just a fact that is beyond our comprehension. to rationalise it, to search for escape routes, is nonsense.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 09, 2005.

There is no comparison between people dying in natural disasters vs. the idea of God sending to hell good people who are earnestly trying to live according to His will. Death is a natural part of life. If it doesn't happen in a natural disaster it will happen a little later from some other cause. There is really nothing to understand about why some people die when and how they do. But the idea of a just, merciful and loving God condemning people who have lived their lives in pursuit of His service would indeed be far beyond understanding. Which is why His Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit has come to a fuller understanding of invincible ignorance, a doctrinal truth that is inescapable in view of the nature of God as He has revealed it to His Church.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 09, 2005.

Paul M

the customary formality first [sorry, but bears repeating]:

"...has come to a **fuller understanding** of invincible ignorance,..."

Vatican I:

"Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there ***must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding***."

on yr main point:

"There is no comparison between people dying in natural disasters vs. the idea of God sending to hell good people who are earnestly trying to live according to His will."

there is a comparison in the sense in which i use the analogy. people need to understand things. some people, if they don't, come to certain conclusions.

some people will have concluded after the latest natural disaster that there is no God because a loving God would never have allowed it to happen. this happens.

ditto, those who do not understand Dogma, and so try to make it better. they add in escape clauses for all sorts of reasons that were never in the Dogma. so that they can rationalise it. make it fair. however you want to descrivbe it.

my point is that, in both cases, do we really need to understand everything. God allows tsunamis for a reason that we don't need to know. he has placed a line around His Church, outside of which there is no salvation.

i think there might be an answer in Vatican I. i'll look.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 09, 2005.

Catholic Faith and Water Baptism Necessary for Salvation . . .

Liberal theologians have used incorrect definitions for "Baptism of desire," which reduce the dogma "no salvation outside the Catholic Church" to a meaningless formula. Unfortunately, these erroneous definitions have found their way into many Catholic books and catechisms. Therefore, we urge the faithful to believe and teach what the Church has infallibly taught.

To that end, we present here three things:

(1) the proper definition of "Baptism of desire"; (2) a proof, from the infallible canons of the Council of Trent, of the necessity of water Baptism for salvation; (3) an illustration of the relation of Faith, desire, and Baptism, to justification and salvation.

1. The correct definition of "Baptism of desire": "In its proper meaning, this consists of an act of perfect contrition or perfect love [that is Charity, which necessarily implies that one has the True Faith], and the simultaneous desire for Baptism. It does not imprint an indelible character on the soul and the obligation to receive Baptism by water remains."

[Page 126 of "The Catholic Concise Encyclopedia", by Robert Broderick, M.A., copyright 1957, Imprimatur by Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York, August 31, 1956]

2. Water Baptism Is necessary for Salvation. Session 7, Canons 2 & 5 of the Canons on Baptism from the Decree Concerning the Sacraments: "Can. 5. If anyone says that Baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema." "Can. 2. If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for Baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,' let him be anathema.

In terms of a syllogism we have

the infallible major premise: "Baptism is necessary for salvation," the infallible minor premise: "True and natural water is necessary for Baptism," and the logically unavoidable conclusion: "Baptism by true and natural water is necessary for salvation!"

3. The Sacraments are necessary for salvation: Can. 4, on the Sacraments in general, from the Council of Trent: "If anyone says that the Sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of Justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema." [Note: Catholic Faith and the desire (i.e., votum, or "vow," from the original Latin) for Baptism are necessary for justification (justification is also called "sanctifying grace," and salvation is eternal life with God in Heaven) not only desire and not only faith. Further, the Sacraments-----chiefly Baptism-----are necessary for salvation.]

By these infallible pronouncements we protect God's truthfulness in the matter of Faith.

-- Doll (Ruth1570@westernstate.com), February 09, 2005.

Ian--Holy water for bathing? So it's not just for blessings and static hair? hmmm

Actually, I think Emerald is suffering after realizing that he just made the circle bigger. Next thing you know he might be singing a new song. Naaah!

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 10, 2005.

maybe not a bath. i've heard someone here recommend its drinking.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 10, 2005.