When Speculative Theology Goes Wrong

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Baptism is necessary for salvation, but being baptized doesn't ensure salvation because of the possiblility of falling from grace.
Those invincibly ignorant of the Gospel can attain salvation without baptism if they live according to the natural law. God won't punish those invincibly ignorant.
Because of God's omniscience, he knows if an invincibly ignorant person would accept His Son's message if it were brought to him (the person would desire baptism), and this is why salvation for Muslims, Jews, and others is possible, although their salvation would still be accomplished through the Church.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Catholicguy, your argument is the same one that many Protestants use to try to "disprove" the Church's teaching on baptism. The Law of Syllogism cannot be applied here because the church is being misinterpreted.

There is one Sacrament of Baptism.

Entry into the Church is not bound exclusively to Sacramental Baptism, but also includes what is commonly refered to as "baptism" of blood and desire (non-sacramental).

Thus in order to be saved you must be a member of the Church, which comes about through baptism (note the "little" b, and thus includes, but is not limited to, the Sacrament). So when we say "Baptism is necessary for salvation" this is what is being referred to.

However, at the same time the Church is true to say that there is One Baptism, because what is being referenced here is the Sacrament of Baptism (the "big" b is what is being implied, not the small b)

In this way, we must consider two different uses for the word "baptism." There is "baptism" which is entry into the Church, and there is "baptism" which is a Sacrament. There is One Sacrament, but there are 3 entries.

The two differing connotations of the word "baptism" can be confusing, but the truth of this is evidenced by the fact that it is the only explanation that reconciles the two teachings of the Church. I hope that helps.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

Edited July 13, 2004 by JeffCR07

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]The proposition becomes, not "There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church", but "There is no way of knowing if someone is outside the Catholic Church; therefore, everyone is in the Church unless they explicitly state it (and even if they explicitly state it, they still could be), so they can all be saved." This is a big problem with this theology.[/quote]

I see no problem whatsoever with this theology. The proposition that "There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church" is true, as well as the proposition that "Only God knows the hearts of men."

The teaching of the church that we can hold out hope for those who are not visible members does not mean that we strive any less for conversions, it simply means we do not presume to know what only God knows.

It seems to me that the problem today is this: excessively traditionalist catholics are less catholics and more anti-anything else, while excessively liberal catholics are less catholics and more pro-everything else. The latter water down their faith by accepting everything else while the former define their faith by damning everything else. To the liberals I would ask "Is it really so hard to acknowledge the Truth of Christ for the Truth of the world?" To the traditionalists I would ask "Is it really so hard to acknowledge that others might have come to understand some of the Truth?"

In both cases, liberal and traditionalist, the focus is more outward than inward.
Orthodoxy, however, is capable of accepting that others might have some of the Truth without having all of it while simultaneously calling everyone towards that fullness of truth.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[catholicguy]

The only thing I do not understand is the reason that Trent proclaimed, in the Canons on Baptism, that the Sacrament itself is necessary (at least "Baptism", with a capital 'b', depending on your source; some have a lower-case 'b' for both, but they always have the same, either capital or lower-case, for both, implying that both of the Canons apply to 1) Baptism as a Sacrament or 2) "baptism" as a concept, one or the other--in my case, it is always lower-case). For example, the confusion arises with these two Canons (Canons 2 and 5):

[b]Council of Trent: Canons on Baptism[/b]
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.

In this section of Trent, Baptism is spoken of in the same sense in both Canon II and Canon V without change in capitalization or any other distinction. Canon II says that water is necessary for a true Baptism and that those who say otherwise wrest (that is, twist) the words of Our Lord into a metaphor (interesting, the metaphoric explanation seems to be the most prominent for the defenses for "baptism" of blood and desire). Canon V states that anyone who says that Baptism is free (that is, optional) is anathema. Here Trent, again, by Syllogism, states essentially "If any one saith, that Baptism of water is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema." This seems to be the only conclusion that can be drawn since the Council makes no distinction between Baptism in Canon II and Baptism in Canon V. The previous argument that the Council included "the desire thereof" (which I am told is a mistranslation of the Latin, but I will have to look into that) is moot because the Council does not say that the desire itself can save (this would contradict the Canons on Baptism), but rather it says that without the desire at least surely no one can be saved (this does not mean that the opposite is true, namely that desire itself can save). Can someone answer this? Thank you.

Edited July 13, 2004 by catholicguy

[catholicguy]

[quote]Baptism is necessary for salvation, but being baptized doesn't ensure salvation because of the possiblility of falling from grace.
Those invincibly ignorant of the Gospel can attain salvation without baptism if they live according to the natural law. God won't punish those invincibly ignorant.
Because of God's omniscience, he knows if an invincibly ignorant person would accept His Son's message if it were brought to him (the person would desire baptism), and this is why salvation for Muslims, Jews, and others is possible, although their salvation would still be accomplished through the Church. [/quote]

You say that Baptism is necessary for salvation (a memorized dogmatic fact), and this is true, but then you contradict it immediately after, saying "Those invincibly ignorant of the Gospel can attain salvation without Baptism." What? It is necessary but not really? That contradicts the meaning of the word necessary. Further, you say that God knows a person will accept Him if the person knew the Gospel. This is Presumption of God's Mercy, a mortal sin (as is the speculative theology which denies Original Sin, the meaning of this thread in the first place). Further, Saint Thomas Aquinas says the exact opposite, and rightly so. He says that "Because of God's omniscience, He knows that a person who has not been given a chance to hear the Gospel would reject anyway if he had heard it because of His great mercy he has placed this soul in an environment such that he would not have the opportunity to reject the Truth, and thus, his punishments in Hell would be reduced." (That is Saint Thomas Aquinas's argument inserted into your form of writing that sentence). This stands in direct contrast to your statement: "Because of God's omniscience, he knows if an invincibly ignorant person would accept His Son's message if it were brought to him." You take the stance of presuming God's mercy whereas Saint Thomas takes the stance of logical deduction from our knowledge of God (not to mention what is later defined at Trent, confirming his beliefs). Further, how is a Muslim, Jew, or pagan saved "through the Church" when he could very well hate the Church (and, even if he does not know the Church, he cannot be saved by that which he does not know).

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Since I can't explain it in my own words, if you don't mind, the Catechism will explain it for me.
[quote][u][b]The Catechism of the Catholic Church:[/b][/u]

[i]VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM [/i]

1257 The Lord himself affirms that [b]Baptism is necessary for salvation[/b].60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 [b]Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament[/b].62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." [b]God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments[/b].

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.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 [b]Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. [i]It may be supposed[/i] that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity[/b].

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,"64 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.

[u]Footnotes:[/u]
60 Cf. Jn 3:5.
61 Cf. Mt 28:19-20; cf. Council of Trent (1547) DS 1618; LG 14; AG 5.
62 Cf. Mk 16:16.
63 GS 22 § 5; cf. LG 16; AG 7.
64 Mk 10 14; cf. 1 Tim 2:4.[/quote]

Edited July 14, 2004 by thedude

[cmotherofpirl]

Catholic guy Baptism is necessary for salvation, so evangelization is necessary for the world.

But God can read hearts and can make other arrangements for people who cannot by baptised.

We are bound by the Sacraments, but God is not.

[catholicguy]

I completely understand the assertions that both of you are making as far as they go, but the problem with this is that the logical argument against this type of speculative theology has yet to be made, and those which have been were "simply not convincing" (see if anyone knows the speaker and source of the quote...). In any event, I do not misunderstand the teachings in the CCC, I simply assert that they are speculative, not infallible, and open to disagreement. It seems to me that those statements from the CCC contradict previous Church teaching and are thus void (to The Dude). In response to CMother, the Church has said that Baptism is necessary, etc, etc (see my previous posts for the reasoning), so that means that it is true. Even if God is not bound by the Sacraments in giving grace, He is bound by His word. Otherwise, "he who doth evil in the sight of the Lord" will not actually perish necessarily--he who commits mortal sin and dies with it can still go to Heaven then--unless God is bound by his word (that those who die in mortal sin will go to Hell). This teaching is God's own word to mankind and is affirmed by the Council of Florence, which states "The souls of those who die with mortal sin or with Original Sin only descend immediately into Hell." The same is true for Baptism. God is bound by His word (which is an expression of His divine will). He has told us "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Likewise, the Council of Trent has told us the same, by syllogism, in the Canons on Baptism. This issue is no different than whether or not God can save a person who has mortal sin at his death. We know that one who dies in mortal sin will go to Hell just as we know one who is not baptized will go to Hell (according to God's word and the Councils of the Church). I need a logical argument which would refute this, otherwise the modern writings which contradict it must be deemed to be heretical and constitute as a change in doctrinal teaching by the Church. Thanks. God bless.

Edit: also, to the Dude, my other point was that the CCC was contradicting what was previously taught. Also, it is contradicting itself by using the word "necessary" because it later says that it is not actually necessary. The reason the word "necessary" was used is that it is a teaching of the Church that Baptism is necessary, so the CCC certainly needs to avoid blatant heresy by saying otherwise, but it essentially teaches that Baptism is not necessary by later stating that there are "means other than Baptism" (i.e., Baptism is not [i]necessary[/i], by definition). Thanks again if you could respond.

Edited July 14, 2004 by catholicguy

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Thank you for responding. Could you show me some references that support that the current CCC contradicts past Church teaching? (I realize you posted some but I am looking for a source so that I can view them in their original context).

[catholicguy]

My contention at this point is simply concerning Baptism. I am stating that the CCC is not in line with tradition (and I would say, with Tradition, capital T) on the issue of Baptism. Just based on the decrees of Trent, this seems to be seen with the CCC's decrees on Baptism. This in no way means that the Church has erred (the CCC is not infallible). The Church could never err, and the only way one could claim that the "Church" has erred would be to say that those who made the statement (e.g., the Pope) are not the truly elected Church officials (i.e., Sedevacantism), to which I do not adhere. The only problem that I am discussing now is that of Baptism. There are some other parts that might also contradict Tradition, but usually it is vague language, not heresy, which is problematic. Thanks. God bless.

[catholicguy]

bump to thedude (and jeff)

[catholicguy]

bump to anyone who holds that sacramental (water and the Holy Ghost) Baptism is not necessary for salvation

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

This is all I can find of the Council of Trent on Baptism, and I see no contradiction. Could you please point out what you mean from Council's canons on baptism?
[quote][u][b]Council of Trent[/b][/u]
[b]Canons On Baptism[/b]

Canon 1. If anyone says that the baptism of John had the same effect as the baptism of Christ,[8] let him be anathema.

Canon 2. If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism[9] 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,[10] let him be anathema.

Canon 3. If anyone says that in the Roman Church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism,[11] let him be anathema.

Canon 4. If anyone says that the baptism which is given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true baptism,[12] let him be anathema.

Canon 5. If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation,[13] let him be anathema.

Canon 6. If anyone says that one baptized cannot, even if he wishes, lose grace, however much he may sin, unless he is unwilling to believe, let him be anathema.

Canon 7. If anyone says that those baptized are by baptism made debtors only to faith alone, but not to the observance of the whole law of Christ, let him be anathema.

Canon 8. If anyone says that those baptized are free from all the precepts of holy Church, whether written or unwritten, so that they are not bound to observe them unless they should wish to submit to them of their own accord, let him be anathema.

Canon 9. If anyone says that the remembrance of the baptism received is to be so impressed on men that they may understand that all the vows made after baptism are void in virtue of the promise already made in that baptism, as if by those vows they detracted from the faith which they professed and from the baptism itself, let him be anathema.

Canon 10. If anyone says that by the sole remembrance and the faith of the baptism received, all sins committed after baptism are either remitted or made venial, let him be anathema.

Canon 11. If anyone says that baptism, truly and rightly administered, must be repeated in the one converted to repentance after having denied the faith of Christ among the infidels, let him be anathema.

Canon 12. If anyone says that no one is to be baptized except at that age at which Christ was baptized, or when on the point of death, let him be anathema.

Canon 13. If anyone says that children, because they have not the act of believing, are not after having received baptism to be numbered among the faithful, and that for this reason are to be rebaptized when they have reached the years of discretion;[14] or that it is better that the baptism of such be omitted than that, while not believing by their own act, they should be baptized in the faith of the Church alone, let him be anathema.

Canon 14. If anyone says that those who have been thus baptized when children are, when they have grown up, to be questioned whether they will ratify what their sponsors promised in their name when they were baptized, and in case they answer in the negative, are to be left to their own will; neither are they to be compelled in the meantime to a Christian life by any penalty other than exclusion from the reception of the Eucharist and the other sacraments, until they repent, let him be anathema.[/quote]

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote]bump to anyone who holds that sacramental (water and the Holy Ghost) Baptism is not necessary for salvation[/quote]
Nobody is saying that it isn't necessary for salvation. We are saying that their desire to know God (and if evangelized, to join His Son's Church) and His knowledge of this desire, would qualify as, as you put it, "an extaordinary means which qualifies as Baptism".

[cmotherofpirl]

yep mr dude