Catholic Faction?

[jasJis]

St. Agustin taught Baptism by Desire. What the Church is making clear that there is no such thing of Baptism by Procrastination. If we are moved by Grace to become baptized, we should not dilly-dally around and act on that desire. Baptism by Desire doesn't mean that you're baptized in your heart if you've just been thinking about it and were going to 'get to it some day'. We are always giving God a Yes or No answer. If we say Yes in our heart, we should start saying yes in our mind and act on it, otherwise we are cancelling our yes with an active NO by not doing anything.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Well first. I'd say it's a good point that the ordinary magisterium can not be defined. It somewhat is unfortunate, at least for catholics, because they won't know if they should believe this or that if it's a developmental issue, that is defining something that has always been believed but never really stated.

I'm also curious about how the salvation development can be applied to nons.. it seems the "interpretation" is becoming looser. And it opens the door for lots of new developments. I don't see how that "something that has always been believed but never stated" is being finally defined. I can see how they could develop onto the implicit desires as has been mentioned, but the Catholic Church actually taught explicitly against any non at all being saved. The notions of leniency back then seems to have been for catecumens. It doesn't seem legitimate to apply one concept for leniency to another aspect of something that has been defined. I'm not sure, this obviously needs discussed more thouroughly.


Also, to throw another wrench in the controversy, it has been said that the catechisms of the Catholic Church are not infallible. I'm not sure if this means just in text wise (since it's a human error) or intent wise. Actually, thedude made a comment on how the catechism of the Catholic Church was not infallible in the days of trent in this very thread. So what I am getting at is that those quotations by oik aren't necessarily infallible (if intent is covered by that disclaimer too)

Edited September 21, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

The ordinary magisterium is defined:
[url="http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/articles/4levels.htm"]http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/articles/4levels.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.netacc.net/~mafg/magist03.htm"]http://www.netacc.net/~mafg/magist03.htm[/url]

It would be ridiculous to say the ordinary magisterium is infallible if an ordinary magisterium didn't exist (or wasn't defined).

Edited September 21, 2004 by thedude

[Guest lundercovera]

let me clarify. the NONS will not be saved. no one outside the Church will be saved.

one may be in the Church without knowing it if they are inculpably ignorant of the sin of being outside the Church and are united to the Church by conscience, desire, and intention.

[DominaNostra]

Dairy, that is a good observation (that the catechism quotes are not infallible). The thing is that there are a lot of theories about what the Ordinary Magisterium is, and it is true that [i]Lumen Gentium [/i]stated some things regarding the Ordinary Magisterium, but that was a part of the Vatican Council II that did not actually maintain the distinction of infallibility as far as I know. Unless you could show the explicit distinction being made by the Council, then it is not infallible in itself. Also, I thought the chart was a little over-the-top. It is a good idea, but to think that the Church teaches such a chart is a little strange. Also, the Ordinary Magisterium was not defined by Vatican I because the Council had to be ended early (I think because of the controversy over the Papal States after the Italian unification, correct me if I am wrong). So, if the only documents defining the Ordinary Magisterium are themselves part of the Ordinary Magisterium, then it would seem that they are not infallible in themselves because they are not a higher decree than what they are actually definining. In other words, because Vatican I (an infallible Ecumenical Council) did not define the Ordinary Magisterium, then it seems that other statements from the Church which were made in documents which were not infallible could not by themselves infallibly define what the Ordinary Magisterium is.


In any event, many will say that we cannot personally interpret Church teaching because the Living Tradition of the Church teaches us the proper understanding, but this must be carried further--the Living Magisterium can only be given to us through our priests. Our priests have to give us the proper understanding of Church teaching. The only problem is that there are a lot of unorthodox priests. I know that the priest at the nearby church here (it is a diocesan church) is one of the holiest and most orthodox men I know. He is a very holy and orthodox priest. Someone asked him about this issue when we were talking in a small group after Mass one night. He said that the way to reconcile the things that the Council of Florence said with what Vatican II said is to say "Sure, they too can be saved, [i]if they become Catholic[/i]." He was saying that, otherwise, there would be a direct change in doctrine. I think I should mention that he is also very intelligent; he studied at the NAC (North American College?) in Rome and was ordained by the Pope. He is a specialist in the liturgy, and I believe he is on his way to being a canon lawyer. He also has only been ordained for a year or so. This is the kind of priest we need to bring us the Church's teachings properly--someone who studied under one of the Pope's major seminaries and who was ordained by the Holy Father himself. I think that I can trust my priest more than the interpretations of laymen, right? Either way, it seems that we are certainly safe believing the way Catholics have always taught. I mean, even the secular world knows that the Church has always taught how non-Catholics can't go to Heaven. Some notable times when I have seen this is from [i]Angela's Ashes [/i]and even [i]The Simpsons[/i].


Just to put it in context (and because both of the scenes were very funny), I will put them here. In [i]Angela's Ashes [/i]the two boys are talking about the Protestant children who live near them in Ireland. The Protestants are playing croquet, and one of the boys says "What's the point of playing croquet if you're already going to Hell?" The other boy responds: "What's the point of [i]not[/i] playing croquet if you're already going to Hell?" The one on [i]The Simpsons [/i]is also funny. There is a priest in jail who is going to give Last Rites to someone on death row (I think it was Bart). Eventually, somehow, the person on death row says, "I'm not Catholic." The priest then says, "Well, have a nice time in Hell" in an Irish accent. I mean, these teachings about [i]Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus [/i]were taught by everyone just 40 years ago or so; my parents were taught this; their parents were taught this, etc. If custom is the best interpreter of the law, Tradition is the best interpreter of Church teaching. This Tradition has been long-standing and has been taught by the Church and believed by Catholics for so long; how can it just change completely so immediately? I don't think it can.

[DominaNostra]

Also, jasJis, are you saying that God does not give us all the opportunity to convert? You said "if they are moved by grace," but Our Lord says "Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Would God make a command that is impossible to keep? Also, it seems to negate that which Saint Paul says. He says that through nature (natural law and [i]actual grace[/i]) that we can come to a knowledge of the Truth. It seems that those who are outside the Church have everything necessary to convert; they simply have to act on these graces. Those who don't act upon them will be damned. That seems to be what Scripture and Tradition tell us.

[jasJis]

Domina,
God knows how much Grace He has granted to each of us and He will Judge. We Must act on the moving of Grace. The sin of Seperation is the refusal of Grace.

The Church has not changed, per se. It has developed the understanding of what it 'outside' the Church is, based on the knowledge that the Catholic Church ALONE is the 'Fullness of Grace' and the 'Sole Source of Grace on Earth', so any Grace (including Baptism) that is found in a "church" outside of the Catholic Church is really Catholic in origin, and only part of the graces to be found in the Catholic Church.

So I take it you disagree with the Church as far as the Baptism of Desire?

Edited September 22, 2004 by jasJis

[DominaNostra]

I would never disagree with the Church. The Church is infallible. One cannot be saved without being part of the Church, etc. I would never disagree with Her. Who am I to say I know better than the Church? That is precisely the matter--I believe all that the Church teaches infallibly, and because of this, I do not believe in Baptism of Desire because it is not taught by the Church authoritatively. It is just speculative theology. Like I said earlier, the only way for us to authentically understand and receive the Church's teaching is through our priests. The priest at the church here has talked to us about this. I posted about him earlier and his credentials. He is a very holy man. Our priests are our mediators to God, and they are the ones who bring us the Church's teaching and explain it to us. There are all kinds of sources available today that were not available in the past because of the Internet and other things, but the only proper way to know the Church's true teachings is from our priests. He never talked about different Baptisms or anything. Like I said above, he said that the Council of Florence (about those outside the Church going to Hell) is clear and infallible. He said any discrepancy has to be understood in light of Tradition, not the other way around. He said that "they too can be saved,[i] if they become Catholic[/i]." These are just some of the things that contribute. Also the Church says in the Council of Trent that true and natural water is necessary for Baptism; anything else twists the words of Our Lord into some kind of metaphor (that is almost the exact quote I think). God bless.

[dairygirl4u2c]

It also seems we need to "define" what can not be defined of the ordinary magisterium. realize the purpose of the "ordinary magisterium" concept is mostly so that Catholics realize the necessity to listen to their superiors. But it almost seems to be a cop out to say you can not define it, it is appears pretty clear in the lenient direction. At first glance, saying it can not be defined, while having a large majority (I assume) of Catholic heirarchy believing in the lenient sense is a cop out. I suppose it also matters if they are in union with the Pope's understanding. But doesn't he have the understanding of the catechism, although admittedly not de fide? What I mean is doesn't he believe the lenient sense in union with a majority of bishops? Maybe it's an admitted speculation and not a hard held belief by the Pope. So maybe since it'd be too hard to tell this kind of thing, ordinary magisterium is just to be used for getting RCs to listen up.


[quote]It seems that those who are outside the Church have everything necessary to convert; they simply have to act on these graces. Those who don't act upon them will be damned. [/quote]

As far as this goes, I definitely don't agree on a logical level. This is often times the rationalization employed by christians who say non will burn. Anyway, there have been billions who have not heard throughout history, so to say this seems to be not having the fortitude to stand by your theology if you the stringent interpreter. If this is what tradition has taught (I assume not infallibly) then I'd assume this would be disgarded and the the actual cold hard theology embraced?


also, as far as speculative theology goes. I often times get mad at fundamentalists who say anyone who is not christian is going to hell. This is analougous to non catholics will go to hell in the stringent sense. I've at times rationalized their argument, which could be applied to the catholic argument, in that they will attain about the same level of heaven, but they will never have had the grace to have known Jesus or in this case the Catholic Church in their physical lifetime. So while they are saved in one sense, they have not achieved everything possible and are not saved in that sense.

I as a human don't understand how you could undo that, but of course God knows no bounds. So again that's just speculation.

Edited September 22, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[DominaNostra]

Dairygirl, the Ordinary Magisterium very well could be defined, but the fact remains that currently it is not defined by any[i] Ex Cathedra [/i]statement (Vatican I would've handled this but it had to close before all the matters were settled). While the Ordinary Magisterium may be spoken of and may constitute as being infallible, the exact meaning of this has not been defined [i]Ex Cathedra[/i], so we do not know what the precise meaning is until it is defined. It would seem that the Ordinary Magisterium is simply Tradition being spoken by way of the teaching authority of the Church, the Magisterium. It makes the most sense to say that the Ordinary Magisterium itself does not define or proclaim doctrine but rather re-iterates or manifests the doctrines from Tradition, e.g., morality, as I said earlier. This is the most logical conclusion because if the Ordinary Magisterium were seeking to teach and define doctrine, a Council would be called and the matter clearly resolved. The tradition of the Church, however, is not the same regarding morality, but the Church is infallible on both faith and morals, so the understanding of moral teachings as given to us by Tradition can be manifested by the Magisterium in which case the Ordinary Magisterium would raise such a teaching to infallibility, but it does not seem that it would apply to doctrine and certainly does not apply to personal theological speculation.


Also, if you disagree that everyone is given the exact knowledge of the Truth, there is more to Catholic theology concerning the matter. If you read the Heydock commentary of the Douay-Rheims Bible, it explicitly states that infidels, those who have never known the Church, were put in their situations by the providence of God Who in His Mercy deigned that they might never hear the Truth, knowing they would reject it if they were to hear it, and thus decreasing their punishment and culpability in His Mercy. It is important to note that this commentary was published in 1851, so the ideas of multiple Baptisms had not yet been introduced, i.e., sound Catholic theology was the only Catholic theology available. I also think it is funny when Fundamentalists will yell that those who are not "saved" will be damned, no matter what, but then condmen Catholics for saying the same about the Church. It is quite irrational and hypocritical, but I suppose that follows their line of thinking and acting anyway.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote] If you read the Heydock commentary of the Douay-Rheims Bible, it explicitly states that infidels, those who have never known the Church, were put in their situations by the providence of God Who in His Mercy deigned that they might never hear the Truth, knowing they would reject it if they were to hear it, and thus decreasing their punishment and culpability in His Mercy. [/quote]

That's an good point philosophically speaking. It would cause the lenient interpreters to realize they better do what they know they should (assuming it is obvious) You can also argue that people on the path to learning and then died weren't going to be saved anyway. It has some other philo implications, like wondering how much we should try to convert the world if we're making their punishment more severe. But then perhaps we should risk and allow that for the sake of those who were destined to be saved by our intervention. Anyway, interesting point.


So yeah, let's get back to the discussion at hand. I want some other people to comment. Dom seems to know his sh*t pretty well.

[DominaNostra]

Thanks for the compliment, but I don't think using that term was necessary, you could've said something else. In any event, is there anyone who would like to comment on the matter, maybe someone who believes in multiple Baptisms, etc?

[jasJis]

[quote]Dr. Ludwig Ott FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA

4. The Necessity of Baptism

1. Necessity of Baptism for Salvation

Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, Since the promulgation of the
Gospel, necessary for all men without exception, for salvation. (De fide.)

The Council of Trent declared against the Reformers, whose idea of
justification led them to deny it, the necessity of Baptism for salvation:
Si quis dixerit, baptismum liberum esse, hoc est non necessarium ad
salutem, A.S. D 861 Cf. D 791. As to the moment of the beginning of the
baptismal obligation, the Council of Trent declared that after the
promulgation of the Gospel B (post Evangelium promulgatum) there could be
no justification without Baptism or the desire for the same. D 796. The
necessity of Baptism for salvation is, according to John 3, 5 and Mk. 16,
16, a necessity of means (necessitas medii), and, according to Mt. 28, 19,
also a necessity or precept (necessitas praecepti). The necessity of means
does not derive from the | intrinsic nature of the Sacrament itself, but
from the designation of Baptism as an indispensable means of salvation by
a positive ordinance of God. In J special circumstances the actual use of
the prescribed means can be dispensed with (hypothetical necessity).

Tradition, in view of John 3, 5, strongly stresses the necessity of
Baptism for salvation. Tertullian, invoking these words, observes: " It is
determined by law that nobody can be saved without baptism " (De bapt. 12,
I).  Cf.  Pastor Hermae, Sim. IX 16.

2. Substitutes for Sacramental Baptism

In case of emergency Baptism by water can be replaced by Baptism of desire
or Baptism by blood. (Sent. fidei prox.)

a) Baptism of desire (Baptismus flaminis sive Spiritus Sancti) Baptism of
desire is the explicit or implicit desire for sacramental baptism (votum
baptismi) associated with perfect contrition (contrition based on
charity).

The Council of Trent teaches that justification from original sin is not
possible " without the washing unto regeneration or the desire for the
same."

According to the teaching of Holy Writ, perfect love possesses justifying
power. Luke 7, 47: "Many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved
much." John 14, 21: " He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father: l and
I will love him and will manifest myself to him." Luke 23, 43 • " This ,
day thou shalt be with me in Paradise."

The chief witnesses from Tradition are St. Ambrose and St. Augustine. In
the funeral oration on the Emperor Valentine II, who died without Baptism,
St.  Ambrose says: " Should he not acquire the grace for which he longed?
Certainly: As he desired it, he has attained it . . . His pious desire has
absolved him " (De obitu Valent. 51, 53). St. Augustine declared: " I find
that not only suffering for the sake of Christ can replace that which is
lacking in Baptism, but also faith and conversion of the heart (fidem
conversionemque cordis), if perhaps the shortness of the time does not
permit the celebration of the mystery , of Baptism " (De bapt. IV 22, 29).
In the period of early Scholasticism St. !  Bernard of Clairvaux (Ep. 77
c. 2 n. 6-9), Hugo of St. Victor (De sacr. 116, 7) and the Summa
Sententiarum (V 5) defended the possibility of Baptism of desire against
Peter Abelard. Cf. S. th. III 68, 2.
 
Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis. It bestows Sanctifying Grace,
which remits original sin, all actual sins, and the eternal punishments
for sin.  Venial sins and temporal punishments for sin are remitted
according to the intensity of the subjective disposition. The baptismal
character is not imprinted nor is it the gateway to the other sacraments.

b) Baptism of blood (baptismus sanguinis)

Baptism of blood signifies martyrdom of an umbaptised person, that is, the
patient bearing of a violent death or of an assault which of its nature
leads to death, by reason of one's confession of the Christian faith, or
one's practice of Christian virtue.

Jesus Himself attests the justifying power of martyrdom. Mt. to, 32: "
Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess
him before my Father who is in Heaven." Mt. 10 39 (16, 25): " He that
findeth his life shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me
shall find it." John 11 12, 25: " He that hateth his life in this world
keepeth it unto life eternal."
 
From the beginning the Fathers regarded martyrdom as a substitute for
Baptism. Tertullian calls it "blood Baptism" (lavacrum sanguinis) and
ascribes to it the effect of "taking the place of the baptismal bath if it
was not received, and restoring that which was lost" (De bapt. I6).
According to St. Cyprian, the catechumens who suffer martyrdom receive "
the glorious and most sublime blood-Baptism" (Ep. 73, 22). Cf. Augustine,
De civ. Dei XIII 7.
 
As, according to the testimony of Tradition and of the Church Liturgy (cf.
Feast of the Innocents), young children can also receive blood-Baptism,
blood-Baptism operates not merely ex opere operantis as does Baptism of
desire, but since it is an objective confession of Faith it operates also
quasi ex opere operato. It confers the grace of justification, and when
proper dispositions are present, also the remission of all venial sins and
temporal punishments. St.  Augustine says: " It is an affront to a martyr
to pray for him; we should rather recommend ourselves to his prayers "
(Sermo 159 I.) Baptism by blood does not confer the baptismal character.
Cf. S. th. III 66, 11 and 12.
[/quote]

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Wow. That is a great post. I'll need to save that.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I still wonder if those are refering to people who wanted to become christian water baptized explicitly.

But regardless, it is still important if not imperative to find more context for the days of the controversial texts. Just in case the controversials flat out contradict a unanimous past. Or more likely when the doctrine could have been defined one way or the other if people had differing opinions.

Edited September 23, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c