the un-baptised

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 9 2004, 01:27 AM'] I'm having an identity crisis in this thread.

1)I am a staunch defender of the belief in Limbus Infantium (even for aborted and miscarried children, among the latter I number one of my own).

2)I am a staunch defender of baptism of desire and blood (properly defined of course).

To many questions.  To many discussions.  I think I am tired of talking about this for now.  I think I'll just leave. [/quote]
By 'properly defined' do you mean 'implicit' desire, as well?

...and there should be no crisis, as even if you believe in a baptism of desire/blood, there is no way a person who has not reached the age of use could receive either; therefore, at least you are consistent (not necessarily right about BOB, BOD).

Edited November 9, 2004 by CatholicCrusader

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 8 2004, 11:18 PM']

Poor Catechesis means poor training.

Ed. because I can't spell. [/QUOTE]
Did you see this? [/quote]
The verses don'tmake sense as you would like them to.

"There is a baptism with which I must be baptized, and how great is my anguish until it is accomplished!"

If Christ MUST be baptized, then you are saying He needed to be forgiven of sin (at least Original Sin). That simply is not what this "baptism" means. It is the baptism as spoken of by the Church Fathers. The baptism of blood is martyrdom, in the case of Christ, the highest form of all.

"Jesus said to them: You do not know what you are asking. Can you drink the cup that I drink or be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?"

Again, here, he is clearly talking about His martyrdom. That is what "baptism of blood" means: martydom. And never does he say that such is efficacious for salvation. In the Bible the only "baptism" referring to a martyrdom is that of Christ, Who needed not a forgiveness of sin. That is why it can be called such and not mean a literal Baptism. That is also why the Fathers number the Catholic martyrs as being baptized in blood. It simply means maryrdom. For example, in a certain work a Father may say: no one can be baptized more than once and then proceed to explain how someone was "baptized in blood" who had already yet been baptized with water, the Sacrament. How could someone have Baptism of Blood and Baptism of water when, as every Father and every Church document has taught since day one, has taught that NO ONE can be re-baptized. The point is that Baptism of Blood is not the same as Baptism of water. Water Baptism is efficacious for the forgiveness of Original Sin. Only a person who is a Catholic and is martyred can receive a "Baptism of Blood", which is not are-baptizing but rather a martyrdom that removes any temporal punishment he would have had to suffer in Purgatory.

[Guest JeffCR07]

CforC, could you please reply to my post?


Also, popestpiusx, dont worry too much, it is always better to take time out to pray on a matter, rather than to continue to delve into intellectual uncertainty. Prayer allows us to give our burdens and troubles to Christ and helps us to put full faith in Him and His Church.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Nov 9 2004, 12:25 PM'] By 'properly defined' do you mean 'implicit' desire, as well?

...and there should be no crisis, as even if you believe in a baptism of desire/blood, there is no way a person who has not reached the age of use could receive either; therefore, at least you are consistent (not necessarily right about BOB, BOD). [/quote]
I know there is no internal conflict between the two. THe "crisis" (which was just a joke) was that I would have essentially been arguing with everyone else on one point or other.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Nov 9 2004, 01:22 PM']


Also, popestpiusx, dont worry too much, it is always better to take time out to pray on a matter, rather than to continue to delve into intellectual uncertainty. [/quote]
Thank you, and you are correct of course, but I was just joking, as I clarified for CC.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Nov 9 2004, 10:34 AM'] Did you see this? [/QUOTE]
The verses don'tmake sense as you would like them to.

"There is a baptism with which I must be baptized, and how great is my anguish until it is accomplished!"

If Christ MUST be baptized, then you are saying He needed to be forgiven of sin (at least Original Sin). That simply is not what this "baptism" means. It is the baptism as spoken of by the Church Fathers. The baptism of blood is martyrdom, in the case of Christ, the highest form of all. [/quote]
I'm just quoting what He said in the Bible. He had to be Baptized. If it was Martyrdom, then so be it, but it's still "Baptized."

[CatholicforChrist]

I just read this thread, and I have not posted on it, but I have seen people beginning posts with "CforC" and then addressing some point I apparently made previously in the debate. What is the cause of this? I have not posted here yet. Do you mean Catholic Crusader (CC?) instead of CforC? Thanks, God bless.

[Guest JeffCR07]

yea, that was a type-o on my part, I appologize about that!

CatholicCrusader, I was meaning to address those posts to you, and I'm sorry for any confusion that it created

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[CatholicforChrist]

Alright, that is what I figured. Thanks for the affirmation, Jeff. Proceed with the debates. God bless.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 9 2004, 01:31 PM']I'm just quoting what He said in the Bible.  He had to be Baptized.  If it was Martyrdom, then so be it, but it's still "Baptized." [/quote]
Exactly... and the point is the "Baptism" to which He was addressing was His Repemptive Act. It is not a Baptism for all men as if it is a way to be forgiven Original Sin. The Baptism He underwent (the Crucifixion) was to redeem men; no one else can be baptized with that Baptism, as He said: "Can you be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am to be baptized?" Of course, the answer was: No. Christ is the One Who is Redeemer.

Wherefore, the Baptism of Christ in reference to the verses quoted is the Act of Redeption He underwent and is not applicable to anyone save Christ Himself; moreover, it is not a Baptism for the forgiveness of Original Sin for the One who undergoes such, as Christ was free from all sin, and it is a Baptism that only Christ could be baptized with.

*edit: That is for the Baptism referred to in the Bible. The Baptism of Blood signifying martyrdom is available to all who die for the Faith of Christ, the Catholic Church. That death, however, cannot bring about a forgiveness of Original Sin. Only one who is martyred having already received the waters of Baptism, can be saved.

Edited November 11, 2004 by CatholicCrusader

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Nov 9 2004, 12:16 AM'] CforC, it seems to me that this discussion has been fairly presumptuous on all parts. Baptism of Blood or Desire has been taught on all levels of the Magisterium and has been taught in multiple catechisms, this we know. We also know how Baptism of Blood or Desire are salvific for someone who has attained the age of reason.

What we do [i]not[/i] know is how Baptism of Blood or Desire work with regards to those who have yet to attain the age of reason. As such, we must admit simply that [i]we do not know[/i].

Retaining this mystery in the faith - rather than attempting to establish a certainty that cannot be established - causes us to hope and pray for the mercy of God upon those souls without losing the stark and very real understanding of baptism's necessity. Ultimately, we are humbled before that which only God knows, and, in our humility, are moved to piety, which manifests itself in hopeful prayer. Thus we pray for the souls of the unborn and the victims of abortion ceaselessly.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff [/quote]
Jeff, I assume you want me to address this?

First, "We also know how Baptism of Blood or Desire are salvific for someone who has attained the age of reason." We don't know that... and I don't believe that, but I will grant it to you for the purpose of debate--I am not saying that it is true merely that even if it is, an infant cannot have a Baptism of desire/blood.

"What we do [i]not[/i] know is how Baptism of Blood or Desire work with regards to those who have yet to attain the age of reason. As such, we must admit simply that [i]we do not know[/i]."

On the contrary, if the Church teaches that: one MUST be baptized with water to be saved, then you must hold that. IF the Church made exceptions, then those exceptions and THOSE ALONE can be considered true. So, for example, if the Church (again only for the sake of argument) says that Baptism of Blood/Desire suffices for one who has reached the age of reason, then we say: OK, but only for those who have reached the age of reason. You seem to overlook the fact that it has been infallibly declared literally dozens upon dozens of times that Baptism is necessary for salvation. WE KNOW THAT. We CAN say we know that. We MUST NOT say "we do not know". So, if a person falls into a category that is not an "exception", then we say with as much certainty as Christ did when He declared Himself infallibly that man must be baptized in St. John chapter III: "That person will surely never reach Heaven." If the Church makes an exception later, then we can say: the Church has excused this person. Until then (assuming it is possible to even have exceptions), we must say: all those who are not baptized cannot be saved except where the Church has excused (again, as if the Church actually has). So, since the Church has not excused the unbaptized before the age of reason, we MUST say: they "cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven" (Christ).

"Thus we pray for the souls of the unborn and the victims of abortion ceaselessly."

To do so would be illogical; it would be similar to praying for Judas... at least he lived when Baptism was not a necessity, and it is much more possible, even, for him to have been saved, as he could have had a perfect act of contrition, and he was not impeded by the necessity for a Sacrament that he had not ability to receive. The only reason Judas may become more illogical would be the words of Christ: "It would be better had he never been born".

[qfnol31]

CatholicCrusader,

After learning my lesson before I'm not going to make to many judgements, but the point of my post is that you tried to counter what the Catechism said:

[quote]Moreover, take the quote: "1225 In his Passover Christ opened to all men the fountain of Baptism. He had already spoken of his Passion, which he was about to suffer in Jerusalem, as a "Baptism" with which he had to be baptized."

The Baptism with which HE HAD TO BE BAPTIZED??? Christ had to be baptized now? That would fail considerably if you are trying to say that martyrdom is a Baptism sufficient and equal to water. Also, if Christ was already baptized with water, then why did he get baptized in Blood again? It seems to me to follow the same usage of "Baptism of Blood" as the Fathers (meaning simply martyrdom).[/quote]

I was just saying that in the Catechism, the answer is straight out of the Bible. I'm just saying that the Catechism isn't wrong, as you seem to be arguing (well, not in this case, but that's a different story). My whole point is that the Bible verses I gave you is where Jesus says He has to be Baptized. Now why, I don't know, and I'm not about to try to guess.

I think that's what I'm trying to argue, I'm just quoting the Catechism and the Bible in this case.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 11 2004, 03:35 PM'] CatholicCrusader,

After learning my lesson before I'm not going to make to many judgements, but the point of my post is that you tried to counter what the Catechism said:



I was just saying that in the Catechism, the answer is straight out of the Bible. I'm just saying that the Catechism isn't wrong, as you seem to be arguing (well, not in this case, but that's a different story). My whole point is that the Bible verses I gave you is where Jesus says He has to be Baptized. Now why, I don't know, and I'm not about to try to guess.

I think that's what I'm trying to argue, I'm just quoting the Catechism and the Bible in this case. [/quote]
Whichever other post it is that we were talking about this (I think it is called un-baptized or something), I wrote in my most recent post about what He meant by such a Baptism. I wasn't saying He didn't need to be baptized as He was referring to it, but I was saying that such a comment was not a teaching on Baptism of Blood. See my post there for more.

[qfnol31]

But the Magisterium said it was, at least that's what they hold in the Catechism.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 11 2004, 03:47 PM'] But the Magisterium said it was, at least that's what they hold in the Catechism. [/quote]
I think that you are misreading what the Catechism is trying to say... but if not, the Catechism is not an infallible or binding document (that is why it has been corrected in over 100 different places)... maybe this area will be next to go to be edited.

[thessalonian]

Your misleading people. The edits to my knowledge have not included dogmatic errors. The Catechism is very much based on scripture and dogmatic statements from Ecumenical councils so, though it is not explicitly infallible that does not mean that we should go looking for errors in it. If it isn't solid then not much is. In my study of the papacy I have deteremined that people use infallibility far too often as an out for not believing something. That a statement is not infallibly declared by a Pope (of which there have only been about 20 such declarations) or a council, somehow implies that it is fallible to them. It is a logical fallacy. That something is not declared infallibly true, does not make it false.

Blessings

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Nov 11 2004, 04:51 PM'] I think that you are misreading what the Catechism is trying to say... but if not, the Catechism is not an infallible or binding document (that is why it has been corrected in over 100 different places)... maybe this area will be next to go to be edited. [/quote]
Wrong.
Read the Intro to the Catechism, it is an exercise of the teaching Magisterium of the Church " a sure norm of the faith".

[qfnol31]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Nov 11 2004, 01:51 PM'] I think that you are misreading what the Catechism is trying to say... but if not, the Catechism is not an infallible or binding document (that is why it has been corrected in over 100 different places)... maybe this area will be next to go to be edited. [/quote]
Actually, at very least, you owe ascent of mind and will.

[Mary's Knight, La]

I was talking with a transitional deacon on salvation for aborted babies, he said he couldn't think of magisterial teaching on the issue but that it seems it fall under baptism by desire since that is supposed to apply to those who would have faith in Christ, were they given the opportunity. Thus we must pray for their souls to have the grace such that they would accept Christ given the choice, but pray first that they don't get aborted.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]Jeff, I assume you want me to address this?

First, "We also know how Baptism of Blood or Desire are salvific for someone who has attained the age of reason." We don't know that... and I don't believe that, but I will grant it to you for the purpose of debate--I am not saying that it is true merely that even if it is, an infant cannot have a Baptism of desire/blood.

"What we do not know is how Baptism of Blood or Desire work with regards to those who have yet to attain the age of reason. As such, we must admit simply that we do not know."

On the contrary, if the Church teaches that: one MUST be baptized with water to be saved, then you must hold that. IF the Church made exceptions, then those exceptions and THOSE ALONE can be considered true. So, for example, if the Church (again only for the sake of argument) says that Baptism of Blood/Desire suffices for one who has reached the age of reason, then we say: OK, but only for those who have reached the age of reason. You seem to overlook the fact that it has been infallibly declared literally dozens upon dozens of times that Baptism is necessary for salvation. WE KNOW THAT. We CAN say we know that. We MUST NOT say "we do not know". So, if a person falls into a category that is not an "exception", then we say with as much certainty as Christ did when He declared Himself infallibly that man must be baptized in St. John chapter III: "That person will surely never reach Heaven." If the Church makes an exception later, then we can say: the Church has excused this person. Until then (assuming it is possible to even have exceptions), we must say: all those who are not baptized cannot be saved except where the Church has excused (again, as if the Church actually has). So, since the Church has not excused the unbaptized before the age of reason, we MUST say: they "cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven" (Christ).

"Thus we pray for the souls of the unborn and the victims of abortion ceaselessly."

To do so would be illogical; it would be similar to praying for Judas... at least he lived when Baptism was not a necessity, and it is much more possible, even, for him to have been saved, as he could have had a perfect act of contrition, and he was not impeded by the necessity for a Sacrament that he had not ability to receive. The only reason Judas may become more illogical would be the words of Christ: "It would be better had he never been born".[/quote]

A couple points on the above. First, the main point of your argument does not stand up to logical scrutiny when combined with other points that you have brought up, allow me to illustrate:

Your main claim in the above is that unless a thing is explicitly taught, then it must be rejected. You maintain in the above that, under the assumption that baptism of blood/desire [i]is[/i] taught by the Church, it must be accepted, but anything beyond what is explicitly stated by the Church must be rejected. In the case in which it is not taught by the Church, you maintain that believe in baptism of blood/desire as a whole must be rejected.

Now, for the [i]reductio ad absurdum[/i] on your argument, by incorporating other points you have made:

You have argued many times, both in this thread and out of it, that only those things that are taught infallibly, and nothing else, can be trusted. (Just as a reference, please look to your response to the teaching of the Catechism, in which you made a claim-to-illegitimacy by pointing out its lack of infallibility). So with this claim you have qualified your definition of "taught by the Church" to mean strictly "Taught infallibly by the Church."

Remember that the main claim of your above argument is that "Unless a thing is explicitly taught by the Church, it must be rejected." Now lets do a simple substitution. In conjuction with your other point, the only possibility is that you are arguing:

"Unless a thing is infallibly taught by the Church, it must be rejected."

You cannot possibly mean this, because it yields a contradiction (I would hope). By definition, all non-dogma doctrines of the Church are not infallible, and so, under your above argument, not only should be thrown out, but [i]must be[/i].

Thus you have three choices as a result of the logical analysis of your argument.

1.) You can retract your claim that only those things infallibly taught are to have faith placed in them

2.) You can retract your claim that "Unless a thing is taught by the Church, it must be rejected"

3.) You can retract neither claim, and commit logical suicide

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff