Church Contradiction on Baptism of Desire

[Cantarella]

He was only speaking of the Sacrament in your provided link.

He was also only addressing the pelagian error, not offering a whole treatment.

Further, the example provided was one never recanted of (BoB), and I'm not by any means convinced that his anti-pelagian writings were anything but contextual to pelagian error which BoD is most certainly not.

The Baptism of Blood is Martyrdom and it is another topic.

Mr. Gardener, what is St. Augustine saying here?:

In three ways then are sins remitted in the Church; by Baptism, by prayer, by the greater humility of penance; yet God does not remit sins but to the baptized The very sins which He remits first, He remits not but to the baptized. When? When they are baptized. The sins which are after remitted upon prayer, upon penance, to whom He remits, it is to the baptized that He remits. For how can they say, "Our Father," who are not yet born sons? The Catechumens, so long as they be such, have upon them all their sins. If Catechumens, how much more Pagans? How much more heretics? But to heretics we do not change their baptism. Why? Because they have baptism in the same way as a deserter has the soldier's mark:  just so these also have Baptism; they have it, but to be condemned thereby, not crowned. And yet if the deserter himself, being amended, begin to do duty as a soldier, does any man dare to change his mark?

[Gardener]

Just like every other jew that made it to limbo.

And were saved... and went to heaven. 

What exactly are you even arguing? You're not addressing the actual text. Nowhere did Augustine say Cyprian relayed the thief went to heaven before Christ.

I'm not sure what your point even is.

[james03]

First, let me state I believe in baptism by blood.  That being said:

30. That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by martyrdom is supported by an argument by no means trivial, which the blessed Cyprian adduces from the thief, to whom, though he was not baptized, it was yet said, "Today shall you be with me in Paradise."

1.  The good thief was not martyred.

2.  The good thief was probably circumcized.

3.  The good thief was under the old law.  So him making it to limbo really doesn't prove anything.  Many of the jews that died that same week went to limbo without baptism.

[Michael Wilson]

This post in reference to Ven. Maria of Agreda, is interesting, in the light of our current discussion:
http://www.womanthouartgod.com/mariaagredabluenun.php

THE BLUE NUN

SOURCE: The Mysterious Valley


JUST A NUN FROM AGREDA

Another notable character on our journey is Sister Marie de Jesus Agreda, born April 2, 1602, in Agreda, Spain. Christened Maria Fernandez Coronel, she donned the blue habit and took her vows as a nun in the Franciscan order, and in 1627 she became abbess of the Agreda Franciscan monastery until her death in 1665. The Encyclopedia Britannica states:



"Her virtues and holy life were universally acknowledged, but controversy arose over her mystical writings, her political influence, and her missionary activities (my italics). Her best known work is The Mystical City of God (1670), a life of the Virgin Mary ostensibly based on divine revelations granted to Maria. It was placed on the Index Libroum Prohibitorum in 1681, but the ban was lifted in 1747." 10




THE 502 RAPTURES



In 1620, teenaged Sister Maria of Agreda, began having unnerving visions, or raptures. Cloistered in the convent, she would meditate for hours, sometimes all day, and return and tell her fellow sisters wondrous stories of her "over 500" spiritual travels to a faraway land, meeting savages and telling them of the Word of Christ. She experienced many of these episodes of rapturous meditation and bi-location, and word began to spread of the young nun in the convent. Finally, convinced of the reality of her experiences, she wrote a book in which she described, in great detail, her missionary work bringing the Word of Christ to the savages of The New World. In early Fifteenth-Century Spain, this was not a prudent claim to make during the height of the Holy Inquisition, which quickly put to death untold thousands found "guilty" of witchcraft and dealings with demonic forces.* (sic). Before long the Inquisition took a pointed interest in the good Sister of Agreda, and she found herself at the center of a dangerous, whirling controversy. She insisted to the Father Inquisitor that she was indeed bi-locating and doing God's work, but to no avail. A very public trial ensued with the full brunt of the powerful Church bearing down on the poor nun from Agreda. During the height of her trial, a newly returned expedition of conquistadors and friars arrived in Spain with a wondrous tale.




A PUZZLING SCENARIO



It seems that the Spanish explorers, while in the unexplored region north of Mexico, had encountered numerous Native American tribes in New Mexico, Arizona and Texas who had already been converted to Christianity, and somehow knew of "Jesus Christ" the Savior. Even more fantastic were the Indian's claims of being visited by a white-skinned "Blue Lady" who appeared to many, drifting in a blue haze while she preached the word of the Lord in their native languages. She helped them to build crosses and places of worship, and even handed out rosaries and religious objects.



"From 1620 to approximately 1631 the Spanish nun flew from Spain to the North American State of New Mexico on more than 500 occasions. Thus it was established in the open case of the Holy Inquisition against the nun in 1635, in which it was affirmed further that no one in the convent noticed her absence during those flights. On occasion they would happen twice during the same day. . . How then can we explain a woman of scarcely eighteen years of age that could bi-locate to New Mexico, and while there, she would dedicate herself to distribute among the natives rosaries and other liturgical objects as she instructed them about the truth of the Christian faith. . . Her trips occurred shortly before the diocese of Mexico decided to send evangelizers [north] towards those unexplored territories. Her visits made their efforts considerably easier. 11"






POSSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE CONQUEST OF NEW MEXICO



These first Spanish explorers to the Southwest were amazed by the Natives knowledge of Christianity and were baffled by the rosaries they were shown and by their earnest descriptions of the "Blue Lady" that had come from afar and preached to them.



"Finally, when the first Franciscans, led by Friar Benvenedes, arrived [at the Isleta Pueblo] they discovered a singular spectacle. Thousands of Indians approached the Franciscans and asked earnestly for baptism. 12"



Benvenedes wrote later of the Spaniard's efforts to ascertain how the Indians had foreknowledge of Christianity:



"'When those Indians were asked to tell us what was the reason for which, with so much affection, they asked for baptism and religious indoctrination, they answered that a woman had come and preached to each one of them in their own tongue. 13'"



The rapid Spanish conquest and control of New Mexico in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries may have partially been due to Sister Agreda's solo missionary efforts on behalf of a bewildered Catholic Church.



"Only in New Mexico did the Franciscans baptize more than 50,000 people in record time and rapidly install twenty-five missions and minister to more than ninety towns. The Indians remembered with special veneration the Blue Lady, the one whom they gave this name due to her blue mantle of celestial tones she wore on her back. 14" During the mid-Sixteen-hundreds, the celebrated bi-locating nun from Agreda garnered national notoriety. King Philip of Spain may have enlisted her help in foreign affairs, and it is firmly documented that the king carried on a life-long correspondence with her. It is surmised by some that Sister Agreda may have even bi-located to foreign courts on covert foreign-policy missions on behalf of Spain. Now one would think that this story, alone, is compelling, but the unbelievable saga of our talented nun and her doppleganger-twin does not end there.

*Note, The Inquisition and witchcraft: The Inquisition never put anybody to death for witchcraft; and never put anybody "quickly to death" without first a very thorough investigative process, trial and opportunity for those that were found guilty of heresy or other crimes to repent from their errors; and thus avoid Capital punishment.
I want to tie this in with St. Thomas and his theory about God sending an angel to catechize a lone savage in the forest theory.
This is a documented case where God actually sent a missionary to the "savages in the forest"; and it is indeed extraordinary. But as Fr. Most explains in his book "Grace, Predestination, and the Salvific Will of God": "The extraordinary can never become ordinary." In other words, the Spanish missionaries encountered pagans that explicitly believed in the truths of the Catholic faith, and requested to be Baptized; but this is the only case of the millions of Indians that were converted and Baptized by the missionaries. We do not have any other proof that God did send an Angel to instruct the ignorant natives of the true faith. But does that mean that the other millions that were not evangelized by an Angel were lost?  But God plants into the hearts of all men the belief in God and the natural law, so that all men with the co-operation of His grace have at least the possibility of obtaining eternal salvation.  Here is the article on Perfect Contrition, which argues quite persuasively for God's universal salvific will;
By REV. F. QUIRIJNEN, S.J.
http://www.ecatholic2000.com/cts/untitled-343.shtml

IV. IS IT EASY TO HAVE PERFECT CONTRITION?

We have already cleared the ground for the answer by insisting on two points: (1) Perfect Contrition must proceed from the pure love of God, but does not exclude other motives. (2) No special degree of intensity or duration, no sensible sorrow, no tears and sighs are required for Perfect Contrition.

Evidently it is more difficult to make an act of Perfect than of imperfect Contrition. It is also clear that fervent Christians more easily make acts of Perfect Contrition than the lukewarm. But is Perfect Contrition difficult to obtain for one who has begun to be sorry for his sins? Is it beyond the power of the ordinary man of good will who tries to live up to his moral standards, but is too weak always to avoid mortal sin?

The answer is a decided NO. Any one who sincerely wishes it can with the grace of God make acts of Perfect Contrition. This can be clearly proved from the revelation God has given us about His dealings with men.

Contrition derives its perfection from the love of God. Hence to prove that acts of pure love of God are easy is equivalently to prove that Perfect Contrition is easy. From both the Old and the New Testaments it appears that God has imposed on all men a strict command to make acts of the love of God. Jesus, when asked, Which is the great commandment of the Law? answered:

Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment.

Now, God is a Father. There is no Father like Him. His feelings are apparent from the fact that while we were yet sinners,He sent His only begotten Son into the world and delivered Him up for us. His proper quality, says the Church, is ever to have mercy and to spare.-His mercy is from generation unto generation, sings the Blessed Virgin in her Magnificat and who knew the Heavenly Father better than Mary, herself the perfect created mirror of God's mercy?

Does a Father burden his children with hard precepts? Still less does God command impossibilities. When commanding, as the. . Council of Trent says, God admonishes thee to do what thou art able and to pray for what thou art not able, and in proof of this assertion, the Council quotes St John, who says His commandments are not heavy, and Christ's own words, My yoke is sweet and my burden light. When God commands, at the same time He enlightens. When He asks something, He gives the strength to do it. Hence, the very fact that our loving Heavenly Father, who knows the ignorance and weakness of the masses of men of all times and places, requires us to make acts of the love of God is sufficient proof that it must be easy to make such acts.

In order that, the commandment of love may be fulfilled, St. Francis of Sales writes, God leaves no living man without furnishing him abundantly with all the means required. He gives us not a bare sufficiency of means to love Him and in loving Him to save ourselves, but also a rich, ample and magnificent sufficiency-such as ought to be expected from so great a bounty as His.

We come to the same conclusion by another argument. God wants to have all men. Hence His Providence furnishes all without exception with the means whereby they can be reconciled with Him. Before Christ the only means for adults was Perfect Contrition, so it is even now for all those who, for want of knowledge or opportunity, cannot avail themselves of the Christian Sacraments that is to say, for the vast majority of men. Who then can tolerate the thought that this solitary plank, Perfect Contrition, thus made necessary by God, would be so slippery that only a few can seize and hold it, or that this ark of salvation would be so hard to enter into that the vast majority of those for whom it is intended must remain out of it and perish in the deluge? No, God does not impose on us a sorrow for sins that is beyond the power of even the weakest person of good will.

This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that the Church constantly urges us to make acts of Perfect Contrition. What she officially teaches in her catechisms to all her children, in the world or in religion, illiterate and learned, the tepid and the fervent, sinner and saint, is an Act of Perfect Contrition. Now, the Church, a tender Mother- pia mater Ecclesia-.does not require from her children anything that is beyond their power. Hence, beyond a doubt, in her mind Perfect Contrition is easy to all. Only one thing can make it difficult, to us-our want of confidence in God's mercy....

Footnote on a footnote: When I say that "the Inquisition never put anyone to death for witchcraft, I mean the Spanish Inquisition, which is what the author of the article was referring to.

[Cantarella]

As far as Msgr. Fenton stating that "the vast majority of theologians favor..." the four truths; I read the article posted by Non Nobis, and Msgr's book, and I don't see where he stated this.

He stated this in his article "explaining" the teaching of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office, taken from the American Ecclesiastical Review, December, 1952, pages 450-461, published by the Catholic University of America Press:

Now most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God's existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation.

http://www.romancatholicism.org/fenton/letter.html

[Non Nobis]

First, let me state I believe in baptism by blood.  That being said:

30. That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by martyrdom is supported by an argument by no means trivial, which the blessed Cyprian adduces from the thief, to whom, though he was not baptized, it was yet said, "Today shall you be with me in Paradise."

1.  The good thief was not martyred.

2.  The good thief was probably circumcized.

3.  The good thief was under the old law.  So him making it to limbo really doesn't prove anything.  Many of the jews that died that same week went to limbo without baptism.

Christ seemed to think it proved something.  The good thief was not forgiven unto salvation because of circumcision and implicit  faith in the Redeemer to come, but directly by Christ the Redeemer himself.  Christ can forgive sin directly  without the Sacrament of Baptism at any time He chooses, when the Sacrament is impossible to a man who repents as the good thief did.  If Christ meant that He was with the thief first in the limbo of the fathers, that does not change the fact that Christ directly forgave a repentant sinner unto salvation with no power other than His own.

[james03]

Just as He forgave every jew under the Old Law.

[james03]

It is interesting, to have to argue with Catholics by using apologetics taught for arguing against prots.  You know, prots that say you don't need to be baptized. 

I had the same debate with a prot as I now am having with Non Nobis.  I guess I need to track him down and apologize.  "Yeah, you were right.  Catholics got it wrong.  It could be that it is just Faith is all you need, though another one is telling me a jew can die a jew and go to heaven, so maybe it is just being nice that gets you saved."

[Kaesekopf]

He was only speaking of the Sacrament in your provided link.

He was also only addressing the pelagian error, not offering a whole treatment.

Further, the example provided was one never recanted of (BoB), and I'm not by any means convinced that his anti-pelagian writings were anything but contextual to pelagian error which BoD is most certainly not.

The Baptism of Blood is Martyrdom and it is another topic.

Mr. Gardener, what is St. Augustine saying here?:

In three ways then are sins remitted in the Church; by Baptism, by prayer, by the greater humility of penance; yet God does not remit sins but to the baptized The very sins which He remits first, He remits not but to the baptized. When? When they are baptized. The sins which are after remitted upon prayer, upon penance, to whom He remits, it is to the baptized that He remits. For how can they say, "Our Father," who are not yet born sons? The Catechumens, so long as they be such, have upon them all their sins. If Catechumens, how much more Pagans? How much more heretics? But to heretics we do not change their baptism. Why? Because they have baptism in the same way as a deserter has the soldier's mark:  just so these also have Baptism; they have it, but to be condemned thereby, not crowned. And yet if the deserter himself, being amended, begin to do duty as a soldier, does any man dare to change his mark?

Three day ban for arguing for Feeneyite errors. 

[Gardener]

It is interesting, to have to argue with Catholics by using apologetics taught for arguing against prots.  You know, prots that say you don't need to be baptized. 

I had the same debate with a prot as I now am having with Non Nobis.  I guess I need to track him down and apologize.  "Yeah, you were right.  Catholics got it wrong.  It could be that it is just Faith is all you need, though another one is telling me a jew can die a jew and go to heaven, so maybe it is just being nice that gets you saved."

St. Dismas confessed Christ. He was therefore made a member of the Church. Even if the law of baptism was not in effect at that point, the point remains: God can directly forgive sins without binding Himself to the appropriate Sacraments. He only binds us on what is possible to us. If He were to bind us on what is impossible, it would be unjust.

[Michael Wilson]

As far as Msgr. Fenton stating that "the vast majority of theologians favor..." the four truths; I read the article posted by Non Nobis, and Msgr's book, and I don't see where he stated this.

He stated this in his article "explaining" the teaching of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office, taken from the American Ecclesiastical Review, December, 1952, pages 450-461, published by the Catholic University of America Press:

Now most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God's existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation.

http://www.romancatholicism.org/fenton/letter.html

thank you; I completely missed this; however "most" and "vast majority" are not the same thing; but even conceding that they were; the fact is that the Church allows both opinions; which is what I have been arguing, against James and yourself, who claim that the second opinion has been condemned by the Church.

[Non Nobis]

It is interesting, to have to argue with Catholics by using apologetics taught for arguing against prots.  You know, prots that say you don't need to be baptized. 

I had the same debate with a prot as I now am having with Non Nobis.  I guess I need to track him down and apologize.  "Yeah, you were right.  Catholics got it wrong.  It could be that it is just Faith is all you need, though another one is telling me a jew can die a jew and go to heaven, so maybe it is just being nice that gets you saved."

That was completely unjustified.

I have in fact agreed that explicit faith is necessary for salvation.  My speculation has been that God will give explicit knowledge at the end (just before death)  to those who He wills - those whose repentance HE accepts, NOT someone a liberal accepts, NOT those who are "nice", and NOT a "jew who dies a jew".  This is to give them a chance to accept what they needed to be taught, as a catechumen does; or reject it and go to hell. A jew who accepts this truth will no longer be a jew.

You yourself believe that a catechumen, by explicit desire or by blood, can receive Baptism of Desire and be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism when it is impossible.

If you are going to insult me, you should also insult someone else you should say argues like a protestant: St. Thomas Aquinas, when he says:

1. Granted that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, no untenable conclusion follows even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to divine providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20)..

[Non Nobis]

Just as He forgave every jew under the Old Law.

Christ actually forgave the thief in a way different than He forgave anyone else (unto salvation) - speaking to him as Christ in person:Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, and with all His accidents. The thief saw Him and heard Him.

IF the thief did not have circumcision, do you think Christ couldn't have forgiven Him? Christ doesn't depend on circumcision; and whether He forgives with His human appearance present or without it, He doesn't depend on the Sacrament of Baptism.  He does COMMAND it, but He can forgive without it, when the command is impossible.

[james03]

This post in reference to Ven. Maria of Agreda, is interesting, in the light of our current discussion:

Very relevant.  Note she preached Christ, the Trinity, the Church, and baptism.  These people had an ardent desire to be baptized when the missionaries arrived.

[james03]

Even if the law of baptism was not in effect at that point, the point remains: God can directly forgive sins without binding Himself to the appropriate Sacraments. 

No, the point (St. Cyprian) is refuted.  The good thief was not martyred.  And he was under the old law.
There were other sinners under the old law whom Jesus said, "Your faith has saved you."  They all went to Limbo also.

He only binds us on what is possible to us. If He were to bind us on what is impossible, it would be unjust.

And again, if God set the requirements for salvation such that only a handful were (and could be) saved (He doesn't), it would not be unjust, because we are born lost, and salvation is a Grace.

When you get this premise wrong, you will be complete wrong on Catholic soteriology.