tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post2643299232652930404..comments2024-03-05T11:44:26.154-08:00Comments on The New Theological Movement: St. Francis Xavier and the necessity of baptism for salvationFather Ryan Erlenbushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comBlogger79125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-65214769687362743702013-02-17T05:38:41.695-08:002013-02-17T05:38:41.695-08:00Catholics believe baptism is necessary for salvati...Catholics believe baptism is necessary for salvation.<br />VATICAN II declared this in #7 of it’s decree Ad Gentes:<br />“Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it." (Dogmatic constitution by Vatican II: Lumen Gentium 14) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And hence missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity.”Logalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-30881847259621084242010-12-23T09:04:17.217-08:002010-12-23T09:04:17.217-08:00@Mick,
I want to respond to your citation of Pius ...@Mick,<br />I want to respond to your citation of Pius IX (at 11:35am on Dec 10), "One Lord, One faith, One Baptism. To inquire further would be sinful."<br /><br />[Below I am copying a comment I made on the post from Dec 16th]<br /><br />Have you no respect for the Holy Father Ven. Pius IX? How can you possibly quote his "Singulari Quadam" without accurately giving his position?<br /><br />The venerable Pontiff of happy memory states most clearly, "on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God."<br />The whole point of this "invincible ignorance" of those who are virtuous yet are likewise pagan unbelievers is this -- there is a baptism of desire by which one can be saved and freed from all guilt.<br />Or would you have it that Pio Nono is claiming that a pagan can be saved without any sort of baptism at all, not even baptism of desire?<br /><br />Either you have not read "Singulari Quadam" (which I suspect is most likely), or you have deliberately misrepresented the Venerable Pontiff's claim in your previous comments.<br /><br /><br /><br />In any case, I will repeat your own words applying them to yourself: "Do not rebel!" Submit to the sound doctrine which Christ has given to his Church! Turn away from pride, while there is still time. Filial submission to the Catholic Church is what is necessary here.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-50754556708120655582010-12-11T23:12:32.280-08:002010-12-11T23:12:32.280-08:00Reginaldus:
What I didn't like is too complex ...Reginaldus:<br />What I didn't like is too complex to unwrap here. If you live in Southern California, maybe we could duke it out over a stein of micro-brew. Good idea to move on for both of us.<br />Mick:<br />Yes, Baptism must come first. Reginaldus is right, your mother-in-law has a point.Papa Puttsshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00565128278576668444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-18030001623610943352010-12-11T09:27:50.431-08:002010-12-11T09:27:50.431-08:00@Paul (6:49am)
Fair enough.
I should not have ass...@Paul (6:49am)<br />Fair enough. <br />I should not have assumed you didn't read the article and comments.<br />I still don't understand what you don't like about the article on Baptism, but it's probably best for me to drop it.<br />Peace.<br /><br />@Mick: I like your mother-in-law's saying! :-)Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-72648229366522180692010-12-11T05:30:04.189-08:002010-12-11T05:30:04.189-08:00Paul & Reginaldus; You two remind me of what m...Paul & Reginaldus; You two remind me of what my mother-in-law says to me, "the problem is, we don't misunderstand each other." haha. But, seriously folks. Paul, must not Sacramental Baptism precede the worthy reception of the Sacrament of the Eucharist? (And all other Sacraments.)Micknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-54634447891812695992010-12-10T21:49:17.515-08:002010-12-10T21:49:17.515-08:00Ah, Reginaldus:
Looks like both of us are not afra...Ah, Reginaldus:<br />Looks like both of us are not afraid of straight talk. I like that.<br />Because you are wondering, I must say that I read every word, article and comments.<br />I forgive your moment of pique as evidenced by the last sentence of your comment. I still think that the article is bad for many reasons, but I have moved on.<br />Also please note that I respect what you and your colleagues offer here to the point that I have signed up to follow the posts.<br />My STL is what it is, just as yours is. So we have the liberty to disagree with one another as equals without disparaging labels.<br />Lastly,your presentation about St. John of Damascus and the question about icons is good. Thank you.Papa Puttsshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00565128278576668444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-56699765577308069972010-12-10T11:48:37.411-08:002010-12-10T11:48:37.411-08:00@Paul Dion, STL
You are entirely focused on your o...@Paul Dion, STL<br />You are entirely focused on your own little vision and oblivious to the rest (hence an "idiot")...<br />Don't talk to me about being a "good Thomist"; have you even read the articles on Baptism and (since you bring it up) the Eucharist? St. Thomas states very clearly that the necessity of the Eucharist for salvation is such that a desire for communion is sufficient in those who have not the opportunity to make a communion.<br /><br />I am sorry that I didn't "make enough distinctions and counter distincyions" for you...I am still trying to figure out what a "counter distincyion" is...as soon as I discover what this interesting reality is, I will be sure to make a few!<br />On the other hand, I am quite sure that I have made enough counter distinctions.<br /><br />Also, it should be noted that some of the people making comments are not in fact Catholic...thus it is quite inappropriate for you to state "you are all so Catholic". <br />Hence, I am left wondering: Did you even read the comments? Or the article?<br />BTW, your STL doesn't mean anything to me, Paulie boy...Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-24333434189429758232010-12-10T02:35:24.122-08:002010-12-10T02:35:24.122-08:00The just of the O.T., from Abel to Zachery includi...The just of the O.T., from Abel to Zachery including St.Dismas, were not "saved" until Christ led them into Heaven, which He reopened on Ascension Thursday. "The limbo of the Just" is that place referred to in the Apostles Creed as "Hell". It became the "Paradise" Christ told Dismas about when He, Christ, entered it. The problem w/ attributing to the Holy Innocents and St. Dismas BoB & BoD is that they were saved under the Old Law & ITS requirements. Everyone alive after the Promulgation of the Gospel, Pentecost, is required to receive Sacramental Baptism for salvation, as this is the NEW Law. Peter said to the Jews, "Do penance, and be baptized every one of you...". Acts chaps 8,9,&10 show God's awareness of & care for those desirous of friendship with Him and, as Aquinas says, "supplies what is necessary" to them in the form of WATER and someone to administer it. God knows the desires of every heart and sees every man. Jer 23:24. Jesus KNEW what He was saying in Jn 3:5 & Mk16:16. Do not rebel! "One Lord, One faith, One Baptism. To inquire further would be sinful." Pio Nono.Micknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-86920123567189219282010-12-09T20:23:36.437-08:002010-12-09T20:23:36.437-08:00You are all so Catholic that none of you, even the...You are all so Catholic that none of you, even the author, bothered to mention the commandment of Jesus in the 6th chapter of John's Gospel, "If you do not eat my flesh and drink my blood you will not have eternal life." Isn't that necessary enough for salvation?<br />You did not make enough distinctions and counter distincyions to be a good Thomist. This article is bad.Papa Puttsshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00565128278576668444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-17081767935511348982010-12-09T19:46:31.143-08:002010-12-09T19:46:31.143-08:00@micmtert - It seems to me that by introducting th...@micmtert - It seems to me that by introducting this 'baptism of desire' concept, the church is essentially saying that, while the objective and material way to become a Christian is baptism, God is not limited to this method in determining who ends up in heaven or hell. <br /><br />The Holy Spirit can confer to individuals the effect of baptism, which is regeneration, with or without their actual physical participation in the sacrament, as long as they had the intention and desire to obey God. <br /><br />In other words these individuals have the right things going on in their souls and have said 'yes' to God as much as they know how, but because of ignorance did not or could not engage in mainstream practices and/or sacraments. <br /><br />It's good to keep in mind that God is a loving Father, who justly weighs the hearts of men when making eternal judgments of heaven and hell. WE are the ones who need neat and tidy signs of objectivity in order to have assurance and confidence, but not God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-28888733559084442972010-12-09T17:31:04.645-08:002010-12-09T17:31:04.645-08:00@Reginaldus I am a little confused about your dif...@Reginaldus I am a little confused about your differences with Mick. When did the Church ever formally pronounce on the other baptisms? And never have I heard that baptism of blood is more perfect than Baptism of Water. Christ specifically gave us Baptism of Water, but some theologians, in attempting to make up for the fickle finger of fate (Water Baptism was beyond the possibility of God getting it to a worthy soul) gave us baptism of blood and desire to apply the actual effects of Water Baptism on the soul.<br />When does baptism of desire take effect? Can you give Holy Communion to a non-Water Baptized person? Why not? If such a person can spend an eternity in front of the Beatific Vision, why can't he receive the other Sacraments on earth? After all, according to you, such a person is in the State of Grace. <br /><br><br />And if such a person acquires such desirable baptism, what happens if he should fall into sin afterward? Does he get confession of desire or the last rites of desire?<br />See what happen when we play with the Truth, you get confusion and ambiguity - great weapons of Satan for undermining the Faith.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06338111910078456135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-24337583250178313402010-12-09T17:18:00.816-08:002010-12-09T17:18:00.816-08:00Toma your statement below is extremely logical and...Toma your statement below is extremely logical and arrives at a logical conclusion:<br /><i>"Thank you for clarifying things, but I still have two questions:<br />1.) It seem to me that it is better then to leave such a person that you call a virtuous pagan in his ignorance for thus he can at least have some chance of salvation. But if he is directly confronted with the truth about Jesus and his Church and he denies it (which most often will be the case, if nothing else, then because of his upbringing) he will have no hope of salvation unless he does come to a point where he wishes for baptism.<br />I know this sounds absurd and really don't think this is the way we should behave, but perhaps this is an implication of widening the baptism of desire to those who have not explicitly wished for it.</i><br />Unfortunately you have been handed a false premise. If baptism of desire were to be defined as the Modernists present it to us, then you would avoid preaching the Gospel to them, better to be "saved" in ignorance.<br />Christ gave us water Baptism. Man in his attempt to create God in his own limited image has given us two other "baptisms". The Nicene Creed says that there is only one Baptism.<br />Some claim that the necessity of Baptism is a "hard saying". With all the loopholes created, how can it possibly be considered an obstacle when anyone, even one who isn't aware of Christ's existence, can be saved and spend an eternity with Him?<br />So important is the necessity of water that Christ put it before the Holy Ghost.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06338111910078456135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-16201932051758937192010-12-09T11:12:03.367-08:002010-12-09T11:12:03.367-08:00@Mick,
I am sorry, but I cannot figure out how to...@Mick, <br />I am sorry, but I cannot figure out how to put your first comment (under Anonymous) back into the comment box. I think that the basic point of your original comment is pretty well contained and expressed in your other comments and my responses.<br /><br />Though I will be a bit slow in responding to future discussion, be assured that I am reading your comments and will try to respond as I am able.<br /><br />Blessings to you!Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-42473505227225698312010-12-09T11:02:26.176-08:002010-12-09T11:02:26.176-08:00Unfortunately, I cannot keep up with the debate an...Unfortunately, I cannot keep up with the debate and discussion in this comment box.<br /><br />But I would like to just make a couple little comments:<br /><br />@Mick, you should know that you are very far outside the Catholic Tradition on this matter. If you are Catholic, you really should read the Catechism and St. Thomas.<br /><br />In any case, I do find it very funny that you argue that the mode of salvation has become MORE LIMITED since Christ died... You argue that before his death, baptism was not necessary (in any sense) for salvation, but that AFTER HIS DEATH salvation is now limited to baptism (and specifically baptism by water).<br /><br />If you are correct, that would mean that, during the Old Testament, salvation less limited than in the New Testament...That is quite contrary to the Biblical notion of the Promise.<br /><br />I have maintained, on the other hand, that Baptism has always been necessary for salvation: Baptism of Desire or Blood was available to the people of the Old Testament. Baptism of Water is now also available in the New Testament -- but the Desire and Blood Baptisms also remain a possibility.<br />Moreover, "Baptism of Blood" is the most perfect form of Baptism, even more perfect than Baptism of Water.<br /><br />I don't know which tradition you belong to, but your theology is not rooted in the Christian Tradition given by Christ and handed down from the Apostles to the Fathers and Doctors of the Church and affirmed in our own day by the Pope and the bishops in union with him.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-3740424595823851552010-12-09T11:01:05.498-08:002010-12-09T11:01:05.498-08:00me-don, Please read Reginaldus' comment 3:46 A...me-don, Please read Reginaldus' comment 3:46 AM and Mick 10:39 PMMicknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-56467995365642568372010-12-07T22:07:19.510-08:002010-12-07T22:07:19.510-08:00Mick: If the Holy Innocents died before the "...Mick: If the Holy Innocents died before the "institution" of the sacrement of baptism, then am I to suppose that they are NOT saved? After all, it was Jesus Who said that unless you are born of WATER and the Spirit you connot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Which brings us to the second half of your post; i.e. that St. Dismas died before water baptism became the "indispensable requirement" for entry into heaven. Pretty neat trick, that the Crucifixion somehow comes before Jesus tells Nicodemus that he had to be born of WATER...(see above). Water is and always was an integral part of baptism. John baptised with water, and the eunich said to Phillip, "here is WATER, what's to keep me from being baptised?" Water always has been the "Integral part" of baptism because we are saved through water as Noah and his family was (see 1Peter:3, 20-21)Baptism also invokes the rememberance of the salvation of the Jewish people from Pharoh through the power of God over the water. And yet, Jesus Himself tells St. Dismas that he would be with Him in paradise. (Baptism by desire). Seems like your argument just won't hold water.me-donnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-15857762663363739272010-12-07T08:17:06.029-08:002010-12-07T08:17:06.029-08:00me-don 2:51 AM, The Holy Innocents are not exampl...me-don 2:51 AM, The Holy Innocents are not examples of so-called baptism of blood because they died before the institution of the Sacrament of Baptism. Similarly, St. Dismas died before the time that reception of WATER Baptism became the indispensable requirement for entry into Heaven and, so, could not have been saved by "baptism of desire".(Whatever that is.)Micknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-31262753994598325452010-12-07T04:40:26.462-08:002010-12-07T04:40:26.462-08:00Me-Don:
The apostles continually preached repent...Me-Don: <br /><br />The apostles continually preached repentance, trust/believe in the cross, AND baptism, and with adults, baptism followed the other two! Jesus himself said that the 'work of God' was to 'believe on on Him who the Father sent.' Read the bible much?<br /><br />Faith and love do not depend on feelings, but genuine relationships do include them...unless of course your name is 'Data'. <br /><br />I thank God every day that my communion with God is neither purely mechanical or purely logical, but full of joy and peace. <br /><br />According to St. Paul, the Kingdom of God is not summed up in eating and drinking (or any other mechanical regulation for that matter) but righteousness, joy, and peace (See Romans and Colossians).<br /><br />If your definition of relationship between two parties is mechanics and logic, I'd hate to be your wife!<br /><br />JoeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-89017505910793855492010-12-06T21:21:33.528-08:002010-12-06T21:21:33.528-08:00@ Joe: Jesus did not say "Go forth and convic...@ Joe: Jesus did not say "Go forth and convict people to repentance," nor "Teach all to trust in the work of the cross." He said "Go forth and BAPTIZE." I think your cuddly, touchy, feel-good religion has you duped. You need to logically discover the One, True Church established by Jesus upon His apostles and handed down through all these past centuries, and obey and learn from her. Your feelings will decieve you every time. Who is your authority for your opinions? From whom do you take your instruction? To which master do you submit?me-donnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-86612122369850621182010-12-06T18:53:08.660-08:002010-12-06T18:53:08.660-08:00@Reginaldus - Thank you, sir! No you haven't b...@Reginaldus - Thank you, sir! No you haven't been a stumbling block to me at all, and I totally agree that we should never neglect the externals of the faith just because we think we have the internals. Actually if we truly have the internals right, we will do (obey) the externals. Still, though, the priority is on the internals...or else we're just empty people 'going through the motions' of a religion that has no meaning. And I think we all know people like that :-/<br /><br />@Dan - Thanks for the advice. While I obviously think it's important to understand the details of doctrines of a faith or position you are considering, I agree that the higher priority is definitely on allowing God's discerning light in your heart...which doesn't enter in very easily when we are full of sin.<br /><br />@Ben - Thanks for the dialog! :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-43394002504443362172010-12-06T18:31:16.344-08:002010-12-06T18:31:16.344-08:00Me-Don,
Indeed, and I totally agree that we shou...Me-Don, <br /><br />Indeed, and I totally agree that we should baptize and be baptized because the Lord commanded it. I feel extra blessed myself to have been baptized by immersion!<br /><br />BUT when I consider whether I'm a child of God or not, the fact that I'm baptized does not resound in my heart as the main qualifier. <br /><br />I think it's reasonable to recognize that there are some obvious priorities in the criteria of determining whether one is saved, and 'being baptized' certainly falls below 'repentance' and 'trusting in the work of the cross' on the list. Frankly, the 'baptism of desire' demonstrates this well, in that it's a person's desire for obedience that trumps the actual baptismal action. <br /><br />In a way, this whole topic is mute since a true Christian would indeed be baptized unless they died beforehand or were taught some odd doctrine by their authority about baptism not being important.<br /><br />In either case I don't think God would hold up their salvation if they had the more essential interior elements correct (repentance/desire for obedience and trust in the work of the cross). Unlike my grandmother, God is not a nitpicking shrew ;).<br /><br />Baptism is an outward sign of an inward conversion. So if the inward converstion of an baptized adult is later lost, they can glory all day in their baptism 'once upon a time' and still NOT enter the pearly white gates (hence the need for a sacrament of reconciliation)...and if an infant was baptized, but doesn't follow up that sacrament with the appropriate interior "second conversion" as an adult, heaven won't await them either. <br /><br />So YES let's obey God and be baptized, but once we are, let's emphasize the heart of the matter, because in the end, it's what's in the heart, that really matters. If you need convincing of that, just read 1 Corinthians 13. ;)<br /><br />Blessings!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-85640540343354352402010-12-06T17:51:32.281-08:002010-12-06T17:51:32.281-08:00@Scott West: What makes us Catholics more special ...@Scott West: What makes us Catholics more special or more correct than anyone else in the world is that the One, Holy, Apostolic Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Himself upon St. Peter, and guaranteed by Jesus to be free from any error for all time. No other religious entity, church, temple, meeting hall, or toilet pit has any authority to teach in Christ's Holy Name.<br />@Joe: We do what we are told by Our Lord and Savior. He said to baptise, and so we do. Period!<br />Finally, examples of abptism by blood: the Holy Innocents; baptism by desire: St. Dismas, the "Good Thief" (look it up).me-donnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-53485386561919573572010-12-06T14:21:50.867-08:002010-12-06T14:21:50.867-08:00Reginaldus: Could you please restore my Anon 3:31 ...Reginaldus: Could you please restore my Anon 3:31 post under the name of Mick? Thanks. MickMicknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-79519569720966698132010-12-06T13:39:49.128-08:002010-12-06T13:39:49.128-08:00Obviously, Baptism was not required for salvation ...Obviously, Baptism was not required for salvation before the promulgation of the Gospel, that is, until after Pentecost. Since then, by the expressed command of Christ, Baptism of WATER is necessary for the salvation of every person. Baptism of blood was considered a "second baptism" and coveted because it supplied for the remission of any sins committed after WATER Baptism. Baptism of desire is a speculation which no one could ever know of in this world as, it would necessarily be bestowed by God at the death of the recipient, and only those two would know of it occurring. Mick.Micknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-60170512878730456712010-12-06T08:49:31.323-08:002010-12-06T08:49:31.323-08:00@Toma,
Thank you for the reference!
I knew I had r...@Toma,<br />Thank you for the reference!<br />I knew I had read somewhere about baptizing the infant when in danger of death, but I couldn't find it. This seems to be a bit of a development from St. Thomas' teaching, while still maintaining the core doctrine.<br /><br />Also, it should be noted that children of the age of reason may be baptized, even against their parents' will, if they (i.e. the children 7 and up) ask for it...<br /><br />Blessings to you and thanks again for the reference and clarification!Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.com