In a passage in John Paul II’s Catechism entitled “The Necessity of Baptism” the CCC (1257) asserts “The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude”. It goes on the insist that “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.” Nevertheless, the earlier statement is striking in its implications, implications which seem generally to be overlooked. If the Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude the fact that good could save people without baptism does not at all entitle us to teach that He will do so. When various saints have claimed that some persons are saved without baptism this must either be taken as pure speculation or one must take the CCC as rejecting their claims. Indeed, John 3:5 “Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” might very well be taken as asserting as a matter of fact no one dies in a state of grace who has not been sacramentally baptised. Perhaps this cannot be safely taught but can it be safely denied?
Archived Entry
- Post Date :
- July 5, 2020 at 12:23 am
- Category :
- Catholicism
- Do More :
- You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Laodicea
%d
July 8, 2020 at 7:28 pm
Would it be unsafe to assert that there had been martyred catechumens? I suppose martyrdom cannot be described as a ‘means’ in the sense required in para. 1257, since one does not choose it.
July 8, 2020 at 8:41 pm
I assume the argument would be that if someone is martyred in a state of grace they will receive remission of all temporal punishment but as it happens the only people who are martyred in a state of grace are the sacramentally baptised.
July 8, 2020 at 8:51 pm
Yes, or indeed, baptised and in a state of sin but with imperfect contrition. I can see the attraction of the position, but would it be unsafe to deny it?
July 8, 2020 at 8:54 pm
Well, if the Church simply doesn’t know if it happens the contrary can’t be taught, surely? Put another way I suppose it would mean the church has no competence to canonise an unbaptised person.
July 9, 2020 at 10:22 am
But does the ‘no other means’ also include things that happen to you?
July 9, 2020 at 9:36 pm
One of the other key considerations about baptism connected to that point is that the recipient can know for certain that, as a consequence of seeking and receiving it, he is, at the moment he receives it, in a state of grace. Hence it is the power given to us to become children of God. Martyrdom only dispenses from the precept of baptism and removes all temporal punishment due to sin on the hypothesis (which even the person martyred cannot know certainly to be true) that the one killed is in a state of grace at that moment.
July 17, 2020 at 1:57 am
Your position is heretical. The next two paragraphs go onto discuss baptism of desire and blood, which are doctrines of the church.
July 17, 2020 at 2:04 am
“Well, if the Church simply doesn’t know if it happens the contrary can’t be taught, surely? Put another way I suppose it would mean the church has no competence to canonised an unbaptised person.”
The traditional Roman Breviary for January 23rd states: “Emerantiana, a Roman virgin, step-sister of the blessed Agnes, while still a catechumen, burning with faith and charity, when she vehemently rebuked idol-worshippers who were stealing from Christians, was stoned and struck down by the crowd which she had angered. Praying in her agony at the tomb of holy Agnes, baptized by her own blood which she poured forth unflinchingly for Christ, she gave up her soul to God.”
July 17, 2020 at 5:18 am
You misunderstand. I am not denying baptism of desire and blood. I am suggesting that the CCC implies the church cannot teach their concrete realisation as distinct from their possibility. One may certainly be justified without baptism and ex hypothesi if someone were to die in a state of grace without baptism that person would be saved. Emerantiana is not papally canonised. Her cult precedes canonisation. Even if she were canonised particular details of her life would not be taught as dogmatic facts.
July 24, 2020 at 12:16 am
In the comment section of this article you assert: https://exlaodicea.wordpress.com/2016/09/01/is-limbo-a-dogma/
I am not open to any interpretation of dogma that makes it trivially true (as an ’empty limbo’ theory would do).
In response to the comment:
one could argue that the possibility exists for one to die in original sin alone, without affirming any actual cases of this occurring.
Aren’t you doing the same thing with regard to BOD and BOB?
July 25, 2020 at 8:40 am
I don’t think so because it is possible to receive baptism of desire and blood as well as baptism of water even if no one is actually saved thereby. For example, a person who is justified by living faith prior to water baptism and receives sanctifying grace but not the the remission of all temporal punishment or the sacramental character would have received baptism of desire even if he were subsequently sacramentally baptised. Likewise, a person who was sacramentally baptised and received living faith (or had already done so) and the remission of all temporal punishment and the sacramental character could accumulate more temporal punishment over the course of his life but then have it all remitted through martyrdom i.e. baptism of blood. Interestingly, Our Lord Himself uses the term baptism in this sense in Mark 10:38 and about at least one person who (according to tradition) suffered but was not actually martyred. Consequently baptism of desire and blood are realities independently of whether anyone is saved by them and one could receive all of them. In fact, the only thing that has been defined about baptism of desire is that one can be justified by it.
July 26, 2020 at 12:05 am
p. 27-28
Click to access BobBodfinal_usTrade6x9-Anonymous.pdf
July 26, 2020 at 9:23 am
Only one of those cases is non-hypothetical and “Baptism is ministered invisibly” is ambiguous. It could mean angelic. The text does not seem to be extraordinary.
July 27, 2020 at 3:23 am
no, it’s not ambiguous. Pope Innocent is citing Augustine. I couldn’t find the refrence in the city of God, but I did find it in Augustine’s treatise on baptism
CHAP . XXII . — 29 . 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 shalt thou be with me in paradise. ” : On considering which again and again , I find that not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of baptism , but also faith and conversion of heart , if recourse may not be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism for want of time . For neither was that thief crucified for the name of Christ , but as the reward of his own deeds ; nor did he suffer because he believed , but he believed while suffering . It was shown , therefore , in the case of that thief , how great is the power , even without the visible sacrament of baptism , of what the apostle says , “ With the heart man believes unto righteousness , and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation . ” 5
***But the want is supplied invisibly only when the administration of baptism is prevented , not by contempt for religion , but by the necessity of the moment .***
For much more in the case of Cornelius and his friends , than in the case of that robber , might it seem superfluous that they should also be baptized with water , seeing that in them the gift of the Holy Spirit ,
July 27, 2020 at 3:24 am
the phrase has nothing to do with angelic ministration
July 27, 2020 at 4:32 am
So you reject the doctrine of the CCC? I am only arguing that this is a possible position because the Church cannot teach that these hypothetical possibilities are realised. I am not arguing that no one is saved this way.
August 11, 2020 at 5:56 pm
The Feeneyites claim Augustine abandoned his early support for baptism of desire as salvific.
https://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html
August 16, 2020 at 1:06 pm
But he doesn’t say so in the Retractationes, where he would surely have done. https://archive.org/details/retractationesof00elle/page/n597/mode/2up
August 18, 2020 at 4:11 am
I agree that is odd but the statements they quote are quite strident. Perhaps, if he held the same position as the Feenyites (that after Pentecost baptism of desire would save hypothetically just not actually) he did not feel his position had formally changed.
August 25, 2020 at 4:15 am
He seems uncertain in the retractions “In the place where I said: ‘[One] could have martyrdom in the place of baptism,’ it was not just proper for me to offer as an example that thief, because it is doubtful whether or not he was baptised.”
November 27, 2020 at 4:33 pm
Here is how Bellarmine interprets the examples I cited above:
I respond to these arguments: resp. a) That someone might be in the body of the Church does not require the character of Baptism, but external Baptism; nor is external Baptism required to reckon someone might be in the Church, but only that he might be admitted since, if anyone asks to be admitted to the Church, it will not happen without Baptism. Nevertheless, if someone says he has been baptized, and the contrary is not certain, he shall be admitted to the other sacraments, and through this he will be of the body of the Church. Now, the sign of this that if afterward it were to become know that he was not baptized, then he will be expelled from the congregation if he deceived them and not received again unless after penance he will be baptized. On the other hand, if it is not his fault, he would not be cast out, rather what he lacked will be perfected in him. It would not be judged that he was not in the Church, but will be judged to have entered through another way than the ordinary power. For this very reason, Innocent III, judged that a priest who was not baptized was truly in the Church, and commanded sacrifice to be offered for his soul just as for the faithful. Dionysius of Alexandria, as we have it in church history, judged that a certain man was truly in the Church whom it was certain was not truly baptized but only secured the other Sacraments as one of the baptized.
Bellarmine, Robert. On the Church Militant (De Controversiis) (pp. 102-103). Mediatrix Press. Kindle Edition.
November 28, 2020 at 6:43 am
None of that touches on the question of whether he is predestined (whether or not Bellarmine held Augustine’s position).