Are Baptism of Bood and Baptism Of Desire Catholic doctrines or theories?


#1

The title of this thread says it all I think. I am upset that the same people who are quick to call Limbo a theory; also are quick to say Baptism of Blood (aka: BOB) and Baptism of Desire (aka:BOD)are doctrines or even dogmas.

I believe both have a long history but it has not been necessary to challenge them until now when we are dealing with a semi-semi-Pelegian (:slight_smile: my invented term:) ) position by many in the Church. Making the necessities of salvation confusing and murky at best.


#2

Well, the Church does celebrate the Feast of the Holy Innocents. Where would that fit in with your question?


#3

Good Point! Yes it is an ancient celebration.

The Holy Innocents were martyrs for Jesus Himself. They died in his place therefore are martyrs .

Even so Jewish boys are circumcised at 8 days and received sanctifying grace. More than likely God in his providence would have allowed no births 8 or 9 days before Herod’s slaughter.

“We must say, therefore, that grace was bestowed in circumcision”
[size=]Summa:[/size]
newadvent.org/summa/4070.htm


#4

I don’t know that they can be classified as immutable dogma, but they have certainly been held for a long time. One might be able to argue that these are defined by way of the Ordinary Magisterium.

CCC#1258 The Church* has always held the firm conviction** that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.*


#5

#6

Well that is my point BOB &BOD were a theories that never needed to be challenged until now.
The understanding in their ( BOB & BOD) history was that Catholic Faith was necessary, i.e. catechumens. It has now been expanded way beyond that requirement to include heretics like Protestants and schismatics like the Orthodox.

And it doesn’t stop their now many in the Church say no Faith in Jesus Christ is necessary at all for the invincibly ignorant.

So my thinking is why not go back and see if these theories were ever Catholic doctrine at all.

So far in my research I doubt they are doctrines and that they need to be exposed for what they are–theories.


#7

But if such an expanded understanding of “martyr” can be applied to these babies, who (to the best of our knowledge) did nothing regarding the faith, believed nothing regarding the faith, and were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, then what might that say about our understanding of baptism?


#8

MarcoPolo: I don’t know that they can be classified as immutable dogma, but they have certainly been held for a long time. One might be able to argue that these are defined by way of the Ordinary Magisterium.

CCC#1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

The catechism isn’t a good source in this problem because it contradicts itself on this issue plus Catechism are not infallible.

Most Catholics won’t agree to that because they think they are being unfaithful
The new (CCC) Catechism, &Catechisms in general, are not infallible documents and neither was The catechism of Trent:

Catechism of the Council of Trent- Fifteenth printing, TAN Books, Introduction XXXVI: “Official documents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine, and is addressed to the whole Church. Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de fide.”

One error in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, Tan Books, p. 243: “For the Eucharist is the end of all the Sacraments, and the symbol of unity and brotherhood in the Church, outside of which none can attain[size=] grace.[/size]”
This isn’t true Actual grace can be obtained outside the Church.

The new Catechism also casts a shadow on itself with contradicting"teaching" by saying:
1257 **The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.60 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.The Church does [size=]not know of any means[/size] other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
**
then this line: “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.”( No footnote? Which Pope or Council defined this?)

So is God deceiving us by giving us the sacrament(s)? Was it His idea to say baptism is necessary for salvation or ours?( I personally would love everyone to go to heaven but I don’t make the rules :frowning: ) Was it our idea and he is just humoring us? No, Jesus himself established the sacraments and made no room for exceptions for baptism

Fr. William Jurgens," The Faith of the Early Fathers", Vol. 3, pp. 14-15 footnote 31. : “If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”

The Catechism contradicts itself here & I hope it will be clarified soon. Thats all I can make of it :imsorry: :bighanky:


#9

No since we have a lot more information for the new testament times and clearer teaching; as quoted above Jesus offered no exception:
Fr. William Jurgens," The Faith of the Early Fathers", Vol. 3, pp. 14-15 footnote 31. : “If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”


#10

Obviously you are determined to believe what you are determined to believe. And thus you find yourself claiming to be more Catholic than the Catechism, which is a bold claim for a Catholic to make.


#11

Well maybe you didn’t read my post that Catechisms are not infallible and in these crazy times in the Church I think going to original sources(i.e infallible teaching) is the prudent thing to do.

Instead of personal attacks support your argument, please :slight_smile:

Not only has the Catechism contradicted itself in this matter it has also left out out whole dogmas e.g.: That Consecrated life is a higher state of life than Marriage. Find that clearly stated in the CCC. I tried and couldn’t but I am open to being corrected.

Look.:slight_smile:

BTW here is the dogma:
SACRA VIRGINITAS ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII ON CONSECRATED VIRGINITY MARCH 25, 1954 #32:

**This doctrine of the excellence of virginity and of celibacy and of their superiority over the married state was, as We have already said, revealed by our Divine Redeemer and by the Apostle of the Gentiles; so too, it was solemnly defined as a dogma **of divine faith by the holy council of Trent, papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12SACRA.HTM

Council of Trent Sess. XXIV(24), can 10.
CANON X.-If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.thecounciloftrent.com/ch24.htm


#12

What personal attack? Are you not claiming that your view is more correct than the view taught by the current Catechism? I continue to say that’s a bold claim for a Catholic to make.

Let me ask a simple question. When Jesus ascended into heaven and the Holy Spirit descended on Pentecost, and the Catholic Church covered all of a few square miles of the planet, was every person then living outside the influence of the Church doomed to hell? Let us say, for sake of argument, that in the year after Pentecost some ten million people died throughout the world. Were they all doomed to hell, other than the few hundred or thousand who died Christian?

As I say, it’s a simple question: did the coming of Christ open the floodgates to hell for people who had no chance to know of him?


#13

All were going to hell if not for Jesus! Why do you think we call Him savior?

St. Ignatius of Loyola Spiritual Exercises:
THE FIRST DAY AND FIRST CONTEMPLATION THE INCARNATION –
Here, it is how the Three Divine Persons looked at all the plain or circuit of all the world, full of men, and how, [size=]seeing that all were going down to Hell, it is determined in Their Eternity, that the Second Person shall become man to save the human race. [/size]74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:U1vu1BHRrQMJ:www.ccel.org/ccel/ignatius/exercises.xiii.ii.html+St+Ignatioius+Loyola+excersises+going+down+to+hell&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us


#14

That doesn’t answer the question. Of course all who are saved are saved through Jesus. The question is, were those who could not possibly have known of Jesus Christ nonetheless offered the opportunity of salvation by Jesus Christ? Or were they just poured by the countless millions into hell?

I have to say, the attitude you display about those who never had the chance to learn of the historical Jesus (and I have seen many Christians display it) strikes me very much as one of “I’ve got mine, and too bad for all the rest.”


#15

No, but it is the teaching of the Catholic Church and is a sure source of instruction, as opposed the internet and the path of sola source-tura.

I trust that officials in Rome, many who hold multipe doctorates, are probably more well versed in tradition and the teaching of the Church Fathers than anyone who posts here.


#16

So let me see if I understand what your saying. You are saying that “People can be saved without Faith in Jesus Christ and Baptism” Is this correct?


#17

No, I’m suggesting that, since God desires all men be saved, that “faith in Jesus Christ and Baptism” may be understood in a broader sense by God than it is understood by you (or by me).

Does it make sense to you that God would desire all men to be saved, and yet not offer the means of salvation to all men?


#18

One important theologian and Roman official said that my position was acceptable:

“With regards to those who hold strictly the absolute necessity of water baptism, it would be quite wrong to charge them with heretical constructs. As they merely assert that which was the near-universal consensus of the Patristic era, such a charge would be proximate to condemning all but a few of the Fathers as heterodox.” (Der Glaube das Pimmelkopfgelauben, Communio April 1997 p 13. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.)

He wrote this after the publication of the CCC is The pope, or better the then Cardinal Ratzinger, wrong?


#19

God has his reasons :
Acts 16:6- “And when they had passed through Phrygia, and the country of Galatia, they were forbidden by the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia.”

It is possible Men of good will could have been gathered to hear the gospel at Pentecost Acts 2:1-41 and later spread the news and baptized. “Every nation under heaven” had come to Jerusalem for the day of Pentecost and many were converted and baptized.

If people of good will respond to the actual graces given to them, God would be obligated to bring them baptism and knowledge of Jesus Christ and entry into the Catholic Church.

This is proven at least 3 times in Scripture:

Cornelius was sent an angel for him to invite St. Peter to visit him. Peter came and baptized him (.Acts chapter 10)biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+10

Deacon Philip was miraculously transported to the Eunuch and explained Jesus Christ and baptized him (Acts 8:38-39)biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:38-39;&version=31;

St. Paul met two men who were baptized by John the Baptist (which obviously shows they had the desire for Baptism) But St. Paul corrects them and tells them they need the Baptism of Jesus to be saved. (Acts 19:1-7) bible.oremus.org/?ql=98693771


#20

This came up before today. I asked for a source and googled it myself. Everything I found were Feeneyite sites. I could find zero in the Vatican archives themselves this was even said.

Even so, all the quote said is that we shouldn’t charge such people with heretical constructs. Since no one has accused you of heresy, what is your point.

To answer your question, there is absolutely nothing from preventing both to be true, to wit: baptism of blood and of desire are the Church’s teaching **and **we should not charge those who hold to the strict neccestity of water baptism with heretical constructs, at least in 1997, in the opinion of one Cardinal. assuming of course this is a truthful and accurate quote.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.