thanks for the replies, I believe it's clear from the bible the Catholic teaching is the correct one, baptism should be done asap, 1 month is the latest
In the very last INSTRUCTION THAT JESUS CHRIST GIVES THE APOSTLES BEFORE LEAVING THIS WORLD – He gives His Apostles two commands: to teach all nations and to baptize. This should tell everyone something about the importance and the necessity of baptism. Baptism is bound up, by Jesus Himself, with the very command to teach all nations the Christian faith. That’s because no one can be saved without it, as we see in St. Mark’s Gospel.
Mark 16:15-16- “And he (Jesus) said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
Jesus says that those who believe and are baptized will be saved, which indicates that the unbaptized will not be saved. But some ask: why didn’t Jesus say, “he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned,” after saying he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved? The answer is that those who don’t believe are not going to get baptized, so it’s not necessary to mention baptism again.
1 Peter 3:20-21- “… when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also…”
In the Shepherd of Hermas, dated 140 A.D., Hermas quotes Jesus in John 3:5 and writes:
“They had need to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:92.)
You can not enter the kingdom of God unless you are baptised, let me know how the Catholic church can be wrong using the bible.
If it was as clear cut as that, you'd be condemning the Good Thief to hell and calling Christ a liar.
James
The Good Thief cannot be used as an example of baptism of blood primarily because the Good Thief died under the Old Law, not the New Law; he died before the Law of Baptism was instituted by Jesus Christ after the Resurrection. For that reason, the Good Thief, like the Holy Innocents, constitutes no argument against the necessity of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”[cdxlvi]
So what of all the unbaptised martyr saints? You do realise that a 'baptism of blood' is not a literal baptism right? The situation simply is not as clear cut as you maintain, thankfully. I'm not sure I'd consider a God who condemned those who were unable to get baptised to hell as being one worthy of worship. You're quite right that baptism is necessary for us. Nothing is necessary for God. He can save whomsoever he wills, baptised or unbaptised, and we know that He wills all men to be saved. And goodness only knows why you keep quoting post-Schism RC councils here as though they are trump cards that prove your point - you do understand that we're as unlikely to be swayed by such arguments as we are to be convinced of sola scriptura based on the words of Martin Luther, don't you?
James
all you have to do is ask
THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH ALL TAUGHT BAPTISMAL REGENERATION AND THAT BAPTISM IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION
From the very beginning of the Christian Church, the fathers of the Church unanimously believed in the necessity of water baptism and baptismal regeneration. They based that belief on the teaching of the New Testament, John 3:5 and Apostolic Tradition. Here are just four passages. One could quote dozens of others.
In the Letter of Barnabas, dated as early as 70 A.D., we read:
“… we descend into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our heart…” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:34.)
In the Shepherd of Hermas, dated 140 A.D., Hermas quotes Jesus in John 3:5 and writes:
“They had need to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:92.)
In 155 A.D., in First Apology, 61, St. Justin the Martyr writes:
“… they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn… in the name of God… they receive the washing of water. For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ The reason for doing this we have learned from the apostles.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:126.)
St. Aphraates, the oldest of the Syrian fathers, writes in his Treatises, 336 A.D.:
“For from baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ… For the Spirit is absent from all those who are born of the flesh, until they come to the water of re-birth.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1: 681.)
So, you believe, in addition to all Catholics since the 1960s, that St. Thomas Aquinas is also a heretic. See below.
(from the Summa Theologica)
Objection 1. It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But those alone are saved who enter God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.
Objection 2. Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: "We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism." But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have the "faith that worketh by charity" (Gal. 5:6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.
Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.
I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."
Reply to Objection 1. As it is written (1 Kgs. 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Rm. 2:29) that "the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."
Reply to Objection 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Cor. 3:15.
Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).
St. Thomas Aquinas, despite all of his fabulous writing and learning about the
Catholic Faith, being a fallible human being, was wrong on many points, including his
explicit statement in the Summa Theologica that “The flesh of the Virgin was conceived in
Original Sin.”
This simply proves again that the theological speculations of even our greatest sainted
theologians are just that – fallible speculations. Only St. Peter and his successors, the
popes, when speaking from the Chair of Peter, have the unfailing faith.
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, ex cathedra:
“So, this gift of truth AND A NEVER FAILING FAITH WAS DIVINELY
CONFERRED UPON PETER AND HIS SUCCESSORS IN THIS
CHAIR...”244
In Summa Theologica III, Q. 66, Art. 11, St. Thomas tries to explain his belief in baptism
of desire and blood. He tries to explain how there can be “three baptisms” (water, blood
and desire) when St. Paul declares in Ephesians 4:5 that there is only one. He says:
“The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy,
both from Christ’s Passion and of the Holy Ghost.”245
With all due respect to St. Thomas, this is a feeble attempt to answer the objection as
to how there can be “three baptisms” when God reveals that there is only one. It is
feeble because St. Thomas says that the other two baptisms, desire and blood, are
included in the baptism of water; but this is false. One who receives baptism of water
doesn’t receive baptism of desire and baptism of blood, even according to the baptism of
desire advocates. Therefore, it is false to say, as St. Thomas does, that the other two
baptisms are included in the baptism of water; they most certainly are not.
Furthermore, in teaching the theory of baptism of desire, St. Thomas repeatedly
admitted that neither is a sacrament.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, Q. 66, A. 11, Answer 2: “As stated
above, a sacrament is a kind of sign. The other two [baptism of desire and
blood], however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign,
but in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not sacraments.”246
The fierce baptism of desire advocate, Fr. Laisney, admits the same in his book, Is
Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 9:
Fr. Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 9: “Baptism of Desire is not a sacrament; it
does not have the exterior sign required in the sacraments. The theologians,
following St. Thomas... call it ‘baptism’ only because it produces the grace of
baptism... yet it does not produce the sacramental character.”247
But the Council of Trent (a few centuries after St. Thomas, in 1547) infallibly defined
as a dogma that THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM is necessary for salvation!
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of
Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the
sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf.
Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”248
So, whom does one follow, St. Thomas or the infallible Council of Trent? Compare
the two:
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, Q. 68, Art. 2: “... it seems that a man
can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible
sanctification...”
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7,
1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that
is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”249
There is an obvious contradiction here. The fallible St. Thomas Aquinas says that it is
possible to obtain salvation without the Sacrament of Baptism, while the infallible
Council of Trent defines that the sacrament is necessary for salvation. And what does
“necessary” mean? According to Part III, Q. 68, A. 2, Obj. 3 in St. Thomas’ own Summa
Theologica, “that is necessary without which something cannot be (Metaph. V).”250 Thus,
“necessary” means without which something cannot be. Thus, salvation cannot be – it is
impossible – without the Sacrament of Baptism (de fide, Council of Trent). Catholics must
accept this truth and reject St. Thomas’s fallible opinion in the Summa Theologica on
baptism of desire.
Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is
preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”251
Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: “This deposit of faith our
Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the
faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the
Church.’”252
Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi dominic gregis (#45), Sept. 8, 1907: “It goes without
saying that if anything is met with among the scholastic doctors which may be
regarded as an excess of subtlety, or which is altogether destitute of probability,
We have no desire whatever to propose it for the imitation of present
generations.”253
And just in case anyone argues that one can receive the Sacrament of Baptism without
water, I will quote the Council of Trent’s definition in Can. 2.
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of
Baptism, Session 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that
real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on
that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a
man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are
distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”254
It would have been interesting to see, however, what St. Thomas would have said if
he had lived until the dogmatic Council of Vienne in 1311. St. Thomas died in 1274, 37
years before the Council. The Council of Vienne infallibly defined as a dogma that there is
only one baptism that must be confessed by all Catholics, and that the one baptism is
water baptism.
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311‐1312, ex cathedra:
“Besides, one baptism which regenerates all who are baptized
in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as ‘one God
and one faith’ [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we
believe to be commonly the perfect remedy for salvation for
adults as for children.”255
This definition is crucial to this discussion, because one cannot affirm one baptism of
water and at the same time obstinately cling to the belief that there are “three baptisms,”
two of which are not of water. That is a clear contradiction. Those who understand and
comprehend this dogma must repudiate the so‐called “three baptisms.”
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/2nd_edition_final.pdf
