Catholic research Baptism of Desire
A recent study shows a footnote in the 1st Roman Catholic New Testament in English Anno 1582 with respect to baptism of desire. St. John Gospel Chapter 3 verse 5 Jesus answered, Amen, Amen, I say to …More
A recent study shows a footnote in the 1st Roman Catholic New Testament in English Anno 1582 with respect to baptism of desire.
St. John Gospel Chapter 3 verse 5 Jesus answered, Amen, Amen, I say to thee, Unless a man be born again of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
The footnote in 1st Catholic N.T. in English 1582 and reprinted in several editions up too 1792 states.
-Baptism in water necessary to salvation.- 5. Born again of water.] As no man can enter into this world nor have his life and being in the same, except he be born of his carnal parents: no more can a man enter into the life and state of grace which is in Christ, or attain to life everlasting, unless he be born and baptized of water and the Holy Ghost. Whereby we see first, this Sacrament to be called our regeneration or second birth, in respect of our natural and carnal which was before. Secondly, that this sacrament consisteth of an external element of water, and internal virtue of the Holy …More
St. John Gospel Chapter 3 verse 5 Jesus answered, Amen, Amen, I say to thee, Unless a man be born again of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
The footnote in 1st Catholic N.T. in English 1582 and reprinted in several editions up too 1792 states.
-Baptism in water necessary to salvation.- 5. Born again of water.] As no man can enter into this world nor have his life and being in the same, except he be born of his carnal parents: no more can a man enter into the life and state of grace which is in Christ, or attain to life everlasting, unless he be born and baptized of water and the Holy Ghost. Whereby we see first, this Sacrament to be called our regeneration or second birth, in respect of our natural and carnal which was before. Secondly, that this sacrament consisteth of an external element of water, and internal virtue of the Holy …More
Lionel L. Andrades
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
rhemes1582 yesterday
Lionel The notes in the Rhemes 1582 New Testament state
Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remediless necessity could not obtain it. …More
rhemes1582 yesterday
Lionel The notes in the Rhemes 1582 New Testament state
Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remediless necessity could not obtain it.
It is referring to a hypothetical case and not someone personally known.
__________________________________
Clearly these souls mentioned in the notes have not yet become visible members of the Catholic Church, because as the notes state { by some REMEDILESS necessity could NOT obtain it.
So you agree that they are not known, they are invisible ?
_________________________________
YET the same note states : Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized,
Are they still unknown and invisible for you? They are for me.
____________________________
Lionel You claim to find the mistake when you state: ( Here is the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member...
The Letter assumes the baptism of desire is visble and personally known. So it says not every one needs to be incorporated into the Church as a member.)
The mistake is not in the document, The letter as I read it is not in error when compared withe the note printed 435 years ago.
The Catechism of Pope Pius X says every one needs to be a member of the Church for salvation. It does not state that being saved in invincible ignorance etc is an exception. The text of the Letter is saying the opposite.
Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 says every one needs to be a member. The Letter is saying the opposite.
O.K if every body does not need to be incorporated into the Church then the question is why?
Why? Since for the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 there are exceptions. The baptism of desire etc were exceptions .Why were they exceptions since they referred to known cases.
______________________________________
The error lies in Your argument & assumption here when you claim wrongly "
I support the Catechism of Pope Pius X and the Council of Florence 1441. The Letter which you support contradicts them both.I am not saying any thing new. The Letter has come out with a new theory based on the baptism of desire being personally known and a visible exception to the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Church.
______________________________________
So it says not every one needs to be incorporated into the Church as a member" Lionel you are applying your assumption, wrongly to make this document say something it does not.
I knew you could say this so I posted the whole document for you.I did not post my interpretation. I simply highligted the heretical passage in red.
___________________________________________
The letter is in agreement with the defined requirements for baptism of desire, to be met as stated in the notes of the 1582 N.T.
Yes.As a possibility,as a theory but not as a known case.This was the wrong inference of the Letter.
Well, if it was only a possibility, a hypothetical case then please tell me how could this imaginary case be an explicit exception to all needing to be incorporated into the Church as members for example in 2017?
Lionel The notes in the Rhemes 1582 New Testament state
Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remediless necessity could not obtain it.
It is referring to a hypothetical case and not someone personally known.
__________________________________
Clearly these souls mentioned in the notes have not yet become visible members of the Catholic Church, because as the notes state { by some REMEDILESS necessity could NOT obtain it.
So you agree that they are not known, they are invisible ?
_________________________________
YET the same note states : Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized,
Are they still unknown and invisible for you? They are for me.
____________________________
Lionel You claim to find the mistake when you state: ( Here is the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member...
The Letter assumes the baptism of desire is visble and personally known. So it says not every one needs to be incorporated into the Church as a member.)
The mistake is not in the document, The letter as I read it is not in error when compared withe the note printed 435 years ago.
The Catechism of Pope Pius X says every one needs to be a member of the Church for salvation. It does not state that being saved in invincible ignorance etc is an exception. The text of the Letter is saying the opposite.
Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 says every one needs to be a member. The Letter is saying the opposite.
O.K if every body does not need to be incorporated into the Church then the question is why?
Why? Since for the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 there are exceptions. The baptism of desire etc were exceptions .Why were they exceptions since they referred to known cases.
______________________________________
The error lies in Your argument & assumption here when you claim wrongly "
I support the Catechism of Pope Pius X and the Council of Florence 1441. The Letter which you support contradicts them both.I am not saying any thing new. The Letter has come out with a new theory based on the baptism of desire being personally known and a visible exception to the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Church.
______________________________________
So it says not every one needs to be incorporated into the Church as a member" Lionel you are applying your assumption, wrongly to make this document say something it does not.
I knew you could say this so I posted the whole document for you.I did not post my interpretation. I simply highligted the heretical passage in red.
___________________________________________
The letter is in agreement with the defined requirements for baptism of desire, to be met as stated in the notes of the 1582 N.T.
Yes.As a possibility,as a theory but not as a known case.This was the wrong inference of the Letter.
Well, if it was only a possibility, a hypothetical case then please tell me how could this imaginary case be an explicit exception to all needing to be incorporated into the Church as members for example in 2017?