Saturday, December 16, 2017

Realizing the Narrow Gate Part II: The Middle Ages and Christ in the New Testament

This is the second video in the series, 'Realizing the Narrow Gate', in which I discuss the imagery of juxtaposing good and evil in the Church.

For evil men have no hope of things to come, and the lamp of the wicked shall be put out. Prov24:20


22 comments:

Catholic Mission said...

Matthew,
Rahner and Balthasar were influenced by the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and Vatican Council II. The 1949 Letter to the Archbishop of Boston rejected traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).It suggested that there was known salvation outside the Church.
Similarly Vatican Council II can also be interpreted to suggest that there is known salvation outside the Church e.g LG 16 ( invincible ignorance), LG 14( catechumen saved outside the Church with the desire for the baptism of water) etc.
So when there is known salvation outside the Church for Rahner, Balthasar and Ratzinger it means non Catholics are being saved in their religion and every one does not necessarily need to be a Catholic to go to Heaven.
This was the opening.
From here we have Bishop Barron's most people are saved.
So there is no tension of the opposite any more. The narrow gate has been widened.
There is now a new paradign shift.A general apostasy which is officially Catholic and which is based on a new theology.It is also used by the traditionalists.
This error can be corrected when the false philosophy and theology is recognised with the specific false premise. When we are aware of the false premise then we can avoid it. When we avoid it we are back to the past ecclesiology.
Then there is no paradigm shift since we have not rejected Vatican Council II and we still are affirming the exclusivist ecclesiology of the past.-Lionel Andrades

Matthew Bellisario said...

Why do you not respond on the same post? Can you not see this is not the post where we are having the conversation? Who cares about Barron, the Church teaches that it is a possibility, period.

What you say makes absolutely no sense. "Someone in the past cannot be an exception to all needing to enter the Church for salvation in 2017." I am not claiming this to be the case, obviously. No one is saying that these exceptions mean no one has to convert. No one is saying that this is an escape clause for everyone outside the Church. The fact is, there are many examples in Church history where we have Saints that are included in the Church's Martyrology who were Saints through Baptism by blood. That is a fact. So it is a possibility today, period. Its like saying the apostles did great miracles, since we don't see the same types of miracles happening today in New York City, we don't believe in miracles exercised through Christ's successors anymore. Nor are we saying that these miracles must happen on a daily basis. So likewise no one is saying that everyone gets a free pass in Baptism by Blood. We are simply saying it is a possibility that it can happen today. Are you going to deny all of the Saints who are in the Martyrology via Baptism by Blood, and deny it cannot happen today? Is that your argument?

From the Roman Martyrology: "Saint Victor: At Braga in Portugal, of Saint Victor, Martyr, who while still a catechumen refused to worship an idol, and confessed Christ Jesus with great constancy; wherefore after many torments, he merited to be baptized in his own blood, his head being cut off. Victor of Braga Martyr (Red Martyr): Died c. 300. In his chronicle, Vasaeus records that Saint Victor was baptized by blood. The catechumen was beheaded at Braga, Portugal, under Diocletian for refusing to sacrifice to idols (Benedictines, Husenbeth)

Maximianus in 303 or 308. Feast, 25 Aug, He was captured and executed, and received baptism in his own blood.

Do you also reject all of the Church Fathers and Saints such as Aquinas who clearly state it is a very real possibility?

Aquinas, "a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's
Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apoc. 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance."

In summary, I do not know of many who are claiming that Baptism of Blood is an, "exception to all needing to enter the Church for salvation." The Church teaches that Baptism by Blood is a possibility today as it has been since the coming of Christ. We have concrete examples in the history of the Church. If you cannot respond coherently on the same post please refrain. Your writing is hard enough to follow.

Catholic Mission said...

Why do you not respond on the same post? Can you not see this is not the post where we are having the conversation? Who cares about Barron, the Church teaches that it is a possibility, period.

Matthew, you have referred to Rahner and Balthasar on this post.You have referred to their theology.So I mentioned it in this post.
You mentioned Balthasars liberal theology. Bishop Barron's statement is a continuation and completion of Balthasar and Rahners error.It all begins with known salvation outside the Church.-Lionel

Catholic Mission said...

What you say makes absolutely no sense. "Someone in the past cannot be an exception to all needing to enter the Church for salvation in 2017." I am not claiming this to be the case, obviously.
Lionel: Then why did you mention the Holy Innocents who are in Heaven without being baptised ? You mention this in the context of extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
________________________________


No one is saying that these exceptions mean no one has to convert. No one is saying that this is an escape clause for everyone outside the Church.
Lionel: But it is an escape clause for you so you have mentioned it in the context of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).This is confirmed in the following statements of yours.
____________________________

The fact is, there are many examples in Church history where we have Saints that are included in the Church's Martyrology who were Saints through Baptism by blood. That is a fact. So it is a possibility today, period.
Lionel:
Yes there can be a possibilitiy that someone was saved with the baptism of blood(BOB) or someone was saved with the baptism of blood and without the baptism of water or no one was saved with the baptism of blood and without the baptism of water this year.
These are possibilities.
Are you mentioning this with reference to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS)? You are not saying that these are exceptions in 2017.Or do they have nothing to do with the dogma EENS?
_________________________


Its like saying the apostles did great miracles, since we don't see the same types of miracles happening today in New York City, we don't believe in miracles exercised through Christ's successors anymore. Nor are we saying that these miracles must happen on a daily basis. So likewise no one is saying that everyone gets a free pass in Baptism by Blood. We are simply saying it is a possibility that it can happen today. Are you going to deny all of the Saints who are in the Martyrology via Baptism by Blood, and deny it cannot happen today? Is that your argument?
Lionel: My arguement is that everyone who is in Heaven is a Catholic and he or she is there with the baptism of water and Catholic faith( by faith I mean, the teachings on morals and faith/salvation and the use of the Sacraments).
So if there is someone who is in Heaven today with the baptism of blood and without the faith and baptism who is he ? Who could have seen such a person in the past? How was it possible for the Martyrology to suggest that a particular saint was in Heaven without the baptism of water?
Were they were speculating with goodwill?
________________________________

Matthew Bellisario said...

You say, "So if there is someone who is in Heaven today with the baptism of blood and without the faith and baptism who is he ? Who could have seen such a person in the past? How was it possible for the Martyrology to suggest that a particular saint was in Heaven without the baptism of water? Were they were speculating with goodwill?"

The answer, the people in the past I have already named, Saint Victor and Saint Maximianus. They are actual people who lived and have been named as being Saints according to Baptism by Blood. Why do you go against what the Church teaches as well as tradition?

Catholic Mission said...

Maximianus in 303 or 308. Feast, 25 Aug, He was captured and executed, and received baptism in his own blood.

Do you also reject all of the Church Fathers and Saints such as Aquinas who clearly state it is a very real possibility?

Lionel: Since it was a possibility for the saints you are saying that it is a practical reality now? What has this to do with EENS?
I accept the possibility but I do not make a connection with the dogma EENS. Since for there to be an exception to EENS or for BOB to even be relevant to EENS there must be an actual person in our reality.A possibility in the past cannot be a reality of BOB in 2017.
This would be irrational.
A BOB case cannot exist in our reality. So it cannot be relevant to all needing to be members of the Church for salvation.
Acquinas refers to a possibility.He does not name any particular person.Since we humans can only speculate and hope.
The Church does not say that someone saw Maximus in Heaven in 303 without the baptism of water and catholic faith.If he is in Heaven he is there with faith and baptism.
It is also a possibility that the baptism of desire could be followed by the baptism of water in a manner known only to God.
St.Francis Xavier and the saints had people come back from the dead only to be baptised with water.

Catholic Mission said...

In summary, I do not know of many who are claiming that Baptism of Blood is an, "exception to all needing to enter the Church for salvation."
Lionel:
Then why have you mentioned the baptism of blood with reference to EENS?
Do you hold the Feeneyite position and say that there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS. Would you say that invisible for us baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are not visible exceptions to Feeneyite EENS?
_________________________________


The Church teaches that Baptism by Blood is a possibility today as it has been since the coming of Christ.
Lionel:
O.k.
But if the Church assumes that the baptism of blood(BOB),baptism of desire(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are exceptions or relevant to EENS, then 'the Church' made an objective mistake? Since there are no practical exceptions to EENS known to us.
_____________________________

We have concrete examples in the history of the Church.
Lionel:
How can there be concrete examples for us human beings in 2017? Do you know any one this year saved outside the Church? Can you know any one?
Could they know any one in 1965 or 1949? No.It was not possible.
Could they know of someone in 303 or the time of St. Thomas Aquinas? No.It was not possible.
____________________________


If you cannot respond coherently on the same post please refrain.

Lionel: I am saying that I do not know of a baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance case this year. I think neither do you.
I am saying that there are no practical exceptions to EENS this year for me.Perhaps you are saying the same thing.
I am saying that since St. Victor or some other saint was considered possibily saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church does not make him an exception to the dogma EENS in 2017. You are saying it does. For me this is not being coherent.
I have priests, an apologist, a Dean of Theology and an American Archbishop who agree with me.
___________________________________


Your writing is hard enough to follow.

Matthew Bellisario said...

I think you are irrational. Baptism by Blood is a teaching of the Church. There are declared Saints who are in heaven who did not receive the Sacrament of water Baptism. Deal with it. This has nothing to do with evangelization. Instead of wasting your time wringing your hands over this, go out and make some converts!

Catholic Mission said...

Your writing is hard enough to follow.


I understand.
It since our premises are different are conclusions are different.
The inferences of the magisterium on this subject, for me are irrational, non traditional and heretical. They are also you inferences.
So you would not understand what I am saying.-Lionel

Matthew Bellisario said...

I understand clearly that you have no idea what you are talking about. You cannot put a paragraph together that is coherent. Baptism by Blood is a teaching of the Church of which it is possible in any age of the Church. Go read Aquinas, and then come back to me with a coherent argument.

Catholic Mission said...

I understand clearly that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Lionel:
Let's start from basic philosophy.Let's begin with the Principle of Non Contradiction.
A thing cannot be visible and invisible at the same time.In general this is not possible for us human beings. Would you agree?

_______________________________

If your answer is YES we can go ahead.If your answer is NO we would have to try another philoophical approach and be positive.

So a thing cannot be visible and invisible at the same time.
I say this with reference to the baptism of desire.
A baptism of desire case of the past ( accepted theoretically by Lionel)is not visible in 2017.
A possibility in the past is not a known case in our present reality,with reference to the baptism of desire.
Let us assume that there was a case of the baptism of desire which was recognised by the Church and confirmed by modern liberal theologians as being genuine and excluding the baptism of water in the Church, it is not a concrete case in 2017.
Would you agree?

_______________________

So when the both of us look at the term baptism of desire, we can look at it differently.There are two premises to choose from.
You can assume that the baptism of desire refers to a known person in the present time or you can assume it refers to some possibility or real case in the past but not a person known in the present times.
So when we have two different premises then we must also have two different conclusions.
So when the both of us look at the term baptism of desire are premises are different and for both of us the conclusion, which is EENS is different.
For me EENS has no exceptions and the baptism of desire is not an exception.
For you EENS has exceptions and the baptism of desire is an exception.
Now extend this thinking to invincible ignorance(LG 16), seeds of the Word(AG 11), imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3), elements of sanctification and truth(LG 8), good and holy things in other religions(NA 2) etc.
We both would be reading Vatican Council II differently. What I say would make no sense to you.
Let me stop here.Do you agree with me?

Matthew Bellisario said...

No, I don't agree and I am not reading the Vatican II documents to come to my conclusion. I am reading the traditional theologians of the Church, who all confirm that the Baptism by Blood has been and is still a possibility.

Rev. Francis Spirago The Catechism Explained, a traditional catechetical works states clearly,

If baptism by water is impossible, it may be replaced by the baptism of desire, or by the baptism of blood, as in the case of those who suffer martyrdom for the faith of Christ.

The Emperor Valentinian II was on the way to Milan to be baptized when he was assassinated; St. Ambrose said of him that his desire had been the means of his cleansing. The patriarchs, prophets and holy men of the Old Testament had the baptism of desire; their love of God was ardent, and they wished to do all that He commands. God accepts the will for the deed; in this He manifests His super-abundant loving kindness. But all the
temporal penalties of sin are not remitted by the baptism of desire. Martyrdom for Christ's sake is the baptism of blood. This the holy innocents received, and the Church commemorates them as saints. All unbaptized persons who suffer martyrdom for the Christian faith, for some act of Christian virtue, or the fulfilment of a Christian duty, also received the baptism of blood. Witness St. John Baptist; or St. Emerentiana, who while yet a catechumen, was found by the pagans praying at St. Agnes' tomb, and was put ton death by them. The Church does not pray for the unbaptized who suffer death for Christ; for He Himself says,
"He that shall lose his life for Me, shall find it." (Matt. x. 39)

Matthew Bellisario said...

Also if you deny this premise you contradict the Baltimore Catechism which clearly states the fact,

Q. 651. What is Baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood for the faith of Christ.
Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.

Catholic Mission said...

Baptism by Blood is a teaching of the Church of which it is possible in any age of the Church.
Lionel:
It is a possibility for me.
I have said it before that I accept it as a possibility.
Would you agree that since it is only a possibility for me it would be followed by the baptism of water in the Catholic Church? This is the possibility for me.
By the way it can only be a possibility for us human beings, it cannot be anything else.If there was a real and known case of the baptism of desire it would only be known to God.
It would not be known to the saints or popes too.
However I accept the baptism of desire as a possibility.

Catholic Mission said...

Rev. Francis Spirago The Catechism Explained, a traditional catechetical works states clearly,

If baptism by water is impossible, it may be replaced by the baptism of desire, or by the baptism of blood, as in the case of those who suffer martyrdom for the faith of Christ.
Lionel:
O.K it is a possibiity for us. And if there was a known case it would only be known to God. It would not be known to someone who wrote a Martyrology.This is reality. This is not some theology or personal opinion of mine. A baptism of desire case can only be known to God.I repeat this is not my personal theology. This is something empirical.It is something obvious.
_______________________

The Emperor Valentinian II was on the way to Milan to be baptized when he was assassinated; St. Ambrose said of him that his desire had been the means of his cleansing.
Lionel: O.K so it is a possibility that the Emperor Valentianian is in Heaven,I accept it as a possibility.
Of course it is also a possibility that he may not be in Heaven and St. Ambrose was wrong. Since only after the saint died he would know for sure.
But it being a possibility is not a problem for me. A possibility is not relevant to the dogma EENS as an exception for me.A possibility is not visible.An invisible person cannot be an exception to EENS.
So it is a possibility. We agree here.
It is the same with St.Emerentiana and St. Victor.
______________________

Matthew Bellisario said...

You are arguing in circles. You just stated, "O.K it is a possibiity for us." That is what I have been saying. I have never claimed to know everyone who in heaven by Baptism of Blood. I merely stated that it is possible today. You kept arguing that it is not a possibility today, and now you are saying it is. Which is it? Logic tells us that people are not invisible. If it is a possibility then the possibility applies to the present. It is not your job to question God on who he allows to be saved by Baptism of Blood. Yo are not God. Let God be God and move on and start helping by leading people to Christ. I am done responding to this issue. The Church teaches that Baptism by Blood is a possibility. The Baltimore Catechism teaches this reality. Get over it and move on. I have no desire to waste any more time on this.

Catholic Mission said...

Also if you deny this premise you contradict the Baltimore Catechism which clearly states the fact,
Lionel: What premise are you referring to ?


Q. 651. What is Baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood for the faith of Christ.
Lionel: O.K. No Problem here.
_____________________________

Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
Lionel: O.K No problem here.
The text does not state that this is a reference to a known person in the past or someone who can be known in the future.
So for me, since a baptism of desire or blood- case would only be known to God there is no exception to EENS mentioned here.
However I accept that the liberal theologians, in 1949 Boston and then later at Vatican Council II assumed that the baptism of desire was an exception to Feeneyite EENS and so the inference was that these are known people saved outside the Church. But how can they be known people when they can only be known to God? Where are the practical exceptions to EENS, what are their names and surnames? There are none!
So let me repeat that I accept the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance as being a theoretical possibility. If someone is saved as such it would only be known to God.
The dogma says all need to be members of the Church for salvation.So for me every one who is in Heaven is there with the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. This is the practical reality for me, not because I can judge any one in particular but because the Church guided by the Holy Spirit teaches this in Vatican Council II(AG 7) and pre- Vatican Council II documents.

Catholic Mission said...

You are arguing in circles. You just stated, "O.K it is a possibiity for us."
Lionel: So we agree that it is a possibility.
_________________________________

That is what I have been saying.
Lionel: But we do not know that if God has saved 20 people this year with the baptism of desire and ten last year.We do not know of any concrete case.
Just because it was a possibility in the past we cannot say that there were 12 people saved this year without faith and baptism but with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.
__________________________________

I have never claimed to know everyone who in heaven by Baptism of Blood.
Lionel: How could you or any one claim to do this? We cannot know a baptism of desire case. This is a given.
______________________________

I merely stated that it is possible today.
Lionel: Yes and I agreed with you that it is possibile in the sense that anything is possible. There could also possibily not be a baptism of desire this year.
_______________________________

You kept arguing that it is not a possibility today, and now you are saying it is.
Lionel: I am saying anything is a possibility.
_______________________________

Which is it? Logic tells us that people are not invisible.
Lionel: People are not invisible?
The subject was EENS and are there any exceptions? Is the baptism of desire an exception' Does every one need to enter the Church or are there exceptions?
For me there are no exceptions. Since possibilities are not exceptions.For there to be an exception to EENS there must be a real person. A baptism of desire case is not a real person.It could never be a real person in the past or present. This is the error of the liberal theolgians.
St. Thomas Aquinas did not state that the man in the forest is a real person known to us.
He did not state that the catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it was a real person.
It is always the case of the unknown catechumen who desires the baptism of water and dies before he receives it. This was something overlooked by the theologians at Vatican Council II.
________________________


If it is a possibility then the possibility applies to the present.
Lionel. If there is a possibility of a baptism of desire how would it apply to the present for you and me ? It would only be known to God if it happened.
__________________________

It is not your job to question God on who he allows to be saved by Baptism of Blood.
Lionel: The subject is EENS and are there any exceptions. The baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma EENS since if there was a case of the baptism of desire it would only be known to God.
_________________________

Yo are not God. Let God be God and move on and start helping by leading people to Christ. I am done responding to this issue. The Church teaches that Baptism by Blood is a possibility.
Lionel: Yes and this is not a problem.
However when the liberal theologians who make up the magisterium of the Church (Pope Benedict, Cardinal Ladaria) tell us that a possibility is a known exception to the dogma EENS in the present times this is false. Invisible and unknown people for us human beings cannot be an exception to EENS.
Unknown people cannot be known examples for salvation outside of the Church. This was the mistake of Rahner and others and with this mistake they created their new paradigm shift. It was based on invisible cases of the baptism of desire being visible exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.
_______________________________
The Baltimore Catechism teaches this reality. Get over it and move on. I have no desire to waste any more time on this.

Lionel: I do not consider this a waste of time.I appreciate your interest in St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas affirmed the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS and did not consider possibilities as being exceptions. However the liberal theologians have made the wrong inference and then they attribute it to Aquinas.-

Matthew Bellisario said...

Its funny Thomas disagrees with your novel, liberal interpretation.

As stated above (III:62:5), Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this it is written (Isaiah 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): "The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable."

Aquinas says you are wrong. You are trying to invent a teaching that is foreign to the Church.

Catholic Mission said...






I have said that I accept the baptism of desire as a possibility. So why are you still sending me these quotations ?
Do you doubt me?
You have not denied that there are no practical exceptions to EENS in 2017. You do not know any one saved with the baptism of desire this year. You do not know of any one saved without faith and baptism throughout your life.So the baptism of desire is not a practical exception to EENS. So why are you citing these baptism of desire references?
______________________________


Catholic Mission said...

Aquinas says you are wrong. You are trying to invent a teaching that is foreign to the Church.
Lionel: On line you can read a quotation of St.Thomas Aquinas where he affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.
You can also find the quotation where he refers to the man in the forest in invincible ignorance of the Gospel, to whom God sends a preacher and so he can be saved.The text does not state that we can know any person as such.
So Aquinas was affirming the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS with no known baptism of desire and invincible ignorance cases.
If you check Wikipedia (See Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus) there will popes who interpret EENS in the same way. So please do not say this is foreign.
To assume invisible cases of BOD are visible exceptions to EENS would be irrational.I avoid it.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Read Aquinas,

As stated above (III:62:5), Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this it is written (Isaiah 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): "The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable."

You ideas are foreign, you have no idea what you are talking about. Anyone who uses Wikipedia as a source for their argument cannot be taken seriously. Not to be insulting, I have figured out that English is not your native language. You can't spell and you cant form sentences or paragraphs that are legible and you constantly contradict yourself. If you can understand me, do not post on this blog anymore.