The Holy Innocents (as all OT saints) have no connection to baptism as the sacrament was not in place nor was the New Covenant. St. Dismas is potentially the same case, since Jesus had yet to die on the cross - its also very likely that St. Dismas was a baptized disciple

From the forum Suscipe Domine

 Davis Blank - EG

• St. Joseph's Workbench
• Korporal
• 
• Posts: 446
• Thanked: 543 times
• Religion: Roman Catholic

Re: Church Militant promoting Fr. Feeney

« Reply #61 on: April 14, 2019, 11:34:12 PM »

Quote

Well, there is no way they could be saved if one must have a water Baptism to be saved. Because any Salvation after the Sacrament of Baptism or after death would negate water Baptism as an absolute necessity for Salvation.

I do not understand, please elaborate.  To clarify my belief, the Holy Innocents (as all OT saints) have no connection to baptism as the sacrament was not in place nor was the New Covenant.  St. Dismas is potentially the same case, since Jesus had yet to die on the cross - its also very likely that St. Dismas was a baptized disciple given how much he knew of this otherwise random Jew hanging on a cross next to him.

Quote

Saint Xi Guizi
Saint Huailu Zhang
Saint Rhaid of Alexandria
Saint Perpetua
Saint Felicity

As for these martyr saints (although I could not find anything on Saint Rhaid, is that a typo?) - is there an infallible decree that these people died without water baptism?  If not, then here is what we do know:

1) they were martyred

2) we do not have record of water baptism

3) they are in Heaven

From this how does it follow that they absolutely never received water baptism?  They could have been baptized by friends or by angels, who knows.  Besides, that they are described as catechumen does not mean that they were not already water baptized.  After an adult is baptized he still continues on in catechetical class as a catechumenate.

What we do know is the clear text of Scripture, and also our Creeds.

"Confíteor unum baptísma in remissiónem peccatórum."

And so I believe it unfounded to throw clear text out the window for theological speculation built upon speculation built upon more speculation.  Instead I propose the prudent thing to do is confess one baptism (water) and note that there are subsets of baptism, all being the same water baptism.  Some obvious subsets are infant baptism and adult baptism.  Less common ones are water baptisms done in emergency by the laity, or baptisms done by heretics.  Other subsets would be blood and desire, in which God miraculously water baptizes before the faithful depart to their reward in Heaven.  All the same baptism, all are salvific, all involve water.  Its merely that in the latter two subsets it is unclear to our visible eyes that these saints were ever water baptized.

I still have not heard a response from Mr. Philip G. or your good self as to why this is unacceptable.

Edit:

I think Innocent Smith's comment on baptism of blood / desire being a misuse of language is also worth considering.
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=21825.60