The Catholic Message Board
http://forums.avemariaradio.net/

in voto
http://forums.avemariaradio.net/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=162723
Page 1 of 2

Author:  Jack3 [ Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:47 am ]
Post subject:  in voto

What does it mean?

Author:  Obi-Wan Kenobi [ Mon Mar 14, 2016 7:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: in voto

By desire, more or less.

Author:  Jack3 [ Mon Mar 14, 2016 9:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re: in voto

Is it true to say that all sacramental graces can be received in voto?

Author:  Obi-Wan Kenobi [ Mon Mar 14, 2016 10:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: in voto

Are you trying to match me up against PED? :D

One cannot be ordained or married in voto.

Author:  Jack3 [ Mon Mar 14, 2016 10:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: in voto

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
Are you trying to match me up against PED? :D

:scratch:
Quote:
One cannot be ordained or married in voto.

So, are you giving a positive nod to the other Sacraments?

Author:  Peregrinator [ Mon Mar 14, 2016 10:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: in voto

You've never heard the heartwarming tale of the young man who experienced matrimony of desire?

Author:  Pro Ecclesia Dei [ Mon Mar 14, 2016 12:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: in voto

The sacramentum et res of the sacraments cannot be received by an act of charity coupled with a vow to receive them (in voto is stronger than desire)

Hence, the marital bond, the character of holy orders, the body and blood of our Lord, baptism, confirmation, etc cannot be received in voto. No sacrament can

What can be is the res tantum, hence one may receive the forgiveness of sins, or the strengthening of the gifts of the holy Spirit (confirmational graces), graces impelling toward unity (Eucharistic).

The res tantum of Holy Orders cannot be received precisely as such in voto, as they are ordered to the holy use of the office given by the character. However, analogous graces, and the increase in sanctifying grace that comes from serving the Lord, can be received extra sacramentally

The res tantum of marriage CAN be received in voto, not just analogously, but properly, in the case of a marriage involving disparity of cult. A valid marriage between a Christian and a nonbaptised person is not a sacrament (sent. comm.). Nevertheless, the baptized person can indeed receive sanctifying grace through this marriage, and the graces of keeping the union, through acts of charity and will (in voto)


So the question is premised on a twisted view of what even baptism in voto means. NO ONE IS BAPTIZED except by water. NO ONE. Baptism of desire or blood does not mark you with a baptismal character, it does not make you a member of the Church, it is not a sacrament. And without the sacramentum tantum (the pouring of water and words) there is no sacramentum et res (baptismal character). And the same holds true with every sacrament.

But the res tantum (forgiveness of sins, sanctifying grace) of any sacrament is able to be sought in charity, according to the disposition of the one so desiring... an unmarried person has no marriage to be sanctified in, nor does a person not ordained have an office of orders to administer, but as said before, they can receive analogous graces

Author:  Jack3 [ Mon Mar 14, 2016 8:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: in voto

Pro Ecclesia Dei wrote:
Baptism of desire or blood does not make you a member of the Church

Then why do we venerate some of them them as saints?

Author:  Peregrinator [ Mon Mar 14, 2016 8:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: in voto

Jack3 wrote:
Pro Ecclesia Dei wrote:
Baptism of desire or blood does not make you a member of the Church

Then why do we venerate some of them them as saints?

If they are in heaven they are members of the Church.

Author:  Jack3 [ Mon Mar 14, 2016 8:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: in voto

Peregrinator wrote:
Jack3 wrote:
Pro Ecclesia Dei wrote:
Baptism of desire or blood does not make you a member of the Church

Then why do we venerate some of them them as saints?

If they are in heaven they are members of the Church.

So is PED wrong?

Author:  Obi-Wan Kenobi [ Mon Mar 14, 2016 10:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: in voto

They can't receive sacraments.

Author:  Jack3 [ Tue Mar 15, 2016 1:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: in voto

Is it necessary to recieve sacraments to be a member of the Church?

Author:  Peregrinator [ Tue Mar 15, 2016 7:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: in voto

Jack3 wrote:
Is it necessary to recieve sacraments to be a member of the Church?

Baptism is necessary for membership in the Church. Here on earth one isn't a member of the Church unless he has received the character of baptism. I'm sure that's what PED was referring to.

Author:  Pro Ecclesia Dei [ Tue Mar 15, 2016 7:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: in voto

For the last time, a sacrament is a sacred sign that effects what it signifies. There is no signification in baptism in voto, hence it is not a sacrament. Likewise, the res et sacramentum, then baptismal character here, is the proper and always caused effect of the sacrament, which we have established does not happen here.

But the res tantum can be separated.

The Baltimore Catechism, at least the St. Joseph edition, happily makes this same point, that neither baptism of blood nor desire is a sacrament, neither do they make one an actual member of the Church.

Baptism of desire is nothing more than a PERFECT act of charity/contrition, coupled with a will to be baptized. Hence one is united virtually, through intent and love, but not actually to the Church.

As the Catholic Encyclopedia says, "baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism... it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins"

But it is simply erroneous, not my opinion but actually wrong and t0 be reprobated, to hold that the reception of sacramental graces outside the sacraments is equal to the sacraments. I vomit at the suggestion, and vehemently denounce such error. Indeed, again, only the actual sacrament of baptism imparts the baptismal character, and it is that which makes one an ACTUAL member of the Church. I am not opining here. I am absolutely certain of this.

The state of those who have died is another question

Author:  forumjunkie [ Tue Mar 15, 2016 8:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: in voto

Pro Ecclesia Dei wrote:
I vomit at the suggestion


https://youtu.be/dCoOcBv01aA?t=11

Author:  Jack3 [ Tue Mar 15, 2016 8:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: in voto

Is it correct to say that baptism of blood does not make you a member of the Church till the moment you reach Heaven?

Author:  forumjunkie [ Tue Mar 15, 2016 9:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: in voto

Jack3 wrote:
Is it correct to say that baptism of blood does not make you a member of the Church till the moment you reach Heaven?


I think it is probably correct to say that baptism by blood does not make you a member of the Church. Period. But, that what we mean by "baptism by blood" is that God intervenes and makes the person a member of the Church in a way not envisioned by the Gospel. And I think the same would be true by "baptism in voto."

I think PED's point is that we need to distinguish between a revealed way sacramentally which brings a lot of things (including certainty of validity) and these extrasacramental means which bring possibilities (based on the power and authority of God), but may not bring the certainty.

FJ

Author:  Pro Ecclesia Dei [ Sat Mar 19, 2016 11:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: in voto

forumjunkie wrote:
Jack3 wrote:
Is it correct to say that baptism of blood does not make you a member of the Church till the moment you reach Heaven?


I think it is probably correct to say that baptism by blood does not make you a member of the Church. Period. But, that what we mean by "baptism by blood" is that God intervenes and makes the person a member of the Church in a way not envisioned by the Gospel. And I think the same would be true by "baptism in voto."

I think PED's point is that we need to distinguish between a revealed way sacramentally which brings a lot of things (including certainty of validity) and these extrasacramental means which bring possibilities (based on the power and authority of God), but may not bring the certainty.

FJ

I am saying more than that, though what you say is certainly correct.

The baptismal character is simply and with certitude not imparted by baptism of blood/desire, no more than the real body of Christ becomes substantially present in spiritual communion.

A catechumen who has perfect charity, which is the essence of baptism in voto, would indeed be sanctified by grace, but not yet an actual member of the Church. Not merely not a member with some extrinsic certitude, but not an actual member. I like to say he would be a virtual member, but afaik no one else speaks with that term.

Now. We are speaking of those in the Church militant. Those in the Church triumphant are united to Christ the head in a different (more perfect) manner so the lack of a baptismal character, as well as the lack of visible communion here on earth, are not impediments to being actual glorified members of Christ. But here and now they are. Only those who have been baptized and are united in faith and the government of the Church may be counted as actual members of the Church, precisely because her existence is visible, external etc, and this cannot be separated from her spiritual reality.


Here is a question to start and see why I think this is not splitting hairs. Say Bob, raised unbaptized, when he hits the age of reason turns toward God as his final end and has baptism of desire (for the only other outcome is mortal sin, as the 1st act of the will is one of those two). So far so good? When he is eleven he loses faith and commits mortal sin, but when 20 he converts. When he is baptized, does he have to confess sins between the ages of 7-20 in the sacrament of penance? No, right? Again, between 7-11 could he receive the Eucharist? No. Was he truly cleansed of original sin at 7? Yes. But the way in which the sacrament effects that reality, the remission of sins, is not only more certain, but more perfect. Precisely because it effects the spiritual reality of the baptismal character, which disposes the soul to a certain conformity to the death of Christ. And thus, as long as not impeded, operates in the soul. Whereas baptism in voto, is more of a here and now effect, not itself effecting any special form on the soul.

Author:  Jack3 [ Sun Mar 20, 2016 12:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: in voto

Thank you

Author:  Jack3 [ Thu Mar 31, 2016 10:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: in voto

Please help me in marriage:

I used to believe baptism of desire or of blood are baptism-but-not-sacrament. Similarly, non Christian marriages, I thought, were marriage-but-not-sacrament.
But in this thread, I learnt I was wrong.
So how are married non Christians not living in adulterous relationships?

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/