Why the Council of Trent Does Not Teach Baptism of Desire

From an anonymous author, and please excuse the length of this.

Why the Council of Trent Does Not Teach Baptism of Desire

Proponents for the so-called Baptism of Desire (baptism of desire) adduce a certain passage from the Council of Trent as by far their single most cogent argument in its favor. Certainly, if the Council of Trent had in fact taught baptism of desire, then the case must be considered closed (“Roma dixit; res clausa est.” Rome has spoken; the matter is closed.) With that in mind, and fully prepared to accept whatever Holy Mother Church has taught on this subject, I determined to read the entire teaching of Trent, in Latin, from beginning to end, rather than simply being content with the single passage that’s invariably taken in isolation and out of context from the entire body of teaching. Translations, moreover, have this tendency to interpret as they go along, and, to a point, that almost cannot be helped. I asked the Holy Spirit to guide me in understanding the Church’s teaching and started reading. I actually began inclined in favor of a baptism of desire for catechumens, but the more I read the more I realized that Trent wasn’t teaching baptism of desire at all but something else altogether. I do not intend herein a comprehensive treatment regarding the notion of baptism of desire but merely to explain why it’s clear that Trent did not teach baptism of desire.

Let us begin by looking at (one popular translation of) the critical passage (I reference the older Enchiridion Symbolorum numbers throughout).

(796) In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the “adoption of the sons” [Rom. 8:15] of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior; and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration [can. 5 de bapt.], or a desire for it, as it is written: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” [John 3:5].

We notice right away that the translation “except through” is not a literal rendering of the Latin sine (which means literally “without”). So let us now consider the critical words in literal translation: “justification … cannot happen without the laver of regeneration (=Sacramental Baptism) or a desire for it” (translatio [=justificatio] … sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest). I’ve seen proponents of baptism of desire render this phrase as “without EITHER the laver of regeneration OR ELSE the desire for it”. But there’s no explicit “EITHER” here at all, which in Latin would require a second aut (sine AUT lavacro regenerationis AUT eius voto).

Now let’s look at the word translated as “desire”. In Latin it’s voto (a form of votum). Votum does not refer to a simple “desire” (or “wish” or “longing”) but is a much stronger word. It derives from the Latin word for a “vow” or solemn intention and is linguistically related to the word for “will” (volo). Notice the linguistic root vo- (volo (to will), voluntas (the will), votum). So the word votum actually refers to the will. I hereafter replace the word “desire” with “will”. I’ll come back to this notion of “will” when I discuss the entire context of Trent.

Now, having put aside this (deliberately?) misleading translation, let us consider the actual meaning of this passage. If someone were to say (“We cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball.”), you could take that in one of two ways. 1) We can play baseball with one OR the other (but do not require both). 2) We can play baseball only if we have both. If the first meaning had been intended, one would expect an emphatic EITHER … OR (ELSE) to make it clear. We cannot play baseball without EITHER a bat OR ELSE a ball. And that’s why some baptism of desire proponents actually insert an “ELSE” into their rendering (a word which is not there in the original Latin); they do so in order to impose their own interpretation on the passage.

Why wouldn’t the person just say (“We cannot play baseball without a bat and a ball.”)? Well, in a double-negative grammatical construction such as “cannot without”, the disjunctive “or” actually emphasizes that BOTH are required in that if one OR the other were absent, baseball cannot be played. In other words, were the double negative to be rendered as its positive equivalent, the “or” would become an emphatic “and”.

So did the Council of Trent use an ambiguous phrase here? Well, only if you don’t consider the immediate context (i.e. the very next passage). Let’s return to the baseball example. “We cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, for John said that we need a bat and a ball to play baseball.” Now, suddenly the immediate context disambiguates the phrase. So let’s return to Trent (I paraphrase the second part in order to illustrate my point): “Justification cannot happen without the laver or the will for it, for Jesus taught that water AND the Holy Spirit are required.” Trent makes the following analogy—laver:water::will:Holy Spirit (laver is to water as will is to the Holy Spirit). We’ll come back to that analogy later to show how Trent returns to it over and over again in its teaching.

So, in order to interpret Trent as teaching that this passage refers to an EITHER … OR would be the equivalent of saying that the phrase (“We cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, for John said that we need a bat and a ball to play baseball.”) really means with we can play baseball if we have either a bat or a ball. And that’s utterly absurd. So once we cut away the bad translation and look at the immediate context, Trent clearly teaches that BOTH water Baptism AND the will for it are required for justification.

OK, so why would Trent go out of its way to indicate that you need Baptism AND the will to receive it? Doesn’t that seem obvious and superfluous to teach? On the contrary ! Keep in mind that Trent was addressing the Protestant heresies.

(792a) Since at this time not without the loss of many souls and grave detriment to the unity of the Church there is disseminated a certain erroneous doctrine concerning justification …

Protestants denied the need for a cooperation of the will with grace in the process of justification. We see a recurrent theme in the teaching of Trent, the need for cooperation of the will with grace.

(797) the beginning of that justification must be derived from the predisposing grace [can. 3] of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from his vocation, whereby without any existing merits on their part they are called, so that they who by sin were turned away from God, through His stimulating and assisting grace are disposed to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and cooperating with the same grace [can. 4 and 5], in such wise that, while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself receiving that inspiration does not do nothing at all inasmuch as he can indeed reject it, nor on the other hand can he [can. 3] of his own free will without the grace of God move himself to justice before Him.

So one paragraph after the key phrase under discussion here, Trent emphasizes that grace AND free will are required to be moved to “justice” (=justification), that you cannot arrive at justification without BOTH. Notice how grace alone does not suffice (“man … does not do nothing at all inasmuch as he can reject it”) nor does will alone suffice (“nor on the other hand can he of his own free will without the grace of God”). Notice how Trent teaches that Holy Spirit inspires that cooperation of the will in its disposition towards justification. Now hearken back to the analogy from just a paragraph earlier—laver:water::will:Holy Spirit.

Now let’s consider a couple of the related canons.

(812) Can. 2. If anyone shall say that divine grace through Christ Jesus is given for this only, that man may more easily be able to live justly and merit eternal life, as if by free will without grace he were able to do both, though with difficulty and hardship: let him be anathema [cf. n. 795, 809]

(814) Can. 4. If anyone shall say that man’s free will moved and aroused by God does not cooperate by assenting to God who rouses and calls, whereby it disposes and prepares itself to obtain the grace of justification, and that it cannot dissent, if it wishes, but that like something inanimate it does nothing at all and is merely in a passive state: let him be anathema [cf. n. 797].

So Trent emphasizes and teaches dogmatically that neither free will without grace, nor grace without free will are sufficient in the process of justification. That’s why Trent taught that we cannot be justified without the laver or the will, because both the laver AND the will are required for justification.

Trent taught that the Holy Spirit inspires the will to predispose and prepare it for justification, and that justification itself happens as a grace through Baptism.

(799) Justification itself follows this disposition or preparation … through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts. … The causes of this justification are: … the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism.

Notice again this phrase, the “voluntary reception of the grace [of Baptism]”, hearkening back to the teaching that both the will AND Baptism are required for justification, so that if a person isn’t properly disposed at Baptism, Baptism doesn’t as it were magically and passively put the person into a state of justification. Recall how the words voluntas (->voluntary) and votum are linguistically related. So that the votum, the so-called “Baptism of Desire” keyword, actually refers to this “voluntary reception of” Baptism, the cooperation of the will in this process of justification.

Now, if Trent had truly intended to teach baptism of desire and the “three [so-called] baptisms”, then one would have certainly expected at least a token mention of Baptism of Blood (baptism of blood). Trent’s silence regarding baptism of blood further indicates that Trent had absolutely no intention of teaching about the “three baptisms” here.

Finally, one could actually read Trent as positively excluding baptism of desire, for Trent lists the intention to receive Baptism among the “dispositions” or “preparation” for Baptism.

(798) Now they are disposed to that justice [can. 7 and 9] when, aroused and assisted by divine grace, receiving faith “by hearing” [Rom. 10:17], they are freely moved toward God, believing that to be true which has been divinely revealed and promised [can. 12 and 14], and this especially, that the sinner is justified by God through his grace, “through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” [Rom. 3:24], and when knowing that they are sinners, turning themselves away from the fear of divine justice, by which they are profitably aroused [can. 8], to a consideration of the mercy of God, they are raised to hope, trusting that God will be merciful to them for the sake of Christ, and they begin to love him as the source of all justice and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation [can. 9], that is, by that repentance, which must be performed before baptism [Acts 2:38]; and finally when they resolve to receive baptism, to begin a new life and to keep the commandments of God.

So this “resolve” to receive Baptism (rendered in Latin by the verb propono, to “propose” or “intend”) Trent lists among the “dispositions” section in PREparation for justification. Then Trent declares, as cited above,

(799)f The causes of this justification are:
the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ and life everlasting; the efficient cause is the merciful God who washes and sanctifies[31] gratuitously, signing and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance,[32] the meritorious cause is His most beloved only begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies,[33] for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us,[34] merited for us justification by His most holy passion on the wood of the cross and made satisfaction for us to God the Father, the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith,[35] without which no man was ever justified finally, the single formal cause is the justice of God, not that by which He Himself is just, but that by which He makes us just, that, namely, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind,[36] and not only are we reputed but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to everyone as He wills,[37] and according to each one's disposition and cooperation.

So justification itself only FOLLOWS the dispositions or PREparations (in the Sacrament of Baptism)—which dispositions include the resolution to receive Baptism.

In conclusion, the Council of Trent does NOT teach that we can be justified by laver of regeneration OR the will for it, but rather—against the Protestant heresies–that both the grace of Baptism (the laver) AND cooperation of the WILL are required for justification.

The author of this non-academic paper appears to be Laszlo Szijarto; he's the one who posted it, anyway.

Once again we see nothing but private interpretations, selective readings, faulty assumptions and half-truths. There is not one authority, Pope, Doctor, Saint or Scholastic theologian cited to give at least the appearance of credibility to these theories.

The author makes a big deal about “votum” applying to the will, when this is not some new revelation as “votum” has always been understood as vow/intention and desire; with “desire” (as it is always translated) being a conscience act of the will. So what has that to do with overturning the Church's doctrine on baptism of blood/baptism of desire? Nothing – since “desire” in an intrinsic necessity for justification in adults whether the sacrament is received, or not.

The author writes:

So this “resolve” to receive Baptism (rendered in Latin by the verb propono,  to “propose” or “intend”) Trent lists among the “dispositions” section in PREparation for justification.  Then Trent declares, as cited above,

(799) Justification itself follows this disposition or preparation … through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts. … The causes of this justification are: … the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism.

So justification itself only FOLLOWS the dispositions or PREparations (in the Sacrament of Baptism)—which dispositions include the resolution to receive Baptism.

Again, SO WHAT? Justification follows the dispositions or preparations whether IN the sacrament of baptism or (in extraordinary cases) IN the desire for the same; which desire necessarily includes Faith, Charity and Intention. Obviously, Trent is focusing on the common, ordinary, chief and instrumental means of sanctification when explaining the detailed process and manner of preparation in preparation for the sacrament.

The author writes:

In conclusion, the Council of Trent does NOT teach that we can be justified by laver of regeneration OR the will for it, but rather—against the Protestant heresies–that both the grace of Baptism (the laver) AND cooperation of the WILL are required for justification.

Actually, Trent declared, and the Church confirms, that one may be justified by the laver of regeneration, or the desire for it. Also, to support his thesis, the author only focuses on one Protestant heresy, while ignoring the others related to the non-necessity of pure and natural water and for denying that the sacrament is efficacious by the very work performed. As such, he misses the entire context of Session VI, Ch. 4, and Session VII, Canon 2 On Baptism.

But that shouldn't surprise us when we see laymen attempt to overturn centuries of solid orthodoxy and tradition as attested to by the constant teaching of the Magisterium and the unanimous moral consensus of her saints and theologians.

MRyan wrote:
The author makes a big deal about “votum” applying to the will, when this is not some new revelation as “votum” has always been understood as vow/intention and desire; with “desire” (as it is always translated) being a conscience act of the will. So what has that to do with overturning the Church's doctrine on baptism of blood/baptism of desire? Nothing – since “desire” in an intrinsic necessity for justification in adults whether the sacrament is received, or not.

This has nothing to do with "overturning the Church's doctrine on baptism of blood/baptism of desire" since what the author is proving is the fact that the Church has never taught "Desire or Blood" to be divorced from the Water.
It is you MR who are consistantly proposing an interpretation the Church herself has never proposed and like CT pointed out in another thread, by your piling up a whole host of one or two-liners from Church docments, doctors and saints in suport of your position without subjecting them to the True dogmas, you enevitably "do" construct a straw man without the glue of dogma to hold the pieces together.

The OP by hsilver, shows the consistancy of the Church's teaching despite apparent contradictions and how everything She says (when read in it's proper context) adheres totally to her infallible pronouncements.

Think again MR.. Could it be possible that it be you who are the "Authority of one" and the Three-man-trailer you referred to in a previous thread actually contains the doctors, saints and scholars who would undoubtedly subject themselves to the defined dogmatic teachings?

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
The author makes a big deal about “votum” applying to the will, when this is not some new revelation as “votum” has always been understood as vow/intention and desire; with “desire” (as it is always translated) being a conscience act of the will. So what has that to do with overturning the Church's doctrine on baptism of blood/baptism of desire? Nothing – since “desire” in an intrinsic necessity for justification in adults whether the sacrament is received, or not.

This has nothing to do with "overturning the Church's doctrine on baptism of blood/baptism of desire" since what the author is proving is the fact that the Church has never taught "Desire or Blood" to be divorced from the Water.

Yes, it does; it is the author's attempt to “prove” that Trent did not teach that one may be justified by the desire for baptism. In this, he “proves” nothing except how any layman, without validation or corroboration from a single scholarly or authoritative source, can come up with his own novel theory that is opposed to the universal common consensus and understanding of the Church and her theologians. Even Fr. Feeney acknowledged this same understanding while remaining adamant that the translation to justice and sanctification remained “unfulfilled” until reception of the sacrament.

columba wrote:It is you MR who are consistantly proposing an interpretation the Church herself has never proposed and like CT pointed out in another thread, by your piling up a whole host of one or two-liners from Church docments, doctors and saints in suport of your position without subjecting them to the True dogmas, you enevitably "do" construct a straw man without the glue of dogma to hold the pieces together.

That is sheer nonsense. How can you sit there and actually deny what is staring you in the face by way of Church teaching through her Ordinary Magisterium? How can you sit there and deny the objective evidence of a universal consensus in understanding of Trent, Sess. 6, Ch. 4 by the Church's popes, saints, theologians and Doctors?

How can you sit there and deny the testimony of trained theologians and experts in medieval Latin who categorically deny that the Ordinary Magisterium and all of her saints and theologians “mistranslated” or misunderstood her own words in Sess. Six, Ch. 4?

You live in a world where reality and Truth are whatever you say they are and where you are quick to grasp the discredited and novel theories of laymen and “Brothers” who cannot produce a single ecclesiastical scholar, academic or otherwise credible witness to corroborate their novel theories that stand in direct opposition to the Church's own teachings.

I love the way you portray the Ordinary Magisterium and the universal consensus of theologians as my "piling up a whole host of one or two-liners from Church documents, doctors and saints in support of your position without subjecting them to the True dogmas."

You are proposing (without shame) that the Ordinary Magisterium and the universal consensus of theologians have not already "subjected" their universal, constant and authentic teachings "to the true dogmas", and are so incompetent they do not realize that what they have been proposing for centuries on end is heresy. But, thank goodness that this heresy is only "material" as the Ordinary Magisterium and her theologians can be excused through "invincible ignorance" -- unless one hurls his anathemas from that sede trailer in NY.

What authority do you possess that you can subject the clear and consistent teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium to your litmus test of fallible private interpretation of the Church's own dogmas as if the Church's universal and magisterial teachings can be opposed to her own dogmas?

You don't even realize that what you are proposing is not only sheer madness, it is outright heresy.

And you say I am the one creating a “straw man” when I cite these same Popes, the Ordinary Magisterium and the saints and theologians without a single voice of dissent.

Sure.

columba wrote:The OP by hsilver, shows the consistancy of the Church's teaching despite apparent contradictions and how everything She says (when read in it's proper context) adheres totally to her infallible pronouncements.

Rubbish. See my comments above and see my previous post.

columba wrote:Think again MR.. Could it be possible that it be you who are the "Authority of one" and the Three-man-trailer you referred to in a previous thread actually contains the doctors, saints and scholars who would undoubtedly subject themselves to the defined dogmatic teachings?

Tell me how I can be an “Authority of one” when the testimony I bring forth is nothing less that the word-for-word constant teaching of the Magisterium and the universal consensus of scholars and theologians on the meaning of “the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof”?

Your attempt to relocate this same universal cadre of Doctors and theologians to your single trailer of dissent is not only an act of desperation, it is a sad joke. Gee, I guess this universal consensus of doctors and theologians, just like the Ordinary Magisterium, is so ignorant and confused that they did not realize that their understanding of justification “by the desire thereof” is opposed to the Church's own dogmas.

Give me a break.

MRyan is at least materially schismatic. He cannot explain why Father Feeney died in full communion with Rome, nor can he explain why modern-day "Feeneyites" enjoy full communion with Rome today. I asked in another thread for him to tell me one heretical and/or erroneous idea from Father Feeney's foundational work, The Bread of Life, which has remained unanswered. His "excuse" is that Rome is lax, and tolerates theological error and/or heresy. Perhaps he should visit this website:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_excommunicated_by_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

Yes, indeed, people are still being excommunicated from the Catholic Church. Father Feeney's followers are not among them. But, perhaps a little story will emphasize this point further. I am convert to Catholicism. I converted to the Faith in March, 2001. A year later I was confirmed in the Church, but not at the parish where I started out. You see, the priest threatened not to confirm me because I was a "Feeneyite," having been convinced of the logic behind the Papal Bull Unam Sanctam. After a rude encounter with "Father Dave," I wrote a letter to my Bishop, who was, as far as I can tell, a liberal in the Church. He got the local vicar involved. I transferred to another parish, a Basilica 60 miles away from my home, and I was confirmed into the Church at a beautiful Mass sometime later. I did not feel welcome at my new parish; they did not make me feel welcome, even the two priests there, but I was confirmed, nonetheless. I spoke with the local vicar, who was quite explicit about my right to convert to Catholicism, and my profession in Pope Boniface VIII's papal bull.

MRyan wrote:
What authority do you possess that you can subject the clear and consistent teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium to your litmus test of fallible private interpretation of the Church's own dogmas as if the Church's universal and magisterial teachings can be opposed to her own dogmas?

You don't even realize that what you are proposing is not only sheer madness, it is outright heresy.

I don't possess any authority to subject "clear Church teaching" to my own private interpretation, and neither do you. That is why I stick solely to Her clear, already interpreted, infallible pronouncements. These require no further interpretation as they represent the Churches final word on the matter for all time.
Any further elucidations which procede from the infallible declarations can never contradict them. Therefore the "necessity of water baptism for every soul" cannot be interpreted to mean, "a necessity for the majority of souls."

I counter that it is you who do not realize the madness of what you are proposing, and although I refrain from labeling you an outright heretic (bacause I don't believe you are), I merely believe you are mistaken and you put a tremendous amount of effort into promoting your mistake.

Tell me how I can be an “Authority of one” when the testimony I bring forth is nothing less that the word-for-word constant teaching of the Magisterium and the universal consensus of scholars and theologians on the meaning of “the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof”?

The testimony you bring forth MR, is your private interpretation of the constant, universal Magisterial teaching. The "Desire thereof" clause was explained very well by the anonymous author and quite frankly makes a lot more sense than your private interpretaion which tries so unsuccessfully to accomodate a contradictory meaning to a claerly defined dogma.

The beauty of an infallibly defined dogma lies in the fact that it is no longer required of us to sift through two thousand years of Church historical writings weighing the pro's and cons of the Doctors and scholars. The Church has already done all the hard work and defined hereafter what we must believe, and has done so in clear, unambiguous, easy to understand language that any Catholic with a minimal grasp of his own language can also understand.

Thats what the Church does. That's why she has dogmas, and thats why she requires us to submit to those dogmas lest we find ourselves anathema.
If you still wish to redefine what the Church has already defined then by all means continue to do so, but don't expect that everyone will agree with your definition over the Churches.

Jehanne wrote:MRyan is at least materially schismatic. He cannot explain why Father Feeney died in full communion with Rome, nor can he explain why modern-day "Feeneyites" enjoy full communion with Rome today. I asked in another thread for him to tell me one heretical and/or erroneous idea from Father Feeney's foundational work, The Bread of Life, which has remained unanswered. His "excuse" is that Rome is lax, and tolerates theological error and/or heresy. Perhaps he should visit this website:

Jehanne, I've answered this straw man about Fr. Feeney's reconciliation with the Church so many times I am tired of repeating myself. But it is obvious that you do not get it and will continue to regurgitate these meaningless bromides until the cows come home.

Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience to his superiors; what part of that do you not understand?

The “heresy” that I specifically mentioned in the other thread was related directly to Rasha's statement:

“Now that baptism of desire has been used to say that the followers of almost any false religion are saved, it needs to be re-examined.”

I do not doubt that baptism of desire has been used precisely as Rasha said, but I was commenting on the fact that this sense is heretical since it clearly suggests that those who follow false religions can be saved in their false religions without coming to the true faith while remaining apart from the Mystical Body.

In response, where we should have agreement, you said that this isn't heresy; clearly indicating that you take away only what you want to take away from what you read, kind of like how you treat the Magisterium. So, contrary to your allegation, I did not accuse Rasha of “holding heretical ideas”, but of misrepresenting baptism of desire as it is taught by the Church. The abuse of the doctrine does not render it “false”.

Thus, all of your “Father Feeney died in full communion with Rome” non sequiturs are simply that, and totally irrelevant (or, do I repeat myself?).

In fact, the last web site you directed me to did not mention even once Fr. Feeney's “Bread of Life”, but it did have a full write up on “They Fought the Good Fight” by Bro. Thomas Mary Sennott. You also directed me to Br. Sennott's “Is Laisneyism Catholic?”, which I find quite remarkable for it places Fr. Feeney's severe doctrine, opinions and exaggerations into “context”, where Bro. Sennott wrote:

Father Feeney was a great theologian, but he was also a professional rhetorician; he taught Sacred Eloquence at the Jesuit Seminary at Weston. Father would try out a tentative idea on us, and sometimes the more tentative it was in his own mind, the more vehement he became in its presentation. He used to humorously call these rhetorical outbursts "de Feeney definita." He used to say "my danger is that I can make anything sound plausible."Of course he never did this with some well established truth. All Father Feeney's speculations on Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are of this de Feeney definita variety. In other words they are pure speculations and nothing else. ...

"Father Feeney's opinion on the absolute necessity of Baptism for salvation, which developed only after his condemnation, was never the subject of reporter's questions. But if a reporter had asked, 'what would you do if the Pope said that a catechumen who had faith and charity, but died before the reception of Baptism, could be saved?' Father Feeney I am sure, would have answered, 'I would submit immediately.' Father Feeney always considered his position on Baptism of Desire an opinion, an opinion which he shared with some great saints, such as St. Augustine, but only an opinion.

And how many times, even beginning as late as Pope Pius XII, has the “Pope said that a catechumen who had faith and charity, but died before the reception of Baptism, could be saved?”

As I said in another post, how many ways and how many times must a Pope “say” it before the St. Benedict Center acknowledges the truth?

That I did not respond to your challenge to produce the evidence of “theological error” in "Bread of Life" is simply because it would only fall on deaf ears. But the fact remains that Fr. Feeney makes it clear in "Bread of Life", in opposition to the magisterial teaching of the Church, that the translation to justification effected by a perfect love does not result in man being freed from original sin in the “true and full sense”; and thus, this “unfulfilled” freedom from original sin and “imperfect” justice (state of grace) cannot result in salvation without the imprint of the baptismal character – “to outfit him for the resurrection of the body and life everlasting”.

Fr. Feeney's speculations on the absolute necessity of the Baptismal Character is all well and good, but he erred when he denied that a translation to justification as a son of God and heir to the kingdom can actually make a man a son of God and heir to the kingdom without the imprint of Baptism (more speculation; but our Lord can provide His own imprint to mark a soul as one of His own).

Seeing the contradiction, Fr. Feeney explains that this state of justification without sacramental help cannot possibly remain but for perhaps a day or two, and at the most, three. This may be true, but is totally besides the point of whether a soul who dies in a state of grace has merited heaven. To suggest, as Fr. Feeney does, that if a person who is justified in perfect love dies without the sacrament through no fault of his own, then it is likely that he fell out of grace before he died -- and will not be saved, seems to “begging the question”.

Now where have we heard this before? Sounds very “Protestant”, as when they say a “once saved” sinner who dies in his public wretchedness was never really saved to begin with – it was all a ruse, just like a perfect love is a ruse for effecting a state of grace and salvation when the sacrament is impossible to receive.

This brings up the matter of “intention” in the context of this thread and “Why the Council of Trent Does Not Teach Baptism of Desire”. The author proposes that the “votum” of Session 6, Ch 4, and Session Seven, Canon 4, does not suggest, as the Church has always held, that the translation to justification is not effected by baptism, or the “desire” for baptism, no, he asks “so why would Trent go out of its way to indicate that you need Baptism AND the will [as opposed to “desire”] to receive it?”. He answers by saying:

Protestants denied the need for a cooperation of the will with grace in the process of justification. We see a recurrent theme in the teaching of Trent, the need for cooperation of the will with grace... That’s why Trent taught that we cannot be justified without the laver or the will, because both the laver AND the will are required for justification.

In "Bread of Life" Fr. Feeney also recognized this penchant for misconstruing what Tent taught by suggesting that baptism of desire can lead one to believe that “votum” can be characterized as only the cooperation of the will (one's intention to be baptized).

He then gives several examples of illicit Baptisms where one's intention to be baptized is made from nefarious or even practical motives, such as the desire “to have his name written in the Baptismal book under the aegis of Christian protection, as thousands of Jews did in Spain.”

Fr. Feeney then writes, “as long as that man intends to receive baptism, he is freed from original sin!”, but he is not in a state of justification.

Precisely, but only if he actually received the sacrament; which is why the author of “Why the Council of Trent Does Not Teach Baptism of Desire” does not understand the meaning of “votum” as Trent uses it, for the “intention” to receive baptism, regardless of the Protestant heresy against its necessity, is not enough to effect justice without a true and proper “desire” for baptism, which includes Faith and Charity.

Fr. Feeney also writes: “It is not justice alone that saves us. It is justice, allied to the positive commands of God!”

And we couldn't agree more; but what Fr. Feeney does not seem to realize (or changed his mind in 1952), is that the intention/vow/desire to do all that the Church commands (including to receive baptism) is also “allied to the positive commands of God!”

When the positive commands of God cannot be fulfilled through no fault of one's own, then, as the Church has always taught, one's intention and contrition (charity) will avail him to that grace and righteousness one would ordinary receive in the sacrament, but necessity prevents its reception.

Enough on that. One either trusts that what the Church teaches is true, or one rejects the authority of the Magisterium - it really is that simple.

Since you made the charge of “material schism”, you are obligated to back it up by explaining what Fr. Feeney's reconciliation with the Church has to do with my being “materially schismatic”. Did I ever suggest that Fr. Feeney was never reconciled, and did I ever suggest that any of the St. Benedict Center groups are not Catholics in good standing, regardless of whether they are fully reconciled with their local Ordinary or not? The fact is that the St. Benedict Center mother ship in NH remains to this day outside of the jurisdiction of their Bishop; though this situation could change at any time (and I hope it does). They also have a traditional priest in full communion with the Church to say the Traditional Roman Rite.

About your interesting story of your entry into the Church, your priest seems to have had every right to question your faith since your Feeneyite views tend to be extreme. You might see the hypocrisy if your priest welcomed without question a more liberal convert who is so poorly trained in the faith that he might doubt even some of the Church's doctrines, but the liberal and certain hard-core Feeneyites are but two sides of the same dissenting coin. You are the same person, after all, who said:

Traditional Catholics should reject the CCC because it contains, at a minimum, theological errors, perhaps even formal heresies. Applying baptism of desire to those who do not have an explicit vow to receive it is a formal heresy. The Council of Florence forever nipped in the bud that one.

And here you are accusing your Bishop of being a “liberal” because his take-away from Unam Sanctam does not support your contention that Catholics should “reject” the CCC as containing theological “errors”, and perhaps even “formal heresies”. Neither does your Bishop accept your contention that a non-explicit “votum” for baptism “is a formal heresy”.

And if your response is that neither your former parish priest nor Bishop were aware of your anti-Catholic dissenting views beyond the fact that you are a self-professed “Feeneyite” whose profession of Faith is restricted to your private understanding of defined dogmas (meaning, that “the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has” not “been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ”; it has been entrusted to you and your fellow Feeneyites).

Perhaps your parish priest had reason to suspect that you reject outright the following teaching of the Catholic Church:

"OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION" [from the Catechism of the Catholic Church]

846. How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? [cf. St. Cyprian, Ep 73:21; PL 3:1169; De Unit PL 4:509-536] Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

"Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it." [Vatican II LG 14]

847. This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience -- those too may achieve eternal salvation." [Vatican II LG 16]

And, as the Church also teaches, these same souls mired in invincible ignorance “may achieve eternal salvation”, as Pope Pius IX thrice declared, through the divine light of faith and grace where all that it is necessary for salvation (in the Church) will finally be revealed and realized, even if it remains hidden.

The Church does not and has never taught that one may be saved apart from or outside the Catholic Church, but she has not restricted her understanding of the dogma to only that of a material or visible incorporation.

How do I know this? Because that's what the authentic, living and permanent Magisterium teaches. And Unam Sanctam, or any other dogmatic definition or infallible decree, does not have any other meaning than that which the Church teaches, and has always understood her own words.

And we have been through this over and over, MRyan, and I grow tired of it. The CCC is in its second edition. Yep, that's right folks! If you do not believe me, then look on the cover of the CCC for yourself. Yes, the CCC is a revised edition, which means that the first edition was not perfect. See for yourself:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n40_v33/ai_19811897/?tag=content;col1

If the first edition of the Catechism was not perfect (and, if it is not perfect, then it contains errors, right?), then maybe the Second Edition is not perfect, either. Yes, I think that a Third Edition of the Catechism needs to come out, but that will take some time, as it presents a credibility problem for the Church. Until then, we ought to interpret the CCC in the most traditional sense possible, and I admit that the St. Benedict Center has helped me in that regard, especially with respect to #1261. (Thanks for that article, by the way.)

As for my being confirmed in the Church, I was persecuted by my first priest, but after transferring to my new parish, the two priests there, whom I both met with, said absolutely nothing to me about my theological position. And, I was confirmed in the Faith, that is, the One True Faith.

As for Baptism of Desire & Blood, they are null sets, devoid of any human beings. That was what, IMHO, Father Feeney was trying to expound upon, and that is my opinion, and, I believe, the opinion of the Saint Benedict Center. Yes, Baptism of Blood and Desire are possible; however, they never have happened and they never will.

Jehanne,

Yes, Baptism of Blood and Desire are possible; however, they never have happened and they never will.

This, I believe, is an acceptable view.

Traditional Catholics should reject the CCC because it contains, at a minimum, theological errors, perhaps even formal heresies. Applying baptism of desire to those who do not have an explicit vow to receive it is a formal heresy. The Council of Florence forever nipped in the bud that one.

This, however, is not.

The testimony you bring forth MR, is your private interpretation of the constant, universal Magisterial teaching. The "Desire thereof" clause was explained very well by the anonymous author and quite frankly makes a lot more sense than your private interpretaion which tries so unsuccessfully to accomodate a contradictory meaning to a claerly defined dogma.

This is hilarious. As me friend, MRyan, is so fond of stating, "you can't make this stuff up."

MRyan, in quoting and subscribing to the Magisterium's own interpretation of its teachings, is engaging in "private interpretation," while some lay crank is the authoritative voice of the Magisterium?

Strange things happen when you go through the Feeney Glass to the other side. Too bad Lewis Carroll isn't still alive.

Hey, maybe you can make this stuff up.

tornpage wrote:Jehanne,

Yes, Baptism of Blood and Desire are possible; however, they never have happened and they never will.

This, I believe, is an acceptable view.

Traditional Catholics should reject the CCC because it contains, at a minimum, theological errors, perhaps even formal heresies. Applying baptism of desire to those who do not have an explicit vow to receive it is a formal heresy. The Council of Florence forever nipped in the bud that one.

This, however, is not.

We've discussed this before, and it is something that Father Brian Harrison has written about. The idea that "implicit faith" in Jesus Christ could suffice for salvation is a theological novelty, one which Vatican II dropped when referencing the Boston letter and which Father Feeney found so objectionable. As for the CCC, I think that it needs a third revision. By saying that Trad Catholics should "reject" it, I am saying that there other Catechisms, namely, the Roman Catechism, that express the Catholic Faith better, so why not just use those? Clearly, if the CCC could undergo a revision from a first to a second edition so quickly, all in less than a decade, what does that say about it?!

Jehanne,

Yes, Baptism of Blood and Desire are possible; however, they never have happened and they never will.

tornpage wrote:
This, I believe, is an acceptable view.

Hmm... MRyan and Elisa have already added 3 or 4 martyrs to that null set.
(keep an eye on those floodgates)

St Columba speaks of three types of martyrdom.
White martyrdom = giving up home or possesions for Christ.
Blue martyrdom = a life of fasting and penance.
Red martyrdom = enduring persecution or death for Christ.

I'd like to add a fourth category.
Gold martyrdom = debating MRyan.

Just kidding M.

We've discussed this before, and it is something that Father Brian Harrison has written about. The idea that "implicit faith" in Jesus Christ could suffice for salvation is a theological novelty, one which Vatican II dropped when referencing the Boston letter and which Father Feeney found so objectionable.

This is not what you said. This is what you said, which I quoted:

Applying baptism of desire to those who do not have an explicit vow to receive it is a formal heresy.

I assure you, not only would Father Harrison be quite surprised to hear that he had written about the "formal heresy" of applying baptism of desire to those who do not have an explicit vow to receive it, I believe he actually accepts an "implicit desire" for baptism with an explicit faith in Christ as all that is required for salvation.

Saying a belief that one may be justified unto salvation with explicit faith in Christ and merely an "implied" desire for baptism is formal heresy is formal heresy itself - probably, if you're into calling people and beliefs heretical. Which seems to be the rage here: shoot, even the Magisterium is heretical.

And some of you impugn sedevacantists? Go figure.

Jenanne,

The first edition of the Catechism in 1992 was a PROVISIONAL catechism, originally written in French, awaiting the final official catechism in Latin. My first edition is clearly marked and says, “This translation is subject to revision according to the Latin typical edition (edition typica) when it is published.”

In fact some later first editions copies of the provisional catechism, had several revisions already in the back of the book, while awaiting the final catechism, then translated from Latin and published in the second edition.

Five years later the final edition in Latin was promulgated. The differences were all minor and had no changes that would affect doctrine. They mostly affected the footnotes and paragraph numbering and some minor word changes for clarity. They fit on a few pages and you can see the differences here:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/updates.htm


Here is the last change as an example:

Paragraph 2834 The sentence which reads:
"Even when we have done our work, the food we receive is still a gift from our Father; it is good to ask him for it with thanksgiving, as Christian families do when saying grace at meals."
This phrase is to be changed to read:
Even when we have done our work, the food we receive is still a gift from our Father; it is good to ask him for it and to thank him, as Christian families do when saying grace at meals.
(end of quote)


Certainly there were no differences related to our discussions here. The Catechism matches the Roman catechism you mentioned, which is the Catechism of Trent, which also teaches baptism of desire and baptism of blood. As well as all the other catechisms since Trent, including the one from my youth, the Baltimore catechism.

A third edition would not change the formal teaching of the Church for the last 500 years or more.

Personally, I don’t think it’s a good thing to disparage the Catechism of the Catholic Church in the way you have, to make people think they cannot trust it to be a sure norm for teaching orthodox Catholic doctrine. It’s one thing for someone to not be pleased with some of the language that they think is ambiguous and another thing to cast doubt upon it’s orthodox teachings by saying it needs a third edition because of doctrinal errors.

God bless you all.
Love,
Elisa

tornpage wrote:

We've discussed this before, and it is something that Father Brian Harrison has written about. The idea that "implicit faith" in Jesus Christ could suffice for salvation is a theological novelty, one which Vatican II dropped when referencing the Boston letter and which Father Feeney found so objectionable.

This is not what you said. This is what you said, which I quoted:

Applying baptism of desire to those who do not have an explicit vow to receive it is a formal heresy.

I assure you, not only would Father Harrison be quite surprised to hear that he had written about the "formal heresy" of applying baptism of desire to those who do not have an explicit vow to receive it, I believe he actually accepts an "implicit desire" for baptism with an explicit faith in Christ as all that is required for salvation.

Saying a belief that one may be justified unto salvation with explicit faith in Christ and merely an "implied" desire for baptism is formal heresy is formal heresy itself - probably, if you're into calling people and beliefs heretical. Which seems to be the rage here: shoot, even the Magisterium is heretical.

And some of you impugn sedevacantists? Go figure.

You're splitting hairs. Yes, in today's Church, theologians, such as the late Karl Rahner, apply Baptism of Desire to, potentially, anyone and everyone. Groups, such as the Salvation Army, who do not even practice Water Baptism are called "Christian," even if they are "anonymous" about it. Such is absolutely heretical. To say so is to go well beyond the Council of Trent who used the word "votum" to express the necessity of explicit desire on the part of the catechumen who wished to be baptized. It is no longer salvation outside the Church but salvation outside the World.

Yes, I agree with Saint Thomas who taught that one could hear the Gospel and come to believe in Jesus Christ and all that He commanded. In that sense, such an individual could desire Baptism implicitly, but such would be a short, transitory state, as Saint Thomas also taught that such an individual would need to be baptized before and upon entering the Church.

Groups such as the Salvation Army are not heretics, for they are not even Christian.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
What authority do you possess that you can subject the clear and consistent teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium to your litmus test of fallible private interpretation of the Church's own dogmas as if the Church's universal and magisterial teachings can be opposed to her own dogmas?

You don't even realize that what you are proposing is not only sheer madness, it is outright heresy.

I don't possess any authority to subject "clear Church teaching" to my own private interpretation, and neither do you. That is why I stick solely to Her clear, already interpreted, infallible pronouncements. These require no further interpretation as they represent the Churches final word on the matter for all time.

Any further elucidations which procede from the infallible declarations can never contradict them. Therefore the "necessity of water baptism for every soul" cannot be interpreted to mean, "a necessity for the majority of souls."

But that is not what it means; the necessity remains for every soul without exception, but the Church recognizes the distinction between the necessity of divine precept and the necessity of means to accomplish the same end. The Church's teaching is clear, and you reject it. Simple.

Of course you claim such an “authority” when you say that a dogma is “already interpreted”; meaning, the dogma can only mean what you say it means, and not what the Church says it means. You reject the living authority of the Church to interpret her own dogmas as she has always understood them. This statement is either true or false. And we know it is true because you steadfastly refuse to listen to the divine Institution which alone possess the exclusive authority to “interpret” the meaning of her own dogmas.

You accuse the Church of contradicting her own dogmas when you can't even interpret correctly the very declarations you use to justify your dissension and scandalous accusations against the Church.

For example, this is one of your favorites from VCI:

Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

And without reading anything else VCI said, you conclude from this that the same Church that defined a dogma can “abandon this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding”, when VCI declares that she can do no such thing (like “make known some new doctrine”), but infallibly declares that “the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward … as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated … that they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.”.

And this is where you arrogantly and defiantly accuse the Church of failing to “guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.”

VCI also declared:

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.

So when the Church, especially in the 19th and 20th centuries, provides a greater understanding to her salvation dogmas as knowledge and wisdom increases with the ages; you, like C_T, condemn this increase in understanding in its own proper kind as an “abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.”

The Magisterium, apparently, does not have the authority or competency to tell you the sense of a defined dogma “in its own proper kind … and the same understanding” because you have already determined that your “literal” narrow understanding of the words can have no other meaning than that which you give them.

For example, you assert that the Church has always understood “not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's sake, can he be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church” (Cantata Domino) in an all inclusive sense that includes not only those who either left the Church (did not “abide” in her) or refuse to join the Church even when knowing the Gospel truth, but also those who know the Gospel and desire to abide in the Church but some "remediless necessity" prevents their entry therein. These too, you would have us believe it is defined, “not even if they were to shed their blood for Christ”, can be saved because they were denied the opportunity for water baptism.

Yet, you are the one who refuses to accept the dogma as it is written and as the Church understands it.

If you read this section of the Bull leading up to the defined declaration, you would clearly see that the Bull was addressing heretical sects “that suggests contrary things” such as the Arians, Monophystes and Ebionites who heard the Gospel truth of Church teaching “and so refused to accept” the Truth.

Never once does the Bull address the situation of those who either have not heard the Gospel or, having heard it, desire to enter the Church. You just assume that the Bull includes everyone in its definition, when the Church has never understood it in that sense.

How, for example, can someone “abide” in the Church if he does not know of its necessity or is not given the opportunity to join her? If our Lord came to save all men and gives every man the opportunity for salvation provided he responds to His call and graces, then our Lord provides the means of salvation to every man without exception, even when what appears impossible to man on a visible level, is not impossible with God.

It is clear that Cantate Domino was addressing the heretical sects that refused to accept what they were taught, by what they knew was the authentic authority of the Catholic Church. Each and every person and sect spelled out in the Bull Cantate Domino had heard of the Catholic teaching, and continued to hold on to their heresies even though it was explained to them. Thus, even if they shed their blood for Christ, but still rejected the true Church, it would not profit them for salvation. And this understanding is entirely consistent with how the Church would present her understanding of the dogma through Papal Encyclicals, Allocutions, the relatio of VCI, her Catechisms and the Second Vatican Council, which completed the work begun on the constitution of the Church at VCI.

The Church does not “redefine” her own dogmas, she "faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles". And, if her doctrine wasn't always clear with respect to how those who remain, through no fault of their own, outside of the visible structure of the Church can be united to her and be saved, Pope Pius IX would take the lead, and his successors would follow suit, in drawing out the fullness of the Church's dogma on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus as she faithfully demonstrates an increase in “understanding, knowledge and wisdom … but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.”

Though the draft “schema de ecclesia” was never incorporated into VCI (we would see the following “understanding” incorporated into VCII), it does give an idea of the “mind of the Church” concerning the invincibly ignorant that we find in other magisterial documents. Chapter 7 states:

7. No one can be saved outside the church.

Moreover it is a dogma of faith, that no one can be saved outside the church. On the other hand, those who labor under invincible ignorance concerning Christ and his church are not to be damned to eternal punishment on account of such ignorance, since they incur no guilt for this in the eyes of the Lord, who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, and who does not deny grace to a person who is doing what lies in his power, so that such a one can obtain justification and eternal life. But no one obtains this who dies in a culpable state of separation from the unity of the faith or the communion of the church. Anyone who is not in the ark of salvation will perish in the prevailing flood.” (Sacrorum conciliorum nova collectio, 541-542; http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/adam.html.)

The same Pope who ratified VCI, also declared:

It is known to Us and to you that those who labor in invincible ignorance concerning our most holy religion and who, assiduously observing the natural law and its precepts which God has inscribed in the hearts of all, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life can, through the working of the divine light and grace, attain eternal life. (Quanto donficiamure moerore. DS 2666.)

For over 150 years the Church has been authentically teaching her understanding of the salvation dogmas by presenting the fullness of the truth of her own defined dogmas without “abandoning” the true sense or meaning of her own dogmatic words.

Those who accuse her of abandoning the true sense of her dogmas in the name of a “deeper understanding”, are spreading heresy.

Again, again, and again, the only authentic interpreter of the Church's magisterial declarations are not individuals, but the living magisterium, as affirmed by the DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION (Dei Verbum):

"10. … THE TASK OF AUTHENTICALLY INTERPRETING THE WORD OF GOD, WHETHER WRITTEN OR HANDED ON, HAS BEEN ENTRUSTED EXCLUSIVELY TO THE LIVING TEACHING OFFICE OF THE CHURCH whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed."

Columba, do we believe you, or the Church?

Elisa wrote:Jenanne,

The first edition of the Catechism in 1992 was a PROVISIONAL catechism, originally written in French, awaiting the final official catechism in Latin. My first edition is clearly marked and says, “This translation is subject to revision according to the Latin typical edition (edition typica) when it is published.”

In fact some later first editions copies of the provisional catechism, had several revisions already in the back of the book, while awaiting the final catechism, then translated from Latin and published in the second edition.

Five years later the final edition in Latin was promulgated. The differences were all minor and had no changes that would affect doctrine. They mostly affected the footnotes and paragraph numbering and some minor word changes for clarity. They fit on a few pages and you can see the differences here:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/updates.htm


Here is the last change as an example:

Paragraph 2834 The sentence which reads:
"Even when we have done our work, the food we receive is still a gift from our Father; it is good to ask him for it with thanksgiving, as Christian families do when saying grace at meals."
This phrase is to be changed to read:
Even when we have done our work, the food we receive is still a gift from our Father; it is good to ask him for it and to thank him, as Christian families do when saying grace at meals.
(end of quote)


Certainly there were no differences related to our discussions here. The Catechism matches the Roman catechism you mentioned, which is the Catechism of Trent, which also teaches baptism of desire and baptism of blood. As well as all the other catechisms since Trent, including the one from my youth, the Baltimore catechism.

A third edition would not change the formal teaching of the Church for the last 500 years or more.

Personally, I don’t think it’s a good thing to disparage the Catechism of the Catholic Church in the way you have, to make people think they cannot trust it to be a sure norm for teaching orthodox Catholic doctrine. It’s one thing for someone to not be pleased with some of the language that they think is ambiguous and another thing to cast doubt upon it’s orthodox teachings by saying it needs a third edition because of doctrinal errors.

God bless you all.
Love,
Elisa

You need to read more of that first edition. You can start by looking at the link that I provided. The first edition of the CCC was not a draft. Some significant changes were made between the first and second editions, such as the Church's teaching on the death penalty. Unfortunately, I cannot find the first edition anywhere online, but it does exist. Some years ago someone provided me with a link of a nice website that showed a side-by-side comparison of the first and second editions of the CCC. The differences were, to say the least, quite stunning.

As for the Catechism of the Council of Trent, Brother Andre Marie and Thomas Sparks (who runs the www.romancatholicism.org website) had a debate on this topic years ago, and I do not want to rehash all of that here. You can read what they have to say on this topic for yourself:

http://catholicism.org/letter-to-bedfordshire-html.html

As I said above, I agree with Baptism of Desire and Blood, as taught by Saint Thomas. I just do not believe such ever happens, for reasons Father Feeney stated in his The Bread of Life. Yes, the One and Triune God is not bound by His Sacraments, but He is also not bound by the physicals laws of nature which He created, so He can bring Baptism to whomever He wishes.

As for "proving" that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood have ever happened, such is tantamount to "proving a negative," in this case, that Baptism of Water did not happen, and we all know that such, in general, is impossible.

Tornpage,

Hello to you and I pray that all is well with you and your family.

I don’t agree with Jehanne about the null sets thing. I think believing only null sets is possible denies the doctrine that baptism of desire and baptism of blood are possible.

If she had said this, then I would agree it is acceptable according to Catholic teaching:

“I believe (as the Church teaches) that baptism of blood and baptism of desire are possible and that there MAY be some people in those categories, but I personally feel there PROBABLY aren’t any people in those categories and PROBABLY may never be.”

Instead, she has said they are possible, but then she says they ‘NEVER happened and NEVER will.”

The Church doesn’t simply teach null sets are possible. She doesn’t just say that all things are possible with God so baptism of blood and baptism of desire are possible, but they NEVER happened and NEVER will. The Church teaches they are possible with actual cases being possible. She is denying any actual cases are possible. She is trying her best to agree with the Church, but she is in fact denying the teaching by saying it will NEVER happen.

If you definitively say something will never happen, then you are saying it is not a possibility. If you say it might have happened or it possibly might happen in the future, but it probably didn’t happen and probably won’t happen, that is different. That is acceptable and within Catholic teaching.

Even though I personally think both baptism of blood and baptism of desire are likely, and believe the cases of the canonized martyr Saints (that the Church believes were never baptized) likely never had a secret human sacramental water baptism visible here on earth. (I hate having to parse so many words in my description, but it seems necessary here. lol)

Also, some here are denying that then Church even ever taught baptism of blood and baptism of desire being possible, even though the Church believes (correctly or erroneously) that some of the martyrs that she has formally canonized as Saints never received an earthly visible water baptism administered by humans.

God bless you always, my friend.
Love,
Elisa

Elisa wrote:Tornpage,

Hello to you and I pray that all is well with you and your family.

I don’t agree with Jehanne about the null sets thing. I think believing only null sets is possible denies the doctrine that baptism of desire and baptism of blood are possible.

If she had said this, then I would agree it is acceptable according to Catholic teaching:

“I believe (as the Church teaches) that baptism of blood and baptism of desire are possible and that there MAY be some people in those categories, but I personally feel there PROBABLY aren’t any people in those categories and PROBABLY may never be.”

Instead, she has said they are possible, but then she says they ‘NEVER happened and NEVER will.”

The Church doesn’t simply teach null sets are possible. She doesn’t just say that all things are possible with God so baptism of blood and baptism of desire are possible, but they NEVER happened and NEVER will. The Church teaches they are possible with actual cases being possible. She is denying any actual cases are possible. She is trying her best to agree with the Church, but she is in fact denying the teaching by saying it will NEVER happen.

If you definitively say something will never happen, then you are saying it is not a possibility. If you say it might have happened or it possibly might happen in the future, but it probably didn’t happen and probably won’t happen, that is different. That is acceptable and within Catholic teaching.

Even though I personally think both baptism of blood and baptism of desire are likely, and believe the cases of the canonized martyr Saints (that the Church believes were never baptized) likely never had a secret human sacramental water baptism visible here on earth. (I hate having to parse so many words in my description, but it seems necessary here. lol)

Also, some here are denying that then Church even ever taught baptism of blood and baptism of desire being possible, even though the Church believes (correctly or erroneously) that some of the martyrs that she has formally canonized as Saints never received an earthly visible water baptism administered by humans.

God bless you always, my friend.
Love,
Elisa

First of all, I am a guy and married with 5 children. It's just a screen name, so don't read too much into that. However, please stop putting words in my mouth. I stated my position above:

As I said above, I agree with Baptism of Desire and Blood, as taught by Saint Thomas. I just do not believe such ever happens, for reasons Father Feeney stated in his The Bread of Life. Yes, the One and Triune God is not bound by His Sacraments, but He is also not bound by the physicals laws of nature which He created, so He can bring Baptism to whomever He wishes.

Elisa wrote:I don’t agree with Jehanne about the null sets thing. I think believing only null sets is possible denies the doctrine that baptism of desire and baptism of blood are possible.

This is not true.

A thing can be possible in different ways. It would violate the principle of non-contradiction to suggest that a thing is possible and not possible in the same way and at the same time.

However, this is not the case with saying that 'baptism of desire' is possible for God, but holding that it is unnecessary since God would provide (out of His goodness, divine providence, omnipotence, etc.) sacramental baptism.

Jehanne,

Sorry I thought you were a girl.

I already posted a link to the changes in the catechisms that were in fact minor and did not impact doctrine Anyone who wants can look for themselves and see if the changes were “stunning.” One would need a first edition copy to compare some of to the changes noted in the link. Some sentences had only a word change and the link doesn’t always show the first edition wording.

I didn’t say the first edition was a “draft.” I said (as the Church said) it was PROVISIONAL until the Latin “edition typica” was promulgated.

I will leave you to your beliefs. I think I’m done here. God bless these discussions

Jehanne wrote:
You need to read more of that first edition. You can start by looking at the link that I provided. The first edition of the CCC was not a draft. Some significant changes were made between the first and second editions, such as the Church's teaching on the death penalty. Unfortunately, I cannot find the first edition anywhere online, but it does exist. Some years ago someone provided me with a link of a nice website that showed a side-by-side comparison of the first and second editions of the CCC. The differences were, to say the least, quite stunning.

The link you provided proves nothing, just like every other link you provide. This is simple: Provide proof that the first edition, or any subsequent edition of the CCC, contained errors in matters of faith or morals. I am not saying that such unintended errors were not possible, but I defy you to produce the evidence as your entire mountain of straw is built upon some inference that because changes were made, then the CCC is not what Pope JPII declared it to be.

I already went through this with MarianLibriarian when she tried to sell the same propaganda in her attempt to diminish the authority of the Catechism of the Catholic Church; and we can see that you just keep pushing the same agenda by inference and innuendo – never mind the truth.

By the way, the Church's explication on the death penalty, if she now teaches that it cannot be justified, is not based on some “rejection” of her perennial teaching that the state possesses the God-given right, but only that the moral conditions that might justify state sponsored executions can no longer be met.

This is a prudential matter and the Church has every right to weigh-in with her current teaching without Catholic Fundamentalists accusing her of "changing" her doctrine.

Jehanne wrote: As I said above, I agree with Baptism of Desire and Blood, as taught by Saint Thomas. I just do not believe such ever happens, for reasons Father Feeney stated in his The Bread of Life. Yes, the One and Triune God is not bound by His Sacraments, but He is also not bound by the physicals laws of nature which He created, so He can bring Baptism to whomever He wishes.

Why should it matter that you believe that it never happens, and who ever said that you are required to believe that it does?

Fr. Feeney was wrong, and your attempt to rehabilitate his erroneous teaching in Bread of Life doesn't change that.

MarianLibrarian wrote:

Elisa wrote:I don’t agree with Jehanne about the null sets thing. I think believing only null sets is possible denies the doctrine that baptism of desire and baptism of blood are possible.

This is not true.

A thing can be possible in different ways. It would violate the principle of non-contradiction to suggest that a thing is possible and not possible in the same way and at the same time.

However, this is not the case with saying that 'baptism of desire' is possible for God, but holding that it is unnecessary since God would provide (out of His goodness, divine providence, omnipotence, etc.) sacramental baptism.

It is true because your “opinion” that it is NOT NECESSARY (a “null set”) that God “would provide” the means of sanctification and salvation without the sacrament because He WILL provide the sacrament, makes a sham (“null set”) of the Church's teaching that she has always held that God WILL provide the means of salvation when the sacrament is impossible to receive.

You are just playing word games, while at least implicitly suggesting that the Church has erred by teaching the “null sets” (meaningless) doctrines of baptism of desire and baptism of blood.

Of course, columba says that the Church has never taught or held these doctrines, and you say that they are not "doctrines" at all, but take-them-or-leave-them "theological opinions" (otherwise known as meaningless "null sets").

No one has a problem with believing that God will always provide the Sacrament, but to reduce the Church's doctrines of baptism of blood/baptism of desire to meaningless “null sets” can only mean that she was wrong to ever propose them in the first place.

The Church does not teach "null sets", she teaches the Truth. If it wasn't true, or if it was completely meaningless, she would have no reason to teach it.

columba wrote:
Hmm... MRyan and Elisa have already added 3 or 4 martyrs to that null set.
(keep an eye on those floodgates)

I'd like to add a fourth category.
Gold martyrdom = debating MRyan.

Hmmm ... perhaps such debates with yours truly will lessen one's time in Purgatory. For Martrydom, debating the likes of C_T may more aptly qualify as a type of suffering that merits the remission of all temporal punishments.

Debating you is a close second.

Allie wrote:I am certainly not as learned and well-read as all of you are pertaining to these matters. Quite frankly these "discussions" seem to swirl around and around and perhaps over my head and I would just like to ask a few questions for the sake of my own clarity and sanity:

What exactly is everyone trying to prove or resolve with this debate?
I am not asking this in a smart alec way, but honestly.

No problem, Allie, its always nice to hear from you.

For my part, this is simple. The Church teaches, and has always held, through her authentic and ordinary Magisterium, the doctines of baptism of desire and baptism of blood. The evidence is beyond dispute that she has been teaching these doctrines “on the record” since at least the Council of Trent. Did I mention that the universal moral consensus of saints and theologians accept these doctrines, without one voice of dissent since the Council of Trent (and probably before .. e.g., St. Thomas Aquinas and all the medieval theologians)?

My protagonists make a variety of arguments against the doctrines which either deny (LOL) that the Church has ever held these doctrines; or say that they are directly opposed to the Church's dogmas (heresy); or that they are simply “theological errors” or "null sets" the Church has allowed to spread, even in her own official documents (funny).

The 800lb. Gorilla in the room, however, which our protagonists absolutely refuse to address (crickets), is the infallible dogmatic teaching from VCI and the DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION (Dei Verbum, VCII), the latter of which declares:

"10. … THE TASK OF AUTHENTICALLY INTERPRETING THE WORD OF GOD, WHETHER WRITTEN OR HANDED ON, HAS BEEN ENTRUSTED EXCLUSIVELY TO THE LIVING TEACHING OFFICE OF THE CHURCH whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed."

Do we accept and submit to the authority of the Church over her own doctrines?

Yes, we do; our protagonists say no, we don't, that the living Magisterium cannot always be trusted and is subject to a variety of "litmus tests" for orthodoxy before anyone is required to religiously submit. They also suggest that the current teaching authority is a sham or does not have to be followed because it has "abandoned" the true sense of her own defined dogmas.

I have demonstrated that private interpretation is the doctrine of the Protestants.

That's it, in a nutshell.

E,

I don’t agree with Jehanne about the null sets thing. I think believing only null sets is possible denies the doctrine that baptism of desire and baptism of blood are possible.

I understand your position. I reduce this to an essential: Jehanne believes there's no one in the "set" of saved without the sacrament of baptism, and one may so believe. And actually, he did say it was "possible":

Yes, Baptism of Blood and Desire are possible; however, they never have happened and they never will.

This is really not much different than saying it's possible and it might happen, but I don't think it does, and in fact it hasn't. But I understand the nuance you are pointing to; it just doesn't bother me. And while you might be right about Jehanne's position, that's not what the quote above says to me.

What bothers me is the assertion that the Magisterium teaches error about something so central to its mission, salvation. While not strictly speaking a contradiction, it is inconceivable to me how the Magisterium could be wrong on a matter so directly relating to its office of teaching the truth of salvation, which goes along with its office of dispensing salvation through the sacraments.

tornpage

As some here know, I have been sympathetic to the sede position, and do see its consistency. In fact, I think some powerful scriptural - and historical - arguments could be made supporting the thesis of an end times apostasy planting itself in the head of the body itself and in the Magisterium and pope.

However, to get there, one must "privately" interpret. The Church has never interpreted the key end times passages of Scripture as indicating that she herself, in the visible hierarchy united with Peter, would fail. The Antichrist may attempt to, and may actually on a vast geographic scale, take away the sacrifice of the Mass by persecuting the Church and closing churches, but the Church in union with the pope cannot and will not fail to offer the Holy Sacrifice on her altars.

The problem with Sedevacantism, Feeneyism, and a host of other errors is indeed pinpointed by MRyan:

I have demonstrated that private interpretation is the doctrine of the Protestants.

That's it, in a nutshell.

The reasoning of sedes and Feeneyites can appear cogent at times; it may be alluring and make sense to one's inclinations. Which is why it is not for us to reason it thus or thus, but God has given us something we can rely on: it is the teaching offered by the institution established to guide us, forever until the end of time, the Church in union with Peter - the Magisterium.

It is not for you, me or any of us to decide. This is how we may indeed know the way, and find the truth for certain - it is not up to us, thank God. Like the wise men, follow the star, or go to the light on the hill: the Church.

tornpage (and MRyan),

The difference between "Feeneyism" and sedevacantism is that the Church has never condemned 'Feeneyism' as a heresy. In fact, there are religious groups holding to the understanding taught by Fr. Leonard Feeney who are in union with the Church.

They embrace the authority of the Magisterium, while at the same time rejecting it. One could point to a number of theological condemnations and censures since Vatican II, even some excommunications for heresy, but not for “Feeneyism.” However, they say that such does not matter, because they have set up their own church court right here. Now, if they truly believe in Unam Sanctam, then they should refer the matter to Rome! Of course, others have done just that, and we all know the answer. They do not believe in something called "theological opinion.” Rome, however, does.

Allie wrote:I am certainly not as learned and well-read as all of you are pertaining to these matters. Quite frankly these "discussions" seem to swirl around and around and perhaps over my head and I would just like to ask a few questions for the sake of my own clarity and sanity:

What exactly is everyone trying to prove or resolve with this debate?
I am not asking this in a smart alec way, but honestly.

Are those who are not accepting that Baptism of Blood/Desire ever happen arguing against "baptism of desire'rs" because they fear that "baptism of desire'rs" are not doing their part to evangelize others to the Catholic Faith???

I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth but from what I understand about Elisa and MRyan and (Tornpage?) position it seems that they believe Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood may be "possible" under certain conditions, but certainly not a norm. Am I correct in this interpretation?

I am typing this with a squirmy baby on my lap so I may need to come back and edit a bit- just to warn you all and to apologize in advance if my questions for clarity were not clear themselves.. and I may be sorry I even posted anything at all -lol

Hi Allie,
I understand your question and sometimes ask myself the same (what are we hoping to achieve in this debate?).
For me, the principle at stake is that most fundamental belief of our religion which is based on God's own revelation of Himself from Adam to the present day; our belief in Gods omnipotence, His Truth and His providence.
I see baptism of desire especially at variance with all three, and as it is understood in our present time (I shall call this MRyanism) is not what the Church hitherto meant to portray when she used the word "Desire" in the contexts in which She used it.

baptism of desire in it's MRyan interpretation would have us doubting the almighty power of God to bring to the waters of Baptism those souls He wishes to justify and save.

It would also have us doubt the words of Christ Himself when He proclaimed that all must be baptised in the name of the Holy Trinity for salvation; that God does not bind Himself by His own infallible word once spoken but wishes to operate outside His own decree when His omnipotence can't suffice to spare the life of a soul who seeks Him with a sincere heart in reaching the saving waters of Baptism.

That His providence is somehow deficient regarding certain souls while still encompassing the majority.

That His own word is as ambiguous as the New Catechism and one can never determine it's meaning even if He should render it clear by a dogmatic declaration of His Church.

And finally, that He has given our dear friends the MRyanites the fullest understanding of this doctrine, that as of today, has yet to be given a formal definition by the Church, but still somehow remains a doctrine to be believed by all, lest the unbelievers find themselves as invincibly ingnorant heretics.

My purpose in this whole debate is not just confined to the topic in question but more so to defend against what will ensue if baptism of desire be ever accepted as being dogma by the majority of believers.
There is no such thing as a narrow interpretation. It has already widened to include unbaptised children (as can be found in the CCC) and also to include the inculpable ignorance of those outside the Church who worship false gods. All of these false doctrines are interconnected, one leading to the other and eventually ending in what St Pope Pius X warned of, A one world Church devoid of discipline and doctrine to the ruination of millions of souls who allow themselves to become dceived by it.

MarianLibrarian wrote:tornpage (and MRyan),

The difference between "Feeneyism" and sedevacantism is that the Church has never condemned 'Feeneyism' as a heresy. In fact, there are religious groups holding to the understanding taught by Fr. Leonard Feeney who are in union with the Church.

And neither has the Church condemned sedevacantism as a “heresy”; in fact sedevacantism is a truth which recognizes the “empty seat” period between the death of a pope and the election of his successor.

How this truth can relate to a period lasting more than a half century without violating the dogmas of visible papal perpetual primacy and a visible Church is the rub; and I personally believe that such a circle cannot be squared without falling into heresy.

The Church cannot fail in her visible divine mission and she cannot disappear off the face of the earth, or be confined to these little sede sects, without making a mockery of the promise of our Lord.

And why do you folks continuously bring up Fr. Feeney's “union” with the Church as if that has anything to do with the debate about whether Catholics may openly “deny and reject” the authentic and ordinary Magisterial teachings of the Church, as we see here?

You seem to want to suggest that the Church has blessed such open dissent by recognizing some of the St. Benedict Center houses and by reconciling Fr. Feeney with the Church. But I don't remember the Church rescinding her official rebuke of the St. Benedict Center for refusing to listen to the Church and her authentic teachings.

This reminds me of SSPX types who “bet” me that the lifting of the excommunications would be a repudiation of the excommunications and validate the SSPX's contention that they were null and void from the start, and an abuse of power by Pope JPII. They lost the bet. That the excommunications were lifted does not change the fact of the schismatic attitude that every person who attends an SSPX chapel and receives illicit sacraments must avoid.

Br. Andre, as does every approved St. Benedict Center house, calls the baptism of desire and baptism of blood of St. Thomas Aquinas “orthodox”, so where is the “denial and rejection” that we see presented here in various forms, to include the accusation of “formal heresy”? Go ahead and try and claim that the present St. Benedict Center teaches that the Canons of Trent condemn baptism of desire and baptism of blood, and you will be in for a rude awakening; even if that discredited argument was popular with Feeneyites in ages past, and can still be found in some of the old Feeneyite materials.

I still find it amazing that so many here claim to be spiritual descendants of Fr. Feeney; yet, there are probably only one or two who actually believe as Fr. Feeney believed.

MRyan wrote:Br. Andre, as does every approved St. Benedict Center house, calls the baptism of desire and baptism of blood of St. Thomas Aquinas “orthodox”, so where is the “denial and rejection” that we see presented here in various forms, to include the accusation of “formal heresy”? Go ahead and try and claim that the present St. Benedict Center teaches that the Canons of Trent condemn baptism of desire and baptism of blood, and you will be in for a rude awakening; even if that discredited argument was popular with Feeneyites in ages past, and can still be found in some of the old Feeneyite materials.

I still find it amazing that so many here claim to be spiritual descendants of Fr. Feeney; yet, there are probably only one or two who actually believe as Fr. Feeney believed.

I think that Rasha should ban you. No one has ever claimed that Baptism of Desire & Blood are heresies. If so, provide the text that says explicitly from anyone on this board who claimed that Baptism of Desire & Blood are heresies. Yes, teaching that infants who die without Baptism (and remain dead) can attain the Beatific Vision, yes, that is a heresy, but the CCC nowhere claims that, at least not explicitly. Perhaps Rome will clarify that issue someday here soon.

In any case, STOP putting words into our mouths. If I was moderator, you'd be gone for this.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:Br. Andre, as does every approved St. Benedict Center house, calls the baptism of desire and baptism of blood of St. Thomas Aquinas “orthodox”, so where is the “denial and rejection” that we see presented here in various forms, to include the accusation of “formal heresy”? Go ahead and try and claim that the present St. Benedict Center teaches that the Canons of Trent condemn baptism of desire and baptism of blood, and you will be in for a rude awakening; even if that discredited argument was popular with Feeneyites in ages past, and can still be found in some of the old Feeneyite materials.

I still find it amazing that so many here claim to be spiritual descendants of Fr. Feeney; yet, there are probably only one or two who actually believe as Fr. Feeney believed.

I think that Rasha should ban you. No one has ever claimed that Baptism of Desire & Blood are heresies. If so, provide the text that says explicitly from anyone on this board who claimed that Baptism of Desire & Blood are heresies. Yes, teaching that infants who die without Baptism (and remain dead) can attain the Beatific Vision, yes, that is a heresy, but the CCC nowhere claims that, at least not explicitly. Perhaps Rome will clarify that issue someday here soon.

In any case, STOP putting words into our mouths. If I was moderator, you'd be gone for this.

I don't have to put words into anyone's mouth, I just have to cite YOUR EXACT words that go like this:

Applying baptism of desire to those who do not have an explicit vow to receive it is a formal heresy.

An implicit desire for baptism, as the Doctors (to include St. Aquinas) and the Church teaches, is part of the doctrine of Baptism of Desire. What Br. Andre calls “orthodox”, you call a “formal heresy”. You you are the one blowing smoke around here.

So who cares that you think I should be banned?

The truth hurts and your own words convict you.

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:Br. Andre, as does every approved St. Benedict Center house, calls the baptism of desire and baptism of blood of St. Thomas Aquinas “orthodox”, so where is the “denial and rejection” that we see presented here in various forms, to include the accusation of “formal heresy”? Go ahead and try and claim that the present St. Benedict Center teaches that the Canons of Trent condemn baptism of desire and baptism of blood, and you will be in for a rude awakening; even if that discredited argument was popular with Feeneyites in ages past, and can still be found in some of the old Feeneyite materials.

I still find it amazing that so many here claim to be spiritual descendants of Fr. Feeney; yet, there are probably only one or two who actually believe as Fr. Feeney believed.

I think that Rasha should ban you. No one has ever claimed that Baptism of Desire & Blood are heresies. If so, provide the text that says explicitly from anyone on this board who claimed that Baptism of Desire & Blood are heresies. Yes, teaching that infants who die without Baptism (and remain dead) can attain the Beatific Vision, yes, that is a heresy, but the CCC nowhere claims that, at least not explicitly. Perhaps Rome will clarify that issue someday here soon.

In any case, STOP putting words into our mouths. If I was moderator, you'd be gone for this.

I don't have to put words into anyone's mouth, I just have to cite YOUR EXACT words that go like this:

Applying baptism of desire to those who do not have an explicit vow to receive it is a formal heresy.

An implicit desire for baptism, as the Doctors (to include St. Aquinas) and the Church teaches, is part of the doctrine of Baptism of Desire. What Br. Andre calls “orthodox”, you call a “formal heresy”. You you are the one blowing smoke around here.

So who cares that you think I should be banned?

The truth hurts and your own words convict you.

Uh..excuse me, but I stand by my words. Yes, applying baptism of desire to those who do not have the explicit vow to receive it is a heresy. I acknowledge Saint Thomas' teaching that an "implicit desire" for Baptism can suffice, but such a desire is transitory. Yes, it is hypothetically possible for a person to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ and come to faith, and then die before Baptism or even the explicit vow for it, and then attain the Beatific Vision. (It is my opinion that the One and Triune God will never, ever allow such to happen, but that's beside the point.) But, no, it is not heresy to say that one can have an "implicit desire" to receive Baptism, as understood by Saint Thomas, and I have never claimed otherwise. What Saint Thomas taught was that "implicit desire" must and always become explicit, and rather soon after receiving the Gospel.

Now, that is what is not taught in the Boston letter, was it?? No, what was taught in that heretical letter was that a person could have an "implicit desire" in perpetuity, so long as that individual has "perfect charity, and is sincerely seeking the truth, blah, blah..."

So, yes, once again, STOP putting words into my mouth. I have clarified my position on this, so please accept it, or move on, to a different message board.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:
I don't have to put words into anyone's mouth, I just have to cite YOUR EXACT words that go like this:

Applying baptism of desire to those who do not have an explicit vow to receive it is a formal heresy.

An implicit desire for baptism, as the Doctors (to include St. Aquinas) and the Church teaches, is part of the doctrine of Baptism of Desire. What Br. Andre calls “orthodox”, you call a “formal heresy”. You you are the one blowing smoke around here.

So who cares that you think I should be banned?

The truth hurts and your own words convict you.

Uh..excuse me, but I stand by my words. Yes, applying baptism of desire to those who do not have the explicit vow to receive it is a heresy. I acknowledge Saint Thomas' teaching that an "implicit desire" for Baptism can suffice, but such a desire is transitory. Yes, it is hypothetically possible for a person to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ and come to faith, and then die before Baptism or even the explicit vow for it, and then attain the Beatific Vision. (It is my opinion that the One and Triune God will never, ever allow such to happen, but that's beside the point.) But, no, it is not heresy to say that one can have an "implicit desire" to receive Baptism, as understood by Saint Thomas, and I have never claimed otherwise. What Saint Thomas taught was that "implicit desire" must and always become explicit, and rather soon after receiving the Gospel.

Now, that is what is not taught in the Boston letter, was it?? No, what was taught in that heretical letter was that a person could have an "implicit desire" in perpetuity, so long as that individual has "perfect charity, and is sincerely seeking the truth, blah, blah..."

So, yes, once again, STOP putting words into my mouth. I have clarified my position on this, so please accept it, or move on, to a different message board.

Sigh ...

Uh..excuse me, but I stand by my words. Yes, applying baptism of desire to those who do not have the explicit vow to receive it is a heresy... But, no, it is not heresy to say that one can have an "implicit desire" to receive Baptism, as understood by Saint Thomas, and I have never claimed otherwise.

So, yes, once again, STOP putting words into my mouth. I have clarified my position on this, so please accept it

The Twilight Zone (music, please).

I'll address the rest of your nonsense on what St. Thomas Aquinas and the "heretical" Holy Office Letter actually taught some other time; right now, I can't take this.

Jehanne wrote:
I acknowledge Saint Thomas' teaching that an "implicit desire" for Baptism can suffice, but such a desire is transitory.

What Saint Thomas taught was that "implicit desire" must and always become explicit, and rather soon after receiving the Gospel.

Really? Is that was St. Thomas Aquinas taught? Then you should be able to prove it.

SO PROVE IT!

He does not seem to suggest what you allege, but says, rather:

"As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment." (STh III, q. 69, a. 4.)

You need to start to back-up your assertions, or to knock it off. And you dare to suggest that I should be banned when I provided the proof of your own words that put a lie to your false allegation and demand that I should be banned for cause. Your convoluted hypocritical response was so utterly self-refuting that everyone can see that your pathetic attempt to explain your reckless charge of “formal heresy” only deepened the hole you have dug for yourself.

How hard is it to admit that you are wrong, rather than continue to wallow in this self-refuting hypocrisy which only demonstrates that you have no idea what you are talking about?

I don't mind helping you out of your hole and moving on, but I can't stand blatant hypocrisy and abject denial.

Jehanne wrote:
Now, that is what is not taught in the Boston letter, was it?? No, what was taught in that heretical letter was that a person could have an "implicit desire" in perpetuity, so long as that individual has "perfect charity, and is sincerely seeking the truth, blah, blah..."

Yes, blah, blah, blah; a bunch of meaningless nothing and another scandalous charge of “heresy” when the Letter of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office teaches the same doctrine as St. Thomas Aquinas and confirms that an implicit desire for baptism and to enter the Church must be rooted in an explicit supernatural faith and a perfect charity.

And, for calling that “heresy”, you not only dig your hole that much deeper; you prove that you are utterly incompetent in all such matters.

MRyan,

"deny and reject" is your characterization of the position (which you also elevate to a doctrine without proper authority).

The union of Fr. Feeney's followers is entirely relevant to this discussion. Do they teach 'baptism of desire'? Are they in good standing with the Church?

The SSPX were excommunicated for a schismatic act. This is not the same as Fr. Feeney and his followers. While sedevacantism is also a term for the interim between the death of a Pope and the election of his successor, Sedevacantism as a religion is a heresy. The conciliar documents are quite clear on the perpetuity of Peter's successors (as you noted above). To suggest that there could be such a gross break in the line of Popes, as the sedevacantists do, is heresy because it violates this principle.

Believing that God can and always will provide sacramental Baptism to open and willing souls (which He Himself prepared) is not a heresy.

MarianLibrarian wrote:Sedevacantism as a religion is a heresy.

It certainly would be if it were a religion.

And here we have sedevacantists out there who profess the Catholic faith, and even a belief in the Primacy and the perpetual succession of Peter.

Someone should tell them that their erroneous "empty chair" position during this very long interregnum (they claim) constitutes a new religion.

This just keeps getting better and better.

In fact, I think I'll call it a night.

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:
I acknowledge Saint Thomas' teaching that an "implicit desire" for Baptism can suffice, but such a desire is transitory.

What Saint Thomas taught was that "implicit desire" must and always become explicit, and rather soon after receiving the Gospel.

Really? Is that was St. Thomas Aquinas taught? Then you should be able to prove it.

SO PROVE IT!

He does not seem to suggest what you allege, but says, rather:

"As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment." (STh III, q. 69, a. 4.)

You need to start to back-up your assertions, or to knock it off. And you dare to suggest that I should be banned when I provided the proof of your own words that put a lie to your false allegation and demand that I should be banned for cause. Your convoluted hypocritical response was so utterly self-refuting that everyone can see that your pathetic attempt to explain your reckless charge of “formal heresy” only deepened the hole you have dug for yourself.

How hard is it to admit that you are wrong, rather than continue to wallow in this self-refuting hypocrisy which only demonstrates that you have no idea what you are talking about?

I don't mind helping you out of your hole and moving on, but I can't stand blatant hypocrisy and abject denial.

Jehanne wrote:
Now, that is what is not taught in the Boston letter, was it?? No, what was taught in that heretical letter was that a person could have an "implicit desire" in perpetuity, so long as that individual has "perfect charity, and is sincerely seeking the truth, blah, blah..."

Yes, blah, blah, blah; a bunch of meaningless nothing and another scandalous charge of “heresy” when the Letter of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office teaches the same doctrine as St. Thomas Aquinas and confirms that an implicit desire for baptism and to enter the Church must be rooted in an explicit supernatural faith and a perfect charity.

And, for calling that “heresy”, you not only dig your hole that much deeper; you prove that you are utterly incompetent in all such matters.

Your selective quotation of Saint Thomas would be funny, if it were not so pathetic:

"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." (STh III, q. 68, a. 2.)

Geesh, it's only ONE question before the quote that you gave me!! One can only wonder what Saint Thomas was thinking?!! Okay, clearly, Saint Thomas means, as I said above, that "implicit desire" for Baptism is TEMPORARY and TRANSITORY, and is ONLY present in those who have EXPLICIT FAITH in Jesus Christ. Clearly, Baptism of Desire, in Saint Thomas' view is NOT for Jews, pagans, and/or infidels. He is quite clear, and shall we say, EXPLICIT about that!

Now, as far as "Feeneyism," we simply assert that the One and Triune God, even though He is not bound by His Sacraments, is also NOT bound by the physical laws of the Universe which He created, so He is quite capable of bringing the Sacrament of Baptism to whomever sincerely desires it.

columba wrote:
Hi Allie,
I understand your question and sometimes ask myself the same (what are we hoping to achieve in this debate?).
For me, the principle at stake is that most fundamental belief of our religion which is based on God's own revelation of Himself from Adam to the present day; our belief in Gods omnipotence, His Truth and His providence.
I see baptism of desire especially at variance with all three, and as it is understood in our present time (I shall call this MRyanism) is not what the Church hitherto meant to portray when she used the word "Desire" in the contexts in which She used it.

baptism of desire in it's MRyan interpretation would have us doubting the almighty power of God to bring to the waters of Baptism those souls He wishes to justify and save.

It would also have us doubt the words of Christ Himself when He proclaimed that all must be baptised in the name of the Holy Trinity for salvation; that God does not bind Himself by His own infallible word once spoken but wishes to operate outside His own decree when His omnipotence can't suffice to spare the life of a soul who seeks Him with a sincere heart in reaching the saving waters of Baptism.

That His providence is somehow deficient regarding certain souls while still encompassing the majority.

That His own word is as ambiguous as the New Catechism and one can never determine it's meaning even if He should render it clear by a dogmatic declaration of His Church.

And finally, that He has given our dear friends the MRyanites the fullest understanding of this doctrine, that as of today, has yet to be given a formal definition by the Church, but still somehow remains a doctrine to be believed by all, lest the unbelievers find themselves as invincibly ingnorant heretics.

My purpose in this whole debate is not just confined to the topic in question but more so to defend against what will ensue if baptism of desire be ever accepted as being dogma by the majority of believers.
There is no such thing as a narrow interpretation. It has already widened to include unbaptised children (as can be found in the CCC) and also to include the inculpable ignorance of those outside the Church who worship false gods. All of these false doctrines are interconnected, one leading to the other and eventually ending in what St Pope Pius X warned of, A one world Church devoid of discipline and doctrine to the ruination of millions of souls who allow themselves to become dceived by it.

Thank you, Columba.

I can see and I agree with alot of your points.

In regard to your statement that there is no such thing as a narrow interpretation of baptism of desire because it ends up in basically the universal salvation of all people (my paraphrasing)- it is true there are many who believe that this is what is meant by baptism of desire. Although, I know MRyan/Elisa are NOT included in this description of thinking anyone and everyone can obtain salvation.

On the other side of the matter, so often it appears to me that those who are adamantly opposed to any baptism of desire (whether in practice or in theory) can end up tending towards suspicion of the recent Popes/Church. I recogize there are more than a few screwy things that have gone on in the Church in recent times that definitely make me take pause and scratch my head; yet I want to stay faithful to the Church that Jesus called me into out of the darkness and I don't want to be suspicious of my Mother- so it makes it all the more confusing.

Either side of this debate apparently has "the potential" to corrupt one's Faith.

I suppose more reading is in order for me...or heck, probably more praying....OK, both...lol

MRyan wrote:

MarianLibrarian wrote:Sedevacantism as a religion is a heresy.

It certainly would be if it were a religion.

And here we have sedevacantists out there who profess the Catholic faith, and even a belief in the Primacy and the perpetual succession of Peter.

Yet their fantasy that the See of Peter has been vacant/usurped by "heretics" for nearly half a century (depending on the sedevacantist you talk to) betrays their true feelings. Such an idea is abhorrent to the Catholic Faith. Thus, yes, sedevacantism is a kind of new religion (just as protestantism is). What sort of Catholic could even muse that the perpetual office of the Papacy could remain essentially vacant so long, as though God had abandoned His Church?

MRyan wrote:Someone should tell them that their erroneous "empty chair" position during this very long interregnum (they claim) constitutes a new religion.

You pretend that someone who doesn't hold the theological opinion of 'baptism of desire' is akin to a "protestant", it's not a stretch to suggest the same for the sedevacantist. There is no precedence for an interregnum that goes 'unnoticed' by all the cardinals, etc. of the Church (oh, wait, are there any cardinals?) and spans nearly fifty or so years.



However, all that is beside the point that it is not a heresy to believe that God could and always would provide Sacramental baptism to open and willing souls.

MRyan wrote:No problem, Allie, its always nice to hear from you.

Thank you, I hope you are doing well!

MRyan wrote:For my part, this is simple. The Church teaches, and has always held, through her authentic and ordinary Magisterium, the doctines of baptism of desire and baptism of blood. The evidence is beyond dispute that she has been teaching these doctrines “on the record” since at least the Council of Trent. Did I mention that the universal moral consensus of saints and theologians accept these doctrines, without one voice of dissent since the Council of Trent (and probably before .. e.g., St. Thomas Aquinas and all the medieval theologians)?

My protagonists make a variety of arguments against the doctrines which either deny (LOL) that the Church has ever held these doctrines; or say that they are directly opposed to the Church's dogmas (heresy); or that they are simply “theological errors” or "null sets" the Church has allowed to spread, even in her own official documents (funny).

The 800lb. Gorilla in the room, however, which our protagonists absolutely refuse to address (crickets), is the infallible dogmatic teaching from VCI and the DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION (Dei Verbum, VCII), the latter of which declares:

"10. … THE TASK OF AUTHENTICALLY INTERPRETING THE WORD OF GOD, WHETHER WRITTEN OR HANDED ON, HAS BEEN ENTRUSTED EXCLUSIVELY TO THE LIVING TEACHING OFFICE OF THE CHURCH whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed."

Do we accept and submit to the authority of the Church over her own doctrines?

Yes, we do; our protagonists say no, we don't, that the living Magisterium cannot always be trusted and is subject to a variety of "litmus tests" for orthodoxy before anyone is required to religiously submit. They also suggest that the current teaching authority is a sham or does not have to be followed because it has "abandoned" the true sense of her own defined dogmas.

I have demonstrated that private interpretation is the doctrine of the Protestants.

That's it, in a nutshell.

I have trouble accepting the opinion that the current teaching authority is a sham or should not be followed. It seems to fly in the face of the promise that Jesus gave us that He would send (to His Church) the "counselor"/Paraclete who would guide her in all Truth and would not leave her abandoned (among the various other Scriptures along these lines).

However, I do sympathize with those who are scandalized by so many abuses and false teachings that are accepted/espoused by so many in the Church. I do find myself confused as to why the Lord permits so much error to remain seemingly unchallenged. But, I know Jesus has not abandoned His Church and He has a plan and a reason for all things, and I love our Catholic Church. (I know you all love her as well).

Now, hopefully Rasha doesn't listen to Jehanne's "desire" to ban MRyan - I hope it is a null set- lol. OK, I know I am not funny and Rasha is all business so I will probably have this post deleted.

But seriously, I do have more to comment on but I need to review a few things before I do so. I just didn't want to leave you hanging with no response since I don't know how soon I will be back on.

God bless you all,
Allie

Yet their fantasy that the See of Peter has been vacant/usurped by "heretics" for nearly half a century (depending on the sedevacantist you talk to) betrays their true feelings. Such an idea is abhorrent to the Catholic Faith.

Oh give me a break!!!! Tell me, is it as "abhorrent" as the belief that the teaching office of the Magisterium can be wrong about something as central to salvation as how one is justified and saved?

Sedes recognize the fracture, the irreparable fracture, that would occur in the divine economy if the genuine teaching office of the Magisterium could teach error in the doctrine of salvation. So they quite logically and rationally conclude that the office from which the error emerges is not the genuine teaching office of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Feeneyites, on the other hand, maintain the the genuine teaching office of the divinely appointed organ on earth of salvation teaches error and even, as we've seen recently here, "formal heresy." Feeneyites offend not only Catholic truth but logic as well. At least sedes only offend Catholic truth. Which, if one is genuinely in pursuit of truth and recognizes the infallible guide or reason and logic in that pursuit, give sedes a decided advantage.

This is truly surreal. If I didn't know better, I'd think MRyan, Elisa, and myself had all dropped some LSD.

I have not said the Magisterium is wrong about how one is justified and saved. You cannot lump everyone on this forum together as nearly everyone says something different about the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. You and MRyan don't even agree! Do I disagree with MRyan's and your interpretation of certain Magisterial texts? Yes. Just because MRyan says something is doctrine does not make it so. There is no doctrine of the Church that is so undeveloped and absent from papal and conciliar documents. No one even believes the same thing about 'baptism of desire', so how can it be doctrine when there is no consensus about what exactly one must believe about 'baptism of desire'?

Is it heresy, tornpage, to believe that God could and always would provide sacramental baptism to an open and willing soul?

Don't worry about it. No one is going to get banned.
That would be an effeminate thing to do. Let's duke it out in a debate like men rather than ban people!

Why would I ban MRyan?
So that we can have a forum of people that totally agree on everything? That sounds like another forum that rhymes with Spastic Dancers. LOL

One problem we have here is that causes confusion is that we have some Feeneyites here (such as MarianLibrarian, Duckbill, Jehanne, Columba, myself, and a few others) that are not sedevacantists, we have others here like C_T who says he is "agnostic" on the sedevacantist issue, but seems to lean towards it, then we have others such as Fatima For Our Times who are sedevacantists. The Sedevacantists who don't hold baptism of desire/baptism of blood are more likely to be the ones to call those who hold baptism of desire "heretics".

I guess we need some non-Feeneyite Sedes on the forum to even the score, LOL.

Here is my short response to Allie as to why we argue Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

To defend the faith against statements like those made by our current Holy Father, who for example, when asked by Seewald in 'Salt of the Earth' how many paths there are to God, replied:

"There are as many ways to God as there are men and women"

tornpage wrote:Feeneyites, on the other hand, maintain the the genuine teaching office of the divinely appointed organ on earth of salvation teaches error and even, as we've seen recently here, "formal heresy." Feeneyites offend not only Catholic truth but logic as well. At least sedes only offend Catholic truth. Which, if one is genuinely in pursuit of truth and recognizes the infallible guide or reason and logic in that pursuit, give sedes a decided advantage.

Stop saying that. No one, myself included, has ever said that. The Boston letter, as we all know, was not "official" Church teaching, and when the Second Vatican Council referenced it, the phrase "implicit desire" was dropped:

http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/CenterReview/3_2005_Vatican2.pdf

The Magisterium of the Church can teach error, not just not bind Catholics to believe in error. This was the whole point of the First Vatican Council. If the Magisterium of the Church everywhere and always taught without error, what, then, was the purpose of Vatican I?

RashaLampa wrote:Why would I ban MRyan?

MRyan loves to engage in ad hominem arguments. He accused me of saying that Baptism of Desire was a formal heresy because I said this:

Me wrote:Applying baptism of desire to those who do not have an explicit vow to receive it is a formal heresy.

While I was thinking of Saint Thomas' teaching when I wrote that and the very, very tiny group of people he had in mind when he said "implicit desire," I, nonetheless, should have said this:

New Quote wrote:Applying baptism of desire to those who do not have an explicit vow to receive it is a formal heresy, the sole and only exception being that tiny, tiny group of individuals who, having received the Gospel of Jesus Christ and having come to explicit faith in Him, yet not knowing about the absolute necessity of Sacramental Baptism are, nonetheless, prepared to do all that Christ and His Church will command of them will, upon hearing of the absolute necessity of Baptism, resolve and vow to have Baptism and desire it explicitly until the appointed time of Baptism. These individuals and only these individuals can receive salvation, if they should die before receiving that Sacrament. This latter group and only this latter group can be said to have "implicit desire" for Baptism, but such a state is temporal and transitory, lasting at most a few hours or days, probably, a few minutes, after which, they will always, if they wish to remain in a state of grace, transition from an implicit desire for Baptism to an explicit vow for that Sacrament.

So, the above is now my official position on the orthodoxy of Baptism of Desire, whether explicit or implicit, and others on the board should reference this position and not my prior one.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:
He [St. Thomas] does not seem to suggest what you allege, but says, rather:

"As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment." (STh III, q. 69, a. 4.)

Your selective quotation of Saint Thomas would be funny, if it were not so pathetic:

"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." (STh III, q. 68, a. 2.)

Geesh, it's only ONE question before the quote that you gave me!! One can only wonder what Saint Thomas was thinking?!! Okay, clearly, Saint Thomas means, as I said above, that "implicit desire" for Baptism is TEMPORARY and TRANSITORY, and is ONLY present in those who have EXPLICIT FAITH in Jesus Christ. Clearly, Baptism of Desire, in Saint Thomas' view is NOT for Jews, pagans, and/or infidels. He is quite clear, and shall we say, EXPLICIT about that!

This entire exercise in futility is to demonstrate that St. Thomas Aquinas taught (and the Church teaches) that one may in fact have an implicit desire for baptism as part of the required disposition and will to do the will of God in all things; and that this implicit desire for baptism not only does NOT in any way constitute “formal heresy”, it does NOT have to become “explicit”, and it does indeed satisfy for baptism, or the desire thereof, when the other virtues and dispositions are present (i.e., explicit faith and perfect charity, as the Holy Office Letter confirmed).

To demonstrate that St. Thomas' teaching on the implicit desire for baptism must be understood as a “transitory” desire that “must and always become explicit, and rather soon after receiving the Gospel”, and to demonstrate how my “pathetic” and “selective” citation of St. Thomas is taken out of context, you provide another citation from the Summa that is suppose to validate your silly thesis of “the implicit desire for baptism is heresy … but it is not heresy when it becomes explicit”, when it proves nothing except how seriously deluded is your thinking and how flawed is your argumentation.

And I'm being generous.

For nowhere does St. Thomas Aquinas suggest that the “'implicit desire' for Baptism is TEMPORARY and TRANSITORY, and is ONLY present in those who have EXPLICIT FAITH in Jesus Christ”.

Nowhere. The subject is NOT an implicit vs. an explicit faith in Jesus Christ as an intrinsic necessity, the subject is the implicit desire for Baptism, which may be implicit in one's desire and intention to do the will of God in all things. Yes, one must come to an explicit supernatural faith, but that does not mean that one's implicit desire for Baptism must also become “explicit”, for they are not the same thing as St. Thomas recognized and taught (and so does the Church).

It is clear that you do not know what St. Thomas taught, so let's walk through what he actually said:

The sacrament of baptism may be “wanting” in reality, or in desire. Conversely, it may be fulfilled in reality, or in desire, “in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly”. Now, someone who does not have the wish or desire for baptism cannot obtain salvation because his “free will” is not ordained towards God to do all that He commands.

St. Thomas does not have to explicitly spell out what is implicit and clearly understood in his teaching, that the contempt shown in the explicit wish not to be baptized would apply equally to an implicit wish not to be baptized, because any such contempt shows not only a contempt for the sacrament, but a contempt for the divine Will in general; and he would not “desire” the sacrament in either case; and thus, he could not be incorporated in Christ, neither in reality (the sacrament), nor virtually (mentally/in desire).

So you are the one guilty of selective citation, of taking St. Thomas out of context and twisting his words as if to prove that he contradicted himself, or doesn't know what he is talking about; when the only one who is confused is you.

The two citations are entirely consistent, except to those who are blinded by their own sordid errors.

You still have yet to explain why the Holy Office Letter of 1949 is “heretical”. But if your mangling of the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas is any indication, your reckless and unfounded accusations against the Sacred Congregational of the Holy Office should come as no surprise.

In summary:

1. The implicit desire for baptism is NOT the same thing as the necessity of an explicit faith, so your “its heresy … it is not heresy” blather is just that, contradictory and incomprehensible blather.

2. Nowhere did St. Thomas Aquinas teach that one's implicit desire for the sacrament “is TEMPORARY and TRANSITORY” and “must and always become explicit, and rather soon after receiving the Gospel”.

Horse puckey, he never taught that; and your hole just keeps getting wider and deeper.

Someone needs to throw you a lifeline.