Baptism or baptism of desire. What are the fruits?

Question:

Which is easier for God to provide?  Baptism?  Or baptism of desire?

Since God is All Powerful, the answer is, the Sacrament of Baptism is never impossible for God. There are no conditions which hinder Him. Therefore, baptism of desire becomes an excuse for heresy.

God cannot deny Himself and do otherwise than He says He will do. The Church, on behalf of Almighty God, teaches there is ONE Lord, ONE Faith and ONE Baptism. God does not offer an another baptism to cover for His bad timing.  Nor for some lack of water, despite the insistence of weak Catholics.  It is utterly devastating to find that even Traditional Catholics believe the Church teaches there is a “baptism of desire”, a ‘faith alone’ kind of salvation since God had somehow failed to provide the Sacrament of Baptism for one of His elect. The faulty logic of baptism of desire is at the heart of the Catholic Church in crisis since most Catholics have fallen for this heresy that fundamentally undermines the teachings of Jesus Christ and through its smoke and mirrors, makes Traditional minded Catholics into modern Catholics. The Sacrament of Baptism has never been impossible for God to provide! All impossibilities belong to sinners of their own fault. Period. Baptism of desire is a satanic sleight of hand robbing the Church of warriors for the Faith to carry out the missionary mandate of Christ to 'baptize all nations'. The fact that baptism of desire is said to replace baptism  should already sound the alarm in the true Catholic heart. baptism of desire contradicts many Catholic teachings, the telltale mark of heresy.

“One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism is a mantra that stands against other religions and other gods. But, what other baptisms are there? In teaching “one Baptism” the Church at once preempts baptism of desire and denies it.

baptism of desire does zero good for any living human; it does not help the way to get to heaven. So, what are the “fruits” of baptism of desire?  baptism of desire is nothing more than a theory, although many people, including authorities in the Church, believe it.  It is true that some saints considered baptism of desire, but only modern pseudo theologians ‘indoctrinated’ it. Many Catholics are actually afraid not to believe in baptism of desire because they don’t want any part of what they think belongs to sedevacantists who seem to dominate the issue. Well, that’s a poor excuse to use to deny the truth, since even a broken clock is right twice each day.  Baptism of Desire (baptism of desire) is no where defined. baptism of desire is not a dogma. Some saints who entertained it came to their senses, eventually, like St. Augustine, who discarded baptism of desire completely by the end of his life.*

————————————————————————————-
*In fact, even St. Augustine, in his last (anti-pelagian) period, no longer maintained the possibility of a baptism by desire.” (Rahner, Karl, Theological Investigations, Volume II, Man in the Church, translated by Karl H. Kruger, pp.40, 41, 57)

Consider the fruits of baptism of desire:


By their fruits you will know them…. Mathew 7:16

THE FRUITS OF BAPTISM OF DESIRE

Baptism of desire (baptism of desire) denies the necessity of the sacrament of baptism for salvation.

baptism of desire mocks the sacrament of baptism because it is not a sacrament. It is not an outward sign instituted by Christ. It is not a gateway to the other sacraments, does not remit sin, does not impart the baptismal character, all things the church teaches are part of justification and necessary for salvation, and which are the very characteristics of true baptism.

baptism of desire promotes the Protestant heresy that faith alone/desire alone, saves.

baptism of desire leads many Catholics to believe abortion is a source of hope for infants.

baptism of desire contradicts the Catholic teaching: One Lord, one faith, one baptism, since, baptism of desire, by definition, is not at all the same as baptism.

baptism of desire does not make anyone a member of the Church, yet, the Church teaches infallibly that there is no salvation outside the Church.

baptism of desire causes good Catholics to use doublespeak and modern language to explain away its defects.

baptism of desire promotes laxity and indifferentism because many Catholics tend to rely on a person's desire for heaven rather than do the work to help get the person baptized.

baptism of desire is nothing like baptism because the grace is not assured.

baptism of desire is nothing like baptism since it makes the necessary elements unnecessary.

baptism of desire manages to reward perseverance in sin.

baptism of desire is not a sacrament, nor has it been defined, yet baptism of desire is said to replace  baptism, the one sacrament that is necessary for salvation.

baptism of desire suggests the God is impotent, because due to circumstance, the Almighty cannot provide the sacrament in time.

baptism of desire implies God is not author of life and death because those who desire it meet their death in an untimely manner before they can receive baptism.

baptism of desire makes liars of popes and saints who teach no one who dies outside the Catholic Church is saved.

baptism of desire raises the teachings of some saints above the teachings of Popes and the Church.

baptism of desire blurs the meaning of baptism, leaving many people open to the pit of hell.

baptism of desire is said to save some outside the Church, making the doctrine of "No Salvation Outside the Church" an empty teaching and a lie.


baptism of desire mocks the Holy Spirit Who tells us in scripture to be washed for the remission of sins.

baptism of desire makes Jesus a liar, Who says: "Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema".

baptism of desire mocks scripture 1 Peter 3:21 a verse that says "baptism now saves you" by suggesting that an unprovided death can do the same.

baptism of desire undermines the Council of Trent which took great care to define the form and matter of baptism in very specific detail.

baptism of desire denies the teaching that a person must be baptized by another.

baptism of desire denies this canon in Trent: "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema' by removing the need for water.

baptism of desire is a fine example of how one twists into a metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, "unless one is born of water and the Holy Spirit, let him be anathema."

baptism of desire voids another infallible canon in Trent that states: "If anyone says that Baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema."

baptism of desire by its very definition undermines Christ's missionary mandate.

baptism of desire suggests God would be unmerciful unless He contradicts Church teaching and provide salvation without baptism.

What baptism of desire is to Baptism, the New Mass is to the Traditional Latin Mass...twisted words and ideas culminating in the synthesis of all heresies.

baptism of desire is a sinister doppelganger designed to appear holy while it undermines a necessary sacrament.

baptism of desire is a nothing more than Satan's counterfeit substitute for the necessary sacrament and by extension, the sacramental system.

--flatterus

Oh, please. Not again.

I lost track of the logical fallacies. I haven't the energy to pick apart this Protestant pick-and-choose diatribe of private revelation, so we'll take just one:

"baptism of desire is nothing like baptism because the grace is not assured."

Really, so the grace of baptism is assured in the baptism of all adults?

Think again, something else is required in adults, its called "desire".

Read the Fathers, read the theologians and read the Catechism (ANY and all catechisms), and stop pretending you know more than the Church.

Yes, it is known to all Catholics worthy of the name that the grace of baptism is assured, ex opere operato. With true baptism, grace comes unless its blocked by the disposition of the person. baptism of desire? Ha. Not so much. No promise, no specifications, no assurance, zip zero nada. baptism of desire proponents pretend that if you don't get to the font of life, you will be saved outside the church anyway, if you but desire! If that were true, God lied, the Church lied, Jesus lied, and the Holy Ghost lied. Since they do not lie, there is no baptism of desire. This heresy may have been hovering in the shadows for hundreds and hundreds of years, but it remains a wicked concept by a twist of words, and thus, vies with the new mass as the twin masthead of modernism.

In other words, the statement "baptism of desire is nothing like baptism because the grace is not assured" is false, for baptismal grace is NOT assured in every  adult baptism.  

How about this one:

“baptism of desire raises the teachings of some saints above the teachings of Popes and the Church.”

Apparently, Pope Pius XII did not get the dogmatic memo from his predecessors. In his Allocution to midwives, he wrote:

“Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open.”

Please tell us, “flatterus”, why pope Pius XIII chose to contradict the alleged “teachings of Popes and the Church” that are supposed to have rejected the baptism of desire. In fact, why did Pope Pius XII speak in such a way that suggests that baptism of desire was already a long established doctrine? Why, for example was this same doctrine codified in the 1917 code, and why was it taught in the Catechism of Trent, in local catechisms and in the catechisms of saints, to include that of Pope St. Pius X?

How could such a monstrous “heresy” be taught by the universal Church?

Of course, by saying “some saints” you suggest that baptism of desire was NOT the almost universal teaching of the saints and theologians - a most preposterous claim that is not supported by the public record.

You just kind of make it up as you go, no?

Like I said, the grace is assured for those who desire it and who receive baptism.

THE DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY OF PAPAL ALLOCUTIONS
By Joseph Clifford Fenton
...
Humani generis reminded its readers that "this sacred magisterium ought to be the immediate and universal norm of truth for any theologian in matters of faith and morals."[9] Furthermore, it insisted that the faithful are obligated to shun errors which more or less approach heresy, and "to follow the constitutions and decrees by which evil opinions of this sort have been proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See."

Trent insisted under pain of anathema that water is necessary for baptism. "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema".

Can you answer this question? Which is easier for God to get for His elect, baptism, or baptism of desire? Since it is not impossible for God to get baptism for anyone, under any circumstance, all the elect, since the promulgation of the gospel, are baptized in water. This according to many saints, including Robert Bellarmine.

Let me make it clear from the outset, that I reject "baptism of desire" since any real need for it can never be proven. It is fallacy to suggest anyone seeking baptism accidentally died before getting it. God is the author of life and death. You can't die on God accidentally. No one is outside God's reach, therefore, anything less than the remedy of baptism vanishes with the non-reality of a fanciful idea. The premise for baptism of desire is a dichotomy, a diabolic pretense. It is the same as proposing the question: Can God make a rock bigger than He can lift? And then fighting about it. The true God is not a God of what ifs, weakness or contradictions. So put away your documents, your saint statements, Baptism of desire is a chimera. Unfortunately, it follows that the extenuating circumstances of its wholesale purchase has undermined true baptism and will cost souls.

flatterus wrote:THE DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY OF PAPAL ALLOCUTIONS
By Joseph Clifford Fenton
...
Humani generis reminded its readers that "this sacred magisterium ought to be the immediate and universal norm of truth for any theologian in matters of faith and morals."[9] Furthermore, it insisted that the faithful are obligated to shun errors which more or less approach heresy, and "to follow the constitutions and decrees by which evil opinions of this sort have been proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See."

I get it, the same author (Pope Pius XII) who wrote Humani generis about the obligation “to shun errors which more or less approach heresy” would certainly encourage the faithful to shun the proximate heresy he penned in his Allocution to mid-wives (if only he knew that he was teaching approximate heresy!)

Can’t make this stuff up.  

flatterus wrote:Trent insisted under pain of anathema that water is necessary for baptism. "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema".

No disagreement here, it certainly did. But nowhere did Trent “define” that true and natural water is absolutely necessary to place one in a state of grace, or that if anyone who died in a state of justification without water baptism (by necessity), would be lost.

In fact, In Session VI, Ch. IV, it declared “this translation [to justification], since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”

And guess how the Church has always understood this declaration? Trent’s own Catechism teaches “should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”

Now, where have we heard that before?

flatterus wrote:Can you answer this question? Which is easier for God to get for His elect, baptism, or baptism of desire? Since it is not impossible for God to get baptism for anyone, under any circumstance, all the elect, since the promulgation of the gospel, are baptized in water. This according to many saints, including Robert Bellarmine.

Wait, you mean the same St. Robert Bellarmine who, in his work "De Ecclesia Militante", states "there are those who belong to the soul [of the Church] and not the body, as [are] catechumens or the excommunicated, if indeed they have charity [state of grace], which can happen." Again he also affirms that "Catechumens however if not in re at least in voto are in the Church and are therefore able to be saved."[ De Ecclesia Militante, Lib. III, Cap. 3]

O wait, “put away your [papal] documents, [your catechisms, your canon law], your saint [and Doctor’s] statements, Baptism of desire is a chimera.”

So says you, a magisterium of one (OK, perhaps a magisterium of 5-10 unschooled laymen).

The question “Which is easier for God to get for His elect, baptism, or baptism of desire?” is presumptuous (and wrong-headed) in the extreme, for it assumes that there are various degrees of difficulty before God, while also assuming, falsely, that God has decreed (through the Church) that He will not save anyone since the promulgation of the Gospel without ablution in the sacramental waters of baptism.   Neither He nor His Church have ever declared any such thing.

Your question actually goes to the heart of secondary contingent causes, and whether God intervenes in each and every case to effect a certain outcome (such as sacramental baptism, baptism in blood martyrdom or baptism by desire). To say that he intervenes to ensure that water baptism is available in each and every case of salvation (because God has allegedly vowed to do so) is simply not supported by Scripture, by Doctrine or by Tradition.  

St. Thomas Aquinas, in writing about Baptism by water (Jn 3:5), said the following:

'As it is written (I King 16:7), "Man sees those things that appear, but the Lord beholds the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in the heart, though not in body: thus the Apostle says (Rom. 2:29) that "The circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but God.'" Aquinas also teaches:

"the Doctrine that Baptism of Water may be replaced by the Baptism of desire or by Baptism of Blood is not, as is some times supposed, a recent development of doctrine, it is taught for instance by St. Gregory Nazianzen in a sermon preached in 381, where mention is made of the Baptism of water, of Martyrdom and of tears. It must be observed that we do not hold that there are three kinds of Baptism, for in the creed read in the Mass, we confess one Baptism for the remission of sins, the actual reception of which, however, may be replaced in either of the two ways mentioned."  (Summa Theologica III, q68, a 2)

I know, I know, “put away your [papal] documents, [your catechisms, your canon law], your saint [and Doctor’s] statements, Baptism of desire is a chimera.”

You’ll love this one:

Fr. Marin-Sola states in his theological treaties on the sacraments: “Certain heretics have affirmed that no adult can be saved without receiving baptism itself before he dies, however much he would burn with desire for it, and that it would do him no good unless he were washed with water. Baius (in a proposition condemned by Pope V) also taught that charity was not always joined to the remission of sins.” He continues on to state “Against the second part (baptism of blood) there are hardly any adversaries, save for a few theologians who disagree over the manner in which martyrdom achieves its effect.” [De Sacramentis, (BAC, 1954), 69.]

Imagine that!

Like I said, the premise is false. You pretend in your answers that saints haven't argued false premises as well as legitimate ones. They call them philosophers. Some questions became famous as a result. How many angels dance on the head of a pin? God and the rock too heavy to lift, etc. All you have to do is look a little closer at the question to see it ridiculous that God might not be able to get the sacrament of baptism for someone. No one dies on God. Pretending God must employ a baptism without water because circumstances were beyond His control is beyond insulting to the Almighty. God gets baptism for His elect. Suggesting otherwise is blasphemous. Whether or not a saint or pope fell for the question long enough to pose an opinion on it is irrelevant. The sad thing is, that the relativism that flows from that premise is taking its toll on the Church.

flatterus wrote:Like I said, the premise is false. You pretend in your answers that saints haven't argued false premises as well as legitimate ones. They call them philosophers.  Some questions became famous as a result.  How many angels dance on the head of a pin? God and the rock too heavy to lift, etc.  All you have to do is look a little closer at the question to see it ridiculous that God might not be able to get the sacrament of baptism for someone.  No one dies on God.  Pretending God must employ a baptism without water because circumstances were beyond His control is beyond insulting to the Almighty. God gets baptism for His elect. Suggesting otherwise is blasphemous. Whether or not a saint or pope fell for the question long enough to pose an opinion on it is irrelevant. The sad thing is, that the relativism that flows from that premise is taking its toll on the Church.  

Actually, you said the “premise” is "heresy".  

But, God does in fact get baptism to each and every one of His elect – without fail, for no one dies without the sacrament of water baptism, in re, or at least in voto, when, in the latter case, the grace of baptism is conferred gratuitously by God as a result of the entreaty of desire and the gifts of supernatural faith and perfect charity.  

Neither the Church nor such Doctors as Aquinas, Liguori and Bellarmine are “arguing” the truth of the doctrine of the baptism of desire on the back of some philosophical premise, but on the solid theological premises found in of antiquity, scripture and tradition. The “How many angels dance on the head of a pin” parody is a direct attack against scholasticism by the Church’s enemies, and yet here you are taking up the same fallacious non sequitur.  

St. Bonaventure taught that “God obliges no one to do the impossible and therefore it must be admitted that the baptism of desire without the baptism of water is sufficient, provided the person in question has the will to receive the baptism of water, but is prevented from doing so before he dies." (In Sent. IV, d.4,P.2,a.I,q.I.)

This is the same theological “premise” articulated by the same Popes and Fathers who commissioned, authored, and had published the Catechism of the Council of Trent which, once again, taught: “should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”

“Pretending God must employ a baptism without water because circumstances were beyond His control is beyond insulting to the Almighty”, and yet, I “pretend no such thing, for I am not in the business of telling God what He must or mustn’t do.

You are the one who “pretends” that God MUST bring the material waters of baptism to each and every one of His elect, and yet, your false assumption that you consider “dogma” is NOT supported by a single Pope, saint or theologian, while the baptisms of blood and desire are most assuredly taught by the Church (in her Catechisms, in her liturgies, in her canon laws and in her disciplines) and by a universal moral consensus of doctors and theologians.

And yet, you have the audacity to level the charge of heresy against the greatest Doctors of the Church, not to mention numerous of her popes. Do you think that calling this so-called heresy “material” soften the hubris? It does not, for it suggests that you and your little cadre of laymen possess some gnostic knowledge of the true meaning of the Church’s dogmas, and that the Church and all of her many Doctors, saints, popes and theologians have been in material “error” for centuries on end (they all “fell for the question”). Really, where does such hubris end?

In the case of the baptism of blood, for example, our Lord stated, "Everyone that shall confess me before men, I will also confess before My Father in Heaven" (Mt. 10:32). This was later taken by many saints as a reference to Baptism of blood in place of water, as undergone by the catechumen martyrs.

In fact, as even the St. Benedict Center, NH, admits, the case for the baptism of blood from the earliest days of the Church is universal -- and so uncontestable as a given fact that no one disputes it.

Any you have the audacity to call it “heresy”.

Please learn the difference between philosophy and theology.

simple Faith wrote:

Hey SF! Just like the old days!

I said: "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema".

You said: No disagreement here, it certainly did. But nowhere did Trent “define” that true and natural water is absolutely necessary to place one in a state of grace, or that if anyone who died in a state of justification without water baptism (by necessity), would be lost.

Huh? Trent says man is anathema unless he's born again of water and the Holy Ghost. Yet you say no where does Trent "define" water is necessary to place one in a state of grace? What part of what Christ said (that Trent repeats) isn't clear? The Council also more explicitly defines that true and natural water is necessary for baptism and that baptism is necessary for salvation, in two unambiguous canons. Do we have to define 'define' now?

Trent says: "this justification cannot be had without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof", so people think each part of the statement can stand independently.

That sentence has two noun phrases modified by "cannot" and "without". Even in Latin.

this justification cannot be had without the laver of regeneration;
this justification cannot be had without the desire thereof".

Can you have justification without the laver of regeneration? The sentence says you cannot. Can you have justification without the desire thereof? The sentence says you cannot. You need both.

Trent also says that the instrumental cause of justification is the sacrament of baptism. Not desire.

Trent says that baptism is the sacrament without which no one was ever saved. Whoever slipped (faith) in will answer to God. It does not say faith at this point in the document, and the subject is very specifically baptism.

Trent never even addresses "baptism of desire" which is patently different than "desire thereof". Rather, Trent takes great care to define the form and matter of baptism. Anything other than the water will not do (no coke or beer), and the words must be said while pouring, immersing or sprinkling, not before or after, and the words must be "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" not, "in Jesus' name, etc..." or it isn't valid. So, other matter and other forms render baptism invalid, but nothing at all (except desire) is somehow valid? That's a purposeful denial of all that Trent took great care to define.

Baptism of desire has zero parameters and can not be reeled in. Who of the proponents care one whit about that? "Well," they say, "Some laity are wrong, abortion just isn't the eighth sacrament." This horrific belief has become a real problem. Baptism of desire proponents also say, "Most people don't understand baptism of desire." What a farce! How can they understand? The depth and breadth and character of baptism of desire changes with every page on it you read.

Catholic Faith is disintegrating under the weight of the convoluted doubles game going on: Two churches, two popes, two masses, two Sister Lucys, two baptisms. Baptism of desire is even more dangerous than the other dupes out there. Diabolic describes it perfectly; its fruits are a disaster.

Yes, baptism of desire is heresy. It is literally, 'no baptism' by definition since baptism is defined as a washing with water and the Holy Ghost. 'Desire alone saves' is the evil twin sister of 'faith alone saves'. Now, if I'm wrong about this, people go to heaven by desire alone anyway. But if I'm right, the consequences of furthering baptism of desire are catastrophic.

I thought I posted this earlier, but I don't think it went through. My apologies if it posts twice. This is a revised version.

Hi Mike, Happy New Year. Just popped in to see if there was any signs of life. The last few times I checked it was just Lionel banging on the same drum. Good to see that you're still instructing the ignorant even though it probaly seems like Groundhog Day to you by now.
Good luck anyhow, I'll keep an eye on the debate as I'm always treated to a few tasty nuggets.

Flatterus,

 An interesting name. I am curious as to the choice and what it means?

 You discuss basically two subjects: 1. The validity of Church teaching on Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance  2: Church teaching on No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church and it's application in today's Church with regards to it's dilution, babel and lack of certainty as compared to past centuries. I will only discuss and reference your first point in this post. I have much to say on your second subject for a future post.  On this subject we possibly have much common ground but you must get beyond #1 first or discussion of #2 can bear little fruit.
 My deepest thank you and appreciation to MRyan for helping me in the past with these issues. Flatterus, I do understand your stance and convictions for I walked in your shoes earlier in my life. With love, charity and most importantly truth I tell you that your position is wrong. I ask that you  most of all pray and study what the Church has taught for centuries on #1. Please note also the wise words of Father Faber below.
**************************************************************************************************************************

Much below is taken from:
The Baptism of Desire - CATHOLIC APOLOGETICS INFORMATION
www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/current...   Cached
The Baptism of Desire and Catholic teaching ... Some Examples From Church Teaching . Scripture, the Saints and the Magisterium............

Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance have been Church teaching for many centuries. That are not new. What is a recent development is to take them out of  context and dilute the teaching mission and command from Jesus to teach, convert and do the missionary work so that all will know that they must be practicing members of the Catholic Church outside which there is no salvation.

By example; There are important similarities again between the Council of Trent’s Catechism, which had the approval of the Sainted Pius V, and all the Council Fathers, and was the guide to all Catholics for centuries, and that of St. Thomas’ view on the issue. What did the Catechism teach on this very issue? First, The Catechism says:


“On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness

*******************************************************************************************************************************
From the Baltimore Catechism:





Q. 644. How many kinds of Baptism are there?

A. There are three kinds of Baptism: 1.Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.

Q. 645. What is Baptism of water?

A. Baptism of water is that which is given by pouring water on the head of the person to be baptized, and saying at the same time, "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Q. 646. In how many ways was the baptism of water given in the first ages of the Church?

A. In the first ages of the Church, baptism of water was given in three ways, namely, by immersion or dipping, by aspersion or sprinkling, and by infusion or pouring. Although any of these methods would be valid, only the method of infusion or pouring is now allowed in the Church.

Q. 647. What are the chief ceremonies used in solemn baptism, and what do they signify?

A. The chief ceremonies used in solemn baptism are:
   1. A profession of faith and renouncement of the devil to signify our worthiness;
   2. The placing of salt in the mouth to signify the wisdom imparted by faith;
   3. The holding of the priest's stole to signify our reception into the Church;
   4. The anointing to signify the strength given by the Sacrament;
   5. The giving of the white garment or cloth to signify our sinless state after baptism; and
   6. The giving of the lighted candle to signify the light of faith and fire of love that should dwell in our souls.

Q. 648. Should one who, in case of necessity, has been baptized with private baptism, be afterwards brought to the Church to have the ceremonies of solemn baptism completed?

A. One who, in case of necessity, has been baptized with private baptism should afterwards be brought to the Church to have the ceremonies of solemn baptism completed, because these ceremonies are commanded by the Church and bring down blessings upon us.

Q. 649. Is solemn baptism given with any special kind of water?

A. Solemn baptism is given with consecrated water; that is, water mixed with holy oil and blessed for baptism on Holy Saturday and on the Saturday before Pentecost. It is always kept in the baptismal font in the baptistry -- a place near the door of the Church set apart for baptism.

Q. 650. What is Baptism of desire?

A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.

Q. 651. What is Baptism of blood?

A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood for the faith of Christ.

Q. 652. What is the baptism of blood most commonly called?

A. The baptism of blood is most commonly called martyrdom, and those who receive it are called martyrs. It is the death one patiently suffers from the enemies of our religion, rather than give up Catholic faith or virtue. We must not seek martyrdom, though we must endure it when it comes.

Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?

A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.

Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?

A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.

*******************************************************************************************************************************
Of the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste, one was a soldier who converted on the spot at the last minute and took the place of one of the original forty who failed to persevere and died just as he was about to approach the warm baths.

St. Respicius:
"During the reign of the emperor Decius, as Tryphon was preaching the faith of Jesus Christ and striving to persuade all  men to worship the Lord, he was arrested by the henchmen of Decius. First, he was tortured on the rack, his flesh torn with iron hooks, then hung head downward, his feet pierced with red hot nails. He was beaten by clubs, scorched by burning torches held against his body. As a result of seeing him endure all these tortures so courageously, the tribune Respicius was converted to the faith of Christ the Lord. Upon the spot he publicly declared himself to be a Christian. Respicius was then tortured in various ways, and together with Tryphon, dragged to a statue of Jupiter. As Tryphon prayed, the statue fell down. After this occurred both were mercilessly beaten with leaden tipped whips and thus attained to glorious martyrdom.

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT is often appealed to by those who would deny baptism of blood and desire. The argument put forth is based on the second canon of the Council which states:

"If anyone should say that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and should therefore twist into some metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ 'unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost', let him be anathema."

Now, there is nothing in such a statement which contradicts what has been said throughout this essay. As is always the case, one must take things in their proper context. This particular anathema was directed against Calvin who argued that water was simply a metaphor for the grace of the Holy Ghost. Thus, reference to the Decree on Justification promulgated by the Council of Trent is necessary for the full understanding of the doctrine in question. Quoting from Denzinger, yet another unquestionably Catholic source, we make note of the following:

"This ... translation [i.e. from the state of original sin to the state of grace 'of the adoption of sons' (Romans 8:15) after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it...' (Denzinger 796)

And again,  Pope Saint Pius X.’s  Catechism of Christian Doctrine, paragraph 132 states:

"A person outside the Church by his own fault, and who dies without perfect contrition, will not be saved. But he who finds himself outside without fault of his own, and who lives a good life, can be saved by the love called charity, which unites unto God, and in a spiritual way also to the Church, that is, to the soul of the Church."


the Church has always accepted Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood as efficacious means of "regeneration." This doctrine has been taught by doctors of the Church throughout her history from the earliest days down to recent times. Individuals so graced have been repeatedly raised to her altars. The principle has been incorporated into her liturgy as is demonstrated by examples taken from the Breviary. The doctrine is accepted by the Bollandists, by those who promulgate the Church's official "dictionaries," by innumerable saints and theologians[18] and by Canon Law. As opposed to this, one cannot point to a single official document of the Church's Magisterium that denies the efficacy of these other forms of Baptism.[19]

It is true that there are "anecdotal" stories of individuals who have been brought back to life in order to receive baptism of water, or who have received the "laver of regeneration" in some other miraculous manner. Such stories however - and there is no reason to deny their veracity - in no way prove the contrary to our thesis. No one can deny but that God is able to achieve His ends in ways beyond our ken. But such stories are not points of doctrine; they are not to be found in the liturgy of the Church; they are not discussed by the doctors of the Church; they are not pointed to in her Catechisms; and edifying as they may be, they do not command our belief and acceptance.

I think it can be said that the Church has more than adequately spoken to this issue. No Catholic "in good faith" can deny the efficacy of Baptism of Desire and of Blood. May we all have the purity of heart and faith that those who have been regenerated through such means are known to have had.



*******************************************************************************************************************************
Pope Pius XII exclaimed the same when he stated, "those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church . . . we ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in he Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with us in the one, organic Body of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the society of glorious love".[24]

Further more St. Robert Bellarmine in his work" De Ecclesia Militante" states "there are those who belong to the soul [of the Church] and not the body, as [are] catechumens or the excommunicated, if indeed they have charity [state of grace], which can happen." Again he also affirms that "Catechumens however if not in re at least in voto are in the Church and are therefore able to be saved."[25]

While such persons are said to belong to the Soul of the Church it's important to keep in mind that no body can be said to belong to the soul of the Church if he does not at least desire to belong to the body of the Church

St. Thomas States, "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification; it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification”.[14]

Further the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X states that "The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least IMPLICIT OF BAPTISM, and this is called Baptism of Desire".

It is for this reason that the Council of Trent teaches: "the state of grace cannot be had except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it". [15]




Rigorists may claim, by rather devious logic, that "somehow" these men and women must have obtained Baptism of water in their last moments on earth. If not, then these catechumens went to Hell. Yet to deny Baptism of blood is to impugn the honor of countless holy men and women who are included in the Roman Martyrology. For example, St. Emerentiana (d. 304), was still an unbaptized catechumen when, while praying at the tomb of her foster sister, St. Agnes, she was stoned to death by the pagans.




*******************************************************************************************************************************
   


 

 

Please consider visiting the site:
THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE - CATHOLIC APOLOGETICS INFORMATION
www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/current...   Cached
The Baptism of Desire and Catholic teaching. ... (from which we derive the Baltimore Catechism), ... , a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism etc....




Please consider reading the book, 'The Precious Blood' by Father Frederick Faber

Just how difficult it is to obtain salvation for those not in the church militant.......

As quoted from Father Frederick Faber... The Precious Blood

Pages 92 & 93



" If the precious Blood had been shed, and yet we had no priesthood, no sacraments, no sacramentals, no jurisdiction, no mystical life of the visible unity of the Church----life so it seems, would be almost intolerable. This is the condition of those outside the Church; and certainly as we grow older, as our experience widens, as our knowledge of ourselves deepens, as our acquaintance with mankind increases, the less hopeful do our ideas become regarding the salvation of those outside the Roman Church. we make the most we can of the uncovenanted mercies of God, of the invisible soul of the Church, of the teaching of invincible ignorance, of the easiness of making acts of contrition, and of the visible moral goodness among men; and YET what are these but straws in our own estimation; if our own chances of salvation had to lean their weight upon them? They wear out or they break down. They are fearfully counterweighted by other considerations. We have to
draw on our imaginations in order to fill up the picture. They are but theories at best, theories unhelpful except to console those who are forward to be deceived for the sake of those they love,-- theories often very fatal by keeping our charity in check and interfering with that restlessness of converting love in season and out of seasons, and that impetuous agony of prayer, upon which God may have made the salvation of our friends depend. Alas ! the more familiar we ourselves become with the operations of grace, the further we advance into the spiritual life, the more we meditate on the character of God, and taste in contemplation the savor of his holiness, the more to our eyes does grace magnify itself inside the Church, and the more dense and forlorn becomes the darkness which is spread over those outside...... Would not the divine assurance of our salvation be a very heaven begun on earth? Yet the sacraments are the nearest approach to such a
sweet assurance as the love of our heavenly Father saw to be expedient for the multitude of his children..... In truth, no created intelligence of angel or of man could have imagined it."

Hello George,

Thank you for your time. You said:
"I ask that you most of all pray and study what the Church has taught for centuries on #1."
I agree...permit me to request the same of you.

You say baptism of desire is Church teaching for centuries. That is unproven. Where's the definition? The teaching? Anything of substance, a canon, an infallible statement, something. Can't do it though, because baptism of desire is a denial of dogma, a heresy that has plagued the Church and her saints for centuries. No where does the Church define baptism of desire. It's substance is vapor, it is undefinable, nothing but smoke and mirrors. Devoid of that all important definition, baptism of desire advocates believe and defend it with all manner of contradiction.

Baptism of desire is the desire for baptism, it is not the sacrament of baptism, so it is essentially 'not baptism'. 'Not baptism' is 'no baptism'. There is only one baptism according to the Church. One Lord, One faith, One baptism proves itself a prophecy as much as it is a teaching. Trent defined that Christ's words 'water and the Holy Ghost' must be taken literally, as defined, as written.

You employ this statement: “On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

This statement is no argument for baptism of desire. The word avail does not mean provide. It means help. If we are to assume desire for baptism provides salvation without acknowledging that the Church requires other things, we would be in error. This statement as is, doesn't even fit for baptism of desire since Faith is also necessary but isn't mentioned. Someone could want baptism, desire it with all their heart but know so ridiculously little about the Faith it isn't sufficient. We all know that explicit knowledge of the Faith is also necessary for salvation. Does the person automatically get that, too? What if he blocks that gift? The statement says it WILL avail them to grace and righteousness. Does that mean one's rejection of the Faith in that situation is not possible? What about free will? All I'm saying, is that it is obvious other things are necessary--like Faith--and, because baptism is defined, water and the Holy Spirit are also necessary.

Your next point: The Baltimore catechism. If catechisms were infallible and never in error, we wouldn't be having this conversation. It behooves one to ask: Who asked the questions? Who answered them? What do we do with answers that deny the necessity of the sacrament of baptism for salvation declared in the Council of Trent?

Then you quoted:

"If anyone should say that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and should therefore twist into some metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ 'unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost', let him be anathema."

And then you editorialize:
Now, there is nothing in such a statement which contradicts what has been said throughout this essay. As is always the case, one must take things in their proper context.

The statement is for errors of John Calvin only? The statement says "anyone". It states anyone cannot...twist the words of Jesus "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost' into a metaphor. And then to it is attached an anathema. So, this is a big deal. We gotta get this right since somebody could go to hell over it. This statement says no one is permitted to soften the meaning of Christ's words by twisting them into a metaphor. 'Metaphor' according to Merriam Webster is: "a word or phrase for one thing that is used to refer to another thing in order to show or suggest that they are similar."

Baptism of desire certainly is not the sacrament of baptism; it is merely a metaphor for baptism. Else what other baptism metaphor is the statement warning against?

You also said: As opposed to this, one cannot point to a single official document of the Church's Magisterium that denies the efficacy of these other forms of Baptism.

Now, this is where the problem lies. The Church only speaks to those who will listen. Trent made clear to all that the Church teaches there is one baptism and that baptism is necessary. Trent defined baptism as the first sacrament, the gateway to the Church, the sacrament of regeneration, of justification, of salvation, of necessity, then explained it's form and matter in very great detail, not to mention the intent of the person who must desire it. (No baptizing the unwilling, hence the 'desire' part).

Trent nowhere defines any sub baptism.

Then you said:
It is true that there are "anecdotal" stories of individuals...

Ok, if we are going to throw out stories, lets also toss out your version of St. Respicius. Everyone knows that the details of such stories are not entirely clear, or readily verifiable. Truth be told, it seems to me Respicius' sudden declaration that he was a Christian proves he was baptized. "Saint" in front of his name does the same. The Church was very picky about canonizing anyone once upon a time. It's clear to me that he was baptized. Perhaps in secret. They did that sometimes you know.

You said:
the Church has always accepted Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood as efficacious means of "regeneration."

Where is that teaching? Besides private interpretation? What is the definition? The exclusions? The details? How? When? What if? Which pope made the definition? How can another baptism exist when it blatantly denies all the teachings on baptism and the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus?

No definition. No doctrine. Especially in light of what the Church teaches. Baptism of desire is an extrapolation. Closer examination proves to anyone not infected with modernism that it denies the teachings of Trent on the sacrament of baptism, on the sacraments in general, and denies the dogma of no salvation outside the Church. It cannot be proven, yet in an age of apostasy, it dominates the minds of Catholics to the exclusion of papal statements to the contrary. It's not like the lines are forming at the baptismal font these days. And no wonder! Modern minds expect that God will save the ones He can't help. Yep, the ones God can't help, imagine. Modernism infects minds so completely that people believe two (or more) opposing things at the same time. How fitting Catholics of today fall for an empty promise. Baptism of desire is the poster child for modernism.

I'm sorry you allowed the other gentleman to change your mind. You had it right the first time, and apparently, so did he.

Flatterus,

I love our Catholic faith more than life itself.

Yes you are correct in saying that I did believe for a long time that baptism of desire is a denial of dogma, a heresy and wrong but through prayer, help(MRyan) and extensive reading on this subject by the Church, Popes and Saints I came to know the truth. I had confused God's possible mercies with the teaching command of Jesus to teach all and I mean all that they must have baptism by water done with the correct words and form and that there is 'No Salvation outside the Catholic Church". You see Flatterus, the Church can offer Baptism of Blood, Baptism of Desire and Invincible Ignorance to no one as an option to choose from for Salvation. They are not sacraments and certainly the specific command of Jesus told the apostles and the Church exactly what to do. I certainly hope, pray and believe that souls find God's mercy through Baptism of Blood, Baptism of Desire and invincible ignorance. They are not exceptions or second class Catholics. They in this condition must still be judged by God as worth for Heaven If they are they are then incorporated by God into the Catholic Church by God in way's and means known only to God and not for us to question, dictate or approve the will of God. They are not exceptions for there are only Catholics in Heaven.

You say, " because baptism of desire is a denial of dogma, a heresy that has plagued the Church and her saints for centuries" You are partially correct but for the wrong reason(s). The very fact that people of good will (you) have so passionately debated this issue is proof of the need for Papal and Saintly clarity. The Church is protected by the Holy Ghost to not fail and we know the end of the story in that the gates of hell do not prevail. The Saints and there are many that addressed these mercies of God and now are in heaven because of their teachings and not in spite of them. There are only Catholics in Heaven. Jesus is Catholic! Where I believe that you are correct is in saying(for now your denial) that the understanding and application of these mercies have plagued the Church. They have been used to dilute and undermine the Church teaching and mission. The absolute need for conversion to Catholicism and baptism of water has been reduced to near extinction. There are but a mere remnant of Catholics. I discuss our Catholic faith passionately with many and with tears I tell you that our Church has been reduced to a smorgasbord religion by practically all. I talk to many who seem to be upright and righteous and yet their opinions on marriage, homosexuality, contraception, sin etc etc are all over the board and certainly not Catholic Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance have been used by the Church's enemies to open the floodgates to promote the now accepted formula that basically everyone goes to Heaven. Our parish pastor said to a group recently do not be surprised to see Diocletian in Heaven and then went on to tell the reasons for his sainthood. A priest said at the beginning of the homily said that the church errored for centuries when she taught that there was no salvation outside the Catholic Church. The 87 year old chaplain at the hospital where I volunteer said to me 'I hope that you do not believe that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church at which I replied for you and me Father there is absolutely no chance of salvation outside the Catholic Church. Flatterus, by the way that is a good statement for you to use when talking to fellow Catholics and you will see just how deep the crisis really is.( sounds like you already know) There was a time not so long ago when baptism of blood, baptism of desire and Invincible Ignorance were only mentioned as a church taught means for God's mercy while all the emphasis was on the necessity of Baptism by water and being a member of the Catholic Church outside which there is no Salvation.

I just recently finished reading Bread of life by Father Leonard Feeney for the umpteenth time. My wife and I visited him and the brothers and Sisters in 1971; talked with him and ate with him. I wish that he had gone to Rome and personally consider him a Saint. He discusses several places in his book to teach the faith absolutely on No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church and baptism by water and "leave the mercies to God" He said that if the Pope told him that baptism of Desire was Church teaching that he would embrace it. He clearly did see and warn the Church on their lack of urgency and catechesis on teaching all that they must convert to the Catholic Church. His eternal status has long since been decided by God and I fully trust in God's determination.

Baptism of Blood, Baptism of Desire and Invincible Ignorance are indeed Church teaching but at the same are completely irrelevant to my offering THEM rather than Baptism of Water and No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church to anyone as a choice or option for their salvation. There lies the simplicity of my trust in God and Church.

Please read Father Faber's words again, Flatterus that I quoted on the all but certain impossibility of entering Heaven without the Catholic Church with Her Holy sacrifice of the Mass, The Holy Eucharist and sacraments. Their conversion to Catholicism would need to take place at the crossroads of earthly death and eternity I have talked my entire life with many non Catholics who I consider good people but their language and beliefs about Blesses Mother , the Holy Eucharist, The Mass, the forgiveness of sins and other topics are lets just say very sad. But as a priest told me they are just invincibly ignorant. Yes Houston I mean Heaven we have a problem.

Hi George,

Thanks again for your response. Don't assume by my short response that I have not read or considered all you wrote, but between our mini pontificates, we seem to be penning tomes. You said:

I had confused God's possible mercies with the teaching command of Jesus to teach all and I mean all that they must have baptism by water done with the correct words and form and that there is 'No Salvation outside the Catholic Church".

Let me ask this question seeking the simplest answer: Would you believe God was less than infinitely merciful if it were revealed to you from your guardian angel that baptism of desire/blood was not a way to salvation?

Assume your angel identified himself and there's no question from where he hails.

Flatterus,

A most unusual question. I firmly believe that I along with members of my family have witnessed or experienced what can only be described as miracles in my life. Having said that you asked me: " Would you believe God was less than infinitely merciful if it were revealed to you from your guardian angel that baptism of desire/blood was not a way to salvation?

The briefest answer to your question would be NO

I hoped you'd say that.

You said:
the Church can offer Baptism of Blood, Baptism of Desire and Invincible Ignorance to no one as an option to choose from for Salvation.

That's good too. No contest there.

Our differences lie in that I believe God is true to every Word.  That is, in Scripture, in the dogmas/doctrines of the Church, whenever.  And that if you weighed a million saints on one side of a scale and put one infallible statement on the other, the saints wouldn't measure at all.  

I also know that God permits heresy to refine things, to test the Elect, and glorify Himself in His creatures.  It was He who said, "My Word will not pass."  I believe Him.    

Many people think there is no discrepancy in believing baptism of desire exists.  I do not understand that thinking at all.  It is not congenial to God to believe that He's above and beyond mercy or truth.  He is mercy. He is truth. And His Word is Truth.  

God gets the sacrament of baptism for all the Elect.

Flatterus, you said: " God gets the sacrament of baptism for all the Elect."

God bestows salvation on all of the elect. Do not put God in a box or dictate what he must do or how he does it. It is incumbent upon you tp prove that these are not Church teaching and not vice versa. Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance as the church teaches always results in these souls going before God for particular and individual judgement. The church simply recognizes these situations for what they are as placing these souls in a condition for incorporation into the Catholic Church as a true Catholic. These cases along with each and every soul go before God for individual and particular judgement. Do you really think that the Holy Spirit would have allowed the teachings on this subject to go on for centuries without intervention from a Pope, a Cardinal, a ecumenical council , a syllabus of errors and on and on without a correction. In my entire lifetime in my discussions with Catholics and non Catholics, which has been extensive, baptism of blood, baptism of desire and Invincible ignorance have NEVER come up by me OR them. When I am done talking to them they know the absolute truth that there is No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church and that you must have Baptism by water.
The crisis that we live in now is that save a few almost all in the Church teach that non Catholics need not convert to Catholicism. Ecumenical practices are flawed and have cost countless souls for which they will be held accountable by God. Charity and love are critical ingredients in discussions but without truth, conviction and honesty they can not bear fruit. We have come to the point where most priests and Catholics only believe that there is No Salvation outside the Catholic Church if you personally believe such is the case. Words like gradualism, calling non Catholics esteemed, Bishops saying that "thank God that we have the protestant misunderstanding with Martin Luther behind us", non Catholic loose cannon interviews on airplanes and on and on are sickening. That is why finally a holy Cardinal like Cardinal Burke and many others are finally saying, enough!!! Catholics like the non Catholic, catholic? Cardinal Dolan need to shape up or get out of our Church. What a disappointment we must be to Jesus. We are in a spiritual war and all good Catholics must be in that mode. baptism of blood, baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are most assuredly Church teaching but completely irrelevant to living and teaching the faith in our encounters. If that makes me a radical conservative Catholic then my prayer when I meet Jesus is that he says "ME too"

George, You said,

God bestows salvation on all of the elect. Do not put God in a box or dictate what he must do or how he does it.

I am not putting God in a box or dictating what he must do or how he does it. He did. He told us through official teaching that baptism was the only way to apply Christ's blood for our salvation. He told us that nothing but baptism will suffice. He told us baptism is the entrance into the Church and into salvation. And He told us exactly what baptism was.

It is not incumbent upon me to show that God is the author of baptism. That is clear. It is incumbent upon you to prove the Church teaches water and the Holy Spirit are not necessary for baptism or salvation.

Ex Cathedra
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

Why don't you believe the above infallible statement?

So Flatterus you are saying that God himself per your response to me put Himself in a box. I repeat once again not only do I believe all that the church teaches but have never encountered anyone where baptism of blood, baptism of desire and Invincible Ignorance have entered the discussion in my personal conversations and encounters. For me it has been a null topic except for forum discussions. What do you think I do, tell someone that they might hold out for baptism of desire, baptism of blood or they can claim Invincible Ignorance? What nonsense! So by example you have told God that if a catechumen who was in the state of grace tragically died before he/she received baptism of water that that person is destined for hell. Are you serious? Just think this issue has already been settled in eternity hundreds and hundreds of years ago. Who in the world supports your stance in you telling God what he can or cannot do??????? How do you know that God Himself in my example does not baptize the catechumen? You can not even fathom what takes place at judgement with God, Jesus and Blessed Mother. Our responsibility and marching orders are to teach all that they must be a member of the Catholic Church and have Baptism by water with no exceptions.

The scope of God's possible mercies are beyond my ability to comprehend. I choose to lovingly accept God's justice and mercy without question or reservation for all eternity.

So Flatterus you are saying that God himself per your response to me put Himself in a box.

Why do you call it a box? That God made a "way" to salvation for us is a box? That God has specifics that he wants us to do in order to be saved? Is that a box? That's an awfully protestant approach. God made a covenant with us. He told us, do this, do that, do the other, and for His part, "I will be your God. I will save you. Now, if you don't do what I say there's nothing I can do." God put the limits on Himself. I didn't do it.

Making God more merciful than He is is not a good thing. Forcing Him into contradiction and calling it mercy is wrong. Protestants do that when they say God will save people by faith alone. And now Catholics say, well, not faith alone, desire alone!

What do you think I do, tell someone that they might hold out for baptism of desire, baptism of blood or they can claim Invincible Ignorance?

You said you don't do it; I believe you. So why hold it in your mind? God gets all of His Elect the sacrament of baptism.

You said: So by example you have told God that if a catechumen who was in the state of grace tragically died before he/she received baptism of water that that person is destined for hell.

Catechumens are not in the "state of grace" until they are baptized. And I didn't make the following statements, but I believe them.

The Church teaches about catechumens
Council of Braga, 572, Canon xvii: “Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.”

St. Augustine, 391: “When we shall have come into His [God’s] sight, we shall behold the equity of God’s justice. Then no one will say:… ‘Why was this man led by God’s direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster, and was not baptized?’ Look for rewards, and you will find nothing except punishments.'

St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Io. 25, 3: “For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful… One has Christ for his King; the other sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes… Since then we have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion?… Let us then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city above… for if it should come to pass(which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.”

Who in the world supports your stance in you telling God what he can or cannot do???????

God. I don't care what people think. God teaches us the remedy for original sin is the sacrament of baptism. I am not permitted to expound on God's mercy; or believe or tell anyone else that faith alone saves. Neither can I tell anyone that ignorance saves as many Catholics believe. Jesus Christ saves! Ignorance damns.

You can not even fathom what takes place at judgement with God, Jesus and Blessed Mother

No, I cannot know a fraction of what will happen.

Your last sentence in the first of two letters is right on.

Flatterus, you are correct when you say that I changed my mind of my serious error and misunderstanding of Baptism of Desire, baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance. In my case I thought that these teachings were novel inventions of the last fifty or so years in Church history. It was pointed out to me(by MRyan) that these teachings spanned almost 2000 years and were nothing new. You mentioned in an earlier post that you have read many if not a great multitude of what the Church, Popes, Councils and Saints had to say and teach on this subject and yet you are persistent in your error. Are you not subject to the authority of the Pope? Where you find Peter there you will find the Church. Pope Boniface VIII: "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff"

Church teaching on Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance span 1800+ years of the Catholic Church; examples from the early Church Fathers, Saints, Doctors of the Church, Popes, General Councils, papal encyclicals, Canon Law, catechisms, and other references, all openly and unanimously teaching the faithful the doctrine of Baptism of Desire and Blood. This includes both solemn and ordinary teaching. Yet we do not see the Church condemn a single one of these sources or their writings on the subject throughout the entire history of the Church. It is a universal and Church taaught doctrine.

There have been over 70 Popes since Baptism of Desire was written about in the Summa Theologica in the 13th century, yet neither the Summa Theologica nor the writing on Baptism of Desire in the Summa Theologica were ever condemned by those 70+ Popes. This doctrine has been allowed to propagate century after century. The fact is, Baptism of Desire, Blood and Water are CLEARLY a unanimous teaching of the Magisterium of the Church (both Solemn and Ordinary), and therefore we MUST believe them.

George,

I've never thought baptism of desire was a recent novelty. I've known it was around for a very long time. But heresy is always around. Trent worked very hard to eradicate it. But it was only suppressed and has arisen anew, as heresy usually does. This heresy, all wadded up with many other heresies is now hitting full force and the effects can be seen. It is slightly morphed, worse than before. It is a big part of modernism, which is the synthesis of all heresies.

I am subject to the Roman Pontiff. But if a pontiff like Pope Francis goes against the teachings of the church, I resist his heresies. As I should.

You say baptism of desire is part of the solemn and ordinary teaching of the Church. I asked you to show me the solemn teaching. But you can't. Because it isn't a solemn teaching. Modernists propose that a phrase in Trent IS the teaching when it clearly is no such thing. Solemn teaching is clearly written, clearly understood, clearly defined. Baptism of desire is none of those things.

The so-called doctrine of baptism of desire was condemned in Trent, but modern minds refuse to read the condemnations as they are written. They refuse the solemn teachings of the Church which they summarily reject. Trent went to great lengths to eradicate the notion of salvation by faith alone, without baptism and explained all aspects of baptism and justification. When Trent says water is necessary for baptism, that is a formal teaching. You cannot believe otherwise. Trent did its best. And still heresy abounds because people refuse to listen.

You told me that you never tell people baptism of desire is available to them. Why not? If its a teaching, it should be trumpeted! Catholic teaching is truth itself. The fact is, you know deep down that there is something terribly wrong with it and are rightly avoiding it because the fruits of baptism of desire are rotten.

Flatterus,

I see that you have brought up the Council of Trent again. I have a copy of the Catechism of the council of Trent which was loved, promoted and defended by many Popes for a very long time. it is not as if Baptism of desire, baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance were/are exceptions to the necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church in order to attain Salvation. These conditions are simply the Church's recognition of grace and justification in these situations whereby God grants salvation and Catholicity at the time of judgement. I can not and will never offer these conditions or possibilities for Salvation to the living as I am commanded to teach and instruct all that they must have baptism by water and that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. If someone finds salvation in these conditions they are Catholics. This must never occur because anyone in the Church offered them to anyone as an option for Salvation or as an exception to the ordinary means and command by the Church and Jesus of the necessity of baptism by water and Catholic faith. Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance are not in my realm to offer or judge but only to recognize as true Church teaching.

The question of baptism of desire arises in the case of one who has been justified, as Trent says and I quote " by the resolve" to receive the Sacrament -- but whose life is cut short before it is possible to do so. Such a person is in the state of grace. He has been translated "to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior." (Session Six, Chapter IV) To deny this possibility is to deny the efficacy of God's grace. and I will follow this Church teaching on this subject.

George,

The Church teaches there is no salvation outside the Church. Baptism of desire does not make one a member of the Church. So, if one is not a member, one cannot go to heaven. The Church makes it clear who are members: only those who profess the faith and are baptized.

Why do you insist baptism of desire is not an exception to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus when that is exactly what it is? What would an exception look like if that isn't it?

Baptism of desire is a heresy that destroys the dogma that no one outside the Church is saved and renders it a lie. Why, pray tell, would the Church say baptism is necessary, and also say there is no salvation outside the Church, if, baptism is not necessary and there really is salvation outside the Church?

I've already addressed the session six, chapter iv portion of Trent. It says baptism and desire are necessary for justification and it compares that with Christ's words to make it clear.

"... AS IT IS WRITTEN, UNLESS A MAN IS BORN AGAIN OF WATER AND THE HOLY GHOST, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD.

Why don't you believe the above statement, as it is written? But yet you tell me to believe that a misunderstood phrase is a teaching?

You want me to see something that isn't there and in exchange you want to ignore what is there because you think your version makes God more merciful. It won't change God, He IS unbelievably merciful for offering us baptism as it is! But false belief in baptism of desire is costing souls, and making God a liar.

Then you tell me that you wouldn't teach baptism of desire to any living person because you have been commanded to teach and instruct all that they must have baptism by water and there is no salvation outside the Church.

I see an honesty about you when you say this because you KNOW that baptism of desire produces devastating fruits or you'd WANT to teach it to people. True teachings ought to be taught, come hell or high water. But you recognize that there is something intrinsically wrong here.

It isn't there George. There is no teaching, only a misunderstanding of the language of Trent and some statements from saints that thought St. Augustine held that belief. The saints remain innocent. The Church manages to let us know that we cannot take the teachings of a saint over the teachings of the Church anyway, tho. Thankfully, Augustine recanted in his later writings.

You are right to not teach baptism of desire to anyone because it is not a teaching that helps any living person whatsoever, rather it harms their faith, makes them lax, denies the doctrine of baptism, denies the need for church membership, denies Christ's words, denies the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, denies all the canons in Trent and makes the Church and God liars.

God is not hindered by lack of water. He gets all the elect baptism. There is no need for baptism of desire. God is not impotent. And He is not a liar.

There is a perfectly sound way to acknowledge the true teachings, the canons, Christ Himself, and honor our Almighty God in all of His divine mercy: God gets baptism for all His elect.

Flatterus,


Baptism of Desire does not make one a member of the Church Militant but most certainly can make one a member of the Church Triumphant as judged by God in the transition from death to eternal life. Also do not speculate how God uses His mercy, love and justice for you do so at your own peril. We can not even speculate how Purgatory enters into eternal judgement for each soul. It should be obvious to you that no one can offer Baptism of Desire or Invincible Ignorance to anyone as an option for Salvation as it is not in realm or command of Jesus as the teaching mission of the Church. These are conditions and never exceptions whereby a soul may attain Salvation and I do not accept the centuries of Church teaching on this subject without regret, hesitation or any doubt. Now it is a fact that many in the Church have twisted and distorted the teachings on this subject and this is an eternal tragedy which may or may not be discussed in a future post. ( The Church is full of wolves, Judases and rampant with modernism, irreverence and embraces the very modernism that countless Popes have warned about throughout history. God Bless Cardinal Burke and pray with intensity for Pope Francis.)

Why will you not listen to the Church?
Douay-Rheims Bible
And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.






You asked for extensive references on this subject which follow:

Baptism of Desire and of Blood
MATER DEI SEMINARY newsletter "Adsum" (January, 2004)

From the teachings of the Popes, the Council of Trent,
the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the Roman Martyrology,
Church Fathers, Doctors and Theologians of the Church

1. Council of Trent 1545-1563

Canons on the Sacraments in General: - (Canon 4):
"If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."

Decree on Justification - (Session 6, Chapter 4):
"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 or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).

2. St. Alphonsus Liguori 1691-1787

Moral Theology - (Bk. 6):
"But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called 'of wind' ['flaminis'] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind ['flamen']. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon 'Apostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato' and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'"

3. 1917 Code of Canon Law

On Ecclesiastical Burial - (Canon 1239. 2)
"Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized."

The Sacred Canons by Rev. John A. Abbo. St.T.L., J.C.D., and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D.
Commentary on the Code:
"The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of Desire."

4. Pope Innocent III

Apostolicam:
To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine's City of God where among other things it is written, "Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes." Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned. (Denzinger 388)

Debitum pastoralis officii, August 28, 1206:
You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water while saying: "I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."
We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: "Go baptize all nations in the name etc." (cf. Matt. 28:19), the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another... If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed off to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith. (Denzinger 413)

5. Pope St. Pius V 1566-1572

Ex omnibus afflictionibus, October 1, 1567:
Condemned the following erroneous propositions of Michael du Bay:

•Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a "pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned" (1 Tim. 1:5) can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins.

•That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins.

•A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of Baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained.


6. St. Ambrose

"I hear you express grief because he [Valentinian] did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism. Tell me, what else is there in us except the will and petition? But he had long desired to be initiated... and expressed his intention to be baptized... Surely, he received [it] because he asked [for it]."

7. St. Augustine

City of God
"I do not hesitate to place the Catholic catechumen, who is burning with the love of God, before the baptized heretic... The centurion Cornelius, before Baptism, was better than Simon [Magus], who had been baptized. For Cornelius, even before Baptism, was filled with the Holy Ghost, while Simon, after Baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit" (De Bapt. C. Donat., IV 21).
"Baptism is administered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes." (Denzinger 388)

8. St. Thomas Aquinas

Summa, Article 1, Part III, Q. 68:
"I answer that, the sacrament of 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.
"Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that worketh by charity, whereby God, Whose power is not yet tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: 'I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the graces he prayed for.' "

9. St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church 1542-1621

Liber II, Caput XXX:
"Boni Catehecumeni sunt de Ecclesia, interna unione tantum, non autem externa" (Good catechumens are of the Church, by internal union only, not however, by external union).

References continue in the Winter, 2004,
issue of "The Reign of Mary" magazine.

10. Pope Pius IX 1846-1878

Singulari Quadam, 1854:
174. "It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, lands, native talents, and so many other factors? Only when we have been released from the bonds of this body and see God just as He is (see John 3:2) shall we really understand how close and beautiful a bond joins Divine mercy with Divine justice."

Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, 1863:
"...We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace."

11. Pope Pius XII 1939-1958

Mystical Body of Christ, June 29, 1943:
"As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible organization of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly... For even though unsuspectingly they are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer in desire and resolution, they still remain deprived of so many precious gifts and helps from heaven, which one can only enjoy in the Catholic Church."

12. Fr. A. Tanquery

Dogmatic Brevior, ART.IV, Section I,II - 1945 (1024-1)
The Baptism of Desire. Contrition, or perfect charity, with at least an implicit desire for Baptism, supplies in adults the place of the baptism of water as respects the forgiveness of sins.
This is certain.
Explanation: a) An implicit desire for Baptism, that is, one that is included in a general purpose of keeping all the commandments of God is, as all agree, sufficient in one who is invincibly ignorant of the law of Baptism; likewise, according to the more common opinion, in one who knows the necessity of Baptism.
b) Perfect charity, with a desire for Baptism, forgives original sin and actual sins, and therefore infuses sanctifying grace; but it does not imprint the Baptismal character and does not of itself remit the whole temporal punishment due for sin; whence, when the opportunity offers, the obligation remains on one who was sanctified in this manner of receiving the Baptism of water.

13. Fr. Dominic Prummer, O.P.

Moral Theology, 1949:
· "Baptism of Desire which is a perfect act of charity that includes at least implicitly the desire of Baptism by water";
· "Baptism of Blood which signifies martyrdom endured for Christ prior to the reception of Baptism by water";
· "Regarding the effects of Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire... both cause sanctifying grace. ...Baptism of Blood usually remits all venial and temporal punishment..."

Additional references from a Mater Dei Seminary
pamphlet entitled "Baptism of Desire and of Blood".

14. Fr. Francis O'Connell

Outlines of Moral Theology - 1953:
- "Baptism of Desire ... is an act of divine charity or perfect contrition..."
- "These means (i.e. Baptism of Blood & Desire) presuppose in the recipient at least the implicit will to receive the sacrament."
"...Even if an infant can gain the benefit of the Baptism of Blood if he is put to death by a person actuated by hatred for the Christian faith..."

15. Mgr. J. H. Hervé

Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV) - 1931
II. On those for whom Baptism of water can be supplied:
"The various baptisms: from the Council of Trent itself and from the things stated, it stands firm that Baptism is necessary, yet in fact or in desire; therefore in an extraordinary case it can be supplied. Further, according to the Catholic doctrine, there are two things by which the sacrament of Baptism can be supplied, namely an act of perfect charity with the desire of Baptism and the death as martyr. Since these two are a compensation for Baptism of water, they themselves are called Baptism, too, in order that they may be comprehended with it under one as it were generic name; so the act of love with desire for Baptism is called Baptismus flaminis (Baptism of the Spirit) and the martyrium (Baptism of Blood)."

16. Fr. H. Noldin, S.J. - Fr. A. Schmit, S.J.

Summa theologiae moralis (Vol. III de Sacramentis); Bk 2 Quaestio prima - 1929:
"Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is perfect charity or contrition, in which the desire in fact to receive the sacrament of Baptism is included; perfect charity and perfect contrition however have the power to confer sanctifying grace."

17. Fr. Arthur Vermeersch, S.J.

Theologiae moralis (Vol. III, Tractatus II) - 1948:
"The Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is an act of perfect charity or contrition, in so far as it contains at least a tacit desire of the Sacrament. Therefore it can be had only in adults. It does not imprint a character; ...but it takes away all mortal sin together with the sentence of eternal penalty, according to: 'He who loves me, is loved by my Father.' (John 14:21)"

18. Fr. Ludovico Billot, S.J.

De Ecclesiae Sacramentis (Vol. I); Quaestio LXVI; Thesis XXIV - 1931:
"Baptism of spirit (flaminis), which is also called of repentance or of desire is nothing else than an act of charity or perfect contrition includeing a desire of the Sacrament, according to what has been said above, namely that, the heart of everyone is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe, and to love God, and to be sorry for his sins."

19. Fr. Eduardus Genicot, S.J.

Theologiae Moralis Institutiones (Vol II); Tractatus XII - 1902:
"Baptism of the Spirit (flaminis) consists in an act of perfect charity or contrition, with which there is always an infusion of sanctifying grace connected...
Both are called 'of desire' (in voto)...; perfect charity, because it has always connected the desire, at least the implicit one of receiving this sacrament, absolutely necessary for salvation."

20. Fr. Aloysia Sabetti, S.J. Fr. Timotheo Barrett, S.J.

Compendium Theologiae Moralis; Tractatus XII De Baptismo (Chap. 1) - 1926:
"Baptism, the gate and foundation of the Sacraments in fact or at least in desire, is necessary for all unto salvation...
From the Baptism of water, which is called of river (Baptismus fluminis), is from Baptism of the Spirit (Baptismus flaminis) and Baptism of Blood, by which Baptism properly speaking can be supplied, if this be impossible. The first one is a full conversion to God through perfect contrition or charity, in so far as it contains an either explicit or at least implicit will to receive Baptism of water ... Baptism of Spirit (flaminis) and Baptism of Blood are called Baptism of desire (in voto).

21. Roman Martyrology

January 23: At Rome, St. Emerentiana, Virgin and Martyr, who was stoned by the heathen while still a catechumen, when she was praying at the tomb of St. Agnes, whose foster-sister she was.

April 12: At Braga, in Portugal, St. Victor, Martyr, who, while still yet a catechumen, refused to worship an idol, and confessed Christ Jesus with great constancy, and so after many torments, he merited to be baptized in his own blood, his head being cut off.

August 25: At Arles in France, another Blessed Genesius, who undertook the office copyist, when he refused to transcribe the impious edicts whereby the Christians were ordered to be punished and, casting away his registers, in public he proclaimed himself a Christian, was arrested and beheaded and received the glory of martyrdom, being baptized in his own blood.


Catechisms that teach Baptism of Desire

1. A Catechism for Inquirers by Rev. Joseph I. Malloy, C.S.P.
Reference page 28.
New York: Paulist Press, 1927.
Permissu Superiorum: Joseph McSorely, C.S.P., Superior General.
Nihil Obstat: Arthur J. Scalan, S.T.D., Censor Librorum.
Imprimatur: Patrick Cardinal Hayes, Archbishop of New York.

2. A Catholic Catechism for the Parochial Schools and Sunday Schools of the United States. By Rev. James Groenings, S.J., translated by the Very Rev. James Rockliff, S.J.
Reference page 101.
New York, Cincinnati, Chicago: Benziger Brothers, 1900.
With the Approbation of the Most Rev. Archbishop of New York and of Religious Superiors.
Nihil Obstat: Theodore Van Rossum, S.J., Censor Deputatus.
Imprimatur: Michael Augustine, Archbishop of New York.

3. A Complete Catechism of the Catholic Religion. Translated from the German of Rev. Joseph Deharbe, S.J., by the Rev. John Fander. Preceded by A Short History of Revealed Religion, from the Creation to the Present Time. 6th American Edition. Edited by the Rev. James J. Fox, D.D. and the Rev. Thomas McMillan, C.S

OOPS!

Correction from my last post:

I said "These are conditions and never exceptions whereby a soul may attain Salvation and I do not accept the centuries of Church teaching on this subject without regret, hesitation or any doubt"

I clearly meant to say: These are conditions and never exceptions whereby a soul may attain Salvation and I do accept the centuries of Church teaching on this subject without regret, hesitation or any doubt

I anticipate Flatterus that you will say that my OOPS were my true feelings so I add that now.

Yes, there certainly are a lot of commentators on the subject. But not one single papal statement or definitive council statement. Statements contradicting definitive statements are nothing but eyewash. Just like when Pope Francis says that the divorced and remarried can receive communion. Sorry papa. No can do. Pope Francis will be corrected someday, hopefully before he loses his soul. And so will baptism of desire advocates. And no one can say, "but the pope said, or St. Augustine said, or some statement said...

Not gonna work.

The Church has spoken.

There are four Papal statements in just my last post. Did you really read them?

Pope Leo XIII approved of the Baltimore Catechism as the standard for schools in the United States in 1885, where it remained the standard for the next century. This catechism contains a blatant teaching on baptism of desire. Why did Pope Leo XIII, and the half a dozen popes that succeeded him, and all the bishops during that century not object if baptism of desire were heresy? To say these popes allowed a heresy for an entire century is to say they poisoned the Church, and that the Holy Ghost failed to prevent it. The Church is Holy, and the Holy Ghost would have seen to it that these popes corrected any errors contained, just as the Church has always done with heresies such as Arianism, Nestorianism, Protestantism, and so many other false teachings throughout the history of the Church. the Church has not condemned baptism of desire and blood because it approves of it.
Pius IX declared “that those who are invincibly ignorant of our most holy religion, and who, carefully observing the natural law and its precepts place by God into the hearts of all men, and being disposed to obey God, lead an honest and upright life, can, with the help of Divine Light and Grace, merit eternal life; for God, who has perfect knowledge, examines and judges the minds, souls, and thoughts and the deeds of all men and He does not permit, in His sovereign goodness and mercy any man not culpable of willful sin to be punished with eternal torment.,”

Flatterus , why do you disobey the Vicars of Christ and Church ?

The papal statements you cited are not definitional statements. Even though they are likely infallible, they do not define like the statements that have an anathema attached to them, or like canons, or those definitinal statements proposed as dogma or doctrine. (Note the use of "or" which is inclusive)

These statements you sent by popes are proposed for our belief. Let's examine them:

11. Pope Pius XII 1939-1958

Mystical Body of Christ, June 29, 1943
...they still remain deprived of so many precious gifts and helps from heaven, which one can only enjoy in the Catholic Church."

The first statement you cite, above, says 'they' are deprived of many precious gifts. It does not say they are saved. This is no proof for baptism of desire, but says the people in question are lacking. It certainly cannot be used to undermine a definition. That would be wrong.

Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, 1863:
"...We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace.

The one above, says the invincibly ignorant "can" attain eternal life. So what? Of course they can attain eternal life...if they are obedient to God. That includes obedience to His commandments, which are defined already. It is not a definition for baptism of desire. Divine light and grace is an enlightenment, not a baptism. And of course, baptism must follow, which is the obedience part. This statement is not terribly clear which means that one must be faithful and also apply the teachings as proposed by the Church, not assume they don't apply.


10. Pope Pius IX 1846-1878

Singulari Quadam, 1854:

Ex omnibus afflictionibus, October 1, 1567:
Condemned the following erroneous propositions of Michael du Bay:

•Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a "pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned" (1 Tim. 1:5) can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins.

The proposition above is condemned. That means it hurts your argument. This condemned proposition supports the necessity of the sacrament baptism. It says: that perfect faith can be in catechumens... or in penitents without the remission of sins. Condemned.

So, the statement says that catechumens do not possess that perfect faith, nor do penitents without the remission of sins...things you only get with the sacrament of baptism.

Again, saying catechumens have perfect faith or that penitents without remission of sins have perfect faith, two things you only get with baptism... are CONDEMNED

•That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins.

This is also condemned. So the statement actually says: The charity which is the fullness of the law IS always connected with the remission of sins. So, the charity received in baptism and the remission of sins are inseparable. Again, a blow to baptism of desire.

•A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of Baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained.

This is also condemned and ruins any notion that catechumens can possess charity (indwelling of sanctifying grace) before the remission of sins in baptism.

These propositions you cite concerning Michael Dubay are CONDEMNED. They destroy baptism of desire. They support the sacrament of baptism only. They say the opposite of what you are using them for.

I do not disobey the Church. As you can see, I support Her even against a ton of opposition. That isn't easy. At times, its terribly disheartening because people refuse to listen to the Church's teachings, glossing over them, or falling for Satanic sophistry. I do this because I love the Church! I love Her teachings. And I will defend Her even if I'm the last one on earth doing it.

Flatterus,

I was going to give you a lengthy answer on this post about the teaching authority of the Church but for now I will simply use your own words: "The papal statements you cited are not definitional statements. Even though they are LIKELY INFALLABLE"

Well there you go if in even your way of thinking in that they were LIKELY INFALLABLE; then don't you think that you should Likely believe them. You see there is MORE to what a Catholic must believe in addition to Ex Cathedra pronouncements and Cannon Law. You should research what constitutes the teaching authority of the Church. Therein lies your misunderstanding.

You know, George, the worst thing about these forums is that people do not read the posts from others but rather just listen to themselves talk. And clearly, you did not read my post. Just because I said those statements are infallible doesn't mean it ends there. That's where you quit reading. I went on to prove that even though they are infallible, they do not apply as you think they do. It would be a shame to come this far and have you not understand my answer for lack of reading. Or, did you read it, but feel the need to throw up a straw man to deflect my answer?

No, Flattemus I read your post completely. You are contradicting yourself when you say that a teaching of the Church is likely infallible but now you say it does not end there. What nonsense! Centuries of souls have come and gone on to eternity under Church teaching and protection by the Holy Ghost. Please pay attention to the following below which is the outline of how it really works so that Catholics of Good will are not left without guidance and prone to private interpretation. What would you personally do Flatterus with the centuries of Church teaching on Baptism of Desire/Blood along with Invincible Ignorance????? You have never answered why the Church has not condemned or changed the Church teaching on this subject. Surely that must give you a clue on their validity.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Below as taken from
Truth and Infallibility in the Catholic Church
www.beginningcatholic.com/infallibility.html
Infallibility: Keeping the Faith as follows:



The topic of infallibility in the Catholic Church is an ironic one: although intended to provide clarity, it is one of the most misunderstood topics within Catholicism.

At least, humbly speaking, it was a big sticking point for me when I was a beginning Catholic. But once I understood it, I saw that it flows from a deep and beautiful faith in the active presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church.



What infallibility means

First of all, let's start with the purpose of infallibility:



"It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error.... To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals." (Catechism, 890)

Infallibility is a gift of Christ and the Holy Spirit that gives us clarity and certainty about the faith itself and morality.





Exactly what teachings?

The charism of infallibility is fully engaged only in definitive Magisterial teachings on faith and morals. This can occur in either...
• Ordinary teachings, or
• Extraordinary teachings

The Magisterium is the teaching office of the Catholic Church. It is exercised by the Pope alone when he teaches officially, or by the whole "college" of bishops together with the Pope.

Most Magisterial teachings are ordinary. The Pope's ordinary teachings are issued in the course his normal activity: his encyclicals and other documents, various addresses, etc.

The college of bishops also has an "ordinary and universal" Magisterium. This is seen whenever the individual bishops teach the same faith — that is, in union with the Pope and each other, even if they're dispersed in their separate dioceses. It's also seen when an ecumenical council teaches definitively but without issuing a solemn definition.

Occasionally, the Magisterium issues extraordinary definitions of doctrine. This occurs when the Pope teaches ex cathedra, officially and solemnly defining some truth of the faith. The official and solemn definitions of ecumenical councils (such as the Council of Trent, the First Vatican Council, etc.) are also extraordinary pronouncements.

Remember, it is the definitive teachings of the Magisterium that are considered to be infallible. This usually means that they explicitly state they're defining some matter of the faith, or put forth a position as to be definitively held.

But not always.

Some things that are taught repeatedly( THIS IS WHERE YOU GO ASTRAY AND ARE NOT OBEDIENT TO CHURCH TEACHING< FLATTERUS) by the Magisterium can also be considered definitive, even if they're not explicitly named to be such.





Infallible teachings require the
Assent of faith

The Catholic Church uses its charism of infallibility to give the faithful clarity and certainty about morality and the faith itself.

As such, Catholics are required to give the "assent of faith" to such teachings. This means that our faith in them rests directly on our faith either in the Word of God, or in the Holy Spirit's real & active assistance in the Magisterium.

We take that quite seriously!



How often are infallible teachings made?

You've probably heard a very common myth that infallibility has only been used a few times.

That is not the case!

It's true that the Pope has exercised only rarely his own extraordinary power of defining the faith. But ecumenical councils have issued many extraordinary definitions over the years. And both the Pope and the full college of bishops have issued very many definitions in the course of their ordinary Magisterium. And of course...

...infallibility hinges on whether a teaching is definitive, regardless of whether it's ordinary or extraordinary.

When people claim that infallibility is very rare, often they're trying to justify their own rejection of some doctrine. They're trying to minimize the number of cases where doctrine is binding. (ONCE AGAIN YOU< FLATTERUS)

But that's exactly backwards!

The main job of bishops is to teach the Gospel. They do so with a special assistance of the Holy Spirit himself so that we may hear a faithful, accurate proclamation of the one true faith.

Although individual bishops may err in their official teachings about faith and morals, the Magisterium as a whole NEVER does. Nor does the Pope, by nature of Christ's special creation of Peter's office as one that "confirms the brethren" in the faith.

Frequently, the Magisterium sees fit to define some point of doctrine so that we can see, understand, and hold it with great clarity. These definitions are infallible, and we must believe them with the assent of faith.

But much of the time, the Magisterium teaches without making such definitions. Are we free to ignore these teachings that are not infallible?



"Am I free to reject any
non-definitive teachings
that I don't like?"

Not at all!

We must believe these teachings, too, although a lesser degree of belief is required. The technical expression is "a religious submission of mind and will". This is less than the absolute assent of faith, but it still means that we must honestly strive to understand and accept these teachings.

As a practical matter, we should assume that the even Church's non-definitive teachings are correct. They are still made with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.
End of copy+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

...and as my own note, the Church can and does many times throughout history give us fuller and deeper meaning of Church teaching and yes does correct and condemn error. On the subject of baptism of desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance , you think you know more than the Church. The Vicar of Christ has the authority from Jesus to bind and loose on Earth

Those statements do not support your position. As I demonstrated. In fact, the Michael Dubay statements destroy baptism of desire and your position. The fact you tried to use them against the necessity of baptism shows you do not understand them. I take all statements in consideration, yet you act as if I refuse to believe they are infallible when I said they likely were. If they do not support what you are saying, and they don't, your quoting them is useless. Worse, if they prove what I'm saying, which they clearly do, why are you concerned about their infallibility as though that works against me? Those statements serve my case, not yours. Its you that must explain why you do not accept the Michael Dubay condemnations. This doesn't have to be complicated, but it does have to be fair.

By the way, I could ask you why the Church doesn't do something about Pope Francis? We both know that a heresy or problem must run its course and it could take many more years before it is addressed. That has no bearing on this discussion because we are not out of the baptism of desire woods. Even you admitted that it is not properly understood, to the point you won't even repeat it to people. That is pretty telling. As for your proof, saints do not a pope make. The pope's teaching on salvation outside the Church is final and binding. No one at all is saved outside the Church, one must be incorporated by the sacrament of baptism--the Church says it. A canon on baptism in Trent says water is necessary for baptism. Another canon says baptism is necessary for salvation. These are infallible statements and together they are bullet-proof against baptism without water, or no baptism at all. Why don't you submit to canons of the greatest Council of the Church? Where did you get that Church militant and Church triumphant argument? Where is the infallible statement saying that?

Flattterus,

  When I post I many times will try to use pro and con arguments for a subject. I certainly admit my short comings in doing this with clarity and emphasis. I consider you a very devout Catholic and as I said before there are only Catholics in Heaven. You will either be Catholic on earth or Catholic in Heaven. I have baptized children in the past that I knew were not baptized and had very abuse drug using parents. I can see now that we are not going to agree on this subject. It is very ironic that outside of this subject our other beliefs on Catholicity might be exceptionally similar. I believe that you very much love your Catholic Faith. I believe father Feeney when he said that if the Pope told him that he must believe in Baptism of Desire that he would embrace it. He also said teach the faith and "leave the mercies to God"  I recognize as I believe the Church does that there are conditions(baptism of blood, baptism of desire and INV I) that might very well fall under the mercy, love and justice of God and I believe that you do not. and so we pray

Thank you for your time, George. And so we pray...

Flatterus,

I did pray, meditate and reflect on what you had to say in our exchanges. While I was in deep thought and reviewing my conclusions and thought process of our comments to each other, I recalled an event in my life. My wife and I were asked to baby sit for three children whose ages were I believe approximately five, three and one. They lived with drug using parents. I felt compelled to baptize them for I considered them to be in danger and knew that they were not baptized. If one or more of them had died would I have been responsible for them going straight to Heaven.? I would say of course not! I was simply doing the right thing and humbly presented this to God out of my love for Him and the necessity of the sacrament of Baptism. There has been an ongoing debate on this forum and to date an unknown conclusion for unbaptized persons under the age of reason and the aborted on the exact destiny of these souls. More recently the Church has said that we have reason to hope that they would go to Heaven. I use to worry about their destiny. But I no longer do. You see quite some time ago I arrived at complete peace and tranquility with what happens. You see it is really quite simple. If we really love and trust God with an unquestionable heart, mind and soul then it follows that God already billions of times over has sent these souls on a individual basis for reasons known to Him alone to their perfect eternal destiny. Don't worry be happy for God is God.
For those over the age of reason there are specific mandates for which we are accountable on Earth as instituted by Jesus and given to the Saint Peter, the apostles and the Church for us to follow to attain Salvation. The Church is a living institution who develops and safeguards Christ instructions and commands from day to day and century to century. We in the Catholic Church are commanded to teach all in love, charity and truth that there is no Salvation Outside the Catholic Church and that we must be baptized in the correct form with water. So that brings me to Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance. If you Flatterus say that no souls have attained salvation in this matter as judged by God then you must know the mind of God on these possibilities for the 2000 years of Catholic Church history. Furthermore you must certainly believe that God is bound by the sacraments. Memo to Flatterus, no God is not bound by the sacraments but EVERYONE else is. That is why we must teach all that they must be Catholic and that you must be baptized with water. You are correct when you say that most from my VCII experience, discussions and interaction with Catholics have abandoned and/or diluted the necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church to as Pope Pius XII said to " a Meaningless formula " Most in the church today openly judge and I say judge from my experiences many who are non Catholic as already worthy of salvation. That my friend IS heresy. True they may be on the path but their journey on Earth must be aided by Catholic effort for full membership in the Catholic Church. Those who assume a non Catholic is saved by another faith are in the vast majority. The church teaching on seeking God with a sincere heart is most definitely possible but only known to God at the time of particular judgement. If the Church knows of such a person they must help them to go the distance and become Catholic. Conversion and missionary work, though alive are not well and practically abandoned. How Jesus must cry. We live in a great time of punishment and God not only allows but wills that we have a Pope Francis who shows us exactly what the vast majority of smorgasbord Catholics believe. We must pray intensely for him always remembering that he is the Vicar of Christ and our Pope. This punishment will pass but oh the loss of souls. We did not safeguard our faith so now we get what we deserve. Some indeed though they possess part of the truth are in no ways ever excluded from being taught that this our Catholic Faith is the only true faith outside which there is no Salvation. Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Water and Invincible Ignorance must be taught in the correct context for they are not choices but unintentional circumstances in their lives. These conditions are not only possible but whose souls are most assuredly offered by Church teaching to God at their death for judgement. Countless Saints and visions of hell should remind us of the fewness of those that are saved, father Baron and modern thinking not withstanding. Cardinal Burke and many other courageous clerics have said on numerous occasions that we must explain our faith with much more clarity and continuity of tradition.
I have a meeting this Saturday with who I consider a very holy Monsignor from the Fraternal Society of St. Peter and will be discussing this issue along with other topics. If after that discussion any of these comments are modified I will humbly do so; if not I have written what I have written.

God Bless you.....and so we pray
George

George,

Thank you so much for your kind letter. It is edifying to be in contact with Catholics who truly love their Faith and want to grow in the grace of Almighty God. Especially in this day and age of frightening apostasy. I looked around a long time ago, and saw the trajectory of things; that it was unlikely anyone living back then would stand up and ask, "Is it me, Lord?" Although clear to me such a question had to be asked by somebody, certainly, I did not want to be 'that guy'. A grace must have come when I started to turn away from that thought because I managed to say to Him, "If it has to be me, I will do it."

Years went by and I lived a somewhat normal Catholic life with ordinary troubles. God truly is generous; I didn't deserve the outpouring of His generous gifts to me. But eventually, God decided to take me down that road where ego and self importance take their deserved beating. I deeply miss all that was, though I do not desire to go back. Still, I shrink from what is yet to come. Blasted pride.

You and I, and others, are commissioned to be 'the guy' made visible by a love of the Church and willingness to obey. It does not escape me that God picks the weakest and most deplorable so that His glory and power can shine, although it stings to know he chose me because I'm the pits. It is a privilege, yes, but in terms of the tangible, it means total loss. Loss of life, liberty, family, friends, and worldly cares.

Saying yes to Him is the only option. And though I struggle way too much to be any kind of holy, I remain committed to losing what remains, for His sake, should He go there. I am not exaggerating to say He indulged with me with gifts like nobody. Not talking worldly treasure, but even in that, only my own wretchedness ever wanted for more. The time has arrived for me, and God is taking away. No worries about some long drawn out story. As curious as my personal story is, I won't do that, just thought a sketch would be nice since we've been chatting away for days.

I'm not saying I have been chosen to teach anything. I am literally nobody with zero authority. Its just sometimes, my love for the Church finds its way out when I encounter opposition to the truth so dear. And being committed to truth to the point of suffering for it makes me invested.

God's generosity knows no bounds, except that He is true to His Word. Literally, God cannot be unfaithful to His Word, even if it meant he would be more generous.

While I'm sure you'll encounter similar understanding of baptism of desire from the priest you will visit, it remains that God keeps His Word. It is one reason I know for a certainty, that what people have come to believe about baptism of desire is false. Where there is even a hint of falsity, a bad tree grows. It is precisely because God is true and is generous that not one of the elect dies without the sacrament of baptism.

Keep praying George. I will too.

flatterus

Flatterus,

Thank you for this last response. I know your fervor , passion and faith is most genuine. Let us stay in touch. I will post a follow up after I meet with the Monsignor.

I would finish your last sentence as you began it as follows: It is precisely because God is true and is generous that not one of the elect dies without salvation because God is true and generous.

God Bless you....and so we pray

George

Write anytime.

God bless you. May He be glorified.

...And so we pray.

Whoa, some activity! Seems I have some catching up to do.

I [flatterus] said: "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema".

[Mryan] said: No disagreement here, it certainly did. But nowhere did Trent “define” that true and natural water is absolutely necessary to place one in a state of grace, or that if anyone who died in a state of justification without water baptism (by necessity), would be lost.]

flatterus wrote: Huh? Trent says man is anathema unless he's born again of water and the Holy Ghost. Yet you say nowhere does Trent "define" water is necessary to place one in a state of grace? What part of what Christ said (that Trent repeats) isn't clear?

Please pay attention. Speaking of the sin of Adam and its remedy, Session VI, Ch. III declares, “if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just.”

To “be born again in Christ” means to be justified in Christ by having the merit of His passion applied to our souls. So far, I think it safe to say we are in perfect agreement.

Ch. IV then “defines”:

“under the law of grace [did you catch that? The “law of grace”, not “the law of baptism”]… a description and the manner thereof” of justification as being “a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

So Ch. IV “defines” that this translation (to be born again in Christ) cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written. In point of fact, and once again, Trent’s very own Catechism makes it perfectly clear how the Council understands this dogmatic teaching:

“should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”

And this is precisely how Pope Pius XII understood this same universal doctrine, which allowed him to declare with infallible ordinary magisterial certitude (what you call “heresy”),

“Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death (de fide divina et ecclesiastica) without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism (de fide ecclesiastica); to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open”. (Allocution to midwives)

And you accuse Pope Pius XII, The Council of Trent, the Catechism of Trent, and the universal moral consensus of Doctors and the Saints of heresy.

Of course, you will say your private Gnostic unschooled reading of the canons and the chapters on Justification is the “true” understanding of the Church, and that the universal Church simply fell (very early on) into an egregious heresy on a matter of salvation which it has never had the light of faith to correct.  And you expect us to believe this. I mean, the Church even allows these “heresies” to be propagated unchecked in her universal Roman Catechisms (beginning with Trent), in the Sentences of Peter Lombard, in the Summa Theologica, in the approved theology manuals, in the Douay Rheims, Challoner and Haydock Scripture commentaries and in both the 1917 and 1983 codes of canon law.

As I said, one could not make this stuff up. Say, am I repeating myself already?

flatterus wrote: The Council also more explicitly defines that true and natural water is necessary for baptism and that baptism is necessary for salvation, in two unambiguous canons. Do we have to define 'define' now?’

Yes, actually, we do, for, and I hate to break the news, you are not the one who determines what is actually defined, the Church is. As I said, you behave as a Gnostic who believes he has the true understanding of the Church’s dogmatic teaching on water baptism, never mind what the Church, her saints, theologians and doctors actually teach and have always taught.

So let’s look at the two referenced canons from Trent, Session 7. First, from the Decree on the Sacraments in General, Can. 4:

“If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.”

As even the St. Benedict Center acknowledges, this canon has nothing to do with condemning the doctrine of baptism in voto or in blood, and everything to do with proper matter for the sacrament, which the heretics deny.  More bad breaking news for you: The baptisms of blood and desire are not “metaphors” for water baptism, they are intrinsically related to the sacrament in that they produce the same essential effect, justification/sanctification, to be “born again in Christ”.

Now let’s look at the Decree on the Sacraments, On Baptism, Can. 4:

“If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification,[2] though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.”

Trent is referring specially to the Protestant heresy that denies that the sacraments are necessary for salvation, neither in re nor in voto – they are NOT necessary, period (superfluous)– condemned!  Can’t you see the obvious fallacy you swear by staring you in the face?

flatterus wrote: Trent also says that the instrumental cause of justification is the sacrament of baptism. Not desire.

Yes, and in fact, Trent not only says that “the instrumental cause [of justification] is the sacrament of baptism,” it immediately follows with “which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified”. If one may be justified extra-sacramentally by the desire thereof, as Trent and its Catechism declares, one cannot be justified without supernatural faith (vivified by perfect charity), which the sacrament provides, but it is not the only means of transmitting this same faith and charity, at least for adults.

Again, you are conflating terms and remain terribly confused by equating necessary conditions with the causes of justification (with each and every cause belonging to God/Our Lord, to include the external instruments of His Church).  You are actually suggesting that because water baptism IS the ordinary instrumental cause of justification, that it can be the ONLY instrument for transmitting the essential fruit and merit of the Passion, meaning God will not and cannot (because He, allegedly, has so bound Himself) transmit the merit of His passion (with Himself being the meritorious cause) through the extra-sacramental (non-external) bonds of faith and charity to effect the same end - internal regeneration. Of course, you are absolutely wrong, as the Church declares.

I used “ordinary” because that is precisely how Pope Leo XIII used it when he said, in Satis Cognitum:

“In the same way in man, nothing is more internal than heavenly grace which begets sanctity, but the ordinary and chief means of obtaining grace are external: that is to say, the sacraments which are administered by men specially chosen for that purpose, by means of certain ordinances.”

Now let’s observe an egregious logical fallacy at work, where you write:

flatterus wrote: Trent never even addresses "baptism of desire" which is patently different than "desire thereof". Rather, Trent takes great care to define the form and matter of baptism. Anything other than the water will not do (no coke or beer), and the words must be said while pouring, immersing or sprinkling, not before or after, and the words must be "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" not, "in Jesus' name, etc..." or it isn't valid. So, other matter and other forms render baptism invalid, but nothing at all (except desire) is somehow valid? That's a purposeful denial of all that Trent took great care to define.

You begin right off the bat by confusing and conflating Session Six with Session Seven (and justification with the sacrament of baptism). The “baptism of desire” (or the “baptism of repentance”), like the “baptism of blood” are the common names associated with the grace of justification that is effected “by the desire thereof” (supernatural faith and the desire for the sacrament, or the desire to do what God and the Church commands).

“The desire thereof” in Session 6, Ch. 4,  On Justification, refers specifically to faith and perfect charity (the requisite intention is included therein), and as the common doctrine holds, and as every saint, theologian and Doctor knows, and as practically every Catechism makes clear, “perfect charity” is identical to “perfect contrition” and repentance, which is what the Catechism of Trent is referring to when it teaches “should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness”, which is the very same understanding of Pope Pius XII when he taught “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism”.

What is “supplied”, with the proper faith, intention and charity/contrition, is the justifying saving grace of the sacrament of baptism. This teaching, as St. Alphonus Liguori taught, is de fide because it is the common teaching of the universal ordinary magisterium, and is specifically and dogmatically affirmed by Trent.

It is true that one must have the proper intention (desire) for the SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM to render it valid (to receive its essential fruits), but that is not the same “desire thereof” Trent is referring to in Session 6, Ch. 4 on JUSTIFICATION, though it is certainly part of it.  So when you say, “Trent takes great care to define the form and matter of baptism”, you are only proving my case, for proper matter and form have nothing to do with “the desire thereof” of Session 6, Ch. 4 and Session 7, Canon 4.

It is true that without proper matter and form the grace of justification cannot be transmitted through the ordinary means of water baptism, but that does NOT mean that the same grace cannot be transmitted extra-sacramentally – as the Church has ALWAYS taught.

You are completely off the rails on this, as the St. Benedict Center and Fr. Feeney would be glad to explain. But, when you are a magisterium of one (though I am sure you are only repeating the fallacies of some arm-chair "expert"), anything is possible.

I will save for another time your butchering of Trent where you say:

“Trent says: "this justification cannot be had without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof", so people think each part of the statement can stand independently.

That sentence has two noun phrases modified by "cannot" and "without". Even in Latin.

this justification cannot be had without the laver of regeneration;
this justification cannot be had without the desire thereof".

Can you have justification without the laver of regeneration? The sentence says you cannot. Can you have justification without the desire thereof? The sentence says you cannot. You need both.

Rank amateurs who do not know Latin, let alone ecclesiastical Latin, are going to tell us what the proper translation actually means.

When I find the time (and the old posts), I will introduce you to real Catholic Latinists who will explain to you why you should leave such translations to the experts. You aren’t going to like it, and will end up looking quite foolish.

flatterus wrote:Yes, baptism of desire is heresy.  It is literally, 'no baptism' by definition since baptism is defined as a washing with water and the Holy Ghost. 'Desire alone saves' is the evil twin sister of 'faith alone saves'. Now, if I'm wrong about this, people go to heaven by desire alone anyway. But if I'm right, the consequences of furthering baptism of desire are catastrophic.

flatterus, no one, and I mean no one, ever said “desire alone” saves. That is indeed a “twisted” caricature of the true doctrine. How can you demand respect for your perverse doctrine when you can’t even get this right?

What may be catastrophic for you is standing before God and defending your aspersions against the greatest doctors of the Church by attributing to them “heresy”, just as you attribute “heresy” to the universal Church. Btw, the Council of Florence (Basel) declared that:

the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools.

The Church, in her universal ordinary teaching, accepts and embraces the true understanding of the baptisms of blood and desire as “has been commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools” for centuries on end – and there is NO disagreement among them or the Church with respect to the essentials of the doctrine.

To say otherwise is simply foolish.

When Trent said in CANON II on baptism, "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema". And then said,"CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.", it absolutely dissolves your contention that Trent speaks of justification without the sacrament of baptism.

Water is necessary for baptism, baptism is necessary for salvation.

flatterus

flatterus wrote:When Trent said in CANON II on baptism, "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema".  And then said,"CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.", it absolutely dissolves your contention that Trent speaks of justification without the sacrament of baptism.

As I said, flatterus, this is why we have a Church to tell us exactly what she means by her various dogmatic canons. Against the universal ordinary teaching of the Church you simply do not get to use private interpretation to tell us that Sess. 6., Ch. 4 does NOT declare that justification is effected by the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof, precisely as the Catechism of Trent explained, and precisely as the Church and her doctors and theologians have always understood it.

And, the baptisms of blood and desire in no way suggest "that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation", for baptism is necessary to all men for salvation, no exceptions, in re or at least in voto (faith and perfect charity), as the Church teaches and has always taught.  

That great “material heretic” Pope St. Pius X, who apparently was so dense that he did not even realize he was teaching heresy (on a necessary matter of faith) when he promulgated his Catechism in Italy, teaching:

17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.” – Catechism of Pope St. Pius X

Continuing:

flatterus wrote:Water is necessary for baptism, baptism is necessary for salvation.

Yes, properly understood; just as it was understood by Pope St. Pius X and Pope Benedict XV (another “material heretic”) who authorized this teaching in the 1917 Code of Canon Law which says:

“Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.” (Canon 737)

And flatterus says: Heresy!

flatterus wrote:Yes, there certainly are a lot of commentators on the subject.  But not one single papal statement or definitive council statement. Statements contradicting definitive statements are nothing but eyewash. Just like when Pope Francis says that the divorced and remarried can receive communion.  Sorry papa.  No can do.  Pope Francis will be corrected someday, hopefully before he loses his soul.  And so will baptism of desire advocates.  And no one can say, "but the pope said, or St. Augustine said, or some statement said...

Not gonna work.

The Church has spoken.

Hubris. Imagine comparing “the divorced and remarried can receive communion” with “Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death … An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism”. The former heterodoxy has zero precedent in the entire history of the Church, the latter, beginning with St. Cyprian, is a universal teaching contested by no one, not one single subsequent saint, pope doctor or theologian.

Yet, that’s precisely what you are doing with your laughable “apples to apples” comparison (heresy to heresy). In fact, your “not one single papal statement” on this subject is absolutely false, as the “papal statements” from Popes St. Pius X, Benedict XV and Pius XII attest.  And, when considering the Catechism of the Council of Trent alone,

It [the Catechism] was repeatedly recommended by Pope St. Pius V., and in five Councils held at Milan under St. Charles Borromeo it received the highest praise and commendation. Similar eulogy and commendation were given it by Gregory XIII, the successor of Pius V, by Clement XIII, and in our own times by Leo XIII and Pius X. In short, from the time of its publication down to the present time many Pontiffs and Bishops, and a great number of provincial and diocesan synods in various countries, have vied with one another in celebrating the praises of the Catechism of Trent, and in commanding its use.

In an Encyclical Letter to the Bishops and clergy of France, of Sept. 8, 1889, Pope Leo XIII recommended two books which all Seminarians should possess, and constantly read and study, namely, the Summa of St. Thomas and the Roman Catechism. Regarding the latter he said: “This work is remarkable at once for the richness and exactness of its doctrine, and for the elegance of its style; it is a precious summary of all theology, both dogmatic and moral. He who understands it well, will have always at his service those aids by which a priest is enabled to preach with fruit, to acquit himself worthily of the important ministry of the confessional and of the direction of souls, and will be in a position to refute the objections of unbelievers.”

“Its merits,” says Dr. Donovan, who first translated the Catechism into English, “have been recognized by the universal Church. The first rank which has been awarded the ‘Imitation’ among spiritual books, has been unanimously given to the Roman Catechism as a compendium of Catholic theology. It was the result of the aggregate labors of the most distinguished of the Fathers of Trent, . . . and is therefore stamped with the impress of superior worth.”

Dr. John Hagan, Vice-Rector of the Irish College in Rome, says: “The Roman Catechism is a work of exceptional authority. At the very least it has the same authority as a dogmatic Encyclical, it is an authoritative exposition of Catholic doctrine given forth, and guaranteed to be orthodox by the Catholic Church and her supreme head on earth. The compilation of it was the work of various individuals; but the result of their combined labors was accepted by the Church as a precious abridgment of dogmatic and moral theology. Official documents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine, and is addressed to the whole Church. Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de fide.” (from the Introduction, Authority and Excellence, TAN edition, Catechism of the Council of Trent)

That the Catechism of Trent’s teaching is not “infallible” does not mean that the infallible dogmatic and definitive teachings of the universal ordinary magisterium contained therein are not infallible, for they certainly are, and one of those definitive Catechism teachings of the universal ordinary magisterium, an “authoritative exposition of Catholic doctrine given forth, and guaranteed to be orthodox by the Catholic Church and her supreme head on earth” declares:

If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. […]

On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

Pope St. Pius V, who promulgated the Roman Catechism of Trent in 1566, is the same sainted Pontiff who “repeatedly recommended” the same Catechism of Trent and was entrusted with enforcing the decrees and reforms of the Council of Trent, to include these decrees, beginning with Session 14, Ch. 2:

And this sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated.

And, from Session 6, Ch. 4:

“A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace. By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated, as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”

In summary, under the law of grace, unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism … they are born to eternal misery and destruction; and, under the law of grace, this translation to the state of grace and of adoption as the sons of God, cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written, for concerning the latter, should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

“Yes, there certainly are a lot of commentators on the subject” has to be the understatement of the year. As I said, beginning with St. Cyprian we have the diachronic universal testimony of the saints, doctors, theologians and popes who taught this same doctrine in tracts, theology manuals, scripture commentaries, papal allocutions and letters, local Catechisms, Roman Catechisms and Canon Law, with not a single dissenting voice among them, Karl Rahner’s unsubstantiated claim that St. Augustine “changed” his mind on baptism of desire notwithstanding.  

And this is why the current Roman Catechism, the  CCC, can echo the Roman Catechism of Trent and teach with authoritative magisterial certitude that:

1258  The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament. (2473)

1259  For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament. (1249)

Where have we heard that before? The Catechism of the Council of Trent:

should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

The Church, indeed, has spoken.

Hubris. Imagine comparing “the divorced and remarried can receive communion” with “Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death … An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism”. The former heterodoxy has zero precedent in the entire history of the Church, the latter, beginning with St. Cyprian, is a universal teaching contested by no one, not one single subsequent saint, pope doctor or theologian.


The above is simply not true. For brevity, I will provide one pope who contests it.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Session 7, 1547, “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”

The Council of Trent spoke. I can read what the Church teaches in Her definitions quite clearly. The words say exactly what they mean and mean exactly what they say, no more, no less. Expounding on definitions is not possible, not by anyone, especially when people try to undermine their meaning. Definitions are specific and clear and are made even for the likes of me.

At every turn, baptism of desire collides with Church teaching. It pretends not to deny the doctrine of no salvation outside the Church while saying there really is salvation outside the Church. Baptism of desire advocates know baptism of desire doesn't make one a member of the Church. Nor does it remit original sin. (among other omissions) So it makes liars out of Popes who infallibly teach it is necessary to belong to the Church; necessary for original sin to be washed away. It makes lies out of Trent's canons on baptism. Makes Jesus a liar. Collides with the teaching of sacrament of baptism making it only just a little not necessary. Baptism of desire undermines the entire sacramental system. It conflicts with the precepts of the Church. It has no limits on the destruction of the minds of Catholics who believe they work very, very hard to spread the Word and maintain apostolic zeal, but who say things like, "Well, there's always baptism of desire!"

Baptism of desire is the non sacramental foundation for the New World Order Church. A church of ambiguity, falsehood, deception and confusion. Can't define baptism of desire, can't touch it, can't clarify it because its boundaries can only be imagined. Sounds like chaos. Dictionary.com defines chaos as any confused, disorderly mass. Bingo.

What is amazing to me is that when the fallout from baptism of desire is demonstrated, advocates could care less. Not only do they deny that baptism of desire conflicts with Church teaching, but they shrug when you point out how broad and faulty Catholic opinions are regarding it. Even the best understanding of it is rotten. It remains a puzzle to me that advocates simply cannot smell that smell.

Advocates say, "Well, those who think everyone is saved, or that many people are saved by it, got it wrong." And then, "But what are you going to do...baptism of desire is there!"
Really? That's it? This pervasive, vicious disregard for souls provides a clarity on baptism of desire that casual believers could not have envisioned once upon a time when the heresy first began or they would have tossed it into the vintage round file. Oops. Some did figure it out and did chuck it. Ambrose for instance. Not much you can do to hold up your argument when your main character denies it. But deny he did.

St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:
“The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed he must circumcise himself from his sins so that he can be saved;...for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.”

St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:
“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity.”

St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391 A.D.:
“You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”

The only thing I've seen from you are subjective views of saints, impotent phrases, near misses of popes and fallible musings. No definition. No clarity. No infallible teaching. Only a conflicting view of the obvious truth. And to what avail? To boldly not bring people into the Church.

flatterus