Why the Council of Trent Does Not Teach Baptism of Desire

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

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

Someone needs to throw you a lifeline.

"Secondly, a man is bound absolutely to go to confession; and here the same reason applies to delay of confession as to delay of Baptism, because both are necessary sacraments. Now a man is not bound to receive Baptism as soon as he makes up his mind to be baptized; and so he would not sin mortally, if he were not baptized at once: nor is there any fixed time beyond which, if he defer Baptism, he would incur a mortal sin. Nevertheless the delay of Baptism may amount to a mortal sin, or it may not, and this depends on the cause of the delay, since, as the Philosopher says (Phys. viii, text. 15), the will does not defer doing what it wills to do, except for a reasonable cause. Wherefore if the cause of the delay of Baptism has a mortal sin connected with it, e.g.if a man put off being baptized through contempt, or some like motive, the delay will be a mortal sin, but otherwise not: and the same seems to apply to confession which is not more necessary than Baptism. Moreover, since man is bound to fulfill in this life those things that are necessary for salvation, therefore, if he be in danger of death, he is bound, even absolutely, then and there to make his confession or to receive Baptism. For this reason too, James proclaimed at the same time the commandment about making confession and that about receiving Extreme Unction (James 5:14-16). Therefore the opinion seems probable of those who say that a man is not bound to confess at once, though it is dangerous to delay."(Summa Theologica, III, Q.6, A.5)

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

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

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

I understand. But it matters a great deal how one understands and portrays this general statement, does it not? For it can be construed in either a heterodox, or a fully orthodox sense.

I know how some would "interpret" it, and with these folks I have nothing in common.

Since you brought it up, how would you explain this statement to others (who asked) since it is this type of statement by Pope BXVI that motivates you to "argue Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus."?

Jehanne wrote:

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

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

Someone needs to throw you a lifeline.

"Secondly, a man is bound absolutely to go to confession; and here the same reason applies to delay of confession as to delay of Baptism, because both are necessary sacraments. Now a man is not bound to receive Baptism as soon as he makes up his mind to be baptized; and so he would not sin mortally, if he were not baptized at once: nor is there any fixed time beyond which, if he defer Baptism, he would incur a mortal sin. Nevertheless the delay of Baptism may amount to a mortal sin, or it may not, and this depends on the cause of the delay, since, as the Philosopher says (Phys. viii, text. 15), the will does not defer doing what it wills to do, except for a reasonable cause. Wherefore if the cause of the delay of Baptism has a mortal sin connected with it, e.g.if a man put off being baptized through contempt, or some like motive, the delay will be a mortal sin, but otherwise not: and the same seems to apply to confession which is not more necessary than Baptism. Moreover, since man is bound to fulfill in this life those things that are necessary for salvation, therefore, if he be in danger of death, he is bound, even absolutely, then and there to make his confession or to receive Baptism. For this reason too, James proclaimed at the same time the commandment about making confession and that about receiving Extreme Unction (James 5:14-16). Therefore the opinion seems probable of those who say that a man is not bound to confess at once, though it is dangerous to delay."(Summa Theologica, III, Q.6, A.5)

If someone knows that he is bound to receive baptism, then he is bound to receive it. The will does not defer doing what it wills to do [to do the will of God], except for a reasonable cause.

So where does this contradict or negate St. Thomas' teaching how the desire for baptism my be explicit or implicit?

You are truly confused; but keep digging!

"I answer that, Unbelief may be taken in two ways: first, by way of pure negation, so that a man be called an unbeliever, merely because he has not the faith. Secondly, unbelief may be taken by way of opposition to the faith; in which sense a man refuses to hear the faith, or despises it, according to Isaiah 53:1: "Who hath believed our report?" It is this that completes the notion of unbelief, and it is in this sense that unbelief is a sin.

If, however, we take it by way of pure negation, as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of sin, but of punishment, because such like ignorance of Divine things is a result of the sin of our first parent. If such like unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, but not on account of their sin of unbelief. Hence Our Lord said (John 15:22) "If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin"; which Augustine expounds (Tract. lxxxix in Joan.) as "referring to the sin whereby they believed not in Christ." (Summa Theologica, II II, A.1)

"Everyone is bound to believe something explicitly…even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to Divine Providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as He sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20)." (The Disputed Questions on Truth , Q.14, A.11.)

"After grace had been revealed both learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation." (Summa Theologica, II II, Q.2, A.7)

"And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity: and all who are born again in Christ, have this bestowed on them by the invocation of the Trinity, according to Matthew 28:19: "Going therefore teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." (Summa Theologica, II II, Q.2, A.7)

Jehanne wrote:"I answer that, Unbelief may be taken in two ways: first, by way of pure negation, so that a man be called an unbeliever, merely because he has not the faith. Secondly, unbelief may be taken by way of opposition to the faith; in which sense a man refuses to hear the faith, or despises it, according to Isaiah 53:1: "Who hath believed our report?" It is this that completes the notion of unbelief, and it is in this sense that unbelief is a sin.

If, however, we take it by way of pure negation, as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of sin, but of punishment, because such like ignorance of Divine things is a result of the sin of our first parent. If such like unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, but not on account of their sin of unbelief. Hence Our Lord said (John 15:22) "If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin"; which Augustine expounds (Tract. lxxxix in Joan.) as "referring to the sin whereby they believed not in Christ." (Summa Theologica, II II, A.1)

"Everyone is bound to believe something explicitly…even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to Divine Providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as He sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20)." (The Disputed Questions on Truth , Q.14, A.11.)

"After grace had been revealed both learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation." (Summa Theologica, II II, Q.2, A.7)

"And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity: and all who are born again in Christ, have this bestowed on them by the invocation of the Trinity, according to Matthew 28:19: "Going therefore teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." (Summa Theologica, II II, Q.2, A.7)

Once again, what does any of this have to do with the teaching of St. Thomas on how the desire for baptism may be explicit or implicit?

Btw, "unbelief" and the "ignorance of Divine things" like the essential articles of faith is not the same as ignorance of the necessity of baptism. Of course, if you took the blinders off you would know this, for that is precisely what St. Thomas (and the Church) teaches.

Keep digging!

"It is obvious that all who die without baptism are lost.” (St. Prosper of Aquitaine, The Call of All Nations 1, 17; 2, 24)"

Jehanne wrote:"It is obvious that all who die without baptism are lost.” (St. Prosper of Aquitaine, The Call of All Nations 1, 17; 2, 24)"

So its come to this: You can't back-up our erroneous thesis; St. Thomas Aquinas does not teach that one's implicit desire for baptism must become explicit, so you just keep throwing irrelevant stuff on the wall in the hope that no one will notice that you are drowning in your own obstinacy and error.

You want to play games?

”They who without even having received the laver of regeneration, die for the confession of Christ, it avails them as much for the doing away of sins as if they were washed in the font of Baptism.” (St. Prosper of Aquitaine, {A.D. 463}, The Faith of Catholics, Msgr. Capel)

Jehanne, you're done.

No, I am not. Sure, he believed in Baptism of Blood. Different thing, entirely, than Baptism of Desire. I also believe in Baptism of Blood. I just do not think that it ever happens. That's my opinion.

Let me quote Saint Thomas again, and I will emphasize what he taught.

"After grace had been revealed both learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation." (Summa Theologica, II II, Q.2, A.7)

Now, was Water Baptism "publicly proclaimed" in Saint Thomas' day? Or, are you saying that one could believe in the Blessed Trinity and in the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ and hear, publicly, about the absolute necessity of Water Baptism and yet still desire it "implicitly"???