St. Thomas Aquinas on implicit desire for Baptism

Jehanne wrote:
Sure, he (St. Prosper) 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.

No, it is not a different thing “entirely”, for someone who confesses Christ in perfect charity may also apply to someone who does not die for Christ in martrydom – in what St. Prosper would know as Baptism of Desire, precisely as his mentor and Spiritual Father, St. Augustine, consistently taught this same doctrine.

But this is entirely irrelevant to, and a deliberate diversion from, the issue at hand – St. Aquinas' teaching that the desire for baptism my be explicit or implicit; and that nowhere does he suggest that an implicit desire must become “explicit”; let alone suggest that if it does not become explicit, as you allege, it is “formal heresy”.

I'm not sure why Rasha locked the other thread, but we are not done with this issue, and error still abounds.

Jehanne wrote:
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"???

Of course it was proclaimed, but that is not the point. The entire Gospel​ was publicly proclaimed and promulgated, but not every Gospel truth must be known as a necessity of means for salvation, let alone for Baptism. That one must know that Baptism is necessary for salvation is not an essential article of faith intrinsic to our salvation unless it is revealed to that person, who must at least come to a supernatural faith in certain articles and possess a perfect charity if he is to be saved by “the desire thereof” without actual ablution.

In fact, your citation from St. Thomas only proves this point, for he specifically mentions the Incarnation as one of the articles of faith that must be believed, and nowhere does he mention the necessity of Baptism as one of the essential articles of faith.

St. Aquinas's teaching that there are essential articles of faith that must be held by every man for salvation, i.e., belief in God, the Trinity and the Incarnation, can also be gleaned from the Summa theologiae III q. 1, a. 8, where St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that the object of Christian faith consists in fourteen articles of belief revealed in Sacred Scripture. Together they form the Apostolic deposit of faith.

There are “Seven Articles Pertaining to the Godhead”; and “Seven Articles Pertaining to Christ's Human Nature”.

Guess what –- the necessity of Baptism is not one of the objects of belief that form the Apostolic deposit of faith. Yes, it is a revealed truth, but it is not one of the core objects of belief, each of which pertains to belief in the Godhead, the Trinity and our Incarnate Lord.

For example, "I believe in the Holy Spirit" is a Revealed object of belief, but the revealed truth that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son is nowhere explicitly revealed, and it is not stated in the early Creeds, such as the Nicene. What is only implicit in the dogma of the Trinity and what is only suggestive in Scripture, would only be added to the Nicene Creed in the 6th century -- and would become one of the instrumental causes (excuses) for the separation of the Orthodox from the one true Church (you know, for accusing the Church of a "recession in meaning" under the pretext of coming to a "deeper understanding" of the "once declared" Creed of faith).

The Magisterium is the only divinely appointed and infallibly trustworthy interpreter of Scripture, Revelation, dogma and the Church's own doctrines, explicitly revealed or not.

Here's the point: Does St. Thomas suggest that a belief that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son is an essential object of faith that must be explicitly revealed to every man without exception for salvation? He does not, and neither does he suggest that the necessity of baptism for salvation must be explicitly revealed before someone can be justified and saved by a desire for the sacrament. Of course, if it is revealed to the individual, it must be believed, and in the case of Baptism, the divine precept must be fulfilled, at least in desire.

The lifeline is still there, and you need to grab it.

I locked it because 5 pages are bit hard to navigate through, plus people were getting juvenile. Feel free to continue on this thread though.

Saint Thomas gives the list of the 14 articles here:

"As stated above (4,6), to faith those things in themselves belong, the sight of which we shall enjoy in eternal life, and by which we are brought to eternal life. Now two things are proposed to us to be seen in eternal life: viz. the secret of the Godhead, to see which is to possess happiness; and the mystery of Christ's Incarnation, "by Whom we have access" to the glory of the sons of God, according to Romans 5:2. Hence it is written (John 17:3): "This is eternal life: that they may know Thee, the . . . true God, and Jesus Christ Whom Thou hast sent." Wherefore the first distinction in matters of faith is that some concern the majesty of the Godhead, while others pertain to the mystery of Christ's human nature, which is the "mystery of godliness" (1 Timothy 3:16).

Now with regard to the majesty of the Godhead, three things are proposed to our belief: first, the unity of the Godhead, to which the first article refers; secondly, the trinity of the Persons, to which three articles refer, corresponding to the three Persons; and thirdly, the works proper to the Godhead, the first of which refers to the order of nature, in relation to which the article about the creation is proposed to us; the second refers to the order of grace, in relation to which all matters concerning the sanctification of man are included in one article; while the third refers to the order of glory, and in relation to this another article is proposed to us concerning the resurrection of the dead and life everlasting. Thus there are seven articles referring to the Godhead.

In like manner, with regard to Christ's human nature, there are seven articles, the first of which refers to Christ's incarnation or conception; the second, to His virginal birth; the third, to His Passion, death and burial; the fourth, to His descent into hell; the fifth, to His resurrection; the sixth, to His ascension; the seventh, to His coming for the judgment, so that in all there are fourteen articles." ( Summa Theologica, II II, Q.1, A.8 )

So, are you claiming that the article "concerning the sanctification of man" says nothing about Baptism?

Saint Thomas is saying that all matters concerning the sanctification of man in the order of grace (Redemption) are included in (related to) this one article of faith:

I believe in “the holy catholic church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins"

Baptism, and all the sacraments in the order of grace, and all the means for obtaining grace (ordinary and extraordinary), are included (implicitly) in this one article of Faith whereby, for example, Baptism is a sacrament of the Church, it makes one a member of the communion of saints, and results in the forgiveness of sins.

As doctrines of the Church, baptism of desire and baptism of blood are included in the order of grace and are included (implicitly), therefore, in this one article of faith, even if they have not been explicitly revealed and do not require the same level of assent as a revealed truth. As doctrines of the ordinary Magisterium, we assent with religious submission to the authority of the Church teaching.

Your seem to want to suggest that every doctrine of faith that is included (such as all seven sacraments), even implicitly, in this one article of faith relating to the order of grace and sanctification must be known explicitly in order to be saved, and you know that is not true, even if you feign ignorance.

The question is whether the necessity of baptism must be known explicitly as an intrinsic necessity of means for salvation. St. Thomas teaches elsewhere that it is not one of the essential articles (that must be revealed to every individual) and that belief in the essential articles (with the disposition to believe all that God has revealed and all that the Church teaches) satisfies for belief in the entire deposit of faith.

That is why a catechumen who obviously knows about baptism cannot be baptized until the essential articles of faith are revealed to him, and he professes his belief. For someone who does not know about the sacrament of baptism, like St. Thomas' pagan in the woods, he must still come to a supernatural faith (even by divine inspiration) and possess a perfect charity, while his desire for baptism and to be united to the Church may be implicit in his desire (an act of the will) to do the will of God in all things.

How many times and in how many ways must St. Thomas Aquinas (and the Church) spell this out for you?

Again, St. Thomas does not teach that the implicit desire for the sacrament must become "explicit", and to suggest that if it does not it is "formal heresy", is, well ... you get the message.

MRyan wrote:
Baptism, and all the sacraments in the order of grace, and all the means for obtaining grace (ordinary and extraordinary), are included (implicitly) in this one article of Faith whereby, for example, Baptism is a sacrament of the Church, it makes one a member of the communion of saints, and results in the forgiveness of sins.

As doctrines of the Church, baptism of desire and baptism of blood are included in the order of grace and are included (implicitly), therefore, in this one article of faith, even if they have not been explicitly revealed and do not require the same level of assent as a revealed truth. As doctrines of the ordinary Magisterium, we assent with religious submission to the authority of the Church teaching.

Not so fast there M.
Baptism is a major article of faith and out of all the sacraments it's specifically included in the Creed. The other sacraments may be implicitly included but Baptism is explicit.
You could argue that baptism of desire and baptism of blood are implicit in, "I believe in one Baptism" but if they where the line would read, "I believe in Baptism."
One Baptism is necessary for salvation and actually excludes baptism of desire/baptism of blood rather than include or imply them.

Here is the Nicene Creed:

"We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen."

Which articles are you saying require explicit faith? Please be specific and list them.

Here, by the way, are Saint Thomas' 14 Articles of Faith that he says must be believed explicitly:

The Seven Articles Pertaining to the Godhead

1. God is One "I believe in God"
2. Father "the Father Almighty"
3. Son "and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord"
4. Holy Spirit "I believe in the Holy Spirit"
5. Nature (Creation) "the Maker of heaven and earth"
6. Grace (Redemption) "the holy catholic church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins"
7. Glory (Glorification) "the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting."

The Seven Articles Pertaining to Christ's Human Nature

1. Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
2. born of the Virgin Mary,
3. suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried;
4. He descended into hell.
5. The third day He arose again from the dead;
6. He ascended into heaven,
7. and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead.

Any dispute?

Sacramental water baptism is the normal form of the one baptism. Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire/Flaminis/Will/Vow/Votum are other non-sacramental forms of the one baptism.

“One baptism” means the unity of Christ’s one true faith. We are baptized with the grace of Jesus Christ, not some other god. “One baptism for the forgiveness of sins.” Not various baptisms in the names of various gods and various faiths.

The “one baptism” has nothing to do with the issues we are talking about here, when discussing baptism of blood and baptism of desire.

“One baptism” comes from Scripture, describing the unity of His Church, faith in Christ Jesus, the one true God.

Ephesians 4:3-6:
“striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace:
one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call;
one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”

Note: St. Acquinas believed (as the Church teaches) that sacramental water baptism and Baptism of Blood remove both the eternal punishment and any temporal punishment, Baptism of Desire only removes the eternal punishment, not any temporal punishment. Of course, any temporal punishment and suffering one endures here on earth or in Purgatory is totally up to God.

Good night and God bless you all.
Love,
Elisa

You are saying then Elisa that baptism of desire is not a Baptism but rather the unfulfilled desire for sacramental Baptism and that this “Desire” can replace the necessity of sacramental Baptism?
So here we have the cause of all the confusion. The terminology used is misleading. The term baptism of desire is after all, a Red Herring? It endeavours, by word manipulation, to attribute the sacramental efficaciousness of a desire to that of an actual sacrament, and in this case a sacrament that has been deemed absolutely necessary for salvation.

Properly then, the term used should be rendered, Desire for Baptism, DfB, and not baptism of desire. If we can establish that this is in fact what is meant by the term baptism of desire, i.e. Desire for Baptism, Then the words of St Gregory Nazienzen now make so much more sense.

"If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder, soley by his intention and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one who desired baptism, without having received Baptism. But, since you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter? Put it this way: if desire has equal power with actual Baptism, you would then be satisfied to deire Glory, as though that longing itself were Glory."
(St Gregory Nazienzen)

This also agrees with the Anonymous authors crtique of Session 6, Ch. 4: on a previous thread.
https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t221-why-the-council-of-trent-does-not-teach-baptism-of-desire

Moreover, to my knowledge (maybe someone can prove me wrong on this) the term baptism of desire has never been used in any official Church encyclical, letter or document and has no grounds at all for being accepted as a proper theological term. In the interests of clarity and meaning, I suggest it should be done away with altogether and replaced by the term “Desire for Baptism.”
This shall do away with the false notion implied in the term baptism of desire that falsely denotes this a being a Baptism in itself.
If the desire for Baptism is actually Baptism itself (or as good as) then we can have anything at all we wish for just by desiring it.

As for baptism of blood, this has more merit in it's title than baptism of desire but I think it can be argued quite convincingly that it too cannot replace the necessity of sacramental Baptism but is in fact an extra Baptism offered to some holy souls who have already received water Baptism. But that's for another thread.

MRyan,

Nothing that you or Elisa has cited on this thread, or in previous, proves that a person can be justified without water baptism. Quoting St. Thomas doesn’t prove your point on anything. We know that St. Thomas is one of the great Doctors of the Church but he was wrong on some things and his teaching is not binding in every single instance.

Here is one example:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 14, A. 3, Reply to Obj. 1:
“The flesh of the Virgin was conceived in original sin, and therefore contracted these defects. But from the Virgin, Christ’s flesh assumed the nature without sin…”

St. Thomas taught that Mary was not conceived immaculate more than once in the Summa Theologica. Evidently, he taught this before the explanation of Mary’s immaculate conception by Pope Pius IX in 1854, but to hold St. Thomas’s caste after that time would be heretical. Yet, the popes from 1854 on, conforming referred the Summa Theologica to seminarians and priests without ruling that St. Thomas’s (now heretical) view be deleted! This demonstrates that the presupposition of baptism of desire can be perverse to defined dogma – and even heretical – and yet no pope ever ordered it to be removed from the catechisms, for whatever reason.

Pope St. Pius V, Errors of Michael du Bay (BAII): Moreover that distinction of a twofold justice, one which is brought to pass through the indwelling of the Spirit of charity, the other which arises from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit exciting the heart to penance, but not yet dwelling in the heart and diffusing charity in it, by which the justification of the divine law may be fulfilled, is similarly condemned. (DZ 1063)

No matter what you state or what ever way you want to word things, the Catholic Church still teaches infallibly that unless a man be born again of WATER AND THE HOLY GHOST he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God (John 3:5).

The dogmatic definitions of the Catholic Church are our proximate Rule of Faith, which you are well aware of. So your doubtfulness on that truth which has fallen from Heaven such as no man can be saved without being born again of Water and the Holy Ghost has placed you under the Anathema Of Trent, Session 7, Can. 4.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Can. 4, On the Sacraments: “If anyone says that the sacraments of the new law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that people obtain the grace of justification from God without them or a desire for them, by faith alone, though all are not necessary for each individual: let him be anathema.”

The whole idea of baptism of blood/baptism of desire theory would reproach so many different doctrines. It would reproach Church membership, Church unity, and the necessity of baptism. We have fourteen Canons on the Sacrament of baptism, baptism of blood/baptism of desire is not mentioned anywhere. We have the Council of Trent declaring that unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he can not enter into the Kingdom of God. We have Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence, infallibly teaching that even if a person has shed blood in the name of Christ he could not be saved unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. We have the Fourth Lateran Council under Pope Innocent III in the year 1215 saying that there is one Church of the Faithful outside of which nobody at all is saved. He says this infallibly.

The faithful in Church history are the water baptized Catholics, not catechumens. The catechumens had to leave Mass before the Mass of the faithful. There was a clear distinction between the catechumens and the faithful. So the actual understanding of that definition would lead us directly to the conclusion that all catechumens are excluded from salvation, in other words, all the people that has not been brought into the Church through water baptism are excluded from salvation.

St. Justin the Martyr, 155 A.D.: “… they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn… in the name of God… they receive the washing of water. For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ The reason for doing this we have learned from the apostles.”

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: “… the one mystical body … And in this, ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph. 4:5). Certainly Noe had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church… outside which we read that all living things on the earth were destroyed… which body he called the ‘Only one’ namely, the Church, because of the unity of the spouse, the faith, the sacraments, and the charity of the Church. ”

Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, On the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Sess. 14, Chap. 2, ex cathedra: “… the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism. For what have I to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle. It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body’ (1 Cor. 12:13).” (DZ. 895)

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Comparisons among the Sacraments, p. 154: “Though all the Sacraments possess a divine and admirable efficacy, it is well worthy of special remark that all are not of equal necessity or of equal dignity, nor is the signification of all the same. “Among them three are said to be necessary beyond the rest, although in all three this necessity is not of the same kind. The universal and absolute necessity of Baptism our Savior has declared in these words: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5).”

Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism – Necessity of Baptism, pp. 176-177: “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 (Jn. 3:5).”

Any honest person can clearly understand that, this means that no one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism and that John 3:5 is literal with no exceptions!

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Matter of Baptism - Fitness, p. 165: “Upon this subject pastors can teach in the first place that water, which is always at hand and within the reach of all, was the fittest matter of a Sacrament which is necessary to all for salvation.”

The Catechism is teaching here that water is “within the reach of all,” an expression which omits the very idea of baptism of desire – that water is not within the reach of all. The Catechism also asserts that the sacrament is compulsory for all for salvation! This excludes any notion of salvation without the Sacrament of Baptism. Thus, the Catechism of Trent teaches continually and unambiguously that it is the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for each person for salvation. All of this is plainly opposed to the assumption of baptism of desire and baptism of blood.

If you prudently assess this canon, you will see that it is not affirming that either the sacraments or the desire for them is adequate for justification; but instead it is condemning anyone who would say that neither the sacraments nor the desire for them is necessary for justification. What it is doing here is, condemning those who would say that neither is necessary and that faith alone suffices.

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “But the sacrament of baptism is consecrated in water at the invocation of the undivided Trinity – namely, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – and brings salvation to both children and adults when it is correctly carried out by anyone in the form laid down by the Church.”

Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 - Condemning the articles of John Wyclif - Proposition 6: “Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.” - Condemned

Fatima,
I'm not going to go into everything you said, because I don't think you are really listening.

But I do want to defend the good name of one of the greatest Doctors of the Church, St. Thomas Acquinas. No, he was not "wrong on some things." Besides the Immaculate Conception (which I will discuss here) what are you talking about? Nothing.

In fact, we can see from the example of how the Holy Spirit used St. Thomas while trying to reconcile 2 truths in developing the doctrine of the truth of the Immaculate Conception, how He may also have used St. Thomas in reconciling 2 truths in developing the doctrine of baptism of desire and baptism of blood.

Bringing this up bothers me for 2 reasons. One because Protestants like to bring this up all the time to deny the Immaculate Conception. And two, because you actually act like seminaries should abridge St. Thomas' Summa as if it is heretical. Please.

Also St. Thomas was not the only Church Father that talked about Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. And Trent speaks of it, as well as Trent's catechism and every catechism since for 500 years. You may reject it, but please stop the pretense that the Church didn't teach it.

I wrote this before to someone else, but I will repeat it here.

It’s wrong to try and discredit St. Thomas Acquinas in order to dismiss what he said about Baptism of Desire.

I just want to clear up something to anyone who might be reading here. St. Thomas Acquinas NEVER denied the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception that was later defined by the Church after his death.

“The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.”

While he was alive they were still debating how to reconcile 2 truths that had always been taught by the Church. One, that no sin ever touched Our Lady’s soul and two, that the Blessed Mother still needed a Savior. So she could not have been sanctified by the grace of Jesus Christ BEFORE her conception.

The Holy Spirit did not enlighten the Church until later that she was not preserved free from sin BEFORE she was conceived (In St. Thomas’s day they believed ensoulment happened at animation of the baby in the womb, which was a few months after conception. So he doesn’t say conception, but animation.) Nor was she preserved free from sin AFTER her conception. What no one, including St. Thomas, thought of back then was that it happened AT THE MOMENT OF HER CONCEPTION. This reconciled the 2 truths.

But St. Thomas never said sin touched her soul or that she was preserved free from sin before her conception. St. Thomas instinctively knew that the Blessed Mother was preserved free from original sin in the womb, sometime after animation/ensoulment and before birth. His timing was off because he never thought of at the moment of animation/ensoulment. So he thought she must of “incurred the stain of original sin” so that she needed Jesus’ salvation, as all men do. But the great Saint knew she was “sanctified in the womb” and that she was “perfectly by Divine Providence preserving her sensitive soul, in a singular manner.”

So it’s misleading for us to infer that St. Thomas was in error. That is a point about him the Protestants like to throw around to deny the Immaculate Conception.

More importantly to these discussions about Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, St. Thomas was not in left field and did not deny the Immaculate Conception. His timing was off, but he was right there with the essence of truth about Our Lady before the Holy Spirit revealed the details to the Church, who then defined the belief. Just like the Church believes St. Thomas was right about the essence of truth about Baptism of Desire, the details of which have not yet been revealed by the Holy Spirit or defined by the Church.

There is nothing wrong with holy mystery, which the Eastern Church embraces. We don’t need to know all the details to have faith and trust in the teachings of the Church. Just because we don’t understand how 2 truths can be reconciled doesn’t mean they can’t be reconciled and both be right. And the Holy Spirit will reveal the details when He sees fit, if He ever sees fit.

So maybe someone personally can’t understand how baptism is necessary for salvation, yet some may be saved through faith, charity, repentance and baptism of desire. But the Church teaches both, so we can trust that they can be reconciled.



http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4027.htm

Question 27
From Article 1

On the contrary, The Church celebrates the feast of our Lady's Nativity. Now the Church does not celebrate feasts except of those who are holy. Therefore even in her birth the Blessed Virgin was holy. Therefore she was sanctified in the womb.

I answer that, Nothing is handed down in the canonical Scriptures concerning the sanctification of the Blessed Mary as to her being sanctified in the womb; indeed, they do not even mention her birth. But as Augustine, in his tractate on the Assumption of the Virgin, argues with reason, since her body was assumed into heaven, and yet Scripture does not relate this; so it may be reasonably argued that she was sanctified in the womb. For it is reasonable to believe that she, who brought forth "the Only-Begotten of the Father full of grace and truth," received greater privileges of grace than all others: hence we read (Luke 1:28) that the angel addressed her in the words: "Hail full of grace!"

Moreover, it is to be observed that it was granted, by way of privilege, to others, to be sanctified in the womb; for instance, to Jeremias, to whom it was said (Jeremiah 1:5): "Before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee"; and again, to John the Baptist, of whom it is written (Luke 1:15): "He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb." It is therefore with reason that we believe the Blessed Virgin to have been sanctified before her birth from the womb.

From Article 2:

I answer that, The sanctification of the Blessed Virgin cannot be understood as having taken place before animation, for two reasons. First, because the sanctification of which we are speaking, is nothing but the cleansing from original sin: for sanctification is a "perfect cleansing," as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. xii). Now sin cannot be taken away except by grace, the subject of which is the rational creature alone. Therefore before the infusion of the rational soul, the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified.

Secondly, because, since the rational creature alone can be the subject of sin; before the infusion of the rational soul, the offspring conceived is not liable to sin. And thus, in whatever manner the Blessed Virgin would have been sanctified before animation, she could never have incurred the stain of original sin: and thus she would not have needed redemption and salvation which is by Christ, of whom it is written (Matthew 1:21): "He shall save His people from their sins." But this is unfitting, through implying that Christ is not the "Saviour of all men," as He is called (1 Timothy 4:10). It remains, therefore, that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified after animation.

From Article 3:

Therefore it seems better to say that by the sanctification in the womb, the Virgin was not freed from the fomes in its essence, but that it remained fettered: not indeed by an act of her reason, as in holy men, since she had not the use of reason from the very first moment of her existence in her mother's womb, for this was the singular privilege of Christ: but by reason of the abundant grace bestowed on her in her sanctification, and still more perfectly by Divine Providence preserving her sensitive soul, in a singular manner, from any inordinate movement. Afterwards, however, at the conception of Christ's flesh, in which for the first time immunity from sin was to be conspicuous, it is to be believed that entire freedom from the fomes redounded from the Child to the Mother. This indeed is signified (Ezekiel 43:2): "Behold the glory of the God of Israel came in by the way of the east," i.e. by the Blessed Virgin, "and the earth," i.e. her flesh, "shone with His," i.e. Christ's, "majesty."

From Article 5:

I answer that, In every genus, the nearer a thing is to the principle, the greater the part which it has in the effect of that principle, whence Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv) that angels, being nearer to God, have a greater share than men, in the effects of the Divine goodness. Now Christ is the principle of grace, authoritatively as to His Godhead, instrumentally as to His humanity: whence (John 1:17) it is written: "Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." But the Blessed Virgin Mary was nearest to Christ in His humanity: because He received His human nature from her. Therefore it was due to her to receive a greater fulness of grace than others.

In the interests of clarity and meaning, I suggest it should be done away with altogether and replaced by the term “Desire for Baptism.”

Columba,

I suggest you write to the Pope about that.

I don’t have time to look up all the formal writings of the Church since Trent, but I know for a fact that “baptism of desire” is in the Baltimore Catechism with that exact wording, as opposed to “desire for baptism” which is the same thing anyway. I don’t care how it’s worded, it means the same exact thing either way.

You seem to be confusing a simple desire for baptism with what Baptism of Desire really is. St. Gregory of Nazianzen was talking about a simple desire for something. That is not the same thing as Baptism of Desire. The Church is talking about a sincere desire, “flaminis” - a desire given from the Holy Spirit, “votum” - a vow, a deep desire and will for the sacrament, a true intent to receive it.

If you read St. Gregory in context, you will see what he is talking about. People who do not value baptism and postpone it, are indifferent to it, do not have a sincere desire and conversion of heart.

I quoted St. Gregory in context here if you want to read him:

https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t134p30-how-many-church-fathers-supported-baptism-of-desire


Otherwise, the Church would be negligent and callous to make catechumens wait several months or even a year for baptism, like they did in the first centuries of the Church and like they do today.

God bless you all and good night.
Love,
Elisa

Columba wrote:
In the interests of clarity and meaning, I suggest it should be done away with altogether and replaced by the term “Desire for Baptism.”

Columba,

I suggest you write to the Pope about that.

Indeed Elisa. The Pope I believe is a very busy man so I will take your referrence from the Baltimore Catechism on the definition of baptism of desire and here it is,

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.

and it agrees with everything I've stated in my previous post. So it is in fact a desire as yet unfulfilled and therefore DfB (Desire for Baptism) would both state the term and define it at the same time while baptism of desire merely states a term requiring a definition be sought after in order to understand it. I rest my case.

Elisa wrote:
You seem to be confusing a simple desire for baptism with what Baptism of Desire really is.

Elisa it is not I who's confused but you. You have said the desire for baptism is the same as baptism of desire. Both terms then are interchangable and now you state that baptism of desire is something different.
Here's what you said;

I don’t have time to look up all the formal writings of the Church since Trent, but I know for a fact that “baptism of desire” is in the Baltimore Catechism with that exact wording, as opposed to “desire for baptism” which is the same thing anyway. I don’t care how it’s worded, it means the same exact thing either way.

What does that all mean?

If you read St. Gregory in context, you will see what he is talking about. People who do not value baptism and postpone it, are indifferent to it, do not have a sincere desire and conversion of heart.

No Elisa. He is not saying that at all either in context or out of context. He is simply saying that the desire for something is not the same as the attainment of the thing desired. In other words, a desire for baptism does not constitute baptism any more than a desire for Glory is glory itself.

God Bless.

Fatima for our times wrote:MRyan,

Nothing that you or Elisa has cited on this thread, or in previous, proves that a person can be justified without water baptism. Quoting St. Thomas doesn’t prove your point on anything. We know that St. Thomas is one of the great Doctors of the Church but he was wrong on some things and his teaching is not binding in every single instance.

What you really mean is that you refuse to listen to the Church's authentic, infallible and constant teaching on justification through her Dogmatic and Ecumenical Councils and through her ordinary universal and ordinary Magisteriums by such means as the Council of Trent, her universal Roman Catechisms (both the Catechism of Trent and the CCC, and every edition in between), Papal Letters, the Papal Allocution of Pope Pius XII, the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, Canon Law (1917 and 1983), the Holy Office, and the teachings of VCII and the CCC.

Of course, nothing the Doctors of the Church or the universal moral consensus of saints and theologians can say means anything to you either.

No, the Magisterium and the universal moral consensus of the Church's Doctors, saints and theologians means absolutely nothing to someone like you who has been blessed with the gift of infallible interpretation of the “once declared” dogmas of the Church.

You scoff at the Church's dogmatic teaching from Satis Cognitum, VCI and VCII which declares that the task of interpreting the Church's dogmas, and all of Revelation, belongs exclusively to the living Magisterium, and not to private individuals and arrogant laymen who tell the Church to go pound sand when she dares to explain her dogmas and doctrines as she has always understood them -– and with the authority of the One who said “he who hears you, hears Me”.

Your statement that there is no evidence “that a person can be justified without water baptism” is so bizarre it is not even worth addressing. You act as if St. Thomas Aquinas is the only Doctor and theologian who taught that one may be justified by faith, perfect charity and intention/desire, when you cannot produce a single saint doctor or theologian who objected to this doctrine ever since it was infallibly taught at Trent, and confirmed in her own Roman Catechism – and was taught by the Church ever since.

What are we to make of such people who cite as their “authority” against the established doctrines some layman who comes up with a private novel theory, or some pseudo-religious cranks who are busy anathematizing everyone who disagrees with them?

You will hear none of it because, as C_T said, the dogmatic truths have been revealed to you personally through the “once declared” dogmatic formulas, and not necessarily to the Church for safekeeping and to pass her doctrines faithfully on as she herself understands them – and without a recession in meaning.

If Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence declared that “even if a person has shed blood in the name of Christ he could not be saved unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church”, then by golly, the Church cannot tell us that Pope Eugene IV did not include in his declaration someone who confesses Christ and dies for love of Him before they can be baptized.

Why? Because you said so, and the Church has no authority over the interpretation of her own dogmas. Oh sure, the “fallible” Church has always taught otherwise, but she is just being “dishonest”.

Well, why don't you be “honest” and condemn the entire Church since the Council of Trent for teaching that one may be justified with baptism or the desire for it (by faith and a perfect love/contrition); for teaching the doctrine of baptism of blood and for teaching that to be united to Christ it is not always necessary for salvation that one be incorporated into the visible structure of the Church?

Here is your anathema you need to cast upon the entire “dishonest” Church:

If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema. (Session 3: Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Canons, 4. Faith and reason, number 3)

It's time for a little "honesty", don't you think?

You're Protestant theology is quite disturbing.

No one is excepted from the law, as the Church infallibly teaches; but the Church also infallibly teaches that one may be justified by the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof. And no amateur non-trained layman can dissect Trent and come to a different interpretation than that of the Church and her theologians, and expect to be taken seriously, except by persons such as yourself and columba who recognize no authority but your own.

Fatima for our times wrote:Here is one example:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 14, A. 3, Reply to Obj. 1:
“The flesh of the Virgin was conceived in original sin, and therefore contracted these defects. But from the Virgin, Christ’s flesh assumed the nature without sin…”

St. Thomas taught that Mary was not conceived immaculate more than once in the Summa Theologica. Evidently, he taught this before the explanation of Mary’s immaculate conception by Pope Pius IX in 1854, but to hold St. Thomas’s caste after that time would be heretical. Yet, the popes from 1854 on, conforming referred the Summa Theologica to seminarians and priests without ruling that St. Thomas’s (now heretical) view be deleted! This demonstrates that the presupposition of baptism of desire can be perverse to defined dogma – and even heretical – and yet no pope ever ordered it to be removed from the catechisms, for whatever reason.

Are you serious? You are comparing St. Thomas' mistaken short-lived thesis to the universal teaching on baptism of desire? I don't remember the Church ever teaching the mistaken thesis of St. Thomas in her Catechisms, Allocutions, Vatican Councils, Canon Law or any other other official Magisterial document, do you?

If the Church allowed St. Thomas' understandable but mistaken thesis to remain in the Summa, where he taught that the flesh of our Blessed Mother had to be stained with sin prior to her “ensoulment” (the spiritual conception of body and soul) and being made Immaculate, it is only because she knew that his thesis was a threat to no one since it was put to rest (without a definition) within a couple of centuries of St. Thomas' passing, even if “ensoulment” at the moment of biological conception has never been defined, but is commonly understood.

In fact the Church teaches in her CCC that “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. (2270)”

If I follow your way of thinking, since human life has never been “defined” as beginning at the first moment of biological conception, Catholics are free to reject this teaching of the CCC, don't you agree? After all, it was a common teaching of the Fathers that “ensoulment” happened sometime after biological conception.

But let's take your example to its logical extreme and let's have St. Thomas' mistaken thesis enter the local catechisms of his day and remain in local catechisms in every region, the Catechism of Trent included. Let us also suppose that his errant thesis was taught in various Papal Letters and in a recent Papal Allocution, in VCII, by the Holy Office and by the CDF and the CCC AFTER the dogma was defined.

If that sounds ludicrous, it is no more ludicrous than trying to discredit justification by “the desire thereof” and baptism of blood and baptism of desire which continue to be taught to this day in the Church's official catechisms and by the same Magisterium that you say dogmatically and infallibly condemned these doctrines many centuries ago through her dogmatic declarations on baptism.

Where is the Don Scotus who ever challenged St. Thomas on baptism of desire/baptism of desire of the Church's understanding of justification “by the desire thereof”? Where is he? In a trailer in upstate NY? In some sede conclave in New Mexico? In the writing of some layman who can't even site one credible source to back his errant thesis?

And you are the reliable interpreter of the Church's dogmas? Says who?

Of course, Fr. Feeney was also one of the “dishonest” ones who acknowledged the Church's teaching on Trent's Session 6, Ch 4 as the Church has always understood “or its desire”.

The only one being “dishonest” is you.

Fatima for our times wrote:Pope St. Pius V, Errors of Michael du Bay (BAII): Moreover that distinction of a twofold justice, one which is brought to pass through the indwelling of the Spirit of charity, the other which arises from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit exciting the heart to penance, but not yet dwelling in the heart and diffusing charity in it, by which the justification of the divine law may be fulfilled, is similarly condemned. (DZ 1063)

Oh this is rich; and this is supposed to prove what? That no one can be justified without the sacrament of baptism? Not quite. Why didn't you cite these:

1043. [Condemned:] In persons who are penitent before the sacrament of absolution, and in catechumens before baptism, there is true justification, yet separated from the remission of sin.

Or, said another way:

1031 [Condemned:] 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.

Of course, putting your spin on this, you might say (since you appear to follow the “Brothers”) that the only thing being condemned is the idea that the remission of sins is not always associated with a perfect charity, without necessarily suggesting that a catechumen can have a perfect charity.

You also hold that no one may turn to our Lord in response to his prevenient graces with a supernatural faith, a perfect charity and sincere contrition because justification is impossible without the sacrament of baptism, and in this you stand alone and against the Church (with your little trailer Remnant of at least five).

If one cannot come to a reliable level of certitude on precisely what was being condemned in these particular propositions of Baius (1031-1033, 1043), then neither can we know with any certitude what 1063 condemned beyond Baius's condemnation of a two-fold justice, which tends to be an affirmation of the possibility of justification prior to baptism, rather than its so-called condemnation.

Of course, we know ST. PIUS V condemned no such thing.

In fact, 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.” And “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.)

Ah, but what is the universal moral consensus of theolgians against the authority of Fatima? Nothing.

Fatima for our times wrote:The dogmatic definitions of the Catholic Church are our proximate Rule of Faith, which you are well aware of.

Actually, what the Magisterium of the Church proposes for belief is our proximate rule of faith, for it was not given to you or any individual to interpret the Church's dogmas apart from the Church's own teaching.

Btw, Protestants maintain that the Bible alone, privately interpreted, constitutes the proximate rule of faith. Substitute “dogmatic definitions” for “the Bible” in the preceding statement, and that is your proximate rule of faith.

However, as Catholics, we obediently assent also with a religious submission of the mind and will to all of the Church's ordinary non-revealed teachings, for “he who hears you, hears Me”. But this is where you and columba and the rest take exception by pretending that the Church can teach error for centuries on end and can contradict her own dogmas; thus, you are free to reject any teaching of the “fallible” Magisterium, no matter how long its tradition and no matter how many times the Magisterium presents the same doctrinaire to the faithful as being a doctrine she says she has always held.

Rubbish, you say, the Church is a liar and is a mouthpiece for the father of lies, and has been since the Council of Trent and that “heretical” Roman Catechism. Wait; that applies only to the so-called “apostate conciliar Church”, as you seem to suggest elsewhere.

As far at the living Church that existed between Trent and VCII, is it just “material error” that the Church so innocently presented to the faithful for those many centuries, and not “heresy” that is in fact opposed to her own dogmas?

One can cut your hypocrisy with a knife.

Fatima for our times wrote:So your doubtfulness on that truth which has fallen from Heaven such as no man can be saved without being born again of Water and the Holy Ghost has placed you under the Anathema Of Trent, Session 7, Can. 4.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Can. 4, On the Sacraments: “If anyone says that the sacraments of the new law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that people obtain the grace of justification from God without them or a desire for them, by faith alone, though all are not necessary for each individual: let him be anathema.”

Of course, the Church has placed herself under her own anathema for having a “doubtfulness on that truth” for these many centuries when she taught, for example, that “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 teaching is infallible because it is the same doctrine taught by the dogmatic Council of Trent and would be taught continuously in every age and confirmed time and time again through the ordinary Magisterium.

To suggest that this doctrine can in any way be false and opposed to the dogmas of faith is heresy.

Of course, you also cite the Roman Catechism to “prove” your “point”, but fail to cite this particular passage which simply cannot be separated from the whole body of teaching.

But, you are, after all, a pick-and-choose specialist.

Fatima for our times wrote:The whole idea of baptism of blood/baptism of desire theory would reproach so many different doctrines. It would reproach Church membership, Church unity, and the necessity of baptism.
We have fourteen Canons on the Sacrament of baptism, baptism of blood/baptism of desire is not mentioned anywhere. We have the Council of Trent declaring that unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he can not enter into the Kingdom of God. We have Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence, infallibly teaching that even if a person has shed blood in the name of Christ he could not be saved unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. We have the Fourth Lateran Council under Pope Innocent III in the year 1215 saying that there is one Church of the Faithful outside of which nobody at all is saved. He says this infallibly.

Well, there you go; the Church has been teaching “heresy” for these many centuries; heresies that “reproach” and place in “doubt” all of those dogmatic doctrines, Canons and definitions. And look, the Magisterium is so corrupt, so ignorant and so incompetent that she is not even aware of her corrupted and “reproachful” doctrines that stand in direct opposition to her own dogmas. Nope, she just continues to teach these awful doctrines blissfully unaware that she is undermining the Faith of Catholic everywhere.

Well, that is, except for those Catholics who have been appointed as the watchdogs of orthodoxy and can correct the Church's false doctrines. I mean, they are not fluent in Latin, but they can accurately translate and correct the Church's own universal understanding of the dogmatic chapters and canons of Trent. And they rely on arm-chair “theologians” who are not trained in ecclesiastical Latin who cannot provide a single ecclesiastical or reliable authority to validate their novel theories, and they present these "expert witnesses" against the Church's own teachings, and against the universal consensus of saints and theologians.

If “doubtful” sacraments are no sacraments, what are “doubtful” dogmas?

Have you ever sold real estate in the Florida swamplands?

Fatima for our times wrote:The faithful in Church history are the water baptized Catholics, not catechumens. The catechumens had to leave Mass before the Mass of the faithful. There was a clear distinction between the catechumens and the faithful. So the actual understanding of that definition would lead us directly to the conclusion that all catechumens are excluded from salvation, in other words, all the people that has not been brought into the Church through water baptism are excluded from salvation.

You get an “F” in logic because the fact that the Church has always recognized that catechumens are not formal members of the Faithful has nothing to do with the possibility of salvation for those whose faith, intention and charity will avail them to grace and righteousness when prevented from receiving the sacrament by some necessity.

The 1917 Code of canon Law also recognizes this distinction while also allowing for the Christian burial of certain catechumens who die without baptism “through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized”, and affirming quite clearly the Church's longstanding teaching on baptism of desire:

“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)

Now why, if they were being “honest”, did Popes St. Pius X and Benedict XV approve these canons, one of which represented a reversal to a long-standing custom in Christian burial? You have no answer except to make up some more novel excuses of “ignorance”, or to suggest that they were simply not aware that these teachings “slipped” into the canons and, in the case of St. Pius X, into his own Catechism.

Sure; for sale: Prime swampland in Florida.

Again and again, the ordinary Magisterium of the Church has openly taught baptism of desire and baptism of blood since the earliest days of the Church, and NEVER has this teaching ever been condemned by the Catholic Church throughout her entire history (how can she condemn what she openly professes?).

The First Vatican Council commands that all Catholics must submit to the ordinary Magisterium of the Church; therefore, no Catholic can “deny and reject” the doctrines Baptism of Desire, or Baptism of Blood. I've cited the Church's own teaching in this regard, and it falls on deaf ears by people who pretend that they do not know the difference between divine faith and religious submission, or simply reject the latter as being applicable only to those Catholics who can't see through the Church's errors when she teaches erroneous doctrines.

If you won't listen to the Church, I know this will fall on deaf ears as well; but perhaps someone who is not so completely fooled by private interpretation will see the truth of what Fr. Fenton writes, when he says:

Now the Church does this work as a living and infallible teacher. It acts as an infallible teacher by reason of the fact that, through the continuing assistance of the Holy Ghost, it presents that divine message inerrantly. It acts as a living teacher in so far as it presents this truth effectively to the faithful, in every age and in every part of the world. As a teaching agency, the Church, the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, acts as the intimately conjoined instrument of Our Lord, who dwells within it and rules over it.

The Church, with Our Lord Himself within it, acts as a true teacher, and not as a mere repetitor, of the divine teaching which the apostles delivered to it. It is the function of the teacher to understand and to recognize the doctrine he is commissioned to set forth. It is likewise the work of a teacher to answer questions about the meaning of the doctrine he is engaged in presenting.

The Church, then, would not be a living teacher of the divine message if it could not recognize a contradiction to that message in some oral or written declarations. It would not be a living and infallible teacher unless it could assert definitely and infallibly that some of the statements in its teaching were contradicted in a definite book. (The Question of Ecclesiastical Faith, Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, American Ecclesiastical Review, April,1953.)

I'm sure that will produce a big yawn.

Fatima for our times wrote:St. Justin the Martyr, 155 A.D.: “… they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn… in the name of God… they receive the washing of water. For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ The reason for doing this we have learned from the apostles.”

Yes, and who would deny it? That's precisely what Baptism does and why our Lord instituted the sacraments for our sanctification and salvation. But this does not in any way militate against the Church's doctrine on baptism of desire or baptism of blood.

In fact, this is the same St. Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD) who explained to his pagan listeners that:

Christ is the Logos of whom the whole race of men partake. Those who lived according to the Logos are Christians, even if they were considered atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus (First Apology, 1.46).

St. Irenaeus taught the same doctrine:

There is one and the same God the Father and His Logos, always assisting the human race, with varied arrangements, to be sure, and doing many things, and saving from the beginning those who are saved, for they are those who love and, according to their generation, follow His Logos (Against Heresies, 4.28.2).

Good luck with that.

Fatima for our times wrote:Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: “… the one mystical body … And in this, ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph. 4:5). Certainly Noe had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church… outside which we read that all living things on the earth were destroyed… which body he called the ‘Only one’ namely, the Church, because of the unity of the spouse, the faith, the sacraments, and the charity of the Church. ”

Again, this dogmatic declaration is not a prescription against baptism of desire or baptism of blood, and never has been.

Fatima for our times wrote:Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, On the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Sess. 14, Chap. 2, ex cathedra: “… the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism. For what have I to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle. It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body’ (1 Cor. 12:13).” (DZ. 895)

The “judgment” referenced here is that which is exercised by the Church's minister through the sacrament of Penance. What does baptism of desire and baptism of blood have to do with the judgment of the Church in the sacrament of Penance?

If, in an emergency, any non-Catholic can administer Baptism in the name of the Church, so too can our Lord provide the grace of Baptism in the name of His own Mystical Body.

Fatima for our times wrote:
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Comparisons among the Sacraments, p. 154: “Though all the Sacraments possess a divine and admirable efficacy, it is well worthy of special remark that all are not of equal necessity or of equal dignity, nor is the signification of all the same. “Among them three are said to be necessary beyond the rest, although in all three this necessity is not of the same kind. The universal and absolute necessity of Baptism our Savior has declared in these words: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5).”

Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism – Necessity of Baptism, pp. 176-177: “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 (Jn. 3:5).”

Any honest person can clearly understand that, this means that no one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism and that John 3:5 is literal with no exceptions!

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Matter of Baptism - Fitness, p. 165: “Upon this subject pastors can teach in the first place that water, which is always at hand and within the reach of all, was the fittest matter of a Sacrament which is necessary to all for salvation.”

The Catechism is teaching here that water is “within the reach of all,” an expression which omits the very idea of baptism of desire – that water is not within the reach of all. The Catechism also asserts that the sacrament is compulsory for all for salvation! This excludes any notion of salvation without the Sacrament of Baptism. Thus, the Catechism of Trent teaches continually and unambiguously that it is the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for each person for salvation. All of this is plainly opposed to the assumption of baptism of desire and baptism of blood.

I couldn't agree more with the Roman Catechism; and the Church still teaches the same doctrine, just as she teaches the same doctrine presented in this same Catechism of the Council of Trent, “Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once", pg 179:

“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.”

Let me guess, the Roman Catechism is mistaken; you know, just one of those unfortunate “errors” thrown in there as a direct contradiction to her other teachings. And look, about a half millennium later the CCC would teach the same doctrine, almost as if she really does hold that the Church has always held this same doctrine. What in the world can she be thinking?

The party line of “error” must be getting a bit stale, don't you think?

Fatima for our times wrote:If you prudently assess this canon, you will see that it is not affirming that either the sacraments or the desire for them is adequate for justification; but instead it is condemning anyone who would say that neither the sacraments nor the desire for them is necessary for justification. What it is doing here is, condemning those who would say that neither is necessary and that faith alone suffices.

If you would “prudently” listen to the Church and to all of her saints, Doctors and theologians since the Council of Trent, without a single voice of dissent, you would know that you are blowing some serious smoke with your “private interpretation” and suggestion of a “prudent” assessment made infamous by certain sedevacantists who recognize no authority but their own.

Who are you trying to kid and why in the world would anyone take you seriously?

Fatima for our times wrote:Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “But the sacrament of baptism is consecrated in water at the invocation of the undivided Trinity – namely, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – and brings salvation to both children and adults when it is correctly carried out by anyone in the form laid down by the Church.”

Precisely. And?

POPE INNOCENT III:

Apostolicam Sedem, Letter to the Bishop of Cremora:

"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, ascribed to Innocent III in the Corpus Iuris Canonici).

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).

Yes, the same Pope who “condemned” (or is that “rendered doubtful”), by formal declaration, baptism of desire and baptism of blood. I mean, when are these Popes and "Magisteriums" going to stop contradicting themselves!

Sure.

Fatima for our times wrote:Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 - Condemning the articles of John Wyclif - Proposition 6: “Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.” - Condemned

And what has this to do with baptism of desire or baptism of blood?

Nothing.

MRyan loves to selectively quote from certain theologians where it suits him, but he has had no response to this quote which I have posted many times:

“…we have to admit…that the testimony of the Fathers, with regard to the possibility of salvation for someone outside the Church, is very weak. Certainly even the ancient Church knew that the grace of God can be found also outside the Church and even before Faith. But the view that such divine grace can lead man to his final salvation without leading him first into the visible Church, is something, at any rate, which met with very little approval in the ancient Church. For, with reference to the optimistic views on the salvation of catechumens as found in many of the Fathers, it must be noted that such a candidate for baptism was regarded in some sense or other as already ‘Christianus’, and also that certain Fathers, such as Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa deny altogether the justifying power of love or of the desire for baptism. Hence it will be impossible to speak of a consensus dogmaticus in the early Church regarding the possibility of salvation for the non-baptized, and especially for someone who is not even a catechumen. 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)

More here:

http://catholicism.org/catholic-dogma-mueller.html

Now, was Rahner respected in the Church:

http://www.traditio.com/comment/com1102.htm#110211

So, by MRyan's "standards," Saint Augustine died as a heretic, or Dr. Karl Rahner was a poor scholar. I find neither of those "alternatives" to be acceptable.

Father Feeney believed as Saint Augustine believed:

http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/laisneyism.html

And, neither did Vatican II teach the salvation of non-Catholics, or those who just had "implicit faith" in the One and Triune God and in the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ as well as the other Articles of Faith:

http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/the_center_review_toc.html

In MRyan's world, there is no such thing as "theological opinion," only dogmas of the Faith. Few people see Catholicism this way. Dogmas? Absolutely! Opinions? Yes, also.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
Baptism, and all the sacraments in the order of grace, and all the means for obtaining grace (ordinary and extraordinary), are included (implicitly) in this one article of Faith whereby, for example, Baptism is a sacrament of the Church, it makes one a member of the communion of saints, and results in the forgiveness of sins.

As doctrines of the Church, baptism of desire and baptism of blood are included in the order of grace and are included (implicitly), therefore, in this one article of faith, even if they have not been explicitly revealed and do not require the same level of assent as a revealed truth. As doctrines of the ordinary Magisterium, we assent with religious submission to the authority of the Church teaching.

Not so fast there M.
Baptism is a major article of faith and out of all the sacraments it's specifically included in the Creed. The other sacraments may be implicitly included but Baptism is explicit.
You could argue that baptism of desire and baptism of blood are implicit in, "I believe in one Baptism" but if they where the line would read, "I believe in Baptism."
One Baptism is necessary for salvation and actually excludes baptism of desire/baptism of blood rather than include or imply them.

No, you are the one running fast and loose. The “Creed” containing the 14 articles of faith, which are broken down into seven each for “the Godhead”, and seven each for “Christ's Human nature” is, now pay attention, the APOSTLES CREED which has no explicit mention of “We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”. Yes, we acknowledge one baptism, but that is not the point. The Apostles Creed has been known traditionally as the foundation for the “deposit of faith” from which all of the truths of the faith are derived (including the truths of the Nicene Creed and its additions), and this is the Creed, and the only Creed, St. Thomas is addressing.

In case anyone has noticed, we were "debating" whether the Angelic Doctor actually taught, as Jehanne is trying to shovel, that when “Man receives the forgiveness of sins before baptism in so far as he has Baptism in Desire, EXPLICITLY OR IMPLICITLY”, that an implicit desire for baptism MUST become explicit, or it is a “formal heresy”.

That, of course, is complete nonsense.

Once again, Saint Thomas is saying that all matters concerning the sanctification of man in the order of grace (Redemption) are included in (related to) this one article of faith in the Apostles Creed:

I believe in “the holy catholic church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins"

Baptism, and all the sacraments in the order of grace, and all the means for obtaining grace (ordinary and extraordinary), are included (implicitly) in this one article of Faith.

If you don't even know the Creed St. Thomas is referencing, then to impose your “opinions” here without realizing what this discussion is all about is a waste of time.

But it seems I am always slaying these irrelevant dragons which take us away from the topic of the thread.

Let's walk through this, one more time.

For the purpose of validating the teaching of St. Thomas and his specific reference to the Apostles Creed, it is not central to his thesis that “We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” is in the Nicene Creed, for we also acknowledge many truths that are only implicitly stated IN both Creeds. The “weight” given to the acknowledgment of one baptism is certainly high, for it is singled out; and I am not suggesting otherwise. But the Nicene Creed is not the Apostles Creed, so let's not confuse the issue.

The question is whether someone must explicitly acknowledge “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” before he can be justified and saved “on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of 'faith that works by charity,' whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly.” (Summa Theologica III, q68, a 2)

The answer from St. Thomas is no; and the fact that "we acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins" is in the Nicene Creed has nothing to do with the central thesis of St. Thomas.

As St. Thomas clearly teaches (as does the Church), one's desire for baptism may be implicit in one's explicit will to do all that God (and the Church) commands if the necessity of the sacrament “for the forgiveness of sins” has not been explicitly revealed to the individual seeking communion with God and the Church in faith and charity.

You and Jehanne can stamp your feet and put your heads in the sand all you want, but please stop playing games with the actual teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas.

The fact that "Baptism is a major article of faith and out of all the sacraments it's specifically included in the [Nicene] Creed", but is implicit in the Apostles Creed, does not mean that it must be explicitly revealed to every individual for salvation; and nowhere does the Church teach this.

Your half-baked theories and private interpretations are almost as bad as Jehanne's, but he at least recognizes (for the most part) that the Church teaches baptism of desire and baptism of blood, while you play a terrible game of denial.

Jehanne, I did address the rather minor opinion of Fr. Rahner, and did so by citing the exact words of Augustine to demonstrate that what he said was in no way a "rejection" of his former teaching, and was in fact quite consistent. But, you didn't pay attention. The fact that you trust the opinion of Fr. Rahner over the Doctors and all the other theologians tells us a lot.

And how dare you reference Fr. Mueller, who taught baptism of desire/baptism of blood and the possibility of salvation for those who remain outside the visible Church. Who are you trying to kid?

So, by MRyan's "standards," Saint Augustine died as a heretic, or Dr. Karl Rahner was a poor scholar. I find neither of those "alternatives" to be acceptable.

What an incredibly juvenile and empty thing to say.

Go ahead and tell us, once again, that St. Thomas taught that one's implicit desire for baptism must become explicit, or it is "formal heresy".

Such arrogance in the face of the truth is truly appalling.

Way to divert this thread from its topic - you got nothing, and stand totally discredited.

MRyan wrote:No, you are the one running fast and loose. The “Creed” containing the 14 articles of faith, which are broken down into seven each for “the Godhead”, and seven each for “Christ's Human nature” is, now pay attention, the APOSTLES CREED which has no explicit mention of “We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”. Yes, we acknowledge one baptism, but that is not the point. The Apostles Creed has been known traditionally as the foundation for the “deposit of faith” from which all of the truths of the faith are derived (including the truths of the Nicene Creed and its additions), and this is the Creed, and the only Creed, St. Thomas is addressing.

Yours is an argument from silence. It's like saying that because Trent did not condemn nor teach it that we are free (or not free) to believe in it. You never answered my questions from above, are all bound to explicit faith in the 14 Articles of the Apostle's Creed?

MRyan wrote:Jehanne, I did address the rather minor opinion of Fr. Rahner, and did so by citing the exact words of Augustine to demonstrate that what he said was in no way a "rejection" of his former teaching, and was in fact quite consistent. But, you didn't pay attention. The fact that you trust the opinion of Fr. Rahner over the Doctors and all the other theologians tells us a lot.

So, Rahner, as a scholar, was wrong? Is that what you are saying? Read the opening line of the Wikipedia article on him:

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

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:No, you are the one running fast and loose. The “Creed” containing the 14 articles of faith, which are broken down into seven each for “the Godhead”, and seven each for “Christ's Human nature” is, now pay attention, the APOSTLES CREED which has no explicit mention of “We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”. Yes, we acknowledge one baptism, but that is not the point. The Apostles Creed has been known traditionally as the foundation for the “deposit of faith” from which all of the truths of the faith are derived (including the truths of the Nicene Creed and its additions), and this is the Creed, and the only Creed, St. Thomas is addressing.

Yours is an argument from silence. It's like saying that because Trent did not condemn nor teach it that we are free (or not free) to believe in it. You never answered my questions from above, are all bound to explicit faith in the 14 Articles of the Apostle's Creed?

That is complete and utter nonsense and not even remotely close to what I said. I am tired of our incompetence and complete mangling of everything you put your dreadful spin on. To suggest that I said that it is “like” we are free not to believe in Baptism is ludicrous. How can you twist such basic truths and distinctions with such unaffected ease?

What does St. Thomas teach with respect to explicit faith in 14, or 12 (as some count them, as St. Thomas acknowledges) articles of the Creed. What, you can't read? It's all there in questions 1 and 2 on Faith, read it for yourself.

I'm tired of explaining the teaching of St. Thomas to you when you make such outlandish accusations of “formal heresy” and then hide behind a nonsensical and completely discredited smokescreen.

But here you are; you can't admit your error, but you just keep throwing stuff on the wall hoping something will stick or serve as a sufficient distraction from your loony theory.

You are incorrigible.

Jehanne wrote:
So, Rahner, as a scholar, was wrong? Is that what you are saying? Read the opening line of the Wikipedia article on him:

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

And this from the person who who calls the scholarship of the Common Doctor of the Church on the implicit desire for baptism "formal heresy", all the while trying to twist the teaching of St. Thomas so that it says the exact opposite of what he clearly says.

This is too much.

The scholarship of Rahner has nothing to do with the fact that his opinion on Augustine's teaching is just that, an opinion; even a well researched opinion, but one that is not common among among the doctors and theologians who do not suggest that Augustine "changed" his position on baptism of desire.

If you read my analysis of the very words of Augustine that allegedly give evidence of his "change", you should be able to tell me if what I said has any merit or not without taking the opinion of Fr. Rahner at face value, when he only presented a general opinion with no analysis of Augustine's writings that would validate such an opinion.

I mean, you people have no problem rendering you expert private opinions that contradict the Church and her Doctors in the interpretation of her own decrees, but suddenly Fr. Rahner's minor opinion is the basis of your belief?

More to the point, what does the Church teaching on this very subject of baptism of desire?

I think you will grasp at anything to validate your theories and will mangle the truth if it gets in the way.

But yes, Rahner is a scholar and was a student of the philosophers such as Kant, Maréchal, and Heidegger, and you can trust that his teaching on the hope of universal salvation is absolutely true - just read the write-up in "wikipedia" if you doubt his scholarship.

"Our incompetence?" (Don't worry; I knew what you meant.) Then, please humor me, and answer my question:

Did or Did Not Saint Thomas teach that everyone is bound to have explicit faith in the 14 (or 12) Articles of Faith?

Here are you answers:

1) Yes, all of them.

2) Yes, but only some of them -- please list and be specific.

3) None of them, something else perhaps. If so, please elaborate and be specific.

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:
So, Rahner, as a scholar, was wrong? Is that what you are saying? Read the opening line of the Wikipedia article on him:

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

And this from the person who who calls the scholarship of the Common Doctor of the Church on the implicit desire for baptism "formal heresy", all the while trying to twist the teaching of St. Thomas so that it says the exact opposite of what he clearly says.

This is too much.

The scholarship of Rahner has nothing to do with the fact that his opinion on Augustine's teaching is just that, an opinion; even a well researched opinion, but one that is not common among among the doctors and theologians who do not suggest that Augustine "changed" his position on baptism of desire.

If you read my analysis of the very words of Augustine that allegedly give evidence of his "change", you should be able to tell me if what I said has any merit or not without taking the opinion of Fr. Rahner at face value, when he only presented a general opinion with no analysis of Augustine's writings that would validate such an opinion.

I mean, you people have no problem rendering you expert private opinions that contradict the Church and her Doctors in the interpretation of her own decrees, but suddenly Fr. Rahner's minor opinion is the basis of your belief?

More to the point, what does the Church teaching on this very subject of baptism of desire?

I think you will grasp at anything to validate your theories and will mangle the truth if it gets in the way.

But yes, Rahner is a scholar and was a student of the philosophers such as Kant, Maréchal, and Heidegger, and you can trust that his teaching on the hope of universal salvation is absolutely true - just read the write-up in "wikipedia" if you doubt his scholarship.

Some points:

1) I disagree with you that Saint Thomas taught that one could have explicit faith in the 14 Articles of Faith and yet remain ignorant of sacramental baptism. It is, at best, an argument from silence.

2) I posted this link before. Readers can judge for themselves:

http://www.romancatholicism.org/augustine-final.htm

3) I do not regard Universal Salvation and Universal Baptism (aka, "Feeneyism") as being incompatible, with the understanding that infants and children who die without Baptism before the age of reason have a "way of salvation" not in Heaven but from the pains of Hell proper, perhaps in Limbo. It is simply unknown how many or how few people will be in Hell.

4) Following on #3, the "common opinion" among the theologians, Saints, and Popes of the Church were that very few people would attain the Beatific Vision, or Heaven, including Saint Thomas. By your reasoning, we should accept that, just as much as we should accept Baptism of Desire & Blood, for such was nearly universally held and taught, also.

MRyan, Regardless of which creed St Thomas refers to really makes little difference to our debate (as you say, one can't contradict the other) so to get back on track to your opening question from which I admit I've strayed (hard to keep focused on a narrow point of concern on this topic) I acknowledge that St Thomas seems to teach implicit desire even though while stating the following;
A thing may be so necessary that, without it, the end cannot be attained... In this way the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary to the individual, SIMPLY AND ABSOLUTELY." (Summa Theologica, III, Ques.65, Art.4).

He then refers his reader to

III ST,, Quest 68, Article 2, 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 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 grace he prayed for."

This seems like a contradiction, but I'm confident that in the mind of St Thomas there was no contradiction at all.
So the question is; Did St Thomas mean what you think he meant (which would be a contradiction) or was he viewing this in the wider context of the economy of salvation in general?
If viewed in this way the whole thing makes much more sense.

Look at it from this angle . Q..What must a catechumen do to be saved?
A.. He must desire Baptism and receive Baptism.

Q.. What happens if he desires but dies before receiving?
A.. The desire alone is sufficient for salvation.

The problem here is that this would do away with the necessity of water Baptism as a requirement for salvation which St Thomas himself acknowledges to be essential. Therefore it still remains a requirement of the catechmen to keep himself alive until the reception of baptism, and, as this is not within his power to do but reserved to God alone ( who allots the number of days to each man) then it falls on God in His providence (so to speak) to bring to the waters of regeneration the catechumen under His providence.

It is a doctrine of the faith that God continually calls all men to repentance, and awaits with patient mercy the response to His call; however if one responds too late through ones own fault (never Gods fault) there is no guarantee (or duty) that God must extend his mercy and prolong the number of days of a catechumen (whom He has been calling from birth and providing opportunity for repentance) to ensure that he receives Baptism. There is no requirement on God to work outside the sacrament He imposed as a necessity for salvation to counter the stubourn will of any man.

The theoretical possibilty of baptism of desire remains, but the actuality of it is totally unnecessary from a theoligical pont of view and remains speculative rather than doctrinal.

The desire for something precedes its attainment and is the last thing to be fulfilled.
All the necessary steps to achieving the desired end (which in the case of a catechumen is salvation) must be fulfilled prior to the achievement, and the desire itself cannot be a fulfillment in itself. Desire for Baptism can no more produce the fruits of baptism in a living person than it can in someone who dies without the sacrament.

That's why St Gregory Nazienzen could write so logically;
"If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder, solely by his intention and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one who desired baptism, without having received Baptism. But, since you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter? Put it this way: if desire has equal power with actual Baptism, you would then be satisfied to deire Glory, as though that longing itself were Glory."

Taking St Thomas' words on implcit desire on their own and apart from the rest of his theology (see especially his theology on God's Providence) can result in a wrong interpretation which IMO you have taken.
The desire for Baptism is an admirable thing as is the desire for anyhing good. My desire to be a saint has yet to make me one (as you will agree) but the desire along with the other requirements (could anyone lend me some charity?) just might scrape me in.

MR by the time you've finished conforming St Thomas to your interpretation of baptism of desire, you may well end up with a work greater (in size) than the Summa.

columba wrote:MRyan, Regardless of which creed St Thomas refers to really makes little difference to our debate (as you say, one can't contradict the other)

Yes, it does make a difference if one is to grasp the point St. Thomas is making on how “all matters concerning the sanctification of man in the order of grace (Redemption) are included in (related to) this one article of faith:

I believe in “the holy catholic church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins"

Again, “Baptism, and all the sacraments in the order of grace, and all the means for obtaining grace (ordinary and extraordinary), are included (implicitly) in this one article of Faith.”

The “articles of faith” in the Apostles Creed form the basis for the deposit of faith from which all other Truths are derived. These other truths include the filioque and our belief that we acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, with both truths being included in the Nicene Creed (with the filioque not being added until the 6th century in order to correct error).

Now ask yourself this question: Is it an intrinsic to one's salvation that one must know and explicitly profess that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and he Son?

Obviously, if it has been revealed to the individual, it must be believed, the same as any other revealed truth explicitly revealed to the individual. But is it essential to one's salvation if it has not been explicitly revealed?

St. Thomas says no, that it may be implicit in one's profession of belief in God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, just as “we acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” may be implicit in “I believe in the holy catholic church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins".

The argument has been made and validated that “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” is not one of the objects of faith that must be known as an intrinsic necessity of means for salvation; which is why it may be implicit in one's profession of faith in the essential articles of faith such as the Mysteries if Christ contained in the Incarnation, the Trinity and the Redemption.

St. Thomas teaches quite specifically that “man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly” and “before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit.”

To try and force a meaning in direct contradiction to his clear teaching by appealing to the Nicene Creed is simply one more appalling attempt to twist the truth so that it aligns with one's own false opinion.

One more word on this; In his reply to Question 1, on Faith, St. Thomas teaches:

Some, however, distinguish twelve articles, six pertaining to the Godhead, and six to the humanity. For they include in one article the three about the three Persons; because we have one knowledge of the three Persons: while they divide the article referring to the work of glorification into two, viz. the resurrection of the body, and the glory of the soul. Likewise they unite the conception and nativity into one article.

And:

Reply to Objection 3. […] On the same way Christ's conception and birth, just as the resurrection and life everlasting, can from one point of view be united together in one article, in so far as they are ordained to one end; while, from another point of view, they can be distinct articles, in as much as each one separately presents a special difficulty.

I included these citations for the benefit of Jehanne who said he disagrees “that Saint Thomas taught that one could have explicit faith in the 14 Articles of Faith and yet remain ignorant of sacramental baptism. It is, at best, an argument from silence.”

Silence is perhaps the best answer when dealing with Jehanne, for we see here just one more example that he is not equipped to comprehend a specific body of teaching of the Angelic Doctor. Not only does St. Thomas teach that some of the 14 articles on the Godhead and Mysteries of Christ may be combined and even separated further, but it is clear that “As to other minute points in reference to the articles of the Incarnation [for example], men have been bound to believe them more or less explicitly according to each one's state and office.”

Enough with that; St. Thomas did NOT teach that an explicit faith in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins is necessary to every man for salvation -- and I'm getting tired of citing the clear teaching of the Angelic Doctor when some people simply can't acknowledge the truth, or the folly of their accusation of "formal heresy".

columba wrote:so to get back on track to your opening question from which I admit I've strayed (hard to keep focused on a narrow point of concern on this topic) I acknowledge that St Thomas seems to teach implicit desire even though while stating the following;

A thing may be so necessary that, without it, the end cannot be attained... In this way the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary to the individual, SIMPLY AND ABSOLUTELY." (Summa Theologica, III, Ques.65, Art.4).

He then refers his reader to

III ST,, Quest 68, Article 2, 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 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 grace he prayed for."

This seems like a contradiction, but I'm confident that in the mind of St Thomas there was no contradiction at all.

So the question is; Did St Thomas mean what you think he meant (which would be a contradiction) or was he viewing this in the wider context of the economy of salvation in general?

You're correct, St. Thomas did not see a contradiction because there is no contradiction. In fact, in Q. 65, Art. 4, immediately prior to addressing “absolute” necessity, in Objection 3 he makes reference to Q. 68, Art. 2:

Reply to Objection 3. Further, a man can be saved without the sacrament of Baptism,, provided that some unavoidable obstacle, and not his contempt for religion, debar him from the sacrament, as we shall state further on (68, 2). But contempt of religion in any sacrament is a hindrance to salvation. Therefore, in like manner, all the sacraments are necessary for salvation.

So the context of “absolute necessity” is already established before St. Thomas addresses the question of “necessity of end”; and, in response to Objection 3, St. Thomas refutes the last part while leaving in tact the truth of the first part.

In addressing “necessity of end”, it will help if we review the whole passage:

I answer that, Necessity of end, of which we speak now, is twofold. First, a thing may be necessary so that without it the end cannot be attained; thus food is necessary for human life. And this is simple necessity of end. Secondly, a thing is said to be necessary, if, without it, the end cannot be attained so becomingly: thus a horse is necessary for a journey. But this is not simple necessity of end.

In the first way, three sacraments are necessary for salvation. Two of them are necessary to the individual; Baptism, simply and absolutely; Penance, in the case of mortal sin committed after Baptism; while the sacrament of order is necessary to the Church, since "where there is no governor the people shall fall" (Proverbs 11:14).

But in the second way the other sacraments are necessary. For in a sense Confirmation perfects Baptism; Extreme Unction perfects Penance; while Matrimony, by multiplying them, preserves the numbers in the Church.

The “thing” that is “necessary so that without it the end cannot be attained” is the sacrament of Baptism, simply and absolutely; and is so absolutely necessary to salvation that without it, in reality, or at least in desire, the end cannot be attained.

The word “absolute” in this context does not refer to an intrinsic necessity of material ablution, but to the absolute necessity of the essential fruits of Baptism, without which no one can be regenerated (born again) in Christ, and the end [salvation] cannot be attained.

When St. Thomas likens the necessity of the sacrament to the absolute necessity of food, the “food” of the sacrament of Baptism is spiritual regeneration, without which we shall die in our sins. So the necessity of the sacrament of Baptism as a necessity of end is “absolute” in the sense that no one can be saved without it essential fruit – the fruit of regeneration and sanctifying grace.

And it is not just one passage in Q. 68, Art. 2 where St. Thomas teaches this, the entire section is a treatise on the doctrine where every one of your objections is answered:

III, Q. 68, Article 1. Whether all are bound to receive Baptism?

I answer that, Men are bound to that without which they cannot obtain salvation. Now it is manifest that no one can obtain salvation but through Christ; wherefore the Apostle says (Romans 5:18): "As by the offense of one unto all men unto condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men unto justification of life." But for this end is Baptism conferred on a man, that being regenerated thereby, he may be incorporated in Christ, by becoming His member: wherefore it is written (Galatians 3:27): "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ." Consequently it is manifest that all are bound to be baptized: and that without Baptism there is no salvation for men. (III, Q. 68, Art. 1)

Reply to Objection 1. … Again, since Christ's coming, men are incorporated in Christ by faith; according to Ephesians 3:17: "That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts." … Consequently although the sacrament itself of Baptism was not always necessary for salvation, yet faith, of which Baptism is the sacrament, was always necessary. (III, Q. 68, Art.1)

Article 2. Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?

Objection 1. It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But those alone are saved who enter God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.

Objection 2. Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: "We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism." But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have the "faith that worketh by charity" (Galatians 5:6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.

Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "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.

I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.

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 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 grace he prayed for."

Reply to Objection 1. As it is written (1 Samuel 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Romans 2:29) that "the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."

Reply to Objection 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Corinthians 3:15.

Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).

And it doesn't end there:

Question 69. The effects of Baptism

Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Psalm 22:2, "He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment," a gloss says: "He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism." (III, Q. 69, Art. 4)

Reply to Objection 1. Adults who already believe in Christ are incorporated in Him mentally. But afterwards, when they are baptized, they are incorporated in Him, corporally, as it were, i.e. by the visible sacrament; without the desire of which they could not have been incorporated in Him even mentally. (III, Q. 69, Art. 5)

Reply to Objection 1. "To be baptized in Christ," may be taken in two ways. First, "in Christ," i.e. "in conformity with Christ." And thus whoever is baptized in Christ so as to be conformed to Him by Faith and Charity, puts on Christ by grace. Secondly, a man is said to be baptized in Christ, in so far as he receives Christ's sacrament. And thus all put on Christ, through being configured to Him by the character, but not through being conformed to Him by grace. (III, Q. 69, Art. 9)

We could go on, but that should suffice.

columba wrote:If viewed in this way the whole thing makes much more sense.

Thank you, I couldn't agree more.

I don't know how to break the news to you, but St. Thomas actually knew what he was talking about and was not, as you imply, confused; and neither was the universal moral consensus of the saints, doctors and theologians, and neither is the Church – all of which teach the same doctrine, and for some reason did not notice this so-called “contradiction”.

Your attempt to twist the words of St. Thomas and the teachings of the Church on this same doctrine is to force a recession in meaning to the Church's own understanding, which is consistent with the teachings of St. Thomas.

The only one “confused” is you.

columba wrote:All the necessary steps to achieving the desired end (which in the case of a catechumen is salvation) must be fulfilled prior to the achievement, and the desire itself cannot be a fulfillment in itself. Desire for Baptism can no more produce the fruits of baptism in a living person than it can in someone who dies without the sacrament.

And this little summation of yours is directly opposed to the teaching of St. Thomas and the Church. How very little you actually understand.

columba wrote:That's why St Gregory Nazienzen could write so logically;
"If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder, solely by his intention and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one who desired baptism, without having received Baptism. But, since you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter? Put it this way: if desire has equal power with actual Baptism, you would then be satisfied to desire Glory, as though that longing itself were Glory."

Precisely so; and it should be clear, if you would remove the blinders, that St. Gregory is not necessarily referring to that desire rooted in true charity, faith and a proper intention, but a disposition where one assumes "that he is within the kingdom of heaven who merely desires to attain to it, but refrains from doing that which pertains to the kingdom." Those are his exact words from the same Oration, so why can't you stick to the script?

No one can know how sincere someone's longing for the sacrament actually is to where any degree of assurance of a proper intention can be given. So we do not equate desire for the deed as if it were a foregone conclusion or something automatic – it is entirely subjective and dependent on having the proper dispositions. And it is the folly of putting off one's baptism that St. Gregory is addressing in the very Oration from which your citation is taken.

Btw, that "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 [Orat. 39, In Sancta Lumina, 17; P.G. 35; 356], 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." (Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Sylvester J. Hunter, S.J.. 1896, Vol III, No. 696, Pg. 228 )

Isn't it interesting that “Baptism of tears” is another way of saying “Baptism of Repentance”:

In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: for as much as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this, it is written (Is. 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, for as much as it takes the place of Baptism. (Summa Theologica, III, q 66. a 11)

Back to Saint Gregory Nazianzen:

“God accepts our desires as though they were of great value. He longs ardently for us to desire and love him. He accepts our petitions for benefits as though we were doing him a favor. His joy in giving is greater than ours in receiving. So let us not be apathetic in our asking, nor set too narrow bounds to our requests; nor ask for frivolous things unworthy of God’s greatness.”

And, from The Oration on Holy Baptism. Preached at Constantinople Jan. 6, 381:

XII.Why wait for a fever to bring you this blessing, and refuse it from God? Why will you have it through lapse of time, and not through reason? Why will you owe it to a plotting friend, and not to a saving desire? Why will you receive it of force and not of free will; of necessity rather than of liberty?

And, from the same Oration:

XXII. But then, you say, is not God merciful, and since He knows our thoughts and searches out our desires, will He not take the desire of Baptism instead of Baptism? You are speaking in riddles, if what you mean is that because of God's mercy the unenlightened is enlightened in His sight; and he is within the kingdom of heaven who merely desires to attain to it, but refrains from doing that which pertains to the kingdom. [...]

Finally, here is your citation, in context:

XXIII. And so also in those who fail to receive the Gift, some are altogether animal or bestial, according as they are either foolish or wicked; and this, I think, has to be added to their other sins, that they have no reverence at all for this Gift, but look upon it as a mere gift— to be acquiesced in if given them, and if not given them, then to be neglected. Others know and honour the Gift, but put it off; some through laziness, some through greediness. Others are not in a position to receive it, perhaps on account of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circumstance through which they are prevented from receiving it, even if they wish. As then in the former case we found much difference, so too in this. They who altogether despise it are worse than they who neglect it through greed or carelessness. These are worse than they who have lost the Gift through ignorance or tyranny, for tyranny is nothing but an involuntary error. And I think that the first will have to suffer punishment, as for all their sins, so for their contempt of baptism; and that the second will also have to suffer, but less, because it was not so much through wickedness as through folly that they wrought their failure; and that the third will be neither glorified nor punished by the righteous Judge, as unsealed and yet not wicked, but persons who have suffered rather than done wrong. For not every one who is not bad enough to be punished is good enough to be honoured; just as not every one who is not good enough to be honoured is bad enough to be punished. And I look upon it as well from another point of view. If you judge the murderously disposed man by his will alone, apart from the act of murder, then you may reckon as baptized him who desired baptism apart from the reception of baptism. But if you cannot do the one how can you do the other? I cannot see it. Or, if you like, we will put it thus:— If desire in your opinion has equal power with actual baptism, then judge in the same way in regard to glory, and you may be content with longing for it, as if that were itself glory. And what harm is done you by your not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have the desire for it?

Ah, but who needs context when one's “interpretation” is already set in stone.

Nice try, though.

As Fr. Laisney wrote in “Is Feeneyism Catholic”?

A superficial reading may lead one to think St. Gregory is against baptism of desire, but after reflection, one sees that, far from being against, he rather sets the very principles of Baptism of Desire. Indeed, the Church teaches that not any desire of baptism is sufficient for baptism of desire, but rather a firm resolution that only necessity prevents from execution. With this simple distinction in mind, let us consider of which desire St. Gregory speaks here. (pp. 65-66)

"Superficial", indeed.

columba wrote:Taking St Thomas' words on implcit desire on their own and apart from the rest of his theology (see especially his theology on God's Providence) can result in a wrong interpretation which IMO you have taken.

And yet, that is exactly what you have done. You have set up a straw man of “contradiction” that exists only in your own mind, and then pretend that the “true” interpretation of his teaching on “desire” must be read in light of his full body of teaching, as if they are opposed!

Incorrigible, that's the word.

columba wrote:The desire for Baptism is an admirable thing as is the desire for anyhing good. My desire to be a saint has yet to make me one (as you will agree) but the desire along with the other requirements (could anyone lend me some charity?) just might scrape me in.

They just might, and it is no different with the desire for Baptism. Only God knows if the proper intention, faith and charity is present.

columba wrote:MR by the time you've finished conforming St Thomas to your interpretation of baptism of desire, you may well end up with a work greater (in size) than the Summa.

Tell me how that can happen when I take St. Thomas at his word?

Since you reject his teaching, and that of the Church; you're the only one capable of writing a mountain of incomprehensible gibberish; though I can sure churn it out – to be sure. But its easy (though not without its occasional challenge) when one sticks to the Doctors and the authentic, living and permanent Magisterium of the Church – you should give it a try.

It can be lonely at the top.

I find it even more confusing that Valentinian committed suicide by hanging but Ambrose is saying that he was saved?

Here are the 14 Articles of Faith again for everyone's benefit.

The Seven Articles Pertaining to the Godhead

1. God is One "I believe in God"
2. Father "the Father Almighty"
3. Son "and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord"
4. Holy Spirit "I believe in the Holy Spirit"
5. Nature (Creation) "the Maker of heaven and earth"
6. Grace (Redemption) "the holy catholic church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins"
7. Glory (Glorification) "the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting."

The Seven Articles Pertaining to Christ's Human Nature

1. Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
2. born of the Virgin Mary,
3. suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried;
4. He descended into hell.
5. The third day He arose again from the dead;
6. He ascended into heaven,
7. and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead.

Now, MRyan would have us believe that Saint Thomas taught the necessity of explicit faith in things like "conceived by the Holy Spirit," the Virgin Birth, and our Lord's crucifixion under Pontius Pilate, and yet, at the same, taught that one could be ignorant of sacramental Baptism throughout his entire life. That's like saying that one could learn about the States of the United States of America and yet remain ignorant of the existence of North America.

Now, let me quote from the other thread:

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

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

So, clearly, Trent, clarified the issue once and for all. We agree that one could come to explicit faith in Jesus Christ, have an implicit desire for Baptism, but, according to Trent, that desire must become at least explicit, even if one assumes that Trent was teaching Baptism of Desire, which is far from the case.

In any case, none of this says anything about Father Feeney's theology which says that the One and Triune God will bring sacramental Baptism to whomever He wishes.

cowboy wrote:I find it even more confusing that Valentinian committed suicide by hanging but Ambrose is saying that he was saved?

Hi, Cowboy,

I just popped in to see what was going on today before I cook dinner. I haven't even read what others wrote on this thread yet. Will be back later to read it all. But I noticed your question and I had previously written about Valentinian and had it in my Word file. Not sure what was said about him here, but only some later said he committed suicide. That was not a fact or universally believed.

So, hope this helps. God bless you and all here.
Love,
Elisa

Emperor Valentinian rejected Arianism and asked St. Ambrose to baptize him. The Emperor was hanged before it happened. (probably murdered or St. Ambrose wouldn’t have eulogized him as he did if it was suicide, as some mention later.) Which could either be a martyrdom or murder for political purposes. But even if it is martyrdom, it is St. Ambrose’s words here that show the key was the “desire.”

St. Ambrose -392AD - Funeral Oration for Valentinian - De obitu Valentiniani Consolatio (51-52:)

“But I hear that you grieve because he did not receive the sacrament of Baptism. Tell me now, what else is in us, if not will, if not desire? He, in very truth had this wish that, before he came to Italy, he should be initiated into the Church, and he indicated that he wanted to be baptized by me very soon, and that is why he thought I had to be called before everything else. Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly, because he asked for it, he obtained it. "But the just man, if he be prevented by death, shall be in rest" (Wisd. 4:7).... But if people are absolved in their own blood, then this man’s piety and desire absolved him.”

Jehanne wrote:
Now, MRyan would have us believe that Saint Thomas taught the necessity of explicit faith in things like "conceived by the Holy Spirit," the Virgin Birth, and our Lord's crucifixion under Pontius Pilate, and yet, at the same, taught that one could be ignorant of sacramental Baptism throughout his entire life. That's like saying that one could learn about the States of the United States of America and yet remain ignorant of the existence of North America.

No, I didn't say that, and if you had read my detailed replies and my latest reply to columba, you would know that. In fact, I cited St. Aquinas where he taught that some of the articles can be combined, and that the finer points of some of the articles, such as those of the Incarnation, are not as necessary as others – it depends on one's situation and station. But it is clear that you cannot comprehend the teaching of St. Thomas, but you do not hesitate to butcher his teaching and then attribute your false understanding to me.

To say that one can have an explicit faith in God, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost without necessarily knowing that we confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins is “like” learning about the U.S. without knowing about the existence of N. America, is to suggest that the U.S. is to N.A. as Baptism is to the Trinity.

Your logic is absolutely appalling.

Jehanne wrote:So, clearly, Trent, clarified the issue once and for all. We agree that one could come to explicit faith in Jesus Christ, have an implicit desire for Baptism, but, according to Trent, that desire must become at least explicit, even if one assumes that Trent was teaching Baptism of Desire, which is far from the case.

You site the lone opinion of some layman who does not cite a single authority for his half-baked reading of Trent, and this is suppose to "prove" that Trent taught that the implicit desire for baptism must become explicit, when Trent is clearly walking us through the ordinary means of sanctification in her detailed explanation of the process, the manner of preparation and the causes thereof, which culminates in the reception of the sacrament

This is just one more example of your inability to comprehend Council documents or the Summa, let alone recognize critical distinctions.

Of course, your “source” also fails to consider that the main elements of justification described by Trent occur instantly and simultaneously in time although logically they follow the natural order delineated by Trent, and St. Thomas in Ordo Iustificationis in his Summa theologiae IaIIae q. 113, a. 6, where he answers that there are four things necessary for justification:

1. Infusion of grace
2. Movement of free-will toward God
3. Movement of free-will from sin
4. Remission of sins

These same elements occur in the soul of someone justified by “the desire thereof” when the sacrament is impossible to receive; or, it is effected prior to the reception of the sacrament (which we can never be certain of).

"In other words, the moment the ungodly man is justified, he is instantly infused with grace, inclined to God, away from sin, and all sins are remitted."* And, as Trent dogmatically confirms, this translation cannot be effected without the laver of regenraion, or the desire for it.

*(http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2009/05/order-of-justification-in-thomas.html)

Why am I wasting time with this?

That's a good question.

Probably because you are unwilling to use a Latin dictionary:

votum -i n. [a vow , promise to the gods; a votive offering]; in gen., [prayer, wish, desire].

http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=votum&ending=

(Note the website.)

Here's another:

votum : prayer, wish, desire / promise to God.

http://www.math.ubc.ca/~cass/frivs/latin/latin-dict-full.html#V

(From the math department!)

prayer, wish, desire /vow, promise to God : votum

http://www.thebookmarkshop.com/latin/latindictionary2.htm

(You have to scroll down.)

Now, ladies and gentlemen of the forum, what do you think that the following means:

"promise to God"

If I promise MRyan not to read any of his posts ever again, what am I saying? Bill Clinton can fuss over what the meaning of the word "is" is, but I don't. And, when I took a vow to my wife in marriage, I knew what the words meant.

I don't know why I am wasting my time on this, either, other than I believe in the Truth, and not in modernistic readings of it. MRyan can play "word games" all that he wants, but I understand the following words literally:

Cantate Domino, Council of Florence wrote:"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”

Now, MRyan does not understand the above words literally. The text does not mean what it says; rather, it has "other" meanings in it that the authors and Pope Eugene IV never state. On the other hand, with some theologians, MRyan says that we ought to be absolutely literal. Since Saint Thomas taught "implicit desire" for Baptism as well as explicit desire in the 14 Articles of Faith, we ought to believe that he taught and meant implicit desire, in perpetuity, even though he nowhere states that, either implicitly or explicitly. For the Council of Florence, however, we cannot take their words literally. Instead, we need to "interpret" the text and place it in its correct historical context. Nothing could be further from the solemn declarations made at the First Vatican Council.

Jehanne wrote:Probably because you are unwilling to use a Latin dictionary:

votum -i n. [a vow , promise to the gods; a votive offering]; in gen., [prayer, wish, desire].

Thank you. Are you trying to prove something? Well, you are; but probably not what you intended.

Anyway, so I guess we could have avoided this "formal heresy" and "mistranslation" of a dogmatic declaration if only the Fathers of Trent and its Catechism Committee (chaired by St. Charles Borromeo) and all of the post-Trent scholastic theologians and manualists; all of the post-Trent saints, doctors and theologians such as St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori, Bishop George Hay, Fr. Michael Muller, Dom Gueranger, Orestes Brownson, (and even Fr. Feeney); and all of the post-Trent popes such as Pius IX, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XII ... up to Benedict XVI; and not to mention VCII; if only any one of these had checked his Latin dictionary, we could have avoided a lot of trouble with the “correct” translation of Session 6, Ch. 4 of the Council of Trent where the unanimous consensus of the meaning of “the desire thereof” has been openly and continuously taught by the Church without a single voice of dissent.

Well, until recently, that is, by some cracker-jack sharp unschooled laymen who feel empowered with their Latin dictionaries to challenge the universal testimony and teaching of the Church and all of her saints, doctors and theologians.

Nope; can't make this stuff up.

Desire = Promise to God.

Yes, "votum" does mean desire, but not an "implicit one." It means, as the Latin dictionaries which I cited, say what it means. It means a vow, which is something that one exercises with one's will.

I cannot make an "implicit promise to God" anymore than I can get "implicitly married." Please, pray tell, MRyan, how does one get "implicitly married"??? How can one be "anonymously married" or exchange "anonymous vows" in an unconscious manner??? If I have "perfect love" for some beautiful woman, does that make me "implicitly married" to her??

Trent, clearly, taught that Baptism cannot be effected "except through the laver of regeneration [can. 5 de bapt.], or a VOW for it."

Jehanne wrote:Desire = Promise to God.

Yes, "votum" does mean desire, but not an "implicit one." It means, as the Latin dictionaries which I cited, say what it means. It means a vow, which is something that one exercises with one's will.

I cannot make an "implicit promise to God" anymore than I can get "implicitly married." Please, pray tell, MRyan, how does one get "implicitly married"??? How can one be "anonymously married" or exchange "anonymous vows" in an unconscious manner??? If I have "perfect love" for some beautiful woman, does that make me "implicitly married" to her??

Trent, clearly, taught that Baptism cannot be effected "except through the laver of regeneration [can. 5 de bapt.], or a VOW for it."

Jehanne, Unfortunately, logic and sound argumentation are not your strong suits; nor the ability to comprehend more than one principle and distinction at a time.

I addressed the matter of the will, and how an act of the will is intrinsic to a true desire, in my detailed response in the original thread which had the ambitious but fruitless goal of “proving” that Trent does not “teach” Baptism of desire.

But please consider this very carefully, for it is central to what we are talking about:

Can one be re-born as a son of God and heir to the kingdom with Baptism and the vow/intention for it, where a perfect contrition is lacking? The answer, as I'm sure you will agree, is yes, for the Laver of Regeneration makes up for an imperfect contrition by the very work (of the sacrament) performed.

But, can one be justified before receiving Baptism by faith, by the vow to receive the sacrament, and an imperfect contrition or attrition for one's sins? The answer is no, for only a sincere contrition and "perfect" love of God will suffice without benefit of the sacrament.

We can see that the “vow” or “promise” to receive baptism is sufficient for justification when it is accompanied by the sacrament; but it must be animated by "perfect charity" if justification is to be effected without benefit of the sacrament.

What you are actually telling us is that “whoever is [to be] baptized in Christ so as to be conformed to Him by Faith and Charity", cannot put “on Christ by grace” without an explicit desire for the sacrament.

In other words, you are telling us that if justification is to be effected before or without benefit of the sacrament, the object of one's explicit “vow” is the vow to receive the sacrament of baptism, as if the true object of one's "vow" is not necessarily rooted in faith, charity and the desire to be untied with our Lord; with the desire for baptism being explicit or implicit in one's faith, charity and intention – the “promise" to do His will in all things.

However, anyone who “puts on Christ by grace … is baptized in Christ so as to be conformed to Him by Faith and Charity” (St. Aquinas).

Additionally, the sacrament configures one to Christ by virtue of the sacramental seal, but grace conforms one to Christ by virtue of faith and charity; which is why the desire for baptism may be explicit or implicit; though never lacking in a free will properly formed by our Lord Himself.

Allow St. Thomas to explain these fundamental distinctions and truths one more time:

Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Psalm 22:2, "He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment," a gloss says: "He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism." (III, Q. 69, Art. 4)

Reply to Objection 1. "To be baptized in Christ," may be taken in two ways. First, "in Christ," i.e. "in conformity with Christ." And thus whoever is baptized in Christ so as to be conformed to Him by Faith and Charity, puts on Christ by grace. Secondly, a man is said to be baptized in Christ, in so far as he receives Christ's sacrament. And thus all put on Christ, through being configured to Him by the character, but not through being conformed to Him by grace. (III, Q. 69, Art. 9)

'Nuff said.

Can one be re-born as a son of God and heir to the kingdom with Baptism and the vow/intention for it, where a perfect contrition is lacking? The answer, as I'm sure you will agree, is yes, for the Laver of Regeneration makes up for an imperfect contrition by the very work (of the sacrament) performed.

But, can one be justified before receiving Baptism by faith, by the vow to receive the sacrament, and an imperfect contrition or attrition for one's sins? The answer is no, for only a sincere contrition and "perfect" love of God will suffice without benefit of the sacrament.

Precisely. Puts it in context, don't you think? The upshot (of a strict Feeneyite view) is the granting of justification and salvation to those with an "imperfect" contrition but a sincere and sufficient desire for baptism and receipt of the sacrament while denying it to those with a perfect contrition and love of God who do not receive or make it to the sacrament. Such an idea - in theory - is absurd, and elevates the lesser state over the higher. And of course, the Church, which deals in truth, rejects the idea as the absurdity it is, and will not let her law of baptism be taken or understood in such an absurd way.

Perfect contrition is not a requirement of baptism. Thus, the sacrament - and the other sacraments, like penance (which does not require - the sacrament - perfect contrition to justify - point out the great virtue of the sacramental system, and how it works the salvation of such as would not achieve it the "extraordinary" way. Indeed, the sacraments are great gifts of God and beautiful signs of a his mercy toward men.

What need of the Catholic faith if baptism of desire suffices? Well, millions or billions would never make it to heaven without them. Indeed, as Pius XII said, the salvation of those not brought in by baptism and part of the visible Church is "not sure" without those great helps that only the Catholic Church provides to make up for our spiritual deficiencies.

I'm tired of hearing of "what need of the Catholic faith" if an "implicit" baptism of desire suffices. Ironically, it's the Feeneyites who look with the eyes of man by presuming that crowds of men will achieve salvation if "implicit" baptism of desire suffices. They're wrong: it is precisely because men are a "mass of perdition" that the "implicit" baptism of desire loophole poses no danger to the necessity of visible membership in the Church (through the gate of baptism) for the salvation of the vast majority of men.

Heaven would be practically empty were it not for the Catholic Church and its sacraments. That's a pretty good justification for its necessity, if you give a damn about the mass of men - as the Blessed Trinity surely does.

tornpage

Baltimore Catechism -- Question 510:

Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?

Answer: It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church provided that person (I) has been validly baptized; (2) firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and (3) dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.

tornpage wrote:

Can one be re-born as a son of God and heir to the kingdom with Baptism and the vow/intention for it, where a perfect contrition is lacking? The answer, as I'm sure you will agree, is yes, for the Laver of Regeneration makes up for an imperfect contrition by the very work (of the sacrament) performed.

But, can one be justified before receiving Baptism by faith, by the vow to receive the sacrament, and an imperfect contrition or attrition for one's sins? The answer is no, for only a sincere contrition and "perfect" love of God will suffice without benefit of the sacrament.

Precisely. Puts it in context, don't you think? The upshot (of a strict Feeneyite view) is the granting of justification and salvation to those with an "imperfect" contrition but a sincere and sufficient desire for baptism and receipt of the sacrament while denying it to those with a perfect contrition and love of God who do not receive or make it to the sacrament. Such an idea - in theory - is absurd, and elevates the lesser state over the higher.

You need to read more of what Father Feeney taught.

Bread of Life, page 56 wrote:There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water.

Btw, this is also why columba is correct when he points out that the desire for baptism is not necessarily the same thing as the baptism of desire. But, he is correct for the wrong reasons ... but its a start!

A brief review of Trent, Session 6, Ch. 4:

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.

Said another way, this translation can only be effected by the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written in John 3:5.

The “desire” spoken of here is not the mere wish, vow or intention to receive the sacrament; the “aut” or “or” which precedes voto indicates that “desire” more accurately reflects “the baptism of desire”; for, “whoever is baptized in Christ so as to be conformed to Him by Faith and Charity, puts on Christ by grace.” (St. Aquinas).

Trent is teaching that one can be justified by being baptized in Christ by the sacrament of baptism, or one can be justified by being baptized in Christ so as to be conformed to Him in grace by Faith and Charity (the desire thereof).

So when a naysayer argues that if “aut”, as tradition and professional medieval/ecclesiastical Latinists confirm, corresponds to the word “or” in its strong or exclusive (either … or) sense, then the disjuncts on either side must stand on their own as true; meaning one could be justified by baptism without “desire”, or one could be justified by the desire for baptism, without the sacrament.

But, this is true; because one can be justified by baptism without "the desire thereof" that produces the baptism of desire, and one can be justified by the baptism of desire without the sacrament.

Hence, “votum” is commonly translated as “desire” since it more accurately reflects the mind of the Church (Trent) in referring to the baptism of desire as she has always understood it.

The Catholic Encyclopedia said it like this:

Necessity of baptism

Baptism is held to be necessary both necessitate medii and præcepti. This doctrine is rounded on the words of Christ. In John 3, He declares: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." Christ makes no exception to this law and it is therefore general in its application, embracing both adults and infants. It is consequently not merely a necessity of precept but also a necessity of means.

This is the sense in which it has always been understood by the Church, and the Council of Trent (Sess, IV, cap, vi) teaches that justification can not be obtained, since the promulgation of the Gospel, without the washing of regeneration or the desire thereof (in voto). In the seventh session, it declares (can. v) anathema upon anyone who says that baptism is not necessary for salvation. We have rendered votum by "desire" for want of a better word. The council does not mean by votum a simple desire of receiving baptism or even a resolution to do so. It means by votum an act of perfect charity or contrition, including, at least implicitly, the will to do all things necessary for salvation and thus especially to receive baptism.

And that is how the Church has always understood this passage of Trent (as well as Session 7, Canon 4), and has been teaching this same understanding and doctrine ever since.

Not for nothing did she lay the Summa Theologica on the altar alongside Holy Scripture at the opening Mass of Trent.

You act like Thomists were the only ones present at Trent. In fact, Scotists, Augustinians, and Jesuits were also present. The words votum implicitum appear nowhere in Trent, so far as I know. In addition, implicitum neither appears anywhere in the text of Trent, again, so far as I know. So, yes, it is a step to say that Trent was simply parodying what Saint Thomas said in his Summa.

But, let's stop, right there. Nowhere is submission to the Church, namely, the Roman Pontiff, ever spoken of with the word "implicitum." Nowhere. If I am wrong, please show me.

The Fifth Lateran Council (1512 to 1517 AD) states,

Fifth Lateran Council wrote:"Moreover, since subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful, as we are taught by the testimony of both sacred scripture and the holy fathers, and as is declared by the constitution of pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, also our predecessor, which begins Unam sanctam, we therefore, with the approval of the present sacred council, for the salvation of the souls of the same faithful, for the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff and of this holy see, and for the unity and power of the church, his spouse, renew and give our approval to that constitution, but without prejudice to the declaration of pope Clement V of holy memory, which begins Meruit ."

So, there you have it. If you want to parse Trent, fine, but the above text is quite clear, quite unambiguous, and quite infallible, both in terms of the Ordinary and Supreme Magisterium of the Church. All Protestants, Jews, heretics, schismatics, pagans, infidels, Buddhists, Hindus, etc., are destined for Hell, if they die outside of the Church, that is, the Catholic Church.

We can argue about Catholic catechumens until we are blue in the face, but such a group is very, very small, indeed, and completely irrelevant to what Lateran V infallibly stated.

Jehanne,

As usual, you're missing the point.

As St. Leo XIII said: "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." The ordinary and chief means. We have been explicitly told that justification can arise from perfect contrition and a desire for the sacrament of penance, before the actual receipt of the sacrament. One may also be justified by the proper disposition (wrought by the Holy Ghost) before the sacrament of baptism, as the case of Cornelius in Scripture illustrates.

When you insist that the the external sacrament is necessary to justification in all cases, you are simply abandoning Tradition, Scripture and the Magisterium. And you are raising the external above the internal, just like the Pharisees and those decried by the prophets. The Spirit works through matter and uses it to our advantage and salvation, but the Spirit is above matter, which it created.

God could bring all the elect to baptism. Of course He can. But the Church has never said that He does. It is Feeneyites who say that He does. Instead of quoting Father Feeney, why don't you give us a quote from the Magisterium which indicates that all of the elect receive the sacrament of baptism.

I'll be waiting. By the door of my house. Which is the entrance to my house, the gate to my house, and how you enter it. The fact that you could enter it by a window doesn't make my door any less the gate to my home, or the common way of entrance. I think you know where I'm going . . . while I'm waiting.

Jehanne,

Yes, subjection to the Roman Pontiff is necessary to salvation. The Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ, the earthly and visible ruler of His Kingdom. All on earth who are members of that kingdom are subject to him. They remain subject as long as they do no act that is inconsistent with that inevitable subjection - inevitable if they are to be subjects in the Kingdom.

So someone moved by the Holy Ghost to justification is subject to the Pontiff as soon as he is justified. That subjection would have to be severed. Think of children baptized in Protestant sects. Were they to die before they became responsible for their actions, they would be saved. Do you agree? Of course you do. You then must, to be consistent, affirm that they are subject to the Pontiff - or else your quote from the Fifth Lateran Council doesn't mean what you intend it to mean: that all men for salvation must be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Those children would only lose that necessary subjection to the Roman Pontiff if they reached maturity and it was severed by them. It is the same with those who enter Christ's Kingdom through any means of justification in adulthood.

I would say that all who enter the Kingdom are subject to the Roman Pontiff, and they could all likewise subsequently defy that subjection and lose the kingdom by any act or belief that is contrary to such subjection. Just like they could lose a justification wrought before receipt of baptism by a contempt for the sacrament.

tornpage wrote:God could bring all the elect to baptism. Of course He can. But the Church has never said that He does. It is Feeneyites who say that He does. Instead of quoting Father Feeney, why don't you give us a quote from the Magisterium which indicates that all of the elect receive the sacrament of baptism.

The Church has never said that He doesn't, either. This is why it is a theological opinion, and that's what the St. Benedict Center's "crusade" is all about, the defense of a theological opinion. Of course, the One and Triune God is not bound by His Sacraments, and we have never claimed otherwise. However, He is not bound by the physical laws that He created, so once again, He can bring Baptism to whomever He wishes. All that we do know is that He is bound by His Perfection, from that, He can never waiver.

tornpage wrote:Jehanne,

Yes, subjection to the Roman Pontiff is necessary to salvation. The Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ, the earthly and visible ruler of His Kingdom. All on earth who are members of that kingdom are subject to him. They remain subject as long as they do no act that is inconsistent with that inevitable subjection - inevitable if they are to be subjects in the Kingdom.

So someone moved by the Holy Ghost to justification is subject to the Pontiff as soon as he is justified. That subjection would have to be severed. Think of children baptized in Protestant sects. Were they to die before they became responsible for their actions, they would be saved. Do you agree? Of course you do. You then must, to be consistent, affirm that they are subject to the Pontiff - or else your quote from the Fifth Lateran Council doesn't mean what you intend it to mean: that all men for salvation must be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Those children would only lose that necessary subjection to the Roman Pontiff if they reached maturity and it was severed by them. It is the same with those who enter Christ's Kingdom through any means of justification in adulthood.

I would say that all who enter the Kingdom are subject to the Roman Pontiff, and they could all likewise subsequently defy that subjection and lose the kingdom by any act or belief that is contrary to such subjection. Just like they could lose a justification wrought before receipt of baptism by a contempt for the sacrament.

And, that's the point. We are arguing about a really small category of individuals:

1) Those who have explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the 14 Articles of Faith, and at least have an implicit desire for sacramental Baptism. (I will concede that point, for the sake of argument.)

2) Those who are living in submission to the Roman Pontiff. (And, again, implicitum was nowhere used to describe that submission.)

If you take time to read more of what St. Benedict Center has written, they would have no problem limiting Baptism of Desire & Blood to the above category of persons. However, especially given such a small category of individuals and the historical testimony with respect to the miraculous, it is certainly possible that the One and Triune God will bring sacramental Baptism to whomever is worthy of it. Just a conjecture, just an opinion.

Jehanne,

And, that's the point. We are arguing about a really small category of individuals

No, that is not the point. The point is whether the Magisterium of the Church could teach error in her Ordinary Magisterium on the subject of justification by extraordinary means which go by the name of "baptism of desire"?

To quote Hamlet, that is the question.

tornpage

Actually, that's not quite right. I do not view the Council of Trent's statements about justification by desire as the ordinary magisterium.

So . . . there's really no question, unfortunately, Jehanne.

The Church can't be wrong in Trent about the sufficiency of desire for justification and, necessarily, salvation under certain circumstances. Even if one could somehow support the argument that the Ordinary Magisterium could be "wrong" or in "error" on a subject so directly implicated with the issue of salvation.

tornpage wrote:Jehanne,

And, that's the point. We are arguing about a really small category of individuals

No, that is not the point. The point is whether the Magisterium of the Church could teach error in her Ordinary Magisterium on the subject of justification by extraordinary means which go by the name of "baptism of desire"?

To quote Hamlet, that is the question.

tornpage

We've been done this road before. I do not believe that is what the Magisterium, necessarily, is teaching. Yes, it's ambiguous; Vatican II, it seemed, provided "something for everyone"; however, as I have already pointed out, Vatican II does not have to be read as teaching the salvation of non-Catholics as non-Catholics:

http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/the_center_review_toc.html

The same can be said of the CCC. We should reject the possible salvation of non-Catholics as non-Catholics for the following reasons:

1) Such goes against the clear, unambiguous teaching of the Church, as well as the unanimous teaching of all the Fathers along with Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

2) Such is logically incoherent and self-contradictory, leading to absurd conclusions (e.g., "How does one who has an 'implicit desire' for membership in the Church ever commit apostasy, that is, how does such an individual ever 'leave' the Church?") Vincent P. Lewis has done a wonderful job of outlining some of the many such contradictions.

3) The present Magisterial teaching can be reconciled with the past, so we should do just that, and hope and pray that a future Pope (or perhaps the present one) will, for the salvation of his soul, clearly proclaim that which the One and Triune God has already revealed to His Creation.

tornpage wrote:Actually, that's not quite right. I do not view the Council of Trent's statements about justification by desire as the ordinary magisterium.

So . . . there's really no question, unfortunately, Jehanne.

The Church can't be wrong in Trent about the sufficiency of desire for justification and, necessarily, salvation under certain circumstances. Even if one could somehow support the argument that the Ordinary Magisterium could be "wrong" or in "error" on a subject so directly implicated with the issue of salvation.

The Council of Trent never taught the salvation of non-Catholics as non-Catholics.

Jehanne,

We may have been down this road before, but it clearly forked, and we're on different branches.

I'm talking about the sufficiency of a desire, even an "implicit" desire, with faith/charity for justification/salvation, and you're talking about salvation for non-Catholics, something neither of us believe in. And something MRyan does not believe in, either.

I am not talking about salvation for non-Catholics, and I am not talking about the Magisterium, neither the extraordinary (read Trent) nor the ordinary, teaching salvation for non-Catholics.

You want to conveniently shape the argument, but you only have control over your position.

You're not barking up my tree.

tornpage

Well, this is an Internet message board, so it is not unusual to talk about multiple issues, all within the same thread. Provided that they are related, I do not think that Rasha will care. I am long done saying anything more about "implicit desire." You do find "desire" in Trent (the v-word) but nowhere is the i-word to be found. Please correct me if I am wrong on this. In any case, it is clear to me that Trent did not adopt Aquinas' sacramental theology "hook, line, and sinker." Parts of Saint Thomas were included, that is a fact beyond dispute, just not everything. So, once again, we are back to arguing over theological opinion. I do not think that Saint Thomas nor Trent would agree with the idea that one could come to explicit faith in Christ and yet have all of these "implicit desires" in perpetuity. Sounds kind of Freudian, and I think that they would have found such an idea at least erroneous, if not heretical. But, that, I must admit, is just my opinion. Time will, of course, tell.

So, it appears that we agree on the essentials. I am okay with that.

MRyan wrote:There are “Seven Articles Pertaining to the Godhead”; and “Seven Articles Pertaining to Christ's Human Nature”.

Guess what –- the necessity of Baptism is not one of the objects of belief that form the Apostolic deposit of faith. Yes, it is a revealed truth, but it is not one of the core objects of belief, each of which pertains to belief in the Godhead, the Trinity and our Incarnate Lord.

I grant you that the necessity of Baptism could be believed implicitly rather than explicitly, but is it really credible to imagine a person who explicitly believed in the 7 articles pertaining to the Godhead and 7 articles pertaining to Christ's human nature who would not also believe explicitly in the necessity of Baptism?

It's possible, I guess, but likely...?

how does implicit baptism make sense of Jesus' words?

MK16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned."

Notice also what Jesus did NOT say. He did NOT say, “He that believeth is saved and should be baptized.”

And after St. Peter's speech on Pentecost of what they should believe:
“What must we do to be saved?”
‘Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call." –Acts 2:38-41

They asked what must we do? First answer "BE BAPTIZED" and he adds for all those 'FAR AWAY' too! That means everyone must be baptized to be saved. Seems clear to me.
It is SO basic to the Faith I can't see how anyone can say it is not necessary.

Cowboy,

Here is the Church's understanding of "baptism" as ably set forth by St. Thomas of Aquinas:

St. Thomas Aquinas states that" a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence, it is written (Apoc. 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this, it is written (Is. 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): "The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today shall you be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable." [11] He also states "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. Moreover, 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 works by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not 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 grace he prayed for." [12]

[11] - Summa Theologica, III, q 66. a 11

[12] Cf. Summa Theologica III, q68, a 2