FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Baptism of Desire: Avoiding the Red Herrings on a Nearby Thread
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
(01-18-2012, 08:01 AM)yablabo Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-18-2012, 02:17 AM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-17-2012, 11:41 PM)yablabo Wrote: [ -> ]Really, there is nothing to argue with here.  St. Thomas and the Council of Trent were teaching the same doctrine.

Absolutely.  And this is what the Holy Office maintained against contra Feeney.

What has Fr. Feeney to do with anything that I've stated?

Ya really. Nicole has done a fantastic job clearly explaining the contradiction - thanks Nicole.

If one can baptize oneself by "desire," why can one not baptize oneself with water?
(01-18-2012, 01:56 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]I know this has already been posted on one of these baptism of desire threads, but because the issue has come up again, I thought it'd be helpful to re-post it.

The Catholic Encyclopedia on necessity:  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm

"Again, in relation to the means necessary to salvation theologians divide necessity into necessity of means and necessity of precept.  In the first case the means is so necessary to salvation that without it (absolute necessity) or its substitute (relative necessity), even if the omission is guiltless, the end cannot be reached.  Thus faith and baptism of water are necessary by a necessity of means, the former absolutely, the latter relatively, for salvation.  In the second case, necessity is based on a positive precept, commanding something the omission of which, unless culpable, does not absolutely prevent the reaching of the end."

Ah, I see that another poster has already quoted The Catholic Encyclopedia, even on this very page... sorry, Parmandur.

The only other thing I can think of adding right now is how nonsensical it sounds that some of the very same Tridentine Fathers (who surely understood Session VII) could compose a catechism that so "obviously" contradicted the council which had ended only a year before.  ???

"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."

http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/ma...sacr-b.htm

And again, Pope St. Pius X himself (as did Pius XII*) taught baptism of desirehttp://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/ma...sacr-b.htm

"The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire."

* http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12midwives.htm ("Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible.  An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open.")


My apologies, yablabo; this post probably wasn't necessary, except that I saw your stated confusion on "necessity."  You ended your post well.  Have you ever had a chance to read Pope St. Pius V's Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus?  That bull rather definitively teaches the possibility of catechumens being justified (by perfect charity, which brings with it the remission of sins) before the actual reception of Baptism.

In regard to what you quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent: there is no such thing as an equal substitute for the Sacrament of Baptism...even St. Thomas does not equate his baptisms of repentance and blood with the Sacrament saying that they can take the place of it, but rather that by individual conformity (in whatever degree) to the Passion of His Divine Majesty, there is some degree of "sacramental effect."  This hardly means that the Sacrament is effected without the Sacrament or that the individual receives the infusion of the theological virtues without the Sacrament or that the other two baptisms are salutary without the individual having received the Sacrament.  There being no equal substitute for the Sacrament eliminates the discussion of what is called relative necessity here.

Once again, the work of St. Borromeo and the like does not contradict the teachings of the Council; availing to grace and righteousness does not equate salvation.  There is much grace available to the unbaptized; it is called actual grace and prevenient grace when it is allowing a person to be directed toward entry into the Church.  This is hardly saying that the individuals who die in this unbaptized state (i.e., that of being a child of wrath, a state of original sin which alone is enough to damn a person) obtain a place in the Beatific Vision...and is therefore hardly contradicting Trent.

Also, Pope St. Pius X did not teach these notions of baptisms of desire and blood.  The Catechism of Christian Doctrine was written by the man who was Bishop of Mantua, not written as Pope.  Also, I am pretty sure that the source from which you got the quotation of #17 on the necessity of Baptism is the same as EWTN's source, which is not the Catechism of Christian Doctrine, but rather a work of another author, Compendium of Catechetical Instruction by the Right Reverend Monsignor John Hagan.  There have been several subsequent published works, both in Italian and English, which have all been given the title Catechism of Christian Doctrine which contain differing amounts of information, not all containing the quotation which you have given above.  According to EWTN's website, this Catechism was never translated in its entirety into english and was never bound by the Pope upon the Universal Church, but instead was used as a local Catechism.  To call this book the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, as many do, is to afford this work a misnomer.

The address to midwives does not appear to be a universal document, as it is directed to a select group of people, so this can be understood to be the Pope's exercise of his ordinary magisterium.  The Pope can err in his teaching office as Ordinary...and if some ordinary teaching of his contradicts the Roman Pontiffs in their infallible magisterium, then the ordinary teaching is easily seen as error.  However, I wouldn't wonder if this is merely an issue of translational error and not doctrinal error.

I have studied Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus much.  All of the statements listed with numbers are positive statement of error, not positive statement of truth.  All four of these statements regarding catechumens are being condemned by the Pope in the bull as error:

Quote:18. The works of the catechumens, as faith and penance performed before the remission of sins, are merits for eternal life; and they will not attain this life, unless the impediments of preceding faults are first taken away.

31. 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.

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

43. 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.

-- Nicole
Nicole (yablabo),
I haven't read where anyone has written that baptism of desire is an equal substitute for Baptism, as Baptism alone is the gateway to the reception of the other sacraments and it alone imprints the soul with the seal (mark) of Baptism.  Divine Faith and perfect charity/contrition can avail one of justification (in which is included the remission of sins, both original and actual), and one who possesses perfect charity is most definitely not guilty of eternal damnation (cf. Pope St. Pius V, Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus, n. 70.).

Righteousness is justification and justification is salvation.  "To those justified nothing more is wanting from being considered [can. 32] as having satisfied the divine law by those works which have been done in God according to the state of this life, and as having truly merited eternal life to be obtained in its own time (if they shall have departed this life in grace...)" (Council of Trent, Sess. VI, ch. 16).


It would appear that Fr. Laisney found Pope St. Pius X's catechism ("the authentic text") in Msgr. Hagan's Compendium of Catechetical Instruction and then stated, "We present here Msgr. Hagan's text with very slight modifications of style only. ... May this edition of Saint Pius X's Catechism help priests..."  Was Fr. Laisney being truthful?


Pope Pius XII's Address to Midwives constitutes public teaching (according to Canon Law) because it was an allocution and allocutions appear in the A.A.S (Acta Apostolicae Sedis), which is "the authentic public digeset for all the documents of the Holy See" (Fr. Cekada; cf. canonist Michels, De Delictis, 1: 131, 140.).  And, provided it's correctly translated, if it contradicts a de fide dogma of the Church (i.e. the absolute necessity of water baptism for all), then it becomes a matter of nortorious public heresy (a public teaching need not be in an encyclical or apostolic constitution for it to be notorious heresy).  See: http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=15&catname=10

More precisely, Pope Pius XII's allocution can be found in: Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 43 (1951), 841.  It is cited at the Vatican Web site here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre...tml#_ftn59


Yes, those are some of the condemned propositions I've referred to in my previous posts regarding the debate on baptism of desire.  Should I suppose that highly-learned, traditional theologians (under the pontificates of Leo XIII and St. Pius X) have misinterpreted these condmenations?

“Adversaries: 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 St. Pius V] also taught that charity was not always joined to the remission of sins.  ... Against the second part [baptism of blood] there are hardly any adversaries, save for a few theologians who disagree over the manner in which the martyrdom achieves its effect” (Solà, De Sacramentis, [BAC 1954], 69).  See also McAuliffe, Sacramental Theology, 84, quoted here: http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2
(01-18-2012, 08:01 AM)yablabo Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-18-2012, 02:17 AM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-17-2012, 11:41 PM)yablabo Wrote: [ -> ]Really, there is nothing to argue with here.  St. Thomas and the Council of Trent were teaching the same doctrine.

Absolutely.  And this is what the Holy Office maintained against contra Feeney.

What has Fr. Feeney to do with anything that I've stated?

If you imagine that there is a contradiction between BoD and the Council of Trent, then you are following off of Feeney, who noticed a supposed contradiction after 1900 years of non-controversy.  St. Thomas explains the doctrine, in the way that the Tridentine Fathers explained in their Catechism.  If you think that there is a contradiction, you're not doing it right.
(01-18-2012, 01:12 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]Nicole (yablabo),
I haven't read where anyone has written that baptism of desire is an equal substitute for Baptism, as Baptism alone is the gateway to the reception of the other sacraments and it alone imprints the soul with the seal (mark) of Baptism.  Divine Faith and perfect charity/contrition can avail one of justification (in which is included the remission of sins, both original and actual), and one who possesses perfect charity is most definitely not guilty of eternal damnation (cf. Pope St. Pius V, Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus, n. 70.).

Righteousness is justification and justification is salvation.  "To those justified nothing more is wanting from being considered [can. 32] as having satisfied the divine law by those works which have been done in God according to the state of this life, and as having truly merited eternal life to be obtained in its own time (if they shall have departed this life in grace...)" (Council of Trent, Sess. VI, ch. 16).


It would appear that Fr. Laisney found Pope St. Pius X's catechism ("the authentic text") in Msgr. Hagan's Compendium of Catechetical Instruction and then stated, "We present here Msgr. Hagan's text with very slight modifications of style only. ... May this edition of Saint Pius X's Catechism help priests..."  Was Fr. Laisney being truthful?


Pope Pius XII's Address to Midwives constitutes public teaching (according to Canon Law) because it was an allocution and allocutions appear in the A.A.S (Acta Apostolicae Sedis), which is "the authentic public digeset for all the documents of the Holy See" (Fr. Cekada; cf. canonist Michels, De Delictis, 1: 131, 140.).  And, provided it's correctly translated, if it contradicts a de fide dogma of the Church (i.e. the absolute necessity of water baptism for all), then it becomes a matter of nortorious public heresy (a public teaching need not be in an encyclical or apostolic constitution for it to be notorious heresy).  See: http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=15&catname=10

More precisely, Pope Pius XII's allocution can be found in: Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 43 (1951), 841.  It is cited at the Vatican Web site here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre...tml#_ftn59


Yes, those are some of the condemned propositions I've referred to in my previous posts regarding the debate on baptism of desire.  Should I suppose that highly-learned, traditional theologians (under the pontificates of Leo XIII and St. Pius X) have misinterpreted these condmenations?

“Adversaries: 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 St. Pius V] also taught that charity was not always joined to the remission of sins.  ... Against the second part [baptism of blood] there are hardly any adversaries, save for a few theologians who disagree over the manner in which the martyrdom achieves its effect” (Solà, De Sacramentis, [BAC 1954], 69).  See also McAuliffe, Sacramental Theology, 84, quoted here: http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2

Just one question for you, Southpaw:

What is your rule of faith (ratio fidei)?

-- Nicole
Nicole (yablabo),
The proximate rule of faith is the living Magisterium, while the remote rule of faith is Sacred Scripture and Divine Tradition.  You might say that I adhere to the proximate rule of faith.
(01-18-2012, 10:45 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]Nicole (yablabo),
The proximate rule of faith is the living Magisterium, while the remote rule of faith is Sacred Scripture and Divine Tradition.  You might say that I adhere to the proximate rule of faith.

The proximate rule to which you say I might say that you adhere to :) is very vague.  How do you define the living Magisterium so as to use it as a rule of faith?

-- Nicole
(01-19-2012, 10:08 PM)yablabo Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-18-2012, 10:45 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]Nicole (yablabo),
The proximate rule of faith is the living Magisterium, while the remote rule of faith is Sacred Scripture and Divine Tradition.  You might say that I adhere to the proximate rule of faith.

The proximate rule to which you say I might say that you adhere to :) is very vague.  How do you define the living Magisterium so as to use it as a rule of faith?

-- Nicole

That's a very good question, Nicole.  In a way, it's the crux of the matter, isn't it?  These are very confusing times we live in, and it's difficult to find bishops who profess the Faith whole and entire.  If you do not mind, I'll leave it at that.


P.S. - My apologies.  I edited my last post poorly.  Anyway, I don't think it answers your question well, but I can say that I adhere to the better-known pre-Vatican II catechisms when it comes to matters of faith and morals.
Imagine a building is on fire and the villagers in the town run to the river to collect water. When they reach the river there arises dissension as to the most effective approach to transport the water. For a lengthy time they continue to argue, until at last a messenger from the village comes and tells them that not just the building, but the whole town is burnt to the ground.
(01-17-2012, 09:38 AM)Spencer Wrote: [ -> ]Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, The Necessity of Baptism, p. 354: “1. Necessity of Baptism for Salvation- Baptism by water (Baptismus Fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception, for salvation. (de fide.)”



     Excuse me, but this de fide (i.e., of the Faith) teaching of the Catholic Church on the absolute necessity of water baptism for all without exception........ for salvation is precisely why Catholics must reject the false doctrine of “baptism of desire”!  Baptism of desire is directly contrary to the above de fide teaching of the Church: baptism of desire is the idea that baptism of water is not necessary for all men without exception for salvation!

Sorry, but this also comes from a compilation of the words of Dr. Ott:


1. Necessity of Baptism for Salvation

Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, Since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception, for salvation. (De fide.) The Council of Trent declared against the Reformers, whose idea of justification led them to deny it, the necessity of Baptism for salvation: Si quis dixerit, baptismum liberum esse, hoc est non necessarium ad salutem, A.S. D 861 Cf. D 791. As to the moment of the beginning of the baptismal obligation, the Council of Trent declared that after the promulgation of the Gospel B (post Evangelium promulgatum) there could be no justification without Baptism or the desire for the same. D 796. The necessity of Baptism for salvation is, according to John 3, 5 and Mk. 16, 16, a necessity of means (necessitas medii), and, according to Mt. 28, 19, also a necessity or precept (necessitas praecepti). The necessity of means does not derive from the | intrinsic nature of the Sacrament itself, but from the designation of Baptism as an indispensable means of salvation by a positive ordinance of God. In J special circumstances the actual use of the prescribed means can be dispensed with (hypothetical necessity).

Tradition, in view of John 3, 5, strongly stresses the necessity of Baptism for salvation. Tertullian, invoking these words, observes: " It is determined by law that nobody can be saved without baptism " (De bapt. 12, I). Cf. Pastor Hermae, Sim. IX 16. 2.
[size=10pt]
Substitutes for Sacramental Baptism

In case of emergency Baptism by water can be replaced by Baptism of desire or Baptism by blood. (Sent. fidei prox.)

a) Baptism of desire (Baptismus flaminis sive Spiritus Sancti) Baptism of desire is the explicit or implicit desire for sacramental baptism (votum baptismi) associated with perfect contrition (contrition based on charity).

The Council of Trent teaches that justification from original sin is not possible " without the washing unto regeneration or the desire for the same."

According to the teaching of Holy Writ, perfect love possesses justifying power. Luke 7, 47[b]: "Many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved much." John 14, 21: " He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father: l and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." Luke 23, 43 • " This , day thou shalt be with me in Paradise." The chief witnesses from Tradition are St. Ambrose and St. Augustine. In the funeral oration on the Emperor Valentine II, who died without Baptism, St. Ambrose says: " Should he not acquire the grace for which he longed? Certainly: As he desired it, he has attained it . . . His pious desire has absolved him " (De obitu Valent. 51, 53). St. Augustine declared: " I find that not only suffering for the sake of Christ can replace that which is lacking in Baptism, but also faith and conversion of the heart (fidem conversionemque cordis), if perhaps the shortness of the time does not permit the celebration of the mystery , of Baptism " (De bapt. IV 22, 29). In the period of early Scholasticism St. ! Bernard of Clairvaux (Ep. 77 c. 2 n. 6-9), Hugo of St. Victor (De sacr. 116, 7) and the Summa Sententiarum (V

The arguments on EENs & Baptism of Desire have e been argued to death on every Catholic forum on the internet. The Church teaches that one may be saved if he/she earnestly desires to follow the life of Christ, His Words, His example withOUT water Baptism, if through no fault of his own he cannot receive the Sacrament in the preferred way.

Likewise, if one knows nothing of the Catholic Church (i;e; the American Indians during the period before the missionaries came to their country), one cannot be held accountable for not being a "card-carrying in the pew every Sunday "Catholic. One of the REQUIREMENTS for a sin to be a sin is that the sinner must know that he is disobeying the Laws of God. [/b]


I am a Traditional Catholic in every way. I have not attended a Novus Ordo Mass since Summorum Pontificum was promulgated. I don't like the fact that sin is never mentioned in the N.O. sermons, I go to confession frequently, I believe that the TLM. is the most beautiful thing this side of heaven..........I prayed that Mass DAILY for 28 yrs. BUT, sometimes I think that the Trads are to eager to preach hell & damnation, just as the liberals are to eager to preach "God is just a loving Grandfather-type being that pats us sinners on the head & says "don't worry about it. I don't condemn people".

Both are wrong. Find the middle ground, people. There's a place where BOTH the love of God & His justice exist TOGETHER. [/size]
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23