Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada
(12-30-2011, 11:21 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: It's an interesting theological construct then.

It would seem that if the sincere desire to get baptised or to confess suffice for the sacrament, it would be applicable to the other five as well. I don't see why not.
BOD is not a construct of theology, it is Church teaching:

"17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire." Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments - Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized
"The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood" 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism"
(12-30-2011, 11:36 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Well, baptism and confession are the bare minimum necessary for salvation.

The bare minimum is baptism, which presupposes faith.

Confession only applies to those who sin after baptism and the Eucharist to those over the age of reason. In any case, I don't see why the same reasoning about the desire for the sacrament supplying the same effects as if by proxy doesn't apply to all sacraments.

One could be baptised by desire, confirmed by desire, receive holy communion by desire, confess by desire, marry by desire, receive holy orders by desire and extreme unction by desire. In sum, live a whole Christian life by desire, vicariously so to speak, without actual consumation of facts.
"Through contrition even when joined with perfect charity and with the desire to receive the sacrament, a crime is not remitted without the actual reception of the sacrament, except in case of necessity, or of martyrdom" -- Condemned (Pope St. Pius V, Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus, n. 71: Denz. 1071).

I'm simply trying to follow the solemn teaching of Pope St. Pius V.
What about Perfect Contrition?
(12-30-2011, 10:04 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: If "baptism of desire" is a substitute for true baptism, then how about the other sacraments?

Can I marry by desire? By ordained by desire? Receive last rites by desire?, etc.

Trent: “Now as to the use of this holy SACRAMENT [of the Eucharist], the Fathers have rightly and wisely distinguished THREE WAYS OF RECEIVING IT. For they have taught that some receive it SACRAMENTALLY ONLY, to wit sinners; OTHERS SPIRITUALLY ONLY, those to wit who EATING IN DESIRE [voto] that heavenly bread which is set before them, are, by a lively faith which worketh by charity, made sensible of the fruit and usefulness thereof; whereas the third (class) receive it both SACRAMENTALLY AND SPIRITUALLY, and these are they who so prove and prepare themselves beforehand, as to approach to this divine table clothed with the wedding garment.” (Denz. 881)

The Sacrament of Marriage arguably consists entirely of mutually communicated and agreed upon desire.  It is not a ceremony, the ceremony is a seal on the sacrament.
Good. So we have four sacraments already that can be substituted by the desire to receive them.

Only three to go.
St. Thomas Aquinas Wrote:Article 1. Whether consent is the efficient cause of matrimony?

Objection 1. It would seem that consent is not the efficient cause of matrimony. For the sacraments depend not on the human will but on the Divine institution, as shown above (Sent. iv, D, 2; III, 64, 2). But consent belongs to the human will. Therefore it is no more the cause of matrimony than of the other sacraments.

Objection 2. Further, nothing is its own cause. But seemingly matrimony is nothing else than the consent, since it is the consent which signifies the union of Christ with the Church.

Objection 3. Further, of one thing there should be one cause. Now there is one marriage between two persons, as stated above (Question 44, Article 1); whereas the consents of the two parties are distinct, for they are given by different persons and to different things, since on the one hand there is consent to take a husband, and on the other hand consent to take a wife. Therefore mutual consent is not the cause of matrimony.

On the contrary, Chrysostom [Hom. xxxii in the Opus Imperfectum, falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom] says: "It is not coition but consent that makes a marriage."

Further, one person does not receive power over that which is at the free disposal of another, without the latter's consent. Now by marriage each of the married parties receives power over the other's body (1 Corinthians 7:4), whereas hitherto each had free power over his own body. Therefore consent makes a marriage.

I answer that, In every sacrament there is a spiritual operation by means of a material operation which signifies it; thus in Baptism the inward spiritual cleansing is effected by a bodily cleansing. Wherefore, since in matrimony there is a kind of spiritual joining together, in so far as matrimony is a sacrament, and a certain material joining together, in so far as it is directed to an office of nature and of civil life, it follows that the spiritual joining is the effect of the Divine power by means of the material joining. Therefore seeing that the joinings of material contracts are effected by mutual consent, it follows that the joining together of marriage is effected in the same way.

Reply to Objection 1. The first cause of the sacraments is the Divine power which works in them the welfare of the soul; but the second or instrumental causes are material operations deriving their efficacy from the Divine institution, and thus consent is the cause in matrimony.

Reply to Objection 2. Matrimony is not the consent itself, but the union of persons directed to one purpose, as stated above (Question 44, Article 1), and this union is the effect of the consent. Moreover, the consent, properly speaking, signifies not the union of Christ with the Church, but His will whereby His union with the Church was brought about.

Reply to Objection 3. Just as marriage is one on the part of the object to which the union is directed, whereas it is more than one on the part of the persons united, so too the consent is one on the part of the thing consented to, namely the aforesaid union, whereas it is more than one on the part of the persons consenting. Nor is the direct object of consent a husband but union with a husband on the part of the wife, even as it is union with a wife on the part of the husband.
After a nuclear disaster, a small group of Christian men and women survive in an isolated part of the globe and start rebuilding their community, church and civilisation. However, after a few years, their only priest dies and they're left with no clergy. Nevertheless, the priest had trained a few young men to fulfill his role after he were gone and these men have the sincere desire in their hearts to be ordained. Their only problem is that there's no bishop around and God isn't providing one any time soon. Can they thus be ordained by desire and look after their flock? I don't see why not. It's a matter of Christian survival.
(12-29-2011, 10:24 PM)Jenn Wrote: As I've mentioned before, if anyone can point me to the formally defined dogma of BOD, I'm all eyes. As is customary during this debate, there are endless posts explaining to me why I should not take this infallible statement at face value. That I simply am not understanding it, or I'm reading it all wrong, or I don't have the training to read it "in context". In short, I am being told that Trent didn't mean to say exactly what it DID say, so I shouldn't take it too seriously. Obviously, I reject those assertions.

What is not being understood is that the canon of Trent is not being denied. That is de fide plainly. What is being asserted is that Trent never intended to close the way for something like Baptism of Desire. If indeed they did, they would have explained that in much detail since it has been taught in some way back to the early Church. Just read Ott quoting Augustine and Ambrose, not to mention the greatest mind of the Church, Thomas Aquinas. Trent stands. Interpreting dogma includes context. The words are plain, but no one speaks in a vacuum. Furthermore, dogmas assert only what they assert. Baptism of Desire merely says that the necessity of water is relative necessity, which is implied in Trent if we read the previous 1500 years of teaching, and absolutely confirmed when we read the 400 years after Trent. What is a more pertinent question is how your belief in the Catholic Church discounts the plain teaching that perfect contrition may justify united with a desire for the sacrament, as explicitly also taught by Trent. So the rejection of this possibility is simply not a Catholic doctrine. And so either you don't believe what the Church teaches, or you need to read up more and figure out this reconciliation which the Church has no problem with at all. That's why I said to Stubborn that he is headed to apostasy or schism or heresy. Because as you notice, the attitude is not that the Church's teachers are plainly right, and I need to figure out the solution, but the attitude is rather that I am right, and the Church needs to rescind a teaching, or non serviam. It is really a prideful thing to think that . And out of charity, the argument is very clearly laid out here. This is not difficult, so there is something else going on that is causing some not to accept this doctrine. Most of all I believe it is a exaggerated rationalistic/dogmatic/legalist tendency, in which the strict words don't allow anything other than the most strict and legal sense. But the plain fact is that doesn't accord at all with true Catholic teaching, which is a holistic system taking into account intention, context, precedent, implication, etc. Generally such a faith is dry and dogmatic. We are allowed rational explanation, but this has been given to you, not to mention the explanations of Thomas Aquinas, and the proof in the Council of Trent itself. This is why I say that the Faith is to be held, not strangled. God is justice and mercy, i.e., the words have literal meaning with implications which are most favorable for the salvation of souls.
(12-30-2011, 10:04 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: If "baptism of desire" is a substitute for true baptism, then how about the other sacraments?

Can I marry by desire? By ordained by desire? Receive last rites by desire?, etc.

It concerns forgiveness of sins. Perfect contrition. Death bed contrition can forgive sin without last rites or baptism, provided the sacrament itself is sought but the conditions make it impossible. My Jesus, mercy!

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)