Baptism of Desire: Avoiding the Red Herrings on a Nearby Thread
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:

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:

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:

Messages In This Thread
Re: Baptism of Desire: Avoiding the Red Herrings on a Nearby Thread - by SouthpawLink - 01-18-2012, 01:12 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)