Baptism of Desire

[nuntym]

I think that any book, not protected against error by God, can contain error.
The age of the book makes no difference.

See the original scanned Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat here

An Imprimatur (from Latin, “let it be printed”) is an official declaration from the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church that a literary or similar work is** free from error in matters of Roman Catholic doctrine and morals**, and hence acceptable reading for faithful Roman Catholics.

Nihil obstat (Latin, meaning “nothing hinders”) — This indicates that the work has been examined and approved by a delegated censor and that he finds it free of doctrinal or moral error.

Source, emphasis mine

BTW, the above site states that the book scanned was published 1907.

To show that the 1907 edition also has the same statement as I had previously shown, see here

 

[jim28]

It’s interesting that you’d try to use St. Augustine’s words in your defense, since he taught Baptism of Desire:

"For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of Baptism. For He Who said, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, “Whosever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven”; and in another place, “Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it.” - City of God, XIII.7

Why is that interesting.
He was in error on some things.
He was still a great Saint.

 

[jim28]

See the original scanned Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat here

The Catechism of the Council of Trent has the Nihil Obstat and it contains errors.
One is Baptism of Desire and the other is that it states that none can attain grace outside the Church.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Tan Books, p. 243: “For the Eucharist is the end of all the Sacraments, and the symbol of unity and brotherhood in the Church, ***outside of which none can attain grace.”

---

 

[nuntym]

The Council of Trent has the Nihil Obstat and it contains errors.
One is Baptism of Desire and the other is that it states that none can attain grace outside the Church.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Tan Books, p. 243: “For the Eucharist is the end of all the Sacraments, and the symbol of unity and brotherhood in the Church, ***outside of which none can attain grace.”

---

Excuse me, THE Council of Trent has ERRORS?

EDIT: Or is YOUR INTERPRETATION of the Council in error?

 

[jim28]

Excuse me, THE Council of Trent has ERRORS?

Sorry I meant the Catechism of the Council of Trent
you’ll see that I quoted it

 

[thistle]

That does not make any sense at all.
You cannot recieve the grace of the Sacrament of Baptism, which is justification and the remission of original sin, without the reception of the Sacrament.
To say otherwise is to contradict Trent.

The Church teaching:

CCC 1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

CCC 1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

CCC 1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

What is the origin of this false teaching; namely, that there is no such thing as baptism of desire and/or baptism of blood? Is it some kind of extreme misunderstanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus? I first came across it when I preached on Baptism and mentioned baptism of blood and baptism of desire in a homily I gave about a month ago. The person who held the view would not accept passages from Scripture, the Magisterium, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, or the Roman Martyrology (which contains many saints who shed their blood for Christ as catechumens and were never Baptized by water). He insisted on his own ability to reason the truth above and beyond anything that the Church taught. Somehow, he believed that Baptism is necessary for salvation (which relies on revelation and not on reason alone), but would accept no exceptions to this rule for baptism of desire or baptism by blood (which also comes from revelation). It was the most bizarre conversation with a Catholic I have ever had. I usually at least understand why a person holds to a certain error, but this time I had no clue. If we want to be truly Catholic, do we not need to be docile to all the teachings of the Magisterium, and not only the ones we think we can wrap our minds around? Certainly, faith seeks understanding, but the divine dispensation of the Sacraments is God’s choice; He could have instituted them in whatever means He wanted in order to confer grace, and if He has exceptions, this is His choice as well. Why would one want to say “I’m Catholic” and “there is no salvation outside the Church” and then ignore the constant teaching of the Church. I just don’t get it.

If you think it’s helpful, here are some of the things I quoted:

The Council of Trent declared solemnly that after the promulgation of the Gospel (post Evangelium promulgatum) there could be no justification without the washing unto regeneration (i.e., Baptism) or desire for the same (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto). [Denzinger 796]

 There are many saints in the Roman Maryrology and even on the calendar who were not sacramentally baptized; the commemoration of St. Emerentiana, Virgin and Martyr, was recently observed on January 23; according to the Roman Breviary, she was baptized próprio sánguine.

---

St. Thomas Aquinas, S. th. III 66, 11:
Whether three kinds of Baptism are fittingly described—viz. Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit?
Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ’s Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, 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 shalt thou 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.”

---

III, 68, 2:
Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?
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.”

 

[japhy]

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Tan Books, p. 243: “For the Eucharist is the end of all the Sacraments, and the symbol of unity and brotherhood in the Church, outside of which none can attain grace.”

What is that Latin for that sentence? I’m curious if something is lost in translation.

The TAN translation reads (I assume): “The reason, then, for saying that this Sacrament imparts grace, is that even the first grace, with which all should be clothed before they presume to approach the Holy Eucharist, lest they ‘eat and drink judgment to themselves,’ is given to none unless they receive in wish and desire this very Sacrament. For the Eucharist is the end of all the Sacraments, and the symbol of unity and brotherhood in the Church, outside which none can attain grace.”

The 1829 translation, page 165, reads: “We say that this Sacrament imparts grace, because even the first grace, which all should have before they presume to approach this Sacrament, lest they ‘eat and drink judgment to themselves,’ is given to none unless they desire to receive the Holy Eucharist, which is the end of all the Sacraments, the symbol of ecclesiastical unity, to which he who does not belong, cannot receive divine grace.”

Are those two translations necessarily identical?

 

[pnewton]

I think that any book, not protected against error by God, can contain error.
The age of the book makes no difference.

The errors of vatican ii did not come about overnight.
That is a discussion for a different time, since protestants, orthodox and any type of beliefs are tolerable on these forums, except sedevacantists.

What makes you think you are protected from error? Do you see yourself as a your own pope? Do you not even have the integrity to abide by the rules of the a place after you have agreed to do so?

This topic is not allowed because those that have come here do so for one reason, to prey an the weak. Those that financial support this place have the right to deny you and others this opportunity. It is the same reason one does not allow vultures in a meat market.

 

[look2thyheart]

It is clear that Baptim of Desire, is not to be found in scripture, unless you count the thief on the cross. For all the supporters of B of D, it must be a tradition? Does anyone know the origen of this church teaching/tradition? This tradition of the Church seems to contradict scripture, are there any other church traditions that seem to contradict scripture? The supporters of B of D seem to be saying trust what the pope and the catachism says even if it contradicts scripture? Great debate. What say you?

 

[Dauphin]

It is clear that Baptim of Desire, is not to be found in scripture, unless you count the thief on the cross. For all the supporters of B of D, it must be a tradition? Does anyone know the origen of this church teaching/tradition? This tradition of the Church seems to contradict scripture, are there any other church traditions that seem to contradict scripture? The supporters of B of D seem to be saying trust what the pope and the catachism says even if it contradicts scripture? Great debate. What say you?

Maybe you should present where you think this contradiction is, and we’ll address it. It’s important to remember that Sacred Scripture is Sacred Tradition. It’s simply the written part of it, as opposed to the oral part. It can only be properly interpreted in the context of the Church’s faith.

Baptism of Desire is the unanimous teaching of the early Church Fathers. It forms part of the Oral Tradition.

 

[nuntym]

It is clear that Baptim of Desire, is not to be found in scripture, unless you count the thief on the cross. For all the supporters of B of D, it must be a tradition? Does anyone know the origen of this church teaching/tradition? This tradition of the Church seems to contradict scripture, are there any other church traditions that seem to contradict scripture? The supporters of B of D seem to be saying trust what the pope and the catachism says even if it contradicts scripture? Great debate. What say you?

[31] “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.
[32] Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats,
[33] and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left.
[34] Then the King will say to those at his right hand, Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; [35] for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, [36] I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' [37] Then the righteous will answer him, **Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink?
[38] And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee?
[39] And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’**
[40] And the King will answer them, Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' [41] Then he will say to those at his left hand, Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;
[42] for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
[43] I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’
[44] Then they also will answer, **Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?'** [45] Then he will answer them, Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’
[46] And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

— Matthew 25:31-46 (RSV), emphases mine​

But, not to close the gates of heaven against pagans and those non-Catholics, who without their fault do not know or do not recognize the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Catholic theologians unanimously hold that the desire to receive these sacraments is implicitly contained in the serious resolve to do all that God has commanded, even if His holy will should not become known in every detail.

Source

 

[pnewton]

It is clear that Baptim of Desire, is not to be found in scripture, unless you count the thief on the cross.

But that one case is there. While it must be pointed out that this did occur prior to the resurrection, it was after Jesus sanctified the waters of Baptism with his own presence in the Jordan and established that as a Sacrament. The very first sermon preached by an apostle included this Sacrament. It is not something the developed later. While it is possible that it the sacrament of baptism was injected into the head of St. Peter at Pentacost, it is far more likely that Jesus taught it in the prior three years, especially in light of His teaching to Nicodemus. No, baptism was already established at the time the thief died and he was able to obtain a baptism of desire.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

It is clear that Baptim of Desire, is not to be found in scripture, unless you count the thief on the cross. For all the supporters of B of D, it must be a tradition? Does anyone know the origen of this church teaching/tradition? This tradition of the Church seems to contradict scripture, are there any other church traditions that seem to contradict scripture? The supporters of B of D seem to be saying trust what the pope and the catachism says even if it contradicts scripture? Great debate. What say you?

Baptism of blood, which is the highest form of baptism of desire, can be inferred from the words of our Lord in the tenth chapter of St. Matthew: “Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven” (verse 32). It is a general statement, and has never in the Tradition of the Church been interpreted solely for those Baptized by water.

 

[look2thyheart]

Baptism of blood, which is the highest form of baptism of desire, can be inferred from the words of our Lord in the tenth chapter of St. Matthew: “Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven” (verse 32). It is a general statement, and has never in the Tradition of the Church been interpreted solely for those Baptized by water.

We don’t know if the thief on the cross was baptized or not pnewton. FrBoyd this statement from our Lord does not mean one does not need baptism. All the traditions of the Church have some scripture reference, i.e., infant baptism, purgatory, etc. all those things that the sola scriptura folks deny. I don’t see any scripture reference for B of D. What you have cited Fr., does not negate the clear scripture for water baptism. This is an interesting debate, but does anyone really know someone who ever fell into this category, died really wanting baptism. I see so many quotes from Church fathers in regard to the necessity of water baptism, that many here are saying, don’t really mean that? I’d say the safest thing is to tell everyone to repent and be baptized… That way there won’t be any false hope in case you are wrong with B of D…

 

[mattkubes]

What is the origin of this false teaching; namely, that there is no such thing as baptism of desire and/or baptism of blood?

That’s exactly what it is Fr. Boyd - people are following the teachings of the quite obviously confused Jesuit Fr. Feeney. He denied Church teaching on this matter and has (apparently) convinced a number of people to follow his private interpretation.

 

[Rogerteder]

Where did he teach it. Let alone teach it infallibly.

I believe that one must give full consent of the will and intellect to both the ordinary and extraordinary Magisterial teachings.
Baptism of desire is not a part of either.

Let me explain this again.
It says that all sacraments are not completely necessary for salvation for each person. This must mean that some or at least one sacrament must be necessary. Any way, without them or without the desire for them, means you need both. Again the word “aut” in Latin means “or” and “and” in English.
Only one sacrament, Baptism, do you need the actual rite. As in the case of infants, they don’t even need the desire.

Either of the interpretations COULD be correct. However, the Catechism of the Council indicates that the desire for Baptism will justify a person.

Catechism of the Council of Trent:
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. (Tan Book, 1982, p. 179).

I will take the Catechism of the Council Of Trent (which was approved by Pius V) over an individual Catholic’s interpretation of the Council. God is not a god of confusion. It is pretty clear from the catechism what the council meant.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

We don’t know if the thief on the cross was baptized or not pnewton. FrBoyd this statement from our Lord does not mean one does not need baptism. All the traditions of the Church have some scripture reference, i.e., infant baptism, purgatory, etc. all those things that the sola scriptura folks deny. I don’t see any scripture reference for B of D. What you have cited Fr., does not negate the clear scripture for water baptism. This is an interesting debate, but does anyone really know someone who ever fell into this category, died really wanting baptism. I see so many quotes from Church fathers in regard to the necessity of water baptism, that many here are saying, don’t really mean that? I’d say the safest thing is to tell everyone to repent and be baptized… That way there won’t be any false hope in case you are wrong with B of D…

Baptism of desire/blood dos not negate the need to be Baptized sacramentally if one has the opportunity. If an adult approaches the Church for Baptism, we do not Baptize him on the spot. Neither did the Church in earlier centuries. There is a process of pre-Baptismal catechesis that typically culminates in him receiving Baptism, Confirmation and First Holy Communion at the Easter Vigil.

We have dozens of catechumens listed in the Roman Martyrology who died for Christ without receiving sacramental Baptism. It’s not that they chose not to be Baptized; they were killed before they could be. When Holy Mother Church canonizes someone, it is considered infallible, and the most recent canonization of catechumens (two) was with a group of over one hundred Chinese martyrs canonized by JPII. Holy Mother Church does not hold up for veneration persons who are in hell, but those who are in heaven. The argument from the liturgy should really end the debate.

 

[pnewton]

Holy Mother Church does not hold up for veneration persons who are in hell, but those who are in heaven. The argument from the liturgy should really end the debate.

Logically presented.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

I think it would be useful for everyone to read what Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, said as head of the CDF in 1998 in the official commentary on JPII’s Ad Tuendam Fidem:

1. The second proposition of the professio fidei states: “I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals”. The object taught by this formula includes all those teachings belonging to the dogmatic or moral area which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expoinding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed.

Such doctrines can be defined solemnly by the Roman pontiff when he speaks “ex cathedra” or by the college of bishops gathered in council, or they can be taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church as a “sententia definitive tenenda”. Every believer, therefore, is required to give firm and definitive assent to these truths, based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Church’s Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters. Whoever denies these truths would be in the position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church.

1. With regard to the nature of the assent owed to the truths set forth by the Church as divinely revealed (those of the first paragraph) or to be held definitively (those of the second paragraph), it is important to emphasize that there is no difference with respect to the full and irrevocable character of the assent which is owed to these teachings. The difference concerns the supernatural virtue of faith: in the case of truths of the first paragraph, the assent is based directly on faith in the authority of the Word of God (doctrines de fide credenda); in the case of the truths of the second paragraph, the assent is based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium (doctrines de fide tenenda).

1. The Magisterium of the Church, however, teaches a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed … or to be held definitively … with an act which is either defining or nondefining. In the case of a defining act, a truth is solemnly defined by an ex cathedra pronouncement by the Roman pontiff or by the action of an ecumenical council. In the case of a nondefining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the successor of Peter. Such a doctrine can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman pontiff, even without recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium, as a truth that is divinely revealed … or as a truth of Catholic doctrine… Consequently, when there has not been a judgment on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium,which necessarily includes the pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly. The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church.

Considering the plethora of quotes from the ordinary and universal Magisterium on baptism of desire/blood, and considering the dogmatic fact of the canonization of catechumens who shed their blood for Christ, yet did not receive sacramental Baptism, it seems safe to conclude that baptism of desire/blood belongs to articles of the second paragraph of Ad Tuendam Fidem. As such, the faithful are to give these teachings firm and definitive assent, based upon “faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium” (Commentary, #7). Those who reject these truths separate themselves from full communion with the Church.