Baptism of Desire

[Dauphin]

This continues from a previous thread which was closed for unrelated reasons.

Every Catholic must profess Baptism of Desire.

Baptism of Desire is a evil heresy and you will certainly be damned if you believe it and continue to preach it.

Was Pope St. Pius X an “evil heretic”?:

“If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.” - From the Catechism of St. Pius X

Of course, no true Catholic can say that a *canonized saint *was an “evil heretic”. If you’re a Catholic, you’ll retract your statement. Here are a few more “evil heretics” who explicitly taught Baptism of Desire:

• St. Augustine (Doctor Gratiae)
• St. Cyril of Jerusalem
• St. Ambrose
• St. Bellarmine (Doctor)
• St. Thomas Aquinas (Doctor Angelicus)
  Do you need any more to see how patently absurd and un-Catholic your position is?

The fact that the teaching says that all are not necessary is proof that some are necessary. From the teachings and Dogmas of the Church that say that Baptism is necessary for salvation, we know that Baptism is the necessary sacrament that Trent is talking about.

One can desire any of the other sacraments and they are not absolutely necessary for each individual for salvation.

That’s very weak. The Canon (#4 on the sacraments from the seventh session of the Council of Trent) says that the sacraments or the desire thereof are necessary for salvation. It couldn’t be clearer.

 

[jim28]

This continues from a previous thread which was closed for unrelated reasons.

Every Catholic must profess Baptism of Desire.

Was Pope St. Pius X an “evil heretic”?:

“If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.” - From the Catechism of St. Pius X

St. Pius X didn’t write the Catechism.

Of course, no true Catholic can say that a

 

[Dauphin]

Dauphin;4755351:

This continues from a previous thread which was closed for unrelated reasons.

Every Catholic must profess Baptism of Desire.

St. Pius X didn’t write the Catechism.

He approved the Catechism. It is his teaching. You’re calling Pope St. Pius X a heretic, which in itself reveals that you’re not a genuine Catholic. The Church demands full submission of intellect and will to the canonization of saints. None of them can be said to have taught heresy.

Just because a Saint speculates on an issue does not mean he is a heretic, he is just erring in good faith.
Do you not believe in the Immaculate Conception. St. Thomas didn’t. He was not a heretic for it, he was erring in Good Faith, this means if the Truth were presented to him he would have accepted it.

This would be true if the Church had defined something contrary to baptism of desire, which it has not. The ordinary magisterium teaches Baptism of Desire. You are bound to hold it.

These saints were simply confirming the perennial teaching of the Church.

You say it’s weak but prove it wrong.
It couldn’t be clearer, all are not necessary. Which means that some or at least one are necessary. This happens to be the one which Trent, Popes, other Councils, and Jesus’ own words say is necessary, Baptism.

You’re not addressing the point. The sacrament or the desire thereof is necessary. There’s no ambiguity. The reception of the grace of the sacraments through desire is admitted in a Canon of an ecumenical council.

 

[jim28]

jim28;4755737:

He approved the Catechism. It is his teaching. You’re calling Pope St. Pius X a heretic, which in itself reveals that you’re not a genuine Catholic. The Church demands full submission of intellect and will to the canonization of saints. None of them can be said to have taught heresy.

This catechism did not come from his pen and was not solemnly promulgated by him. There is no Papal Bull from him promulgating the catechism, so it is just a fallible catechism that went out during his reign and was given his name.
But, even if St. Pius X had himself wrote it (which he didn’t), it wouldn’t make a bit of difference. This is because a pope is only infallible when speaking magisterially. This catechism is not infallible because it wasn’t promulgated solemnly from the Chair of Peter or even specifically by the pope.

This would be true if the Church had defined something contrary to baptism of desire, which it has not. The ordinary magisterium teaches Baptism of Desire. You are bound to hold it.

These saints were simply confirming the perennial teaching of the Church.

The ordinary Magisterium is Infallible because it is a reiteration of a dogma. There is nothing in the Infallible Ordinary or Extraordinary Magisterium that teaches baptism of desire.

You’re not addressing the point. The sacrament or the desire thereof

is necessary. There’s no ambiguity. The reception of the grace of the sacraments through desire is admitted in a Canon of an ecumenical council.

I know that the desire for EVERY Sacrament is necessary for reception for that Sacrament. The fact is that at least one sacrament has Desire AND Actual reception as necessary. This one sacrament is Baptism, in order to receive it you must have the desire and the actual baptism with water.

Maybe you have not seen this quote from the Council:

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of
Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the
sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf.
Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

 

[japhy]

What about Session 6, Chapter IV, “… 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.”

 

[jim28]

What about Session 6, Chapter IV, “… 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.”

It says it “cannot be effected without”, it does not say it can be effected without.
It would not make sense anyway to say that only a desire is necessary and in the very next sentence repeat what Jesus says that both are necessary.
Does it make sense to say in effect, "that a man can be born again only by the Holy Ghost, as it is written unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

Answer me this question.
Why fight against abortion. If Baptism is not necessary then why would it be bad to spare these babies the hardship of this life? Also the risk of losing their salvation through mortal sin.

 

[Dauphin]

Dauphin;4755779:

This catechism did not come from his pen and was not solemnly promulgated by him. There is no Papal Bull from him promulgating the catechism, so it is just a fallible catechism that went out during his reign and was given his name.
But, even if St. Pius X had himself wrote it (which he didn’t), it wouldn’t make a bit of difference. This is because a pope is only infallible when speaking magisterially. This catechism is not infallible because it wasn’t promulgated solemnly from the Chair of Peter or even specifically by the pope.

You’re missing the point. Pope St. Pius X, along with other post-Trent saints, all believed and taught baptism of desire. To call it an “evil heresy” is to accuse saints of having committed heresy.

The ordinary Magisterium is Infallible because it is a reiteration of a dogma. There is nothing in the Infallible Ordinary or Extraordinary Magisterium that teaches baptism of desire.

You seem to believe that only the infallible Magisterium demands consent. In reality, all the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium demands the full submission of intellect and will. Your opposition to baptism of desire defies Catholic teaching.

I know that the desire for EVERY Sacrament is necessary for reception for that Sacrament. The fact is that at least one sacrament has Desire AND Actual reception as necessary. This one sacrament is Baptism, in order to receive it you must have the desire and the actual baptism with water.

That’s not what the Canon says. The plain words of the Council admit that desire of the sacraments can substitute for actual reception.

Maybe you have not seen this quote from the Council:

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of
Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the
sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf.
Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

This refers to the grace of baptism and not to the sacrament. Any other interpretation would make the Council inconsistent, since it admitted that desire is sufficient to receive the grace of a sacrament.

 

[Dauphin]

It says it “cannot be effected without”, it does not say it can be effected without.
It would not make sense anyway to say that only a desire is necessary and in the very next sentence repeat what Jesus says that both are necessary.
Does it make sense to say in effect, "that a man can be born again only by the Holy Ghost, as it is written unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

Answer me this question.
Why fight against abortion. If Baptism is not necessary then why would it be bad to spare these babies the hardship of this life? Also the risk of losing their salvation through mortal sin.

The Council plainly says baptism or the desire thereof. Only the most deluded Feenyite would refuse to see what that means.

 

[jim28]

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of
Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a
man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5],
are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be
anathema.”

If you say that real and natural water are not necessary for Baptism, i.e. that baptism can be attained through an implicit or explicit desire, you are an anathema. The dogma is not a metaphor; every human, excepting the Virgin Mary of course, has to be Baptized using the proper matter (real and natural water) and form in order to have original sin remitted.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of
Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

Again it is very necessary to be water baptized.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: "By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. ***For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. ***

If Baptism is absolutely necessary for infants who haven’t even sinned yet, how much is it necessary for adults who have a multitude of sins.

 

[jim28]

The Council plainly says baptism or the desire thereof. Only the most deluded Feenyite would refuse to see what that means.

In Latin the word “aut” can mean “or” and “and”. Let me give some examples of how this word “aut” is used in the councils.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews [aut] or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives"
Here we see the Council of Florence using the word “or” (aut) to have a meaning that is equivalent to “and.” The council declares that not only pagans, but also Jews or (aut) heretics and schismatics cannot be saved. Does this mean that either Jews or heretics will be saved? Of course not. It clearly means that none of the Jews and none of the heretics can be saved.

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 21, Chap. 2: “Therefore holy mother Church… has decreed that it be considered as a law, which may not be repudiated “aut” or be changed at will without the authority of the Church.”
Does aut in this declaration mean that the council’s decree may not be repudiated, but it may be changed? No, obviously it means that both a repudiation and a change are forbidden.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Introduction: “… strictly forbidding that anyone henceforth may presume to believe, preach “aut” or teach, otherwise than is defined and declared by this present decree.”
Does “or” (aut) in this passage mean that one is only forbidden to preach contrary to the council’s decree on Justification, but one is allowed to teach contrary to it? No, obviously “or” (aut) means that both preaching and teaching are forbidden.

In chapter 4, “or” means that justification cannot take place without both water and desire.

Remember this teaching is dealing with adults. An infant cannot desire Baptism.
It’s like saying that “this shower cannot take place without water or the desire for it”. Can the shower take place without the water, obviously not. You need both. If this statement is saying what you say it is saying then it contradicts many other teachings in the council and the very next sentence where it says “as it is written, Unless a man…”

 

[Dauphin]

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of
Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a
man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5],
are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be
anathema.”

If you say that real and natural water are not necessary for Baptism, i.e. that baptism can be attained through an implicit or explicit desire, you are an anathema. The dogma is not a metaphor; every human, excepting the Virgin Mary of course, has to be Baptized using the proper matter (real and natural water) and form in order to have original sin remitted.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of
Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

Again it is very necessary to be water baptized.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: "By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. ***For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. ***

If Baptism is absolutely necessary for infants who haven’t even sinned yet, how much is it necessary for adults who have a multitude of sins.

You’re simply repeating the same empty argument and ignoring the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium. These statements are correct, but refer to the grace of baptism, not actual reception of the sacrament.

To say otherwise is to contradict the Council of Trent.

 

[jim28]

You’re missing the point. Pope St. Pius X, along with other post-Trent saints, all believed and taught baptism of desire. To call it an “evil heresy” is to accuse saints of having committed heresy.

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

You seem to believe that only the infallible Magisterium demands consent. In reality, all the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium demands the full submission of intellect and will. Your opposition to baptism of desire defies Catholic teaching.

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.

That’s not what the Canon says. The plain words of the Council admit that desire of the sacraments can substitute for actual reception.

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.

 

[jim28]

You’re simply repeating the same empty argument and ignoring the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium. These statements are correct, but refer to the grace of baptism, not actual reception of the sacrament.

To say otherwise is to contradict the Council of Trent.

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.

 

[Dauphin]

In Latin the word “aut” can mean “or” and “and”. Let me give some examples of how this word “aut” is used in the councils.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews [aut] or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives"
Here we see the Council of Florence using the word “or” (aut) to have a meaning that is equivalent to “and.” The council declares that not only pagans, but also Jews or (aut) heretics and schismatics cannot be saved. Does this mean that either Jews or heretics will be saved? Of course not. It clearly means that none of the Jews and none of the heretics can be saved.

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 21, Chap. 2: “Therefore holy mother Church… has decreed that it be considered as a law, which may not be repudiated “aut” or be changed at will without the authority of the Church.”
Does aut in this declaration mean that the council’s decree may not be repudiated, but it may be changed? No, obviously it means that both a repudiation and a change are forbidden.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Introduction: “… strictly forbidding that anyone henceforth may presume to believe, preach “aut” or teach, otherwise than is defined and declared by this present decree.”
Does “or” (aut) in this passage mean that one is only forbidden to preach contrary to the council’s decree on Justification, but one is allowed to teach contrary to it? No, obviously “or” (aut) means that both preaching and teaching are forbidden.

In chapter 4, “or” means that justification cannot take place without both water and desire.

Remember this teaching is dealing with adults. An infant cannot desire Baptism.
It’s like saying that “this shower cannot take place without water or the desire for it”. Can the shower take place without the water, obviously not. You need both. If this statement is saying what you say it is saying then it contradicts many other teachings in the council and the very next sentence where it says “as it is written, Unless a man…”

Isn’t that convenient? You avoid this massive problem in your argument by saying that this teaching applies only to adults, when there’s no evidence for this in the text. Where does the Council say that its teaching is intended only for adults?

If the Canon is meant as a universal statement, then “aut” cannot be understood as “and”, since an infant can’t desire baptism. The Council would be giving the absurd teaching that baptised infants are damned.

The only coherent interpretation is to say that this is a genuine either/or proposition. One must receive the sacrament of baptism or have desire to receive it.

 

[Dauphin]

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

In a Catechism which he himself issued. If you want something clearer, here is a statement from the post-Conciliar Saint Alphonsus Liguori:

“Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament.”

Will you call this Saint and Doctor of the Church, who was fully aware of the teaching of Trent, a heretic?

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.

It is most certainly part of the Ordinary Magisterium. It is also the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers.

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.

But of course, your interpretation of Trent would mean that infants must have the desire of baptism.

 

[Dauphin]

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.

Not at all. While Trent says that baptism is necessary for salvation, it clearly admits (in keeping with the constant teaching of the Church) that desire is sufficient for reception of that grace which the sacrament would ordinarily confer.

 

[jim28]

]Isn’t that convenient? You avoid this massive problem in your argument by saying that this teaching applies only to adults, when there’s no evidence for this in the text. Where does the Council say that its teaching is intended only for adults?

You obviously are not schooled in the art of common sense. Common sense tells us that this dogma is obviously only meant for adults since infants cannot desire it. The point is that the Sacrament is always necessary although with infants, the desire is not.

If the Canon is meant as a universal statement, then “aut” cannot be understood as “and”, since an infant can’t desire baptism.

This is meant as universal. That is why it said that the actual reception of the sacrament is necessary. Therefore, obliging all infants to receive Baptism as well.
If “aut” meant only or then the very next statement would not make sense, “AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5)”
The teaching would not be “As it is written”, it would be not as it is written. You would not need water as the teaching says, only a desire would suffice.

 

[jim28]

Not at all. While Trent says that baptism is necessary for salvation, it clearly admits (in keeping with the constant teaching of the Church) that desire is sufficient for reception of that grace which the sacrament would ordinarily confer.

How are we to have our original sin remitted without Baptism, when Trent clearly teaches it cannot be remitted without Baptism.

It’s quite amazing how you completely ignore dozens of other teachings and the very words of my Lord, and concentrate on a sentence you believe proves you right, which it doesn’t.
All the other teachings that I have provided, prove the Dogma is what it is, a no exceptions rule to becoming a member of the Catholic Church and the only way to have your original sin remitted.
Your heretical understanding of this dogma is contradicting the infallible magisterial statements I have cited.

 

[Dauphin]

You obviously are not schooled in the art of common sense. Common sense tells us that this dogma is obviously only meant for adults since infants cannot desire it. The point is that the Sacrament is always necessary although with infants, the desire is not.

Oh, I see… since there would otherwise be a fatal flaw in your argument, it’s just common sense that Trent’s teaching only applies to adults.

Maybe I should try invoking “common sense” whenever I get caught in an insurmountable contradiction.

This is meant as universal. That is why it said that the actual reception of the sacrament is necessary. Therefore, obliging all infants to receive Baptism as well.
If “aut” meant only or then the very next statement would not make sense, “AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5)”
The teaching would not be “As it is written”, it would be not as it is written. You would not need water as the teaching says, only a desire would suffice.

Seeing it as a definite either/or is the only way to make the Canon consistent with Catholic teaching. The Canon invokes Our Lord’s words to indicate that it does not in any way contradict them.

 

[Dauphin]

How are we to have our original sin remitted without Baptism, when Trent clearly teaches it cannot be remitted without Baptism.

That’s absolutely true. There is no salvation without baptism. It’s in what precisely this means where you’ve gone astray from the Church.

It’s quite amazing how you completely ignore dozens of other teachings and the very words of my Lord, and concentrate on a sentence you believe proves you right, which it doesn’t.
All the other teachings that I have provided, prove the Dogma is what it is, a no exceptions rule to becoming a member of the Catholic Church and the only way to have your original sin remitted.
Your heretical understanding of this dogma is contradicting the infallible magisterial statements I have cited.

I stand with the Doctors of the Church in my interpretation. You stand with a malcontent, excommunicated Jesuit. None of what you’ve quoted is irreconcilable with Baptism of Desire.