Baptism of Desire

[Yours_Truly]

You can’t separate the effect (spirit of sanctification and blood of redemption) from the Sacrament itself (water baptism). Baptism of Desire would indeed give someone the effect without the actual Sacrament. As anyone can see all three must be present for the Sacrament to take place.

The primary cause of grace is God; the intermediate cause is the sacrament. If the sacrament is performed correctly, the grace will flow from God. Although God binds Himself to act via the intermediate cause, He Himself can act without the intermediate cause, since He Himself is the primary cause.

St. Thomas: “Besides, since accidents result from the substantial principles of a thing, the agent who immediately produces the substance of a thing must be able immediately to cause, in relation to this thing, anything whatever that results from the thing’s substance. For instance, the generating agent, because it gives the form, gives all the properties and resultant motions. Now, we showed above that God, at the first establishment of things, brought all things immediately into being by creation. Therefore, He is able immediately to move anything to any effect without intermediate causes”.

God can produce the effect of baptism (grace in the soul) without the use of an intermediate cause (the sacrament itself).

Such a thing would only be impossible for God if it was a contradiction, which it is not. God, who is the cause of grace, can infuse grace into the soul without the use of the intermediate cause.

 

[DavidPalm]

The alleged quote from Card. Ratzinger is a hoax:

See angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6205 and scroll down to the posting by “Deacon Augustine”.

 

[Catholic_Martyr]

God can produce the effect of baptism (grace in the soul) without the use of an intermediate cause (the sacrament itself).

Such a thing would only be impossible for God if it was a contradiction, which it is not. God, who is the cause of grace, can infuse grace into the soul without the use of the intermediate cause.

Then why have sacraments? God instituted the Church and the sacraments, and they are necessary. He can do all things by virtue of His divinity, but He will not do something that would contradict His own words.

St. John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

The Sacred Synod of Trent confirms this, as do the dogmatic pronouncements of the Popes which are included in my blog from today (February 13, 2009).

 

[anjoh66]

Baptism of desire is actually against the infallible Magisterium. Please read my new blog for some of the details.

willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/02/no-salvation-outside-church-not-even-by.html

Hmm am I understanding your logic right?

You are saying that those souls who died waiting for their baptism are lost?
And that only through no fault of theirs?
They desire baptism but the church who is to administer the sacraments didnt see them ready to recieve it, so therefore they are lost.

 

[Yours_Truly]

Then why have sacraments?

Because they are the normal means. But that does not mean that God is unable to act outside of the general means He instituted.

God instituted the Church and the sacraments, and they are necessary. He can do all things by virtue of His divinity, but He will not do something that would contradict His own words.

You should read about the distinction between the general order and particular order. This would shed light on the subject.

St. John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

The Sacred Synod of Trent confirms this, as do the dogmatic pronouncements of the Popes which are included in my blog from today (February 13, 2009).

The Council of Trent explicitly mentions the desire for the sacrament. And based on the interpretation of that quote from Trent, and the Canon Apostolicam St. Alphonsus Ligouri, a Doctor of the Universal Church stated that Baptism of desire is de fide;

**St. Alphonsus: **"Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”

This means that, according to this universal doctor of the Church, you will be damned if you continue to deny baptism of desire.

That’s not me talking; that is a Doctor of the Universal Church. And you cannot be excused through ignorance since you are aware of, yet reject, this “de fide” teaching.

We have many saints in heaven who believed in baptism of desire. I know of no Pope who has ever explicitly taught against baptism of desire - and neither do the Dimond brothers who you probably follow.

According to the Dimond Brothers, there were 100 pre-Vatican II theological manuals (their number) that explicitly taught baptism of desire. When I asked them why no Pope has ever condemned this teaching, which was a common teaching of the Church so many centuries, they had no answer. Their only reply was that God sometimes allows errors to persist in the Church.

Yet nevertheless, even though no Pope has ever spoken against this common teaching of the Church, the Dimond brother do not scruple to maintain that holding to this common teaching of the Church constitutes formal heresy.

Baptism of desire was explicitly taught by St, Augustine, St, Thomas, St. Rober Bellarime and St. Alphonsus - all of whom are Doctors of the Church.

You can either listen to the Doctors of the Church, or the Dimond brothers. Hopefully you are smart enough to figure out who is more worthy of belief. These doctors were all aware of the magisterial quotes the Dimon Brothers use, yet they all maintained baptism of desire. Why? Because they understood the distinction between the general *order *and the particular order.

 

[Catholic_Martyr]

Hmm am I understanding your logic right?

You are saying that those souls who died waiting for their baptism are lost?
And that only through no fault of theirs?
They desire baptism but the church who is to administer the sacraments didnt see them ready to recieve it, so therefore they are lost.

You aren’t following my logic at all, but the Magisterium (if you accept what they have infallibly taught).

It is one thing to say I desire baptism, but entirely another to be of good will. Only God knows if the soul who receives baptism will ultimately persevere in the state of justification unto death, and since a worse punishment awaits those who receive the faith and betray it than those who never receive it, I would view this as a mercy on God’s part.

 

[Catholic_Martyr]

You can either listen to the Doctors of the Church, or the Dimond brothers. Hopefully you are smart enough to figure out who is more worthy of belief. These doctors were all aware of the magisterial quotes the Dimon Brothers use, yet they all maintained baptism of desire. Why? Because they understood the distinction between the general *order *and the particular order.

The Church has never accepted even the most holy and most eminent Doctor, and does not now accept even a single one of them, as the principal source of truth. The Church certainly considers Sts. Alphonsus, Thomas Aquinas and Augustine great Doctors, and she accords them the highest praise; but she recognizes infallibility only in the inspired authors of the Sacred Scriptures. By divine mandate, the interpreter and guardian of the Sacred Scriptures, depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation; she alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Ghost, is the source of truth

The Council of Trent Explicitly declare that water is necessary for baptism and baptism is necessary for salvation. It is infallible. The canon you cited is analogous to saying that a shower cannot take place without water or the desire to take a shower, or that a marriage cannot take place without a bride or a groom. Obviously it is stating that baptism may be attempted using water (matter) and the correct ceremony (form) but if the desire is not present either on the part of the parents or the catechumen (intention) then there is no sacrament that takes place.

In Trent’s Decree on Original Sin, they make a very explicit case to specifically bring up the exception for our Blessed Mother to their previous statement that all have sinned. So your argument does not hold water with Holy Mother Church.

General order and particular order? Why isn’t it in the Catholic Encyclopedia?

The decrees of the Popes are clear. Why look any further, unless you want to subvert the Faith?

 

[Yours_Truly]

The Council of Trent Explicitly declare that water is necessary for baptism and baptism is necessary for salvation. It is infallible. The canon you cited is analogous to saying that a shower cannot take place without water or the desire to take a shower, or that a marriage cannot take place without a bride or a groom. Obviously it is stating that baptism may be attempted using the proper matter (water) and form (ceremony) but if the desire is not present either on the part of the parents or the catechumen (intention) then there is no sacrament that takes place.

Show me any saint who ever gave that twisted interpretation the the quote from Trent (that OR actually means AND); or any one at all, for that matter, before the beginning of the Great Apostasy that we are living through. In other words, any theologian prior to Vatican II.

As the authority for my interpretation, I will again quote St. Alphonsus, a Universal Doctor of the Church:

St. Alphonsus: "Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”

And maybe you can also address the Canon Apostolicam.

General order and particular order? Why isn’t it in the Catholic Encyclopedia?

If you need some sources I’ll see what I can find for you.

 

[Catholic_Martyr]

Show me any saint who ever gave that twisted interpretation the the quote from Trent (that OR actually means AND); or any one at all, for that matter, before the beginning of the Great Apostasy that we are living through. In other words, any theologian prior to Vatican II.

As the authority for my interpretation, I will again quote St. Alphonsus, a Universal Doctor of the Church:

St. Alphonsus: "Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”

And maybe you can also address the Canon Apostolicam.

If you need some sources I’ll see what I can find for you.

Sources would be much appreciated, thank you.

If found the quote from St. Alphonsus where he supported baptism of desire:

St. Alphonsus Liguori: Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7: Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 (ed: the quote above) where it is said that no one can be saved "without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it…Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ.

What he fails to take into account (no I don’t think I am smarter or better than him, I am a miserable sinner) is that Jesus was already baptized by St. John the Baptist, who even questioned Him. Matthew 3:15 And Jesus answering, said to him: Suffer it to be so now. For so it becometh us to fulfill all justice.

So this sacrament instituted by God, was even insisted upon by God Himself. And we have John 3:5, which taken literally allows for no exceptions, and the Council of Trent infallibly tells us that we must take this verse as it is written.

Indeed there is a great Apostasy (the Arian crisis being a prefigurement of it, I believe), and it could not have been so if it were not for so many string pulling modernists who managed to destroy believe in the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus with the uncanonical ‘excommunication’ of Father Feeney, which was not even signed by Pope Pius XII. It was all downhill from there.

Consider the unfortunate schism of the Eastern Orthodox. The creed (which was still correct) omitted simply “and the Son” and when it was added for the purpose of clarification, it was enough for a huge population of Catholics to be lost in schism due to rejection of the Papal authority. God allows such things to reinforce our obedience to the Church, that is to submit our whole understanding to divinely revealed Truth.

Those of good will submit to the divinely revealed and infallible dogmas.

 

[AlanF]

The alleged quote from Card. Ratzinger is a hoax:

See angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6205 and scroll down to the posting by “Deacon Augustine”.

OK

Unfortunatly it seems to have spread throughout the internet posing as a true quote…

 

[FrRJBoyd]

OK

Unfortunatly it seems to have spread throughout the internet posing as a true quote…

It’s a shame, really, but short of making something up, those who deny baptism of blood/desire almost have to resort to fabrication of magisterial support because there really is none. Baptism of blood/desire is attested to by ample Patristic sources (Sts. Ambrose & Augustine), non-Patristic Doctors of the Church (Sts. Thomas Aquinas & Alphonsus Liguori), the Roman Martyology, the Roman breviary, the Council of Trent, and the Catechisms of Pope St. Pius X and the 1993 CCC. It’s bizarre that the Feeneyites insist that allowing for baptism of desire/blood runs counter to the necessity for Sacramental Baptism and the de fide proclamation that outside the Church there is no salvation. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Baptism of blood/desire is an exception, not a Sacrament, and if the mercy of God grants salvation --through the Church-- to those who desire Baptism and, through no fault of their own, die through martyrdom or some other means before they are able to be Baptized, why is this so hard to understand? If desire counts for nothing, what of a baby who dies Baptized, but without receiving First Holy Communion? Does not our Lord say in John 6 that “Unless you eat my Body and drink my Blood you have no life in you”? St. Thomas Aquinas says that there is implicit desire for Holy Communion when one is Baptized, so the child is saved, as the liturgy of the Church affirms in the funeral Mass for a Baptized child who dies before the use of reason. But why believe the Angelic Doctor and the liturgy of the Church on this and not on baptism of blood/desire? No longer will I believe the phrase that Fr. Feeney was condemned but never answered. Indeed, judging from his followers, he was answered, but simply wasn’t listening!

 

[anjoh66]

It’s a shame, really, but short of making something up, those who deny baptism of blood/desire almost have to resort to fabrication of magisterial support because there really is none. Baptism of blood/desire is attested to by ample Patristic sources (Sts. Ambrose & Augustine), non-Patristic Doctors of the Church (Sts. Thomas Aquinas & Alphonsus Liguori), the Roman Martyology, the Roman breviary, the Council of Trent, and the Catechisms of Pope St. Pius X and the 1993 CCC. It’s bizarre that the Feeneyites insist that allowing for baptism of desire/blood runs counter to the necessity for Sacramental Baptism and the de fide proclamation that outside the Church there is no salvation. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Baptism of blood/desire is an exception, not a Sacrament, and if the mercy of God grants salvation --through the Church-- to those who desire Baptism and, through no fault of their own, die through martyrdom or some other means before they are able to be Baptized, why is this so hard to understand? If desire counts for nothing, what of a baby who dies Baptized, but without receiving First Holy Communion? Does not our Lord say in John 6 that “Unless you eat my Body and drink my Blood you have no life in you”? St. Thomas Aquinas says that there is implicit desire for Holy Communion when one is Baptized, so the child is saved, as the liturgy of the Church affirms in the funeral Mass for a Baptized child who dies before the use of reason. But why believe the Angelic Doctor and the liturgy of the Church on this and not on baptism of blood/desire? No longer will I believe the phrase that Fr. Feeney was condemned but never answered. Indeed, judging from his followers, he was answered, but simply wasn’t listening!

Amen!

Very well said!
God bless You!

 

[FrRJBoyd]

It’s from the SSPX, but it’s a good article:

sspx.org/miscellaneous/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm

 

[Catholic_Martyr]

Fr. Feeney was condemned but never answered. Indeed, judging from his followers, he was answered, but simply wasn’t listening!

A condemnation has to be done within the bounds of canon law, yet this was not the case with Fr. Feeney. This should send alarms bells ringing. Pope Pius XII signed nothing.

Anyone who looks into the matter with good will and without bias is going to see that your are incorrect. How can you say that magesterial support is fabricated? It’s right there in front of you. Open Denzinger and read.

It’s from the SSPX, but it’s a good article:

Although I disagree with this person that John Paul II was a valid pope, he seems to have come up with a good article nevertheless.

cheetah.net/~ccoulomb/FeeneyismFAQ.html#4.%20But%20didnt%20certain%20Saints%20believe%20in%20Baptism%20of%20Desire%20including%20Ambrose,%20Augustine,%20and%20Aquinas

 

[FrRJBoyd]

Anyone who looks into the matter with good will and without bias is going to see that your are incorrect. How can you say that magesterial support is fabricated? It’s right there in front of you. Open Denzinger and read.

Although I disagree with this person that John Paul II was a valid pope, he seems to have come up with a good article nevertheless

Anyone who looks into the matter with good will and without bias should be able to see that Feeneyism is a unique position held only within the last century and within America alone, and that all of the so-called objections to baptism of desire/blood have been amply answered by through Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium, as pointed to within this thread. Since you identify yourself as a sedevacantist, you place yourself outside the Catholic Church; therefore, according to your own logic, how can you hope to be saved? I see no point in continuing to post on this thread, because it is rapidly deteriorating into that sort of useless argumentation that St. Paul warns against. You are in my prayers.

 

[anjoh66]

Anyone who looks into the matter with good will and without bias should be able to see that Feeneyism is a unique position held only within the last century and within America alone, and that all of the so-called objections to baptism of desire/blood have been amply answered by through Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium, as pointed to within this thread. Since you identify yourself as a sedevacantist, you place yourself outside the Catholic Church; therefore, according to your own logic, how can you hope to be saved? I see no point in continuing to post on this thread, because it is rapidly deteriorating into that sort of useless argumentation that St. Paul warns against. You are in my prayers.

Very well said.

The sedevacantists is a plague to the church, poisoning peoples minds.

All we can do is to pray for this person that he will open his eyes and come back to the right path.

 

[ron77nyc]

Very well said.

The sedevacantists is a plague to the church, poisoning peoples minds.

All we can do is to pray for this person that he will open his eyes and come back to the right path.

Pope Eugene IV infallibly declared baptism of desire is not acceptable for salvation.

Pope Eugene IV ( A.D. 1441 ) " The most Holy Roman Church believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatic’s cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart " into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" ( Matt. 25:21), unless before the end of life the same has been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fasting’s, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
" Cantata Domino" Council of Florence

 

[ron77nyc]

Very well said.

The sedevacantists is a plague to the church, poisoning peoples minds.

All we can do is to pray for this person that he will open his eyes and come back to the right path.

Pope Eugene IV infallibly declared baptism of desire is not acceptable for salvation.

Nver mind. I got my answer on another thread. He was talking about those who reject salvation not those who are ignorant of it.

 

[anjoh66]

Nver mind. I got my answer on another thread. He was talking about those who reject salvation not those who are ignorant of it.

It is a big difference between rejecting salvation and be ignorant about it

 

[FrRJBoyd]

Pope Eugene IV infallibly declared baptism of desire is not acceptable for salvation.

Pope Eugene IV ( A.D. 1441 ) " The most Holy Roman Church believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatic’s cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart " into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" ( Matt. 25:21), unless before the end of life the same has been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fasting’s, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
" Cantata Domino" Council of Florence

Your conclusion from the quote you provided is, quite simply, a non sequitur. Where does this quote say anything about Baptism of desire/blood? Or catechumens? Multiple magisterial statements in support of Baptism of desire/blood have already been quoted, or do you not accept Trent and the CCC? Why is this simple and merciful teaching so hard to accept? Baptism of blood/desire does not in any way negate the necessity of Baptism or the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. I just don’t understand the stubbornness of the Feeneyite position.