Council of trent: no baptism of desire

[JGC]

debtera:

unless you agree with your opponents, of course, since their fidelity to the Holy Father’s genuine meaning guarantees their correct understanding!

Rubbish. Read on.

1. The Process and Spirit of Drafting the Text

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the result of very extensive collaboration; it was prepared over six years of intense work done in a spirit of complete openness and fervent zeal.
In 1986, I entrusted a commission of twelve Cardinals and Bishops, chaired by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, with the task of preparing a draft of the catechism requested by the Synod Fathers. An editorial committee of seven diocesan Bishops, experts in theology and catechesis, assisted the commission in its work.
The commission, charged with giving directives and with overseeing the course of the work, attentively followed all the stages in editing the nine subsequent drafts. The editorial committee, for its part, assumed responsibility for writing the text, making the emendations requested by the commission and examining the observations of numerous theologians, exegetes and catechists, and above all, of the Bishops of the whole world, in order to produce a better text. In the committee various opinions were compared with great profit, and thus a richer text has resulted whose unity and coherence are assured.
The project was the object of extensive consultation among all Catholic Bishops, their Episcopal Conferences or Synods, and theological and catechetical institutes. As a whole, it received a broadly favorable acceptance on the part of the Episcopate. It can be said that this Catechism is the result of the collaboration of the whole Episcopate of the Catholic Church, who generously accepted my invitation to share responsibility for an enterprise which directly concerns the life of the Church. This response elicits in me a deep feeling of joy, because the harmony of so many voices truly expresses what could be called the "symphony" of the faith. The achievement of this Catechism thus reflects the collegial nature of the Episcopate; it testifies to the Church's catholicity.

scborromeo.org/ccc/aposcons.htm

 

[JGC]

Therefore, I ask all the Church’s Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Eph 3:8). It is meant to support ecumenical efforts that are moved by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians, showing carefully the content and wondrous harmony of the catholic faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pt 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.

scborromeo.org/ccc/aposcons.htm

 

[CatholicCrusade]

debtera:

Catholic Crusade and Marineboy,

You’re right, but don’t expect to convince anyone of it. You’re arguing with people who evidently think:

– that “Baptism is necessary” means “Baptism is required for those who have it, but not for those who lack it;”

– that it is possible to desire something you have never heard of;

– that is is possible to give implicit assent to something that you explicitly deny;

– that when the Fathers of the Council of Trent said one can be justified by desire of baptism, they were trying to say in their incompetent way that one may be saved by baptism of desire, since it’s obvious that “justification” and “salvation” are synonyms (right?);and

– that “baptism of desire” is surely the same thing as “desire of baptism,” (just as “the love of sin” is the same as the “sin of love”);

– and most important of all, that no one is competent to judge what the magisterium really teaches except the pope when he exercises his office as head of the magisterium, so you’ll always be wrong because you can’t understand his pronouncements – unless you agree with your opponents, of course, since their fidelity to the Holy Father’s genuine meaning guarantees their correct understanding!

LOL

 

[debtera]

Catholic Crusade,

I’m glad you appreciate it.

JCG,

Just so we’re clear – are you calling the lines of mine that you quoted (and that I obviously meant ironically) “rubbish” because you agree that the notion that I’m ridiculing IS rubbish, or because you actually hold to that notion yourself and are offended by my satirizing it? I suspect it’s the latter, and so my response, every bit as concise as yours, is “Piffle!”

I have “read on,” and what I found is an irrelevant passage from the Pope. Of course the Catechism is precisely what the Holy Father says it is: a valuable reference work, not a magisterial pronouncement. When we examine the actual documents of the magisterium to which the Catechism refers us, the phantoms of “baptism of desire” and “salvation outside the visible Catholic Church” vanish in a cloud of brimstone.
Merry and blessed Christmas

 

[JKirkLVNV]

debtera:

I have “read on,” and what I found is an irrelevant passage from the Pope. Of course the Catechism is precisely what the Holy Father says it is: a valuable reference work, not a magisterial pronouncement. When we examine the actual documents of the magisterium to which the Catechism refers us, the phantoms of “baptism of desire” and “salvation outside the visible Catholic Church” vanish in a cloud of brimstone.
Merry and blessed Christmas

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved June 25th last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.” Pope John Paul II.

 

[marineboy]

correction, the catholic crusader and i are both not correct… he is wrong because he says that water baptism and explicit faith are always necessary… i disagree with this as does the church… again the holy office in the father feeney case said faith that leads to salvation “need not always be explicit”… and trent, while it didnt affirm baprtism of desire it did affirm that one can be in the state of grace by explicit desire for baptism… if ur in the state of grace and u die u go to heaven… this is also contrary to feeney who said water baptism was absolutely necessary for salvation

 

[RSiscoe]

I am going to quote from the writings of St. Alphonsus Ligouri, who is one of only 33 doctors of the Church, and who lived after the council of Trent. According to St. Alphonsus, Baptism of desire, or “desire for Baptism” as it reads in the latin is a de fide dogma of the faith. St. Alphonsus taught that it was de fide based on Trent. In other words, according to this saint and doctor of the Church, Trent baptism of desire (or desire for baptism) is de fide.

St. Alphonsus: "Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water “fluminis”], of desire “flaminis” = wind] and of blood.
We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the Passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” “flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind “flamen”]. 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.”

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 “non ita stricte”] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view * is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.

It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ."

From stthomasaquinas.net/baptism.html*

 

[marineboy]

i have always firmly defended baptism of desire… i do think that trent was talking about desire for baptism in its decree on justification not baptism of desire , however ur quote from the saint aplphonsous sheds new light that maybe it can be said that trent meant both…if it can be it further refutes the feeney position… even if it meant explicit desire for baptism, which noone can deny, it refutes the feeney position because it says a person can be in the state of grace without water baptism…if u die in the state of grace u go to heaven this refuutes the feeney position that water baptism is always absolutely necessary…

 

[RSiscoe]

I am also going to quote a portion from the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which teaches that the baptism of an infant should not be delayed, but that of an adult should because “their intention and determination to receive Baptism… will avail them to grace and righteousness.”

CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

Baptism Of Infants Should Not Be Delayed

The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.

Baptism Of Adults

With regard to those of adult age who enjoy the perfect use of reason, persons, namely, born of infidel parents, the practice of the primitive Church points out that a different manner of proceeding should be followed. To them the Christian faith is to be proposed; and they are earnestly to be exhorted, persuaded and invited to embrace it.

They Should Not Delay Their Baptism Unduly

If converted to the Lord God, they are then to be admonished not to defer the Sacrament of Baptism beyond the time prescribed by the Church. For since it is written, delay not to be converted to the Lord, and defer it not from day to day, they are to be taught that in their regard perfect conversion consists in regeneration by Baptism. Besides, the longer they defer Baptism, the longer are they deprived of the use and graces of the other Sacraments, by which the Christian religion is practised, since the other Sacraments are accessible through Baptism only.

They are also deprived of the abundant fruits of Baptism, the waters of which not only wash away all the stains and defilements of past sins, but also enrich us with divine grace which enables us to avoid sin for the future and preserve righteousness and innocence, which constitute the sum of a Christian life, as all can easily understand.

Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once

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." END

Even the Catechism of Trent teaches baptism of desire (or desire of baptism). I think Traditional Catholics sometimes fall into error in the opposite way as the liberals. The liberals focus so much on the subjective that they end by denying the objective. As a reaction to this error, I think some Traditionalists fall into error in the other direction. We must keep the balance so that we “think with the Church”. Almost every Catechism you will find - going back to at least that of Trent - teaches three baptisms.

I do not believe the errors of our day (universal salvation, etc.) are rooted in the teaching of the “three baptisms”. I know it may seem like that, since the heretics (within) who teach these perverse doctrines use “baptism of desire” as the means by which those of false religions are “universally” saved. But the problem is not with baptism of desire, in and of itself, but with those who abuse it. The fault, therefore, is with those who abuse the doctrine, not with the doctrine. That is what I believe.

Probably the safest thing for us to do today (in our day of apostacy) is to read and study the Old Catechism of the Council of Trent, which was produced in a day when the faith was strong, and which is very clear and easy to understand.

 

[RSiscoe]

marineboy:

i have always firmly defended baptism of desire… i do think that trent was talking about desire for baptism in its decree on justification not baptism of desire , however ur quote from the saint aplphonsous sheds new light that maybe it can be said that trent meant both…if it can be it further refutes the feeney position… even if it meant explicit desire for baptism, which noone can deny, it refutes the feeney position because it says a person can be in the state of grace without water baptism…if u die in the state of grace u go to heaven this refuutes the feeney position that water baptism is always absolutely necessary…

Regarding Baptism of desire, vs. desire for Baptism. Personally, I usually use the term “baptism of desire” but mean “desire for baptism”. I read above where you made a distinction between the two. From what I gathered, you were saying that baptism of desire would not sufficient because it was too vague; and that one must actually intend to be baptized for it to suffice.

In one way I agree with you: It is not sufficient simply to “desire” baptism without making every effort to get baptized. If one only had a mere desire, but not the intent, then I would agree with you in saying that their mere “desire” would not suffice.

St. Alphonsus, and others, discuss two kinds of baptism of desire: implicit and explicit. Explicit pertains to the one who is aware of baptism. Such a person must not only “desire” it, but go even further by “intending” to receive it as soon as they are able. This desire and intent to receive the sacrament, combined with perfect contrition for past sins, can suffice to obtain the state of grace.

But they also discuss “implicit” baptism of desire, by which it is possible (although rare) that a person can even be “invincibly ignorant” (to use a very common word) of baptism, yet still gain the grace of the sacrament by an act of perfect charity. Such a person would have to have implicit faith, which means he would be so interiorly disposed as to believe the truth if it were presented to Him, combined with perfect contrition for past sins.

Obviously, all these “exceptions” to the general order deal with the most hidden parts of the human heart which only God knows. This is the area for God, not man. It may be alright to speculate over these things, but I really have a problem with allowing such minor issues to result in division. Lets be devided with the heretics and fight them; not each other over such minute details of speculative theology.

 

[debtera]

Marine Boy,

I’m sorry I wasn’t as clear as I should have been. You and Catholic Crusade are both right insofar as you agree that baptism is necessary for salvation. Where you disagree, though, is on the necessity of baptism with water, and here Catholic Crusade is right and you are mistaken. Desire of baptism can confer justification, as Trent teaches, but not salvation.

 

[RSiscoe]

debtera:

Marine Boy,

I’m sorry I wasn’t as clear as I should have been. You and Catholic Crusade are both right insofar as you agree that baptism is necessary for salvation. Where you disagree, though, is on the necessity of baptism with water, and here Catholic Crusade is right and you are mistaken. Desire of baptism can confer justification, as Trent teaches, but not salvation.

I have always found that statement a little strange. How can a person be justified (in the state of grace) and go to hell?

The Catechism of Trent (quoted above) says that the desire and intent to receive Baptism “will avail them to grace and righteousness.” Please explain how a person can die in the state of grace and be lost.

 

[debtera]

R Siscoe,

As we can see from the passages you’ve quoted, Trent clearly taught:

1. that apart from baptism with water, infants have no means of salvation. There is no question of salvation through an implicit desire on their part, or of the desire of their parents, or of a general desire of the Church. [It would be an unwarranted leap in logic, however, to conclude from this that for non-infants there is a means of salvation apart from baptism with water. And I should point out that this plain statement of the council directly contradicts the notion that St. Alphonsus or Suarez taught that baptism of blood avails for the salvation of infants.]
2. that adults (i.e., those who have acquired the use of reason) have the obligation of assenting to the truths of the faith before receiving baptism with water. Although they receive grace and the gift of justification, these are given proleptically, precisely in order to allow the recipients to participate in the sacrament more worthily; they presume the necessity of water, they don’t satisfy for the lack of it.
3. that adults who die before receiving the baptism they desire nevertheless benefit from the graces bestowed proleptically, including the remission of sins and justification. But the council does not teach that all who receive such graces are saved, only those who persevere to the end in obedience to the Savior’s commands and trust in his word; and no one can do this without receiving baptism with water, since the Lord has explicitly commanded this as the means of entering the kingdom of heaven.

And here the teaching of Suarez and St. Alphonsus illuminates the council’s meaning: just as unbaptized infants who suffer martyrdom receive remission of original sin and an infusion of grace but still do not enter the kingdom of heaven, so unbaptized adults who sincerely desire baptism but are prevented from receiving it through no fault of their own [if such a thing is possible, and I’m not persuaded it is] are consigned to the upper regions of hell, where the punishment is the lightest.

That this goes against the justice and goodness of God – because it means he arbitrarily supplies baptism (and consequently salvation) to some who desire it and withholds it from others – is not a valid objection; for if it were, it would apply also to the case of infants who die without baptism – their sole means of salvation according to the council. If one were to argue that the case is different with adults because they are capable of willing to receive the sacrament, I reply: first, that God is not obliged in justice to grant anything to us according to our desires; second, that to assign the human will such a decisive role in salvation that the physical sign of the sacrament becomes merely accidental and in some cases dispensed with altogether seems to go against an incarnational theology of the sacraments.

 

[debtera]

R Siscoe,

Sorry! I type very slowly, and my last post wasn’t intended as an answer to your question, which I didn’t see until now. But I think you can see what I mean from what I’ve posted. Desire for baptism may bestow the grace of justification, but there’s no reason to think anyone who receives it this way and fails to be baptized (for whatever reason) remains in a state of justification until death. On the other hand there’s very good reason to believe no one does: “Unless a man be baptized with water … he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

 

[RSiscoe]

debtera:

1. that apart from baptism with water, infants have no means of salvation. There is no question of salvation through an implicit desire on their part, or of the desire of their parents, or of a general desire of the Church… And I should point out that this plain statement of the council directly contradicts the notion that St. Alphonsus or Suarez taught that baptism of blood avails for the salvation of infants.

I agree. I believe it was the Council of Florence that dogmatically stated that unbaptized infants are lost. In the quote from St. Alphonsus, we see that the reason for the speculation of martyrdon for unbaptized infants, is due to the Holy Innocents. I personally believe what is recorded in the revelations of Ven. Mary of Agreda’s “Mystical City of God”, which states that the Holy Innocents, were given the use of reason, as a special gift, which allowed them to accepted martyrdom, since they were dying, in a sense, “for Christ”. Thus, they were martyrs because they willingly accepted it, having been given the use of reason.

debtera:

that adults (i.e., those who have acquired the use of reason) have the obligation of assenting to the truths of the faith before receiving baptism with water. Although they receive grace and the gift of justification, these are given proleptically, precisely in order to allow the recipients to participate in the sacrament more worthily; they presume the necessity of water, they don’t satisfy for the lack of it.

Ordinarily no ones receives the grace of baptism proleptically before receiving the sacrament. It is the sacrament that gives the grace, not the anticipation of the sacrament. However, in the unfortunate event that a person dies before they are able to receive it, and if they have both the desire and intention of receiving it, as you admit, they can obtain the grace of the sacrament - you have admited that desire for the sacrament can give the grace of the sacrament proleptically.

Now, a person who has received “the grace of the sacrament of baptism” - i.e. sanctifying grace - will not lose it without commiting a mortal sin. That much is obvious. Therefore, if a person dies before receiving baptism; and if, as the Catechism of Trent teaches, “their intention and determination to receive baptism…avail(s) them to grace and righteousness”, then it is clear that they would be saved.

Once again I would point out that normally a person does not receive sanctifying grace without water baptism. We both agree on that. But Trent teaches that a person who has the desire and intent to receive baptism, combined with repentance from past sins, will receive “grace and righteousness” if they should die. This shows that grace was comminicated outside of the normal means, because of the special circumstance. That is worth pointing out, because it shows something occurring which normally does not take place: viz, the grace of the sacrament was received without the person actually receiving the sacrament.

debtera:

“that adults who die before receiving the baptism they desire nevertheless benefit from the graces bestowed proleptically, including the remission of sins and justification. But the council does not teach that all who receive such graces are saved…”

True, but in this we only need a basic understanding of theology. Firstly, we are both in agreement that the person receives sanctifying grace without baptism of water. Now we know that a person who dies in a state of grace is saved; we also know that a person in the state of grace will remain so, unless they commit a mortal sin. Since the person received the grace of the sacrament, we must agree that they will be saved if they die before commiting a mortal sin. Therefore, you must admit the theoretical possibility that a person can be saved without actually recieving water baptism. This would explain why The Council of Trent taught that no one will be saved “without the washing of regeneration [Baptism] or the desire of it” - the “it” obviously referring to Baptism.

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

1. We both admit that one can receive the grace of the sacrament without actually receiving the sacrament.
2. We also both know that no one falls from grace without commiting a mortal sin.

Therefore, since a person who dies in the state of grace is saved, why not admit the possibility that a person can be saved without baptism, if they receive “grace and righteousness” through their “desire of” baptism?

Then, if we accept this theoretic possibility, we will not have to reject all of the Catechisms that explicitly teach Baptism of desire, such as, the “penny Catechism” of Pope St. Pius X, the old Baltimore Catechsims, and many many more.

As you know, almost every Catechism teaches the three Baptism.

What will happen if it turns out that some people are saved by Baptism of desire, when those who preached against it - and rejected so many Catechism - have to stand before God on judgment day? What will they say when they have to answer to God? But the Diamond brothers seemed so certain about it!" I don’t think that will be good enough.

And I am not aware of any canonized saints who preached specifically against “Baptism of desire”, yet I know of MANY who both believed in it and taught it. Therefore, I feel very secure in believing what so many saints have believed, and so many Catechisms have taught.

debtera:

Desire for baptism may bestow the grace of justification, but there’s no reason to think anyone who receives it this way and fails to be baptized (for whatever reason) remains in a state of justification until death.

Then why would God have given them the grace in such a special way (without the sacrament)? What was the purpose?

debtera:

On the other hand there’s very good reason to believe no one does: “Unless a man be baptized with water … he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

True, but don’t forget “unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink His blood you shall have no life in you”.

What happens to those who die before making their first communion? Are they lost?

And one minor point is that Jesus did not say “unless a man be baptized with water”, in John 3. What he said was “unless a man be born again”. How are we born again? By receiving “grace and righteousness”, which the Catechism of Trent says we can receive without baptism of water.

Catechism 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…; 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.”

God Bless

 

[RSiscoe]

One more point: In the above quote from the Catechims of Trent, it says that infants are to be baptized immediately, but adult baptism can be delayed because: “delay [in adult baptism] is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants”.

But if water baptism is just as necessary for the salvation of the adult as it is for the infant, that makes no sense. Afterall, if “grace and righteousness” will not save the person, then there is “the same danger as in the case of infants”, which is the exact opposite of what the Catechism says.

Actually, it would be worse for the adult. According to St. Thomas, and others, an infant who dies in original sin will go to the upper regions of hell, which is described as place of “natural happiness”, with no “pain of sense”; but if the adult were to die without sanctifying grace, he would go to the hell of fire.

Therefore, if the desire for baptism could not attain salvation for the adult, it would seem more necessary to baptise adults immediately, since they would suffer the fires of hell, whereas the infant would be in a state of natural happiness.

How do you explain that portion of the Catechism?

 

[debtera]

R Siscoe,

I’ll try to answer as many as I can of the excellent points you’ve raised, but this will take me a while – my job is taking more of my time than usual these days.

First, I’d like to address this objection: you asked what would be the point of granting graces proleptically to individuals who God foreknows will not receive baptism. It seems to me this is no different from asking what would be the point;

a)of granting the sacrament of baptism to individuals who God foreknows will not persevere in grace, or

b)of allowing the conception of infants who God foreknows will die before receiving baptism.

In these last two cases, God’s apparent motive is at odds with his will to save all of us, since a) leaves the individual in a worse situation than if he had never heard of baptism at all, and b) leaves the infants without any means of salvation whatsoever. I’d be interested in seeing your comments on these situations.

 

[RSiscoe]

debtera:

R Siscoe,

I’ll try to answer as many as I can of the excellent points you’ve raised, but this will take me a while – my job is taking more of my time than usual these days.

First, I’d like to address this objection: you asked what would be the point of granting graces proleptically to individuals who God foreknows will not receive baptism. It seems to me this is no different from asking what would be the point;

a)of granting the sacrament of baptism to individuals who God foreknows will not persevere in grace, or

b)of allowing the conception of infants who God foreknows will die before receiving baptism.

In these last two cases, God’s apparent motive is at odds with his will to save all of us, since a) leaves the individual in a worse situation than if he had never heard of baptism at all, and b) leaves the infants without any means of salvation whatsoever. I’d be interested in seeing your comments on these situations.

In the two cases you mentioned, we have a cause and effect situation: The cause producing the natural effect. The effect of a valid baptism is “grace and regeneration” as well as the character being imprinted on the soul. The very purpose of baptism is the regeneration of the soul.

Similarly with conception: The reason for marital relation is to produce children. Thus conception is the natural result of marital relations: the cause produced the natural effect.

But if a person receives “grace and righteousness” without actually receiving the sacrament of baptism, God is working outside of the general order.

In the cases you provided we see the natural consequence of an action - the cause producing its natural (or supernatural) effect.
But with “baptism of desire” (or desire for baptism) we do not have the natural cause/ effect. Instead of baptism producing “grace and righteousness” we see the desire for baptism producing the effect. This is outside the general order.

So my question was, why would God act outside of the general order in communicating grace in this way - without the sacrament?

 

[debtera]

R Siscoe,

The explanation Ven.Mary of Agreda gives for the salvation of the Holy Innocents is interesting in a couple of ways. First of all, it shows that neither she nor her spiritual advisors saw them as an example of baptism of blood. It’s always been my understanding that they are to be grouped with the Old Testament righteous, like the Holy Maccabees, and that their situation doesn’t address the question of baptism’s necessity since its promulgation by the Savior and the inception of the New Covenant in his Blood. Second, it seems remarkably like Luther’s proposed explanation of how baptized children who die before the age of reason are able to make the (to him) necessary explicit act of faith in Christ as Savior.

I apologize for dissecting your posts in this way, but what you’ve written in posts # 54 and #55 raises a few points that are best answered in this piecemeal fashion.

Ordinarily no one receives the grace of baptism proleptically.

What do you mean by the “grace of baptism” here? There is no question that God grants graces prior to any desire on our part – it’s only by virtue of his grace that we are capable of any good action at all, including the desire for grace. In this sense, then, any desire for baptism or any action of our wills ordered toward the reception of the sacrament is evidence of actual graces given proleptically. Whether the grace of justification differs from sanctifying grace, and if so how, is not relevant at this point, but it appears to be common teaching that these are also given proleptically at least sometimes. And I do mean proleptically, in anticipation of the actual reception of the sacrament, not simply at some point after which baptism is supposed to occur but may not for some reason or other.

These, however, are not what I meant by the grace of baptism. Although it’s true that baptism imparts sanctifying grace, so do all the other sacraments when received worthily; baptism justifies, but so do the sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction. The unique grace of Baptism is that it opens the gates of the kingdom of heaven by rebirth as a member of the Mystical Body of the one Man who is able to ascend to heaven (John 3:13). And it’s this unique grace that is available only through baptism with water. So you have misunderstood me when you thought that I … have admitted that desire for the sacrament can give the grace of the sacrament proleptically.

*1. We both admit that no one can receive the grace of the sacrament without actually receiving the sacrament. *[Yes, although, it appears we mean different things by this, as I’ve explained above. And it surprises me to see you state this; above you said that “ordinarily” no one receives the grace of baptism proleptically. Are you now saying that everyone who is granted sanctifying grace and justification actually does receive baptism before death? ]

1. *We also know that no one falls from grace without committing a mortal sin. *

• Therefore, since a person who dies in a state of grace is saved, why not admit the possibility that a person can be saved without baptism … ?*

Huh? Instead of concluding that your first premiss is wrong, why don’t you see this as an argument for what I’ve been saying all along: that no one dies in a state of grace who has not received the sacrament of baptism?

Then if we accept this theoretical possibility, we will not have to reject all of the Catechisms that explicitly teach Baptism of desire.

No, we won’t, but we will have to reject the Gospel of St. John, the dogmatic definitions on the necessity of baptism with water for salvation, and any catechisms that have taught rightly on this doctrine.

You have suggested a parallel between the necessity of baptism and the necessity of the Eucharist. You’re right that the Church has never interpreted “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man …” to mean that Communion is absolutely necessary for salvation. But the requirement to receive the Body and Blood presupposes membership in the Church; what one member lacks can be supplied by the other members in union with the Head, so that the desire to obey, or even the will to obey implicit in continuing membership, is sufficient when actual fulfillment is impossible to an individual. The same can’t be said in the case of baptism, since membership in the Mystical Body is precisely what the unbaptized person lacks

I was quoting the Gospel from memory, but as you say, St. John does speak of being born “again” [or “from above”]. He also says however, in response to Nicodemus’s asking how this could be possible: “Amen, amen I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.”

[to be continued]