Did the Council of Trent teach Baptism of Desire?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jacobmr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jacobmr

Guest
I joined this site because I struggled to find more info on a debate I had with another Christian and got stuck here. He insisted Baptism of Desire contradicted Church infallible teaching so I referred to the Council of Trent Session 6 Chp. 4 which reads:

"A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And 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."

He responded with a note that “or” means “and” in this situation, meaning this passage was meant to mean that the desire for Baptism was just as necessary as Water (which I don’t dispute on its own, just when it’s applied here) and “as it is written” means it must be explicit in reference to John 3:5: literal in meaning Water was always necessary as opposed to Baptism of Desire or Blood where Water is not necessarily used.

I answered with a source from St Alphonsus at the time that pointed to Trent as being explicit in that it meant Baptism of Desire as a doctrine. I did this for a primary source is usually offered to help clarify historical documentation to understand how it was understood at the time. His response was that the meaning of the magisterium does not matter, only the explicit declaration and the Holy Spirit withheld a more clear definition to keep them from teaching heresy. I found this ironic because Feeneyism suggests to me double-predestination because it logically concludes God creates some men for damnation. So it’s important to reconcile if indeed the Church taught heresy or not.
 
Attached please find an article from Catholic Answers that covers the Baptism of Desire:


Apparently the concept of the Baptism of Desire goes back further than Trent. This from the article:

This is something the Church has always been aware of. For example, in A.D. 256, Cyprian of Carthage stated of catechumens who are martyred before baptism, “They certainly are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism who are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood, concerning which the Lord also said that he had ‘another baptism to be baptized with’ (Luke 12:50)” (Letters 72 [73]:22).

It also talks about Trent:

Canon four of Trent’s Canons on the Sacraments in General states, “If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them . . . men obtain from God the grace of justification, let him be anathema [i.e., ceremonially excommunicated].”

This is confirmed in chapter four of Trent’s Decree on Justification, which states that “This translation [i.e., justification], however, cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration [i.e., baptism] or its desire, as it is written: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5).”

Trent teaches that, although not all the sacraments are necessary for salvation, the sacraments in general are necessary. Without them or the desire of them men cannot obtain the grace of justification, but with them or the desire of them men can be justified. The sacrament through which we initially receive justification is baptism. But since the canon teaches that we can be justified with the desire of the sacraments rather than the sacraments themselves, we can be justified with the desire for baptism rather than baptism itself.

I don’t know if this article will be enough for you to go back to your friend or not, but
I hope it helps.

Blessings
 
I actually used to be a Feeneyite myself and have done extensive research on this very topic, so please feel free to ask if you need any further information, especially if it regards a technicality.

As to their disputing the and/or in Trent, this is usually done by more radical types who insist no one can ever even receive baptism of desire, i.e. receive the grace of justification prior to reception of baptism. Less radical Feeneyites will generally accept “or” as a translation because they admit a person can receive baptism of desire but insist no one can be saved by it.

All kinds of Feenyism are erroneous, but Feenyites don’t technically hold to double-predestination. They insist that God gives everyone a chance to receive actual baptism of water at some point in their lives and will not deny it to those who are striving to live a good life. So for a Feeneyite, if a person does not receive actual water baptism it will be through that person’s own fault.

Baptism of desire hasn’t been established as a formally defined dogma unfortunately. The strongest argument to prove that baptism of desire is neither heresy nor optional for belief is from the fact of its being consistently taught for centuries and never censured by the Church in any way. The teaching that people could be saved through baptism of desire remained literally undisputed by all Catholic theologians from the time of Thomas Aquinas in the 1200s until Father Leonard Feeney disputed it in the 1950s. To this day I have been unable to find a single theologian who took issue with baptism of desire in that entire 700 year period. Saints like Robert Bellarmine and Alphonsus Liguori clearly regarded it as not being optional for belief. Saint Alphonsus even said it was de fide. Ascribing de fide to it was his personal opinion, but the book in which he stated that opinion received full Vatican approval. To be a Feeneyite, you have to believe the Vatican approved of a book that said an error was de fide, and also approved of numerous other theology manuals that said this same error was fidei proxima (close to being a dogma of faith). You also have to believe that somehow a divinely instituted Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit allowed an error free reign for literally centuries. It’s absurd and sad to be honest.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top