Salvation outside the church

[japhy]

But what of the line, “whether or not one places hope in it”?

A person can observe a religious ritual without actually thinking it’s efficacious in any way, shape, or form. A person who observes Abrahamaic circumcision as a religious ritual, regardless of whether they think it’s necessary for faith or not, is the target of that statement. Besides, medicinal circumcision nowadays is way different from Old Covenant circumcision.

 

[Sure]

A person can observe a religious ritual without actually thinking it’s efficacious in any way, shape, or form. A person who observes Abrahamaic circumcision as a religious ritual, regardless of whether they think it’s necessary for faith or not, is the target of that statement. Besides, medicinal circumcision nowadays is way different from Old Covenant circumcision.

Still seems like circumcision of any variety should not be done. After all were there Catholics practicing Abrahamaic circumcision in the 1400’s? Or was the Pope just speaking of circumcision?

 

[japhy]

Still seems like circumcision of any variety should not be done. After all were there Catholics practicing Abrahamaic circumcision in the 1400’s? Or was the Pope just speaking of circumcision?

It sounds like there were some who were practicing ( = observing religiously) circumcision. The necessities of the Old Covenant were replaced by those of the New Covenant.

 

[GerardP]

I think you are.

You think incorrectly.

Oh, yes…I noticed that too.

So, how is an admitted side note, a red herring? Especially when I’m more than willing to argue the point that water is necessary for Baptism.

Gerard, you are the liberal here…you are no different that the dissident theologians being corrected by Pope Pius IX in Tuas Libenter and addressed by Cardinal Manning!

No, I’m not. I’m not feeling the need to add fallible qualfiers to infallible definitions.

You “clarified nothing”…you have interpreted Trent for yourself and told us that St. Alphonsus, Doctor of the Church, was wrong. Can’t you see how silly that makes you look?

You are seriously confused. I clarified the distinction between the time when Baptism was instituted and when Baptism became obligatory. What is it, 5 times now?

St. Alphonsus’ proof was no proof. He is capable of being wrong or is your appeal to authority fallacy preventing you from admititng it? Or do you think Saints are perfect?

Yes, it was. It is how man gains sanctifying grace in the normal economy of salvation. You’ve quoted Pope Pius XII for us several times…I’ll quote him here:

You are equating an address to Italian midwives with multiple infallible definitions from the Magisterium? Guess what? Even Popes can be wrong on this tricky issue. Once again, you make the infallible subordinate to the fallible. You seem to think "because a Pope said it. " It’s magisterial. It’s HOW a Pope says something that determines it’s magisterial weight.

You don’t need metaphysical certitude…moral certitude will suffice.

I don’t have certitude about the exact numbers. I mean, we are not talking “total unanimity” but are we talking a simple majority? What percentage makes the difference? What other hoops do you want me to jump through while you avoid my questions and don’t address the fact that your premise of the fallible interpreting the infallible is modernist nonsense?

St. Alphonsus TAUGHT IT AS DE FIDE! He is a Doctor of the Church and he and all the other theologians for the last 500 years have taught this as well. Why do you think YOU understand Trent better that he does?

Thanks to St. Thomas Aquinas, I understand the Eucharist far better than St. Augustine. The Church has also not adopted Aquinas on certain issues but on those that have an infallible stamp of approval, I have the benefit of greater understanding than Augustine. St. Alphonsus’ argument has not been magisterially approved. Like Limbo, it is not a revealed doctrine. Unlike Limbo, it doesn’t hold together dogmatically.

What? For a Doctor of the Church to cite a Council correctly it would need to be an infallible declaration?

Oh I get it. Only fallible Doctors of the Church (who didn’t know they were Doctors of the Church or Saints at the time ) are free to interpret infallible definitions. No one else is allowed to read the plain definition and understand it as the Church defined it. It has to be redefined by a fallible authority.

And you’re off your rocker.

Nice. Getting a little desperate I see.

It was a censure of individual theologians who disregarded the common teaching of theologians. Those things that are “theologically certain” or “proximate to the faith” were being denied by the liberal theologians who were doing exactly what you are doing here. That is what would be funny…if it wasn’t so serious.

Here you go again. Adding your own qualifications where it suits you. It wasn’t that they were disregarding the “common consent of theologians” No. Pius XII said," It is also true that theologians must always return to the sources of divine revelation: for it belongs to them to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition." Baptism of Desire and Blood is not a Divine Revelation. It is not a part of Tradition with a capital “T”

Pius XII is censuring those individuals, theologians included, who were abandoning the teaching of the Church. He is not condemning the common consent of theologians…which is part of the teaching of the Church that is binding on us, as Pius IX clearly teaches in Tuas Libenter.

Pius XII didn’t make exceptions in his pronouncement for “theologians” desperate to cop infallibility that God only gave to the Magisterium.

And Again, you misread Pius IX in Tuas Libenter:

"For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith."

It’s not to be held because theologians hold it. It’s held because it’s been taught and handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary (magisterial) teaching power of the Church. Theologians must hold to it. Again Baptism of Desire is not divinely revealed nor endorsed by the Magisterium of the Church.

Do you know what the Magisterium is?

 

[Sure]

It sounds like there were some who were practicing ( = observing religiously) circumcision. The necessities of the Old Covenant were replaced by those of the New Covenant.

I would say observing circumcision while not believing that it has religious significance would be exactly what circumcision is and it is condemned here by Pope Eugene. It seems you’re splitting hairs in an effort to allow for a condemned practice.

 

[japhy]

I would say observing circumcision while not believing that it has religious significance would be exactly what circumcision is and it is condemned here by Pope Eugene. It seems you’re splitting hairs in an effort to allow for a condemned practice.

Except that circumcision has acquired a completely non-religious meaning in the West. It’s done for medicinal purposes. And as explained before, the act itself has changed considerably.

I was circumcised as an infant. My parents did not observe a legal prescription of the Old Testament, they had a medical procedure performed on me. Not because it was once done by Israel (whether or not it is efficacious now) but because it was a medical procedure that was common in the US at the time.

If the act of circumcision cannot be detached from the ritual, then how can the act of being washed in water be detached from the ritual of baptism? Medicinal circumcision is entirely non-religious.

 

[fhansen]

Except that circumcision has acquired a completely non-religious meaning in the West. It’s done for medicinal purposes. And as explained before, the act itself has changed considerably.

It seems that historical context, including the Popes’ target audience, would play a part in correctly understanding the statements about circumcision as well as those concerned with the connection between salvation and a person’s relationship to the Church. I think this points to the fact that only the Church, herself, can be depended upon to accurately know and convey the meaning of Church documents, whether they be scripture, conciliar docs, papal bulls, or whatever.

 

[DustinsDad]

… It could be the case (certainly not always) that a man of a protestant community holds something that is contrary to the Catholic Faith but does not know that it is contrary. …In other words a man cannot be guilty of denial or obstinate doubt of something that he does not know is taught by the Church.

In which case he would be a material heretic but not a *formal *heretic. I think those are that’s the correct terminology.

DustinsDad

 

[Miles_Mariae]

And Again, you misread Pius IX in Tuas Libenter:

"For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith."

I have to agree. The argument that “theologians teach this so it must be true” seems to be reading Tuas Libenter backwards. The Magisterium’s teaching causes theologians to hold a certain belief, not the other way around.

 

[SFD]

GerardP:

And Again, you misread Pius IX in Tuas Libenter:

“For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.”

GerardP,

Where did you get the above quote?

The below is found in Denzinger #1684.

“But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” Tuas Libenter (1863), Denz. 1684.

Gerard, can you tell us what a theological note is? And also, what a theological censure is?

SFD

 

[japhy]

GerardP,

Where did you get the above quote?

From Denz 1683.

 

[SFD]

GerardP:

SFD:

Yes, it was. It is how man gains sanctifying grace in the normal economy of salvation. You’ve quoted Pope Pius XII for us several times…I’ll quote him here:
Pope Pius XII:

If what We have said up to now deals with the protection and the care of natural life, it should hold all the more in regard to the supernatural life which the newly born infant receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism

; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open.
You are equating an address to Italian midwives with multiple infallible definitions from the Magisterium? Guess what? Even Popes can be wrong on this tricky issue.

GerardP,

Now you are claiming that Pope Pius XII, who was himself a great theologian, also “misread” Trent!

He (and all the other sources I’ve quoted) understands Trent…it is you who do not understand it.

If your understanding is so obvious from a reading of Trent…why do you call it a “tricky issue”?

SFD

 

[SFD]

From Denz 1683.

And that deals with the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium…how does quoting Dz.1683 negate what is stated in Dz.1684?

SFD

 

[SFD]

Good post…it does seem though that one must reject a position put forward by the Church in order to be a heretic. It could be the case (certainly not always) that a man of a protestant community holds something that is contrary to the Catholic Faith but does not know that it is contrary. Such a case would not be a rejection of the truth and would not be heresy. In other words a man cannot be guilty of denial or obstinate doubt of something that he does not know is taught by the Church.

Sure,

All are bound by divine law to enter the Catholic Church. Only invincible ignorance can excuse from grave sin anyone who fails to do so. Those who are invincibly ignorant of the duty of joining the Church will not be held guilty by God of failing to do so. But they are not therefore to be considered automatically in the way of salvation. If they fail to observe the natural law engraved on their consciences and the divine positive law insofar as it is known to them, they will certainly be lost.

Nor is fidelity to his conscience enough for the salvation of such a person. Salvation is a supernatural good which can be obtained only by living the supernatural life - it is never a reward for merely natural virtue. Now actual grace is freely distributed by God to all men, but sanctifying grace, the supernatural life, is found exclusively in the supernatural society founded by God. The state of grace exists, to be sure, in some persons who are not visibly united with the Church in her external communion, but only because they are, in fact, already within her in voto - by desire. For the state of grace, or supernatural life, is what salvation depends on. And if it were possible to possess supernatural life outside the Church, the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church would be false.

Nor is this a mere matter of precept to which exceptions may exist. The necessity for salvation of belonging to the Church is a necessity of means. And whereas invincible ignorance excuses from guilt, it does not supply the want of a necessary means. Those who failed to clamber aboard Noah’s Ark were all drowned in the Flood, irrespective of whether this failure was due to invincible ignorance or not. Does it follow that God will punish by deprival of salvation those who were guilty of no sin by their failure to join the Church? It does not. Anyone who is invincibly ignorant of the duty to enter the Church, but faithfully obeys the dictates of conscience, will receive the supernatural enlightenment necessary to enable him to make an act of supernatural faith. If he co-operates with actual grace by making this act, he can proceed to the act of hope and the act of charity, thereby acquiring the state of sanctifying grace - supernatural life. In this case he is united with the Catholic Church by desire (which remains partly implicit), for by faith he believes whatever God has revealed (even if he knows very little of what that revelation contains) and by charity he desires to accomplish the will of God (though he does not realise that this implies joining the Catholic Church.)

Invincible ignorance is neither a sacrament nor a virtue: it cannot therefore sanctify or save. It simply excuses the breach of the law of which one is invincibly ignorant. The faith which is absolutely necessary for salvation is a supernatural virtue moving one to believe firmly all that God has revealed, and is explicit as to the essential articles listed above. It cannot be replaced by Protestant “faith” meaning the impious and unjustified conviction that one’s sins are forgiven (Dz. 802), or by natural knowledge of God’s existence, or by mere opinion as to supernatural truths; nor can it be a faith having no object - it is necessary to believe what God has in fact revealed. What is necessary for salvation by necessity of means admits of no substitute, excuse or exception. Ignorance thereof is always either sinful in itself or permitted by God in consequence of other sins against one’s conscience. What is necessary by precept, but not by necessity of means, admits exceptions in the case of invincible ignorance. God may allow exceptions to positive law, but not to dogma.

Thus it is not in every case absolutely necessary for salvation to be within the visible communion of the Catholic Church, but it is absolutely necessary to share the Church’s faith and to be united with her at least in voto.

SFD

 

[GerardP]

GerardP,

Now you are claiming that Pope Pius XII, who was himself a great theologian, also “misread” Trent!

Here you go again. You don’t seem to care at all about the content of a statement. All you care about it that they agree with your agenda.

Yes or no, Was Pope Pius XII protected from error when he made his address to midwives?

Does the address to the midwives have the same theological note as an infallible definition? Yes or NO?

Why do you insist on subordinating the infallible to the fallible? I’ve asked this several times and you keep running away from it.

He (and all the other sources I’ve quoted) understands Trent…it is you who do not understand it.

You say that, but you can’t seem to find any counter argument of the same magisterial weight. All you find are the pious and erroneous opinions of great men who were sympathetic to the idea of non-Catholics fate and fudged their thinking in the process.

If your understanding is so obvious from a reading of Trent…why do you call it a “tricky issue”?

Because so many smart and pious men have succumbed to this error. A clever theological twisting of words that ultimately undermines the faith and the Church is the result of emotional wish fulfillment. Smart men are often trapped in snares like this. This leads to the ultimate rationalizers like Rahner, Chardin, DuLubac, Balthazar, Kung etc.

There’s a lesson to be learned in why the Shepherds didn’t have to go far to find Christ, yet the Wise Men had to engage in a dangerous journey.

 

[SFD]

Here you go again. You don’t seem to care at all about the content of a statement. All you care about it that they agree with your agenda.

And what would you say my agenda is, GerardP?

GerardP:

Yes or no, Was Pope Pius XII protected from error when he made his address to midwives?

The correct question is rather…did he teach an error here? He did not. Was he defining baptism of desire? No, of course not.

GerardP:

Does the address to the midwives have the same theological note as an infallible definition? Yes or NO?

Address to Midwives is an allocution…it is not an infallible definition. St. Alphonsus gave “Baptism of Desire” the note “de fide”. Others at least call it “proximate to the faith”. It is a mortal sin to deny it.

Do you think we need only submit our intellects to infallible definitions? That is the very error spoken of by Cardinal Manning and addressed by Pope Piux IX in Tuas Libenter.

Pius IX said, “it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church…”

GerardP:

Why do you insist on subordinating the infallible to the fallible? I’ve asked this several times and you keep running away from it.

I’m not. The infallibility of the Church is what tells us that things “theologically certain” are true Catholic doctrines. You must submit your intellect to these teachings. That is what Pius IX is telling us in Tuas Libenter (Dz. 1684).

Read it again, Gerard.

“But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” Tuas Libenter (1863), Denz. 1684.

GerardP:

You say that, but you can’t seem to find any counter argument of the same magisterial weight. All you find are the pious and erroneous opinions of great men who were sympathetic to the idea of non-Catholics fate and fudged their thinking in the process.

The Church’s own theologians disagree with you…why do you think you are infallible as an individual reading Trent? You have NO weight whatsoever…St. Alphonsus does have weight…Herve has weight…Bellarmine has weight…YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY WEIGHT.

“Martyrdom is rightly called, and is, a certain baptism.” (On the Sacrament of Baptism, Bk. I, Ch. VI, (Tom. 3, p. 120A))
“Concerning catechumens there is a greater difficulty, because they are faithful [have the faith] and can be saved if they die in this state, and yet outside the Church no one is saved, as outside the ark of Noah. …] I answer therefore that, when it is said outside the Church no one is saved, it must be understood of those who belong to her neither in actual fact nor in desire [desiderio], as theologians commonly speak on baptism. Because the catechumens are in the Church, though not in actual fact, yet at least in resolution [voto], therefore they can be saved. (Of The Church Militant, III, 3, “Of those who are not baptized”)

All you can do is quote Trent and say they are all wrong. How are you any different than a Protestant with his Bible?

Here, from an older post:

GerardP:

SFD:

They are however, when they teach in moral unanimity, incapable of teaching error. As I understand it, the moral unanimity of theologians is not in itself granted the charism of “infallibility” but rather they are witnesses to the preaching of the Church, which means that if they all agree (morally unanimous) they cannot be wrong - not because they have some special charism but rather because, like the “Church believing”, if they could all be mistaken then that would mean that the magisterium had been mistaken. Any other position is a denial of reason.

What kind of twisted gobbledygook is that? If they are not infallible. They are fallible. Vatican I did not extend to theologian pinheads any charism.

So St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine are “pinhead theologians”…really?

"If they are not infallible. They are fallible." This is such a ridiculous statement…no one ever claimed individual infallibility for the theologians. When they teach in moral unanimity that cannot be wrong. Pope Pius IX instructs thus; "it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.

Do you know what a theological note is? Do you know what a theological censure is? Tell us. I don’t think you even know what these things are…you’ve never heard of them…have you?

SFD

 

[SFD]

GerardP:

And Again, you misread Pius IX in Tuas Libenter:

“For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.”

It’s not to be held because theologians hold it. It’s held because it’s been taught and handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary (magisterial) teaching power of the Church. Theologians must hold to it. Again Baptism of Desire is not divinely revealed nor endorsed by the Magisterium of the Church.

Denz. 1683, quoted above deals with the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium. When one looks at Denz. 1684 one see’s that Pius IX is telling us further that we must submit even to those things that are not divinely revealed. That is what you are missing. Pius IX says, in Dz.1684, " it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.

He is saying that we must submit our intellects even to the doctrines that are less than de fide…things that are less than infallible definitions. When GerardP is saying we need only submit to defined dogmas…he is in direct conflict with what Pius IX taught in Tuas Libenter.

SFD

 

[knightbvm]

Here you go again. You don’t seem to care at all about the content of a statement. All you care about it that they agree with your agenda.

Yes or no, Was Pope Pius XII protected from error when he made his address to midwives?

Does the address to the midwives have the same theological note as an infallible definition? Yes or NO?

Why do you insist on subordinating the infallible to the fallible? I’ve asked this several times and you keep running away from it.

You say that, but you can’t seem to find any counter argument of the same magisterial weight. All you find are the pious and erroneous opinions of great men who were sympathetic to the idea of non-Catholics fate and fudged their thinking in the process.

Because so many smart and pious men have succumbed to this error. A clever theological twisting of words that ultimately undermines the faith and the Church is the result of emotional wish fulfillment. Smart men are often trapped in snares like this. This leads to the ultimate rationalizers like Rahner, Chardin, DuLubac, Balthazar, Kung etc.

There’s a lesson to be learned in why the Shepherds didn’t have to go far to find Christ, yet the Wise Men had to engage in a dangerous journey.

Gerard dont you see the logical fallacy in your arguments? You are assumimg what has yet to be proven. You are saying that Trent is saying that water Baptism is absolutley necessary and there can be no exceptions to that. I am saying (as well as others) that Trent didnt mean that–we are asserting that Trent meant something different. We are offering proof of this (that water baptism is normatively necessary-that in rare circumstances water baptism can be replaced by baptism of desire) by quoting such Popes as Pius XII, Pius IX, —your response is t o say Trent, Florence , etc are infallible–the statments we quote arent—well—Gerry you are assuming that your interpretations of trent, Florence etc— are correct----I am asserting that by Quoting Pius IX, PIus XII, Letter of the Holy Office under Pius XII, confirms that your interpretation of these other Councils are incorrect!!!

 

[SFD]

In which case he would be a material heretic but not a *formal *heretic. I think those are that’s the correct terminology.

DustinsDad

Yes, the correct terminology for a Protestant.

A Protestant holding a heretical belief (but doing so out of invincible ignorance of the authority of the Church) is a only a “material” heretic. If he is not invincibly ignorant of the authority of the Church, then he is a “formal” heretic.

A Catholic can never be a “material” heretic, as he is not invincibly ignorant of the Church’s authority. He may innocently hold a to a material heresy and lack the pertinacity to make him a heretic…he is just in error. However, if he is pertinacious…then he is a formal heretic and outside the Church by his own act.

Please note also that a protestant, by definition, is visibily adhering to a condemned sect…that is why he is PRESUMED to be guilty and considered a formal heretic. The external (visible) fact is that a given baptized person publicly rejects the Catholic rule of faith…as such is he is deemed for all practical purposes to be excommunicated and outside the Church. The Church can only judge externals…if this Protestant is truly invincibly ignorant…this breach of the law will be excused by God.

SFD

 

[Dauphin]

I just thought I’d post something I was reading in the Catholic Encyclopedia that’s very relevant to this discussion. In the article concerning baptism, under the section for Baptism of Desire, it says the following:

"If it be said that this doctrine* contradicts the universal law** of baptism made by Christ (John 3)**,* the answer is that the lawgiver has made an exception (John 14) in favor of those who have the baptism of desire."

I’m not entirely sure what to make of this. Is Christ capable of making an exception to a universal law? I read John 14 and I didn’t see anything that would suggest he would, other than this statment:

"Because I go to the Father*:* and whatsoever you shall ask the Fatherin my name**, that will I do: that the Father* may be glorified** in the Son. If you shall ask me any thing in my name, that I will do." (John 14:13-14)*

Could the Catholic encyclopedia be interpreting this to say that God will baptise anyone who desires it?

The article also quotes St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, and St. Bernard in support of the Baptism of Desire.

I know that these Saints and Doctors of the Church and writers of the Catholic Enclyclopedia are not infallible, but to a feenyite, it must be very disconcerting to know that this heresy is so widespread and historical, and that it has never been condemned directly by the Church (although perhaps indirectly in the second canon on baptism from Trent). I’m convinced that there must be an explanation, but that canon seems irreconcilable with this doctrine (which also seems to have been taught at Trent).