The Latin Text of the Oldest Surviving Papal Decree Rejects "Baptism of Desire"

[The Theosist]

"Therefore just as we say that the holy paschal observance is in no way to be diminished, we also say that to infants who will not yet be able to speak on account of their age or to those who in any necessity will need the holy stream of baptism, we wish succor to be brought with all celerity, lest it should tend to the perdition of our souls if the saving font be denied to those desiring it and every single one of them exiting this world lose both the Kingdom and life."

These are not the words of a man who believes in baptism of desire.

Those are the words of a man who believed that not all the unbaptized who desire baptism actually possess perfect charity. He did not deny  the existence of Baptism of Desire because BoD is not identical to a mere desire to be baptized.

Baptism of Desire necessarily includes perfect charity in its definition. If one does not have perfect charity, then only the sacrament itself will deliver him from all his sins.

Talk about imposing upon the text something that is not there, namely what you have put in bold. You don't get to just beg the question in presupposing he shares your belief and impose it on the text in order to make a wonky argument to explain away its plain reading. But while we're at it, let's point out the how the logic of the text itself contradicts you anyway: talking about those with desire in general, as he does, which logically includes the more specific, and speaking of "every single one of them exiting this world lose both the Kingdom and life" implies that of those with desire and perfect charity and anything else that isn't the holy stream of baptism. No. His plain words are an expression of a belief that those who do not receive the holy stream of baptism before death lose both the Kingdom and life.

And lest someone try to claim the holy stream of baptism includes "baptism of desire", that would contradict Trent, which states: "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven," let him be anathema." But I'm pretty sure that Cushingites don't claim that baptism of desire confers the actual sacrament and its mark like perfect contrition does penance, because again, that would be heresy.

But that it would be asserted this text doesn't contradict baptism of desire, even that it is "the words of a man who believed that not all the unbaptized who desire baptism actually possess perfect charity" when it contain nothing of the sort, that's just an example of how the development of doctrine works and is justified. Those who already believe something to be "Apostolic" and "magisterial" will see it wherever they need to and twist and turn any text to fit it, because they have to. Cantate Domino is probably the most egregious example of this when it comes to today's Catholic theology; that text obviously is intended to mean exactly what it literally says, all heretics, schismatics, Jews and pagans who don't convert go to Hell, and that's exactly how the Medieval Roman Church acted.

[St.Justin]

You guys are something. Trent spoke  very clearly on this topic and it is de fide infallible. It even says a desire for the Sacrament of Confession is valid. Are you guys Catholic or not?

[The Theosist]

You guys are something. Trent spoke  very clearly on this topic and it is de fide infallible.

Meaning what?

[The Theosist]

Trent said

a) Justification cannot be effected without baptism or the desire thereof.
b) The instrumental cause of justification is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified
c) True and natural water is necessary for the sacrament.

a) concerns only the necessity of baptism or desire, not the sufficiency (I challenge anyone to show me a deduction of "justification can be effected by baptism or desire" from "justification cannot be effected without justification or desire"), b) buries justification without faith, the cornerstone of what people these days really mean by "baptism of desire", namely, "salvation of non-Christians by implicit desire" and c) shows that "baptism of desire" cannot be an in voto reception of the sacrament of baptism in the way penance can be received in voto.

So, what  part of this debate is settled by Trent?

[St.Justin]

You guys are something. Trent spoke  very clearly on this topic and it is de fide infallible.

Meaning what?

that desire for Baptizm suffices unto Justification is a De fide teaching of the Catholic Faith.

[St.Justin]

Trent said

a) Justification cannot be effected without baptism or the desire thereof.
b) The instrumental cause of justification is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified
c) True and natural water is necessary for the sacrament.

a) concerns only the necessity of baptism or desire, not the sufficiency (I challenge anyone to show me a deduction of "justification can be effected by baptism or desire" from "justification cannot be effected without justification or desire"), b) buries justification without faith, the cornerstone of what people these days really mean by "baptism of desire", namely, "salvation of non-Christians by implicit desire" and c) shows that "baptism of desire" cannot be an in voto reception of the sacrament of baptism in the way penance can be received in voto.

So, what  part of this debate is settled by Trent?

Simply put there is no debate. No one has ever stated that the desire for Baptism or Confession were Sacraments but it has been clearly stated De fide by the Church that one receives the effects of the both Sacraments from the desire for them, I.E. Justification I.E, Sanctifying Grace.

[The Theosist]

Trent said

a) Justification cannot be effected without baptism or the desire thereof.
b) The instrumental cause of justification is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified
c) True and natural water is necessary for the sacrament.

a) concerns only the necessity of baptism or desire, not the sufficiency (I challenge anyone to show me a deduction of "justification can be effected by baptism or desire" from "justification cannot be effected without justification or desire"), b) buries justification without faith, the cornerstone of what people these days really mean by "baptism of desire", namely, "salvation of non-Christians by implicit desire" and c) shows that "baptism of desire" cannot be an in voto reception of the sacrament of baptism in the way penance can be received in voto.

So, what  part of this debate is settled by Trent?

Simply put there is no debate. No one has ever stated that the desire for Baptism or Confession were Sacraments but it has been clearly stated De fide by the Church that one receives the effects of the both Sacraments from the desire for them, I.E. Justification I.E, Sanctifying Grace.

Where? Trent says no such thing regarding baptism.

[The Theosist]

You guys are something. Trent spoke  very clearly on this topic and it is de fide infallible.

Meaning what?

that desire for Baptizm suffices unto Justification is a De fide teaching of the Catholic Faith.

Trent doesn't say that. Are you another one who failed logic 101 and thinks ¬(P or Q) -> ¬R implies (P or Q) -> R? You're right that there is no debate if you believe sufficiency follows from necessity, for you've abandoned the principles of reasoning so as to make debate impossible.

[The Theosist]

Trent said

a) Justification cannot be effected without baptism or the desire thereof.
b) The instrumental cause of justification is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified
c) True and natural water is necessary for the sacrament.

a) concerns only the necessity of baptism or desire, not the sufficiency (I challenge anyone to show me a deduction of "justification can be effected by baptism or desire" from "justification cannot be effected without justification or desire"), b) buries justification without faith, the cornerstone of what people these days really mean by "baptism of desire", namely, "salvation of non-Christians by implicit desire" and c) shows that "baptism of desire" cannot be an in voto reception of the sacrament of baptism in the way penance can be received in voto.

So, what  part of this debate is settled by Trent?

Simply put there is no debate. No one has ever stated that the desire for Baptism or Confession were Sacraments but it has been clearly stated De fide by the Church that one receives the effects of the both Sacraments from the desire for them, I.E. Justification I.E, Sanctifying Grace.

By the way, Trent does teach in voto reception of the sacrament of confession, so you're wrong on that count too. Also, baptism of desire, according to its advocates, doesn't lead receiving that effect of baptism which is its indelible mark, so wrong again.

[St.Justin]

A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER AND ITS MODE IN THE
STATE OF GRACE
     
     In which words is given a brief description of the justification of
the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which 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 Savior.  This
translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected
except through the laver of regeneration 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.[18]

[The Theosist]

A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER AND ITS MODE IN THE
STATE OF GRACE
     
     In which words is given a brief description of the justification of
the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which 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 Savior.  This
translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected
except through the laver of regeneration 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.[18]

And? That passage states that baptism or desire is necessary for effecting justification. Please show me where it states that baptism or desire is sufficient for effecting justification. Do you understand the distinction?

[St.Justin]

Hence, it must be taught that the
repentance of a Christian after his fall is very different from that at
his baptism, and that it includes not only a determination to avoid sins
and a hatred of them, or a contrite and humble heart,[85] but also the
sacramental confession of those sins, at least in desire, to be made in
its season, and sacerdotal absolution, as well as satisfaction by fasts,
alms, prayers and other devout exercises of the spiritual life, not indeed
for the eternal punishment, which is, together with the guilt, remitted
either by the sacrament or by the desire of the sacrament, but for the
temporal punishment which, as the sacred writings teach, is not always
wholly remitted, as is done in baptism, to those who, ungrateful to the
grace of God which they have received, have grieved the Holy Ghost[86] and
have not feared to violate the temple of God.[87]  Of which repentance it
is written:  Be mindful whence thou art fallen; do penance, and do the
first works;[88] and again, The sorrow that is according to God worketh
penance, steadfast unto salvation;[89] and again, Do penance, and bring
forth fruits worthy of penance.[90]

[The Theosist]

Hence, it must be taught that the
repentance of a Christian after his fall is very different from that at
his baptism, and that it includes not only a determination to avoid sins
and a hatred of them, or a contrite and humble heart,[85] but also the
sacramental confession of those sins, at least in desire, to be made in
its season, and sacerdotal absolution, as well as satisfaction by fasts,
alms, prayers and other devout exercises of the spiritual life, not indeed
for the eternal punishment, which is, together with the guilt, remitted
either by the sacrament or by the desire of the sacrament, but for the
temporal punishment which, as the sacred writings teach, is not always
wholly remitted, as is done in baptism, to those who, ungrateful to the
grace of God which they have received, have grieved the Holy Ghost[86] and
have not feared to violate the temple of God.[87]  Of which repentance it
is written:  Be mindful whence thou art fallen; do penance, and do the
first works;[88] and again, The sorrow that is according to God worketh
penance, steadfast unto salvation;[89] and again, Do penance, and bring
forth fruits worthy of penance.[90]

That Trent teaches the possibility of in voto reception of the sacrament of penance is not being questioned by anyone and is not the subject of this discussion.

[St.Justin]

A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER AND ITS MODE IN THE
STATE OF GRACE
     
     In which words is given a brief description of the justification of
the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which 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 Savior.  This
translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected
except through the laver of regeneration 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.[18]

And? That passage states that baptism or desire is necessary for effecting justification. Please show me where it states that baptism or desire is sufficient for effecting justification. Do you understand the distinction?

"effecting justification" is applied to both the Sacrament and the desire. do you not understand they have the same affect?

[St.Justin]

Hence, it must be taught that the
repentance of a Christian after his fall is very different from that at
his baptism, and that it includes not only a determination to avoid sins
and a hatred of them, or a contrite and humble heart,[85] but also the
sacramental confession of those sins, at least in desire, to be made in
its season, and sacerdotal absolution, as well as satisfaction by fasts,
alms, prayers and other devout exercises of the spiritual life, not indeed
for the eternal punishment, which is, together with the guilt, remitted
either by the sacrament or by the desire of the sacrament, but for the
temporal punishment which, as the sacred writings teach, is not always
wholly remitted, as is done in baptism, to those who, ungrateful to the
grace of God which they have received, have grieved the Holy Ghost[86] and
have not feared to violate the temple of God.[87]  Of which repentance it
is written:  Be mindful whence thou art fallen; do penance, and do the
first works;[88] and again, The sorrow that is according to God worketh
penance, steadfast unto salvation;[89] and again, Do penance, and bring
forth fruits worthy of penance.[90]

That Trent teaches the possibility of in voto reception of the sacrament of penance is not being questioned by anyone and is not the subject of this discussion.

This
translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected
except through the laver of regeneration 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.[18]

Both Baptizm of Desire and Desire for Confession both translate the person from being "unjustified" into a state of Justification IE Sanctifying Grace which is all that is necessary to go to Heaven. The indelible mark is not a requirement for Justification. You need to go back and read what Trent actually said.