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

[Michael Wilson]

I have to point out that while Daniel objected to my appeal to the teaching of the Magisterium, and V.O. Agreed with his objection; V.O. Who knows and understands the authority of the Magisterium, did not respond. For a Catholic there cannot be a legitimate response. That is where the buck stops. Thank you V.O. For being true to your principles.

[Vetus Ordo]

I have to point out that while Daniel objected to my appeal to the teaching of the Magisterium, and V.O. Agreed with his objection; V.O. Who knows and understands the authority of the Magisterium, did not respond. For a Catholic there cannot be a legitimate response. That is where the buck stops. Thank you V.O. For being true to your principles.

I did not respond to it because I do not believe BoD and BoB to be teachings of the ordinary magisterium of the Church. I believe them to be theological speculations that have gained popularity as Catholicism evolved in the Modern Age due to the discovery of new continents and millions of people who had never been exposed to the preaching of the gospel.

Nevertheless, we do know this to be true according to the Church's own dogmatic teachings:

1. That the sacrament of baptism is indispensable unto salvation;
2. That a man needs to be a member of the Church and subject to the Roman Pontiff in order to be saved (Unam Sanctam and Cantate Domino). This excludes catechumens and other non-Christians since they have no juridical standing in the Church, they are not members of the Body of Christ and are not subject to the Roman Pontiff;
3. That recepients of BoD or BoB are not members of the Church and, per admission of the theologians that propose these alternative subsets of the sacrament of baptism, do not receive the actual effects of baptism that necessarily include the imprint of the sacramental character and the remission of the temporal punishment due to sin;
4. That postulating a different baptism, or a different way to receive baptism other than by natural water, is to deny the dogmatic definitions concerning this sacrament and, dare I say, the words of Christ in John 3:5.

Although it was far removed from the minds of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori, who only speculated on baptism of desire for catechumens who had explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity, the logical consequence of BoD is the nonsense that clerics before Vatican II, like Abp. Lefebvre, and many others after the Council have espoused on matters of salvation. We are now to believe in the "apostolic" teaching that people are saved without professing the true faith, without receiving the sacrament of baptism and without any juridical standing in the Church because they are not actual members. In many cases, they are saved without knowing Jesus Christ or confessing Him. In the words of the late archbishop in his Open Letter to Confused Catholics:

"The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church."

If you believe in this nonsense, you have nothing to object to Vatican II or Pope Francis. There would be no possibility to arrive at the concept of the anonymous Christian, à la Karl Rahner, if it were not for the invention of BoD. The last undesirable consequence of this theological speculation is the realization that the Church, in truth, is invisible. She also exists in the mosques of Cairo and the temples of Delhi.

[Vetus Ordo]

Yes, John iii, 5 is plain enough. The plain words of our Saviour are enough.

Yes, Baptism is necessary for salvation; however, it does not prevent God from saving those who do not to be Baptized deliberately and knowingly; as the Fathers of the Church and the Church has taught.

Besides St. Siricius flatly denying this assertion, what you said amounts to:

Baptism is necessary for salvation except in cases when it is not necessary for salvation.

[Greg]

Baptism of desire would certainly be very useful in a chastisement or rapid end of the world situation.

There are a heck of a lot of good willed, good samaritan like people leading lives of natural virtue who have never been baptised and who don't appear, to me, to deserve hell.  If they are evil, they make an Oscar winning act of appearing virtuous.

Then you have the problem of Catholic infants with invalid baptisms.  Where the priest used the wrong words in the last 50 years.

Without BOD they are damned too.

[Daniel]

.

[Michael Wilson]

V.O. Stated:

If you believe in this nonsense, you have nothing to object to Vatican II or Pope Francis. There would be no possibility to arrive at the concept of the anonymous Christian, à la Karl Rahner, if it were not for the invention of BoD. The last undesirable consequence of this theological speculation is the realization that the Church, in truth, is invisible. She also exists in the mosques of Cairo and the temples of Delhi.

I am not the one who has been defending Vatican II and the new Concliar religion on this forum for the last few years. But since you have steadfastly claimed that this Conciliar Church is the true Church and have stated that its teachings are a legitimate development of pre-Conciliar doctrines, then it is you who are, (in an  un-expected turn of events) now defending the opposite principle viz:  that only those who receive water Baptism are saved! I must state that coming from you, this is very surprising.
So, before we go any further in this discussion, I have to know where you presently stand: a)With the Conciliar Church and Karl Rahner; J.P. II; Vatican II and Universal salvation or B. With the pre-Conciliar Church and B.O.B.; B.O.D. and the Pre-Conciliar Magisterium. Otherwise,  I am at a loss on how to argue further more with you.

[Michael Wilson]

Yes, John iii, 5 is plain enough. The plain words of our Saviour are enough.

Yes, Baptism is necessary for salvation; however, it does not prevent God from saving those who do not to be Baptized deliberately and knowingly; as the Fathers of the Church and the Church has taught.

Besides St. Siricius flatly denying this assertion, what you said amounts to:

Baptism is necessary for salvation except in cases when it is not necessary for salvation.

We can discuss St. Siricus after we clear up exactly where you stand in your position on the Conciliar Magisterium of the Church.
My goodness! You are indeed a very surprising person; I wonder what Kreuz will think of this.

[St.Justin]

Below is from the session on Justification. Now justification in the Catholic sense means "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.

From New advent:
(Latin justificatio; Greek dikaiosis.)

A biblio-ecclesiastical term; which denotes the transforming of the sinner from the state of unrighteousness to the state of holiness and sonship of God. Considered as an act (actus justificationis), justification is the work of God alone, presupposing, however, on the part of the adult the process of justification and the cooperation of his free will with God's preventing and helping grace (gratia praeveniens et cooperans). Considered as a state or habit (habitus justificationis), it denotes the continued possession of a quality inherent in the soul, which theologians aptly term sanctifying grace. Since the sixteenth century great differences have existed between Protestants and Catholics regarding the true nature of justification. As the dogmatic side of the controversy has been fully explained in the article on GRACE, we shall here consider it more from an historical point of view.


Trent session 6:
CHAPTER V

THE NECESSITY OF PREPARATION FOR JUSTIFICATION IN ADULTS, AND WHENCE IT
PROCEEDS

     It is furthermore declared that in adults the beginning of that
justification must proceed from the predisposing grace of God through
Jesus Christ, that is, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits on
their part, they are called; that they who by sin had been cut off from
God, may be disposed through His quickening and helping grace to convert
themselves to their own justification by freely assenting to and
cooperating with that grace; so that, while God touches the heart of man
through the illumination of the Holy Ghost, man himself neither does
absolutely nothing while receiving that inspiration, since he can also
reject it, nor yet is he able by his own free will and without the grace
of God to move himself to justice in His sight.  Hence, when it is said in
the sacred writings:  Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you,[19] we are
reminded of our liberty; and when we reply:  Convert us, O Lord, to thee,
and we shall be converted,[20] we confess that we need the grace of God.

CHAPTER IV

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]'

CHAPTER XIV

                    THE FALLEN AND THEIR RESTORATION

     Those who through sin have forfeited and received grace of
justification, can again be justified when, moved by God, they exert
themselves to obtain through the sacrament of penance the recovery, by the
merits of Christ, of the grace lost.[82]  For this manner of justification
is restoration for those fallen, which the holy Fathers have aptly called
a second plank after the shipwreck of grace lost.[83]  For on behalf of
those who fall into sins after baptism, Christ Jesus instituted the
sacrament of penance when He said:  Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins
you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall
retain, they are retained.[84]  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]

[truly-a-philosofan]

Baptism of Desire =/= Mere desire to be baptized

BoD necessarily includes Perfect Charity, which is a Grace one shouldn't rashly presume to have.

[The Theosist]

Its enough that the Church has taught the doctrine of Baptism of Blood and desire, for Catholics to be bound to accept this teaching.

Since neither baptism of blood or baptism of desire, according to theologians such as St. Thomas or St. Alphonsus Liguori, remit the temporal punishment due to sin, nor implement the sacramental character in the soul, they're not really baptism in any sense. I'll wait for a dogmatic decree that teaches these alternate forms of baptism.

St. Siricius flatly rejects it.

"They're not really baptism in any sense" presumes that the only sense of baptism is the sacrament of baptism. If God gives salvific grace in giving them, how are they unlike baptism as far as eternal salvation goes? They don't help on man on this earth (they don't make a man a member of the Church on earth) and perhaps don't remit temporal punishment, but salvific grace (including forgiveness of sins) at the point of death is reasonably considered baptism, even if not the sacrament.

St. Siricius flatly rejects any priest presuming upon it as an option a priest or any man can choose for himself.   Baptism of desire is God's prerogative - perfect contrition (sufficient desire) comes by the grace of God, not by having the vague "anonymous christian" desire to "be good" and get baptized "someday".

St. Thomas said that God is not bound by the Sacraments - He doesn't allow man to carelessly omit them but allows it to be impossible to receive them but get grace directly from God.  God can save a man directly - e.g. not only for Baptism, but for Penance.

Trent says "this sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation ; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated."

Yet it also says "The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein".

A man is commanded to receive the actual Sacraments as soon as he can, regardless of his contrition. But the "necessity" (and "unless" in Scripture) binds man, not God, in the case when a man is about to die.

Of course God can miraculously bring water for the Sacrament of Baptism in any case; He could also miraculously bring a priest and give the Sacrament of Penance.  But God's being BOUND to these miracles is not something I've heard of before the Fr. Feeney arguments. (Not sure I've heard of the necessity of the miracle of priests, but it seems to follow)

St. Alphonsus and the Catechism of the Council of Trent interpret Trent (dogma) differently than you Vetus Ordo.  Various people over the years (The Dimond Brothers, Kreutzritter (sp?), others) try to interpret Trent to deny Baptism of Desire.   They are more knowledgeable and clever than I, but when I try to think through their arguments I find them convoluted and unnatural.

Of course getting  further clarification from the Church of today would not be likely in its current state.

I know you don't think much of theologians, "even" the pre-Vatican II ones Fr. Cekada (RIP) would admire, but here is his paper arguing that they are important, and their position on Baptism of Desire   http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/BaptDes-Proofed.pdf

www.baptismofdesire.com

And you can make invalid inferences until you're blue in the face, but necessity does not imply sufficiency. The principles of logic are not determined by St. Alphonsus, and where he contradicts them, he, any saint, any Father, any Pope, and even an Apostle himself would be as wrong as in declaring 2+2=5. Not even God can make it otherwise. ¬(P or Q) -> ¬R does not imply (P or Q) -> R, and Trent's teaching on the necessity of baptism or "desire" for justification does not imply the sufficiency of "desire" for justification. You can argue in some nebulous manner Trent is implicitly assuming baptism of desire in its teaching, but you cannot argue deductively that it follows from the passage on justification.

[The Theosist]

V.O.
Its enough that the Church has taught the doctrine of Baptism of Blood and desire, for Catholics to be bound to accept this teaching.

Then, given the content of the text the Dimond brothers cite, it appears the Church has contradicted herself. Which of these two apparently contradictory teachings is the Catholic bound to accept?

[The Theosist]

I have to point out that while Daniel objected to my appeal to the teaching of the Magisterium, and V.O. Agreed with his objection; V.O. Who knows and understands the authority of the Magisterium, did not respond. For a Catholic there cannot be a legitimate response. That is where the buck stops. Thank you V.O. For being true to your principles.

I did not respond to it because I do not believe BoD and BoB to be teachings of the ordinary magisterium of the Church. I believe them to be theological speculations that have gained popularity as Catholicism evolved in the Modern Age due to the discovery of new continents and millions of people who had never been exposed to the preaching of the gospel.

Nevertheless, we do know this to be true according to the Church's own dogmatic teachings:

1. That the sacrament of baptism is indispensable unto salvation;
2. That a man needs to be a member of the Church and subject to the Roman Pontiff in order to be saved (Unam Sanctam and Cantate Domino). This excludes catechumens and other non-Christians since they have no juridical standing in the Church, they are not members of the Body of Christ and are not subject to the Roman Pontiff;
3. That recepients of BoD or BoB are not members of the Church and, per admission of the theologians that propose these alternative subsets of the sacrament of baptism, do not receive the actual effects of baptism that necessarily include the imprint of the sacramental character and the remission of the temporal punishment due to sin;
4. That postulating a different baptism, or a different way to receive baptism other than by natural water, is to deny the dogmatic definitions concerning this sacrament and, dare I say, the words of Christ in John 3:5.

Although it was far removed from the minds of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori, who only speculated on baptism of desire for catechumens who had explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity, the logical consequence of BoD is the nonsense that clerics before Vatican II, like Abp. Lefebvre, and many others after the Council have espoused on matters of salvation. We are now to believe in the "apostolic" teaching that people are saved without professing the true faith, without receiving the sacrament of baptism and without any juridical standing in the Church because they are not actual members. In many cases, they are saved without knowing Jesus Christ or confessing Him. In the words of the late archbishop in his Open Letter to Confused Catholics:

"The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church."

If you believe in this nonsense, you have nothing to object to Vatican II or Pope Francis. There would be no possibility to arrive at the concept of the anonymous Christian, à la Karl Rahner, if it were not for the invention of BoD. The last undesirable consequence of this theological speculation is the realization that the Church, in truth, is invisible. She also exists in the mosques of Cairo and the temples of Delhi.

The flipside is that this is a patently obvious example of how the Roman development of doctrine does involve invention and backward projection onto "Tradition" of an idea which has absolutely no evidence of being Apostolic.

[Michael Wilson]

V.O.
Its enough that the Church has taught the doctrine of Baptism of Blood and desire, for Catholics to be bound to accept this teaching.

Then, given the content of the text the Dimond brothers cite, it appears the Church has contradicted herself. Which of these two apparently contradictory teachings is the Catholic bound to accept?

But it isn't obvious that the Church has contradicted herself; there is contrary evidence that all the fathers and Popes of all the Church have always upheld B.O.B. and B.O.D. So any text that appears to contradict this teaching is only apparently so.

[The Theosist]

V.O.
Its enough that the Church has taught the doctrine of Baptism of Blood and desire, for Catholics to be bound to accept this teaching.

Then, given the content of the text the Dimond brothers cite, it appears the Church has contradicted herself. Which of these two apparently contradictory teachings is the Catholic bound to accept?

But it isn't obvious that the Church has contradicted herself; there is contrary evidence that all the fathers and Popes of all the Church have always upheld B.O.B. and B.O.D. So any text that appears to contradict this teaching is only apparently so.

"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.

What "all the fathers"? There is one who seems to teach it in a letter, Ambrose of Milan, but he also contradicts himself with an explicit rejection: "Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace." And there is one who speculates on it theologically, Augustine, but he later retracts this position. Moreover, Gregory Nazianzen explicitly rejects it, refuting the claim that "there is contrary evidence that all the fathers and Popes of all the Church have always upheld B.O.B. and B.O.D." All the Fathers certainly did not uphold it, for Gregory Nazianzen is a Father who did not, and there is certainly no evidence concerning Fathers and popes for whose beliefs on the matter we have no data.

[truly-a-philosofan]

"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.