Church Contradiction on Baptism of Desire

[Non Nobis]

An Act of Perfect Contrition requires the theological virtue of Charity,...
<etc>

The very first part of your statement implies that an act of perfect contrition ALWAYS requires the theological  virtue of Charity.  This is incorrect, because a baptized Catholic can start in the state of mortal sin, and so without Charity,and then make an act of perfect contrition, of which the result (not the prerequisite) is God restoring him to Charity. This is how a mortal sin can be forgiven when it is humanly impossible to get to confession.

Right here I do not speak of the need for Faith.

Furthermore, it does not imprint the indelible character on the soul and the obligation to receive sacramental Baptism remains.

These are straw man arguments, because all who believe in (an accepted version of) Baptism of Desire already agree that (1) it does not imprint the indelible character on the soul and (2) it does not remove the obligation to receive the Sacrament at some future time in life (as soon as possible).  I wish people denying Baptism of Desire would discontinue using these arguments; it is a waste of time in trying to get to the truth.

The only difference is that those who believe in Baptism of Desire think that when there is no future time (a man dies), God lifts the obligation,  as He does with any command that is impossible. God allows human impossibility for some of His commands, and then lifts the obligation. E.g. with the command to attend Mass on Sunday He allows impossibility and lifts the obligation when a man has an accident before Church and it is (humanly) impossible for him to attend. God does not jump in and carry the man to Church, even if he is a good man.

A perfect act of contrition restores a man (a baptized Catholic) to Charity when confession is impossible, but the Sacramental Graces of confession are not received and the obligation to actually go to confession when possible remains.  I believe that the man is also not allowed to receive communion, which requires the Sacrament; yet he is no longer in the state of mortal sin.  God does not miraculously provide a priest he can confess to.  The case with a martyred catechumen who has faith is very similar.  God allows the sacrament to be humanly impossible, lifts the obligation, and by the perfect contrition that is in Baptism of Desire (Blood) the man is restored to  Sanctifying Grace and is saved.

The Council of Trent says that confession is necessary for salvation (when there is mortal sin).  Yet it also says this, regarding the contrition that is needed for the confession of mortal sins:

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.

The same can be said of Baptism of Desire "it reconciles man with God  before this sacrament be actually received (or it is impossible), but this reconciliation is not to be ascribed to that contrition (baptism of desire), independently of the desire of the sacrament (of baptism) which is included therein".  The Sacrament of Baptism is "included in" Baptism of Desire, because it is precisely Baptism (the Sacrament) that is desired.

[Non Nobis]

All I did was post the exact words of St. Thomas commentary on John 6:44 without saying so.

Let me say so:

...in the state of fallen nature, all are equally held back from this drawing by the obstacle of sin; and so, all need to be drawn. God, in so far as it depends on him, extends his hand to every one, to draw every one...

[Non Nobis]

Perfect Contrition gives us Sanctifying Grace, along with Charity and the other theological virtues; if a non-Baptized person can make an act of perfect Contrition, which is B.O.D.

No it is not.  Contrition due to fear of hell, or disgust at sin suffice.  The B.O.D. is an ardent desire for the sacrament.  Catholic Faith, then contrition, precede it, but are separate from it.

What do you think a man desires, in the context of "Baptism of Desire"?  Is it just the physical matter and form of the sacrament?  Mustn't it be also the EFFECTS of the Sacrament, including forgiveness of sins?  If a man desires the Sacrament of Baptism just because he will get special honors from his friends for becoming a Catholic, then even if this desire is ardent it is not "Baptism of Desire".  Desiring forgiveness of sin is CONTRITION.  An ardent desire for the forgiveness of sins is PERFECT CONTRITION.  (It is God, not man, who judges how ardent the desire must be for perfect contrition).  This is how I understand Baptism of Desire's relationship to Perfect Contrition.

[Michael Wilson]

James,
on Trent and the definition; I reread it, and I think you are correct, and I was mistaken.

[james03]

Further, you also seemingly reject the sufficiency of "sufficient" grace by your reply, so I dunno why you bring up a system you don't believe in with the distinction of sufficient/efficacious.

I didn't bring up St. Thomas, you did.  And you are correct, on the mechanics of salvation, I am a Molinist, not a Thomist.

As far as Fr. Most, I quoted St. Thomas where he says the Grace which pertains to the call of predestination.  He doesn't use the term "efficacious", granted, but that is what it is.

Bottom line, I can not be accused of calling St. Thomas a semi pelagian, as he states the predestination includes grace that pertains to the call, therefore the response to the call depends on God's grace, which only the elect receive.

[james03]

James,
on Trent and the definition; I reread it, and I think you are correct, and I was mistaken.

It was a minor point.

[james03]

Desiring forgiveness of sin is CONTRITION.  An ardent desire for the forgiveness of sins is PERFECT CONTRITION.  (It is God, not man, who judges how ardent the desire must be for perfect contrition).  This is how I understand Baptism of Desire's relationship to Perfect Contrition.

Baptism of Desire DOES NOT require Perfect Contrition.

Furthermore, Perfect Contrition is this:  Repenting for only one reason, because a sin has offended God, Whom the penitent loves.

[Michael Wilson]

Desiring forgiveness of sin is CONTRITION.  An ardent desire for the forgiveness of sins is PERFECT CONTRITION.  (It is God, not man, who judges how ardent the desire must be for perfect contrition).  This is how I understand Baptism of Desire's relationship to Perfect Contrition.

Baptism of Desire DOES NOT require Perfect Contrition.

Furthermore, Perfect Contrition is this:  Repenting for only one reason, because a sin has offended God, Whom the penitent loves.

James,
B.O.D. Does indeed require perfect contrition:
St Alphonsus Liguori http://www.cmri.org/02-baptism_blood-desire_stalph.html

An Extract from St Alphonsus Liguori's Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7

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.".....

"Contrition of Love of God above all things" is Perfect Contrition

Here is another reference (Definitions from A Catholic Dictionary, 1951):

Baptism of Desire is one of the two possible substitutes for Baptism of water. When it is not possible thus to be baptized, an act of perfect contrition or pure love of God will supply the omission. Such acts are a perfect and ultimate diposition calling for the infusion of sanctifying grace, and at least implicitly include a desire and intention to receive Baptism of water should occasion offer. Infants are not capable of Baptism of desire. An heathen, believing, even though in a confused way, in a God whose will should be done and desiring to do that will whatever it may be, probably has Baptism of desire. It may reasonably be assumed that vast numbers of persons unbaptized by water have thus been rendered capable of enjoying the Beatific Vision.

Baptism of Blood is one of the two possible substitutes for Baptism of water and consists of suffering martyrdom for the Faith or for some Christian virtue, which infuses sanctifying grace into the soul and forgives sin. Martyrdom produces this effect by a special privilege, as being a supreme act of love in imitation of the passion of Our Lord, but the martyr must have had attrition for his sins. Baptism of Blood extends to infants.

And from "Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology" Emmanuel Doronzo et. al. pg. 30:

"...This second effect (the grace of regeneration) may be obtained by way of exception, so to speak (quasi per baptismi supplementa, i.e., through quasi-substitutes for baptism), either by an act of Charity (baptismus flaminis, of flame), or by martydom (baptismus sanguinis, of blood. "

Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments - Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized

"A person outside the Church by his own fault, and who dies without perfect contrition, will not be saved. But he who finds himself outside without fault of his own, and who lives a good life, can be saved by the love called charity, which unites unto God, and in a spiritual way also to the Church, that is, to the soul of the Church."
"17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire."

Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia:http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

The baptism of desire

The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The "baptism of the Holy Ghost" is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book "De Rebaptismate". The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice "except by the washing of regeneration or its desire" (voto). The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius.

[Cantarella]

An Act of Perfect Contrition requires the theological virtue of Charity,...
<etc>

The very first part of your statement implies that an act of perfect contrition ALWAYS requires the theological  virtue of Charity.  This is incorrect, because a baptized Catholic can start in the state of mortal sin, and so without Charity,and then make an act of perfect contrition, of which the result (not the prerequisite) is God restoring him to Charity. This is how a mortal sin can be forgiven when it is humanly impossible to get to confession.

No, because through the Sacrament, the Baptized Catholic has been granted a seal or mark upon the soul that cannot be erased, even if the person falls from grace by committing mortal sin. What the Sacrament of Baptism provides which the desire for Baptism does not, is that indelible mark which actually gives us a share in the Divine Nature of Christ and as Trent teaches "can neither be blotted out nor taken away". Again, this mark upon the soul cannot be erased even if one commits the mortal sin of Apostasy and therefore loses the Sanctifying Grace first granted at Baptism.

To obtain forgiveness of sins committed after Baptism, one is not allowed to be baptized again, but receiving the Sacrament of Penance. Penance in this sense is an ongoing conversion. The Sacrament of Penance is different from the Sacrament of Baptism. One could potentially enter Heaven without Penance if not guilty of mortal sin, but one is unable to enter Heaven without receiving Baptism. The possibility of being washed from original sin through Baptism and not being guilty of mortal sin during a life time is there. 

Council of Trent (Canons on the Sacraments) Canon 9:

If anyone says that in Baptism ...there is not imprinted on the soul a sign, that is, a certain spiritual and indelible mark, on account of which it cannot be repeated let it be anathema. 

Council of Florence, Exultate Deo:

Among these sacraments there are three, Baptism...which imprint an indelible sign on the soul, that is, a certain character distinctive from the others

[james03]

Michael,
Not dismissing you out of hand, however the cites don't mention perfect contrition.  I'm ignoring 1951 for obvious reasons.

But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition (simple)

by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition(simple), along with the desire,

1917 Encyclopedia supports your contention.  By then, the denial of EENS was widespread according to Mueller.

If perfect contrition and perfect charity are required for BOD, then I'll become a Feeneyite.  Catholics are incapable of this, except in rare occasions, let alone a moslem, jew, or Great Thumb worshipper.

[Cantarella]

Right here I do not speak of the need for Faith.

Yet you think that a non-Christian can actually possess the Theological Virtue of Faith, this is, Supernatural Faith, which this whole thread is about.

Is that correct?

[james03]

Let's put this in perspective:

A catechumen has explicit Faith in Christ and the Trinity.  He has a reasonable love of God, but not perfect.  He has repentance, but it is due to his fear of hell coupled with a love of God, so imperfect contrition.  He has a desire for baptism, and has it scheduled. 

Drives to church and is killed in an accident.  According to 2 of your cites, he goes to hell.

[Michael Wilson]

Cantarella stated:

No, because through the Sacrament, the Baptized Catholic has been granted a seal or mark upon the soul that cannot be erased, even if the person falls from grace by committing mortal sin. What the Sacrament of Baptism provides which the desire for Baptism does not, is that indelible mark which actually gives us a share in the Divine Nature of Christ and as Trent teaches "can neither be blotted out nor taken away". Again, this mark upon the soul cannot be erased even if one commits the mortal sin of Apostasy and therefore loses the Sanctifying Grace first granted at Baptism.

To obtain forgiveness of sins committed after Baptism, one is not allowed to be baptized again, but receiving the Sacrament of Penance. Penance in this sense is an ongoing conversion. The Sacrament of Penance is different from the Sacrament of Baptism. One could potentially enter Heaven without Penance if not guilty of mortal sin, but one is unable to enter Heaven without receiving Baptism. The possibility of being washed from original sin through Baptism and not being guilty of mortal sin during a life time is there. 

The bolded part was Fr. Feeney's error.
As for the rest, I don't understand your response to N.N. She is speaking of the process by which a sinner arrives at justification; which begins obviously with the person in Mortal Sin then God's Grace, then unformed faith in God; admission of one's own sinfulness, and through God's grace a true sorrow of having offended God, because of His infinite goodness; which is an act of perfect Contrition; which leads to an infusion of the supernatural virtues. I don't see what the Sacramental Character has to do with all of this. Fr. Feeney admitted that an unbaptized person could make a perfect act of contrition, and therefore move from the state of sin to the state of Sanctifying Grace, without actually receiving the Sacrament of Water; you appear to be denying this.

[Michael Wilson]

Let's put this in perspective:

A catechumen has explicit Faith in Christ and the Trinity.  He has a reasonable love of God, but not perfect.  He has repentance, but it is due to his fear of hell coupled with a love of God, so imperfect contrition.  He has a desire for baptism, and has it scheduled. 

Drives to church and is killed in an accident.  According to 2 of your cites, he goes to hell.

Ok, I see what you are affirming; B.O.D. Doesn't require Perfect Contrition all the time. But basically B.O.D. = Perfect Contrition.
Would the person you describe above save his soul? Since he would have been in Mortal Sin since he didn't have perfect contrition? Most moral theologians would respond in the affirmative. God would not hold us to do the impossible, once we had done all that was in our power.

[Gardener]

Further, you also seemingly reject the sufficiency of "sufficient" grace by your reply, so I dunno why you bring up a system you don't believe in with the distinction of sufficient/efficacious.

I didn't bring up St. Thomas, you did.  And you are correct, on the mechanics of salvation, I am a Molinist, not a Thomist.

As far as Fr. Most, I quoted St. Thomas where he says the Grace which pertains to the call of predestination.  He doesn't use the term "efficacious", granted, but that is what it is.

Bottom line, I can not be accused of calling St. Thomas a semi pelagian, as he states the predestination includes grace that pertains to the call, therefore the response to the call depends on God's grace, which only the elect receive.

The efficacious distinction (he calls it infallible) is one aspect of what St. Thomas taught. But there are other statements elsewhere which stand on their own and place the fault on man, indicating God gave what was necessary -- I think we can agree, to the raising of Thomistic hackles, that so-called sufficient grace is not necessary to salvation because it never does and never can and never will actually allow one to achieve the end. Hence, I brought up one of those statements from a body of statements which do not jive with the other aspects found elsewhere in his body of work.

You called those statements, prior to knowing it was St. Thomas, semi-pelagian and necessarily leading to universalism.

But again, that's a misuse of semi-pelagian which posits a goodness in man apart from God and then is finished by God in recognition of this goodness. This is not what St. Thomas was saying with those statements, nor what myself, Michael, or Fr. Most posit.

But surely if you are a Molinist (which I am not), you could see how the scientia media actually does violence to the concept of free will AND the efficacious will of God? Where God must run through multiple models, or rather foreknow, a response in order to achieve a result (thus God's will is contingent upon man) -- and then, the violence is done by a man's response being dictated by the model God chose, such that in another model the man chose another -- rather than the Thomistic concept of God moving the will in reality by efficacious grace. It makes God's simplicity utterly complex. The Molinist concept is no less semi-pelagian to the Thomist than a PPM model, since it IS effectively PPM acting as a function of APM. So, why do you think you can skate away with no semi-pelagian charge by the Thomist?

And how can I be correct, since I am not the Church nor God? I'm just a person, a creature.