Church Contradiction on Baptism of Desire

[james03]

Nota Praevia:  Feenyism is the belief that baptism of desire, that is, the actual desire for water baptism, can not save you if you die before receiving actual water baptism.  It is a minor dispute, as Baptism of Desire might have saved 1000 people at most.  That being said:

1.  I believe in B.O.D.

2.  Advocating Feenyism is not allowed on this forum, therefore I ask those who support the Feeneyite position not to hijack this thread as it will only get it locked.

3.  I'll stress this again: I accept B.O.D.  This thread will proceed from a given: B.O.D. is salvific, therefore this does not advocate Feeneyism.

Thanks for your patience, now on to the discussion.

[james03]

Baltimore Catechism, 1891:

Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.

Baltimore Catechism, revised:

An unbaptized person receives the baptism of desire when he loves God above all things and desires to do all that is necessary for his salvation.

Definition 1 excludes moslems, jews, hindus, and pagans.

Definition 2 includes them.  Exact opposite.

Once Definition 2 becomes accepted by the Church, Vatican II MUST FOLLOW BY NECESSITY.

The jews teach elements of the natural law, belief in God, and salvation.  Therefore it is salvific.  How should the Church respond?  It should move from a stance advocating conversion, to one advocating ecumenism and dialogue, and building up the City of Man.

The anonymous Catholic heresy is the root cause of the problems, and those problems won't be solved until the anonymous Catholic heresy is expunged from the Church.

[Kaesekopf]

I think you point out an interesting change of terminology!  The difference is indeed subtle.  Tanqueray confirms what you wrote, before things went haywire in the 60s.  (I typed all that out that last time, I wanted to use it again.  )



From A Manual of Dogmatic Theology (volume 2) written by AD TANQUERAY, translated by Rt. Rev. Msgr. John J. Byrnes, 1959.  All formatting as in text.

B The Means by Which Baptism of Water is Supplied
1* Baptism of Blood or Martyrdom
1018 a. Concept.  Martyrdom, proper called, is the suffering of death or of torture which of itself brings death, by reason of one's Catholic faith or of another Christian virtue; in the case of adults, this suffering must be borne patiently.  In order that martyrdom be able to justify adults, certain internal dispositions are required: supernatural attrition and at least an implicit desire for Baptism.  Martyrdom remits fault and punishment, but it does not confer character; in consequence, should the lethally wounded victim survive, he should be baptized. 

1019 b. Thesis: Martyrdom supplies the powers of Baptism as to the remission of sin and of punishment both for adults and for children.

Proof from Scripture: Christ unconditionally promised salvation to all who would confess him before men or who would lose their life for the sake of the Gospel: "He that shall lose his life for me, shall find it.¹"
¹ St. Matthew, X, 39.

Proof from Tradition: The practice of the Church has always been to clothe with the honors of sainthood those who suffered martyrdom, the Innocents who were killed in the place of Christ, and other children who were slain for the faith; also those adults who, not yet baptized, accepted martyrdom (for example, St. Emerentiana): this fact cannot be explained unless martyrdom of itself sanctifies even children.

Proof from Reason: Baptism of water has the power to wipe away sins because it fashions us in the likeness of Christ's death.  But through martyrdom both adults and children are more perfectly fashioned after the death of Christ.

1020 The Manner in Which Martyrdom Works
Martyrdom produces its own effects, namely the remission of sin and of punishment, even of temporal punishment, quasi ex opere operato.  This is certain for children because they are incapable of every disposition, and cannot be justified ex opere operantis.  This is commonly admitted for adults: the Church does not pray for martyrs; but if martyrdom operated only ex opere operantis, prayers would have to be offered for them. 

2* Baptism of Desire or of Perfect Charity
1021 Thesis: Contrition or perfect charity, along with at least an implicit desire for Baptism, supplies for the forces of Baptism of water as to remission of sins. This is certain.

Explanation of terms of thesis: An implicit desire for Baptism is included in a general resolution to fulfill all the precepts of God.  It is certainly sufficient in one who is invincibly ignorant of the law of Baptism; likewise, it very probably is sufficient in one who knows the need of Baptism.

Perfect charity, together with the desire for Baptism, indeed remits original sin and actual sins, and in like manner infuses sanctifying grace; but it does not imprint the baptism character, nor of itself does it remit the entire temporal punishment due to sin.  Wherefore the obligation remains to receive Baptism of water when the opportunity is given.

Proof of Thesis from Scripture. Even after the need of Baptism of water has been decreed, Christ unconditionally promised to grant sanctifying grace and therefore the remission of sins to all who would possess perfect charity: "He that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him...  If anyone love me...  we will come to him, and will make our abode with him¹": now love of God, dwelling and abode of God, in this case, suppose sanctifying grace.
¹ St. Matthew, X, 39.

Proof of Thesis from Tradition.  The Council of Trent² has summarized this in these words: "Since the promulgation of the Gospel (the translation to the state of grace) cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration or a desire for this."
² Session VI, can. 4, D.B.,  796

Proof of Thesis from Reason.  From what has been said, Baptism of water is really necessary by necessity of means, but extrinsically only, according to the positive will of God.  But what is necessary only extrinsically can be supplied through something else; it was altogether fitting that this would be supplied through charity or perfect contrition, which are the best dispositions.

[ts aquinas]

Does anyone truly know (not you specifically james) what Fr. Feeney was advocating and censored for or is a title of an argument simply seen and automatically understood?

His error was not arguing against baptism of desire but speculating justification (or pre-justification) is not sanctifying grace and thus created a distinction. He actually stated that souls that receive justification and die before water baptism do not go to heaven but also stated that they do not go to hell either. Well, that excludes limbo theory then since limbus is just the outer edges of hell. I guess he didn't get the memo either that I think it was one of the council's in constantinople condemned the idea of any place existing between heaven and hell.

Anyways, good find on those catechisms. But if you want to stir the pot even more check this out and try and reconcile this with BOD (I'm no advocate for or against it, just speculating:

Tome of Leo,

Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that "sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ's blood"; and let him not skip over the same apostle's words, "knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot." Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: "and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin"; and again, "This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith. Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? It is he, Jesus Christ who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony--Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one." In other words, the Spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption and the water of baptism. These three are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others. The reason is that it is by this faith that the Catholic Church lives and grows, by believing that neither the humanity is without true divinity nor the divinity without true humanity.

He, the Pope and through council his tome was universally accepted and thus the entire church, taught the sanctification of baptism is indivisible from the water of baptism. Over a thousand years later the church starts universally teaching the opposite.

[james03]

It appears we can narrow down the date for the genesis of Vat. II.  It was after 1891 and before the revision, which I believe was 1941.  During that period you had de Chardin, and also the communist infiltration into the Church via recruitment for the seminaries.  So it does not surprise me that the date of your cite is 1959.

Now the particulars:

Statement: "An implicit desire for Baptism is included in a general resolution to fulfill all the precepts of God."

Supposed proof: "  "He that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him...  If anyone love me... we will come to him, and will make our abode with him [/QUOTE]
Note that Christ is using Trinitarian language, and not talking about love for monotheistic God, but for the second person of the Holy Trinity.  Therefore the supposed proof actually proves the opposite.

[james03]

Does anyone truly know (not you specifically james) what Fr. Feeney was advocating and censored for or is a title of an argument simply seen and automatically understood?

Good question.  Start a new thread.

[Gardener]

The 2nd definition gives provision, taking definition 1 into account, that such persons do not finish their earthly course in such a state via the inspiration of God via grace as to things.

If, however, a moslem, etc. were to be given such grace and rejected it, he would be lost. But simply put, we have no idea the things God does for those who otherwise had no chance to hear the true Gospel or whatever else.

There's no metric for one to say BoD has saved 1000 people at most. Such a statement is just conjecture.

It might be far less, and it might be far more. Rather, the key to this concept is that God does not abandon souls and all men have the things necessary to be saved available to them in fact. Abstract availability, merely relegating it to theory, is useless for a real, live person.

Problematically, such availability presupposes adherence to natural law, which no man escapes, and which is necessarily violated by taking the practice of Islamic jurisprudence to its end, etc. But, I don't think anyone should have a problem with such souls being lost in some sense, as it's not like they were ignorant -- no man escapes natural law and thus, as St. Francis Xavier told the Japanese: if their relatives were lost it is on them.

tsa - one in essence and substantial effect: remission of sins. Think of it in terms of the Trinity: the persons are indeed themselves, but all are God and yet the Father is not the Son, etc.

[james03]

The 2nd definition gives provision, taking definition 1 into account, that such persons do not finish their earthly course in such a state via the inspiration of God via grace as to things.

No, it does not.  The 2nd definition says your receive the BOD when you desire to follow precepts of (a monotheistic) God.  The 1st says it is when you have an ARDENT DESIRE for baptism.

Now such a person who cooperates with Grace may receive miraculous internal inspiration and develop an ardent desire FOR baptism, and thus receive salvation.  But that is not what the second definition says.  It is in fact pelagian heresy.

[james03]

I think there is a more fundamental problem with all of this.

Basically, it is this:  your desire to fulfil precepts, or your actual good actions BEFORE sanctifying grace are meaningless vis a vis justification.  All they are good for is determining which level of hell you will abide in, either the limbo like top levels or the deep inferno.  That is all.

If you ever try to enter into a legalistic/law relationship with God, you go to hell.  Faith in Jesus Christ saves you.

And that is why a filthy sodomite like Oscar Wilde could be saved.

[Gardener]

I dunno why you constantly throw around words like pelagian and semi-pelagian contra their historical and continued meaning. If all good is from God, via grace, and loving God is objectively a good, then that love of God and desire to do all necessary for salvation must be from God, i.e., grace.

Pelagianism teaches a man can do good and achieve salvation apart from God.
Semi-pelagianism teaches that a man can do good and then be given grace.

Using the terms outside of their definition is unhelpful and in fact wrong. And since the definitions don't actually say what you have interpreted them as, I find it hard to concur that what was not said was said. That gets into explicit vs implicit, right? Yes.

So, if what is implied is not explicitly denied, then the implication is what stands: that an unbaptized person does something only possible by grace, and thus by grace and consequently faith they are saved. Further, since the will engages in actions, viz. thought, word and deed: thinking, speaking, or otherwise doing something to give consent is an act of will, and thus faith is shown by a work, lest we get all Lutheran in our language.

The 2nd definition is by no means pelagian considered in the definition of pelagianism, nor is it semi-pelagian. The first iteration which you quoted is more addressing explicit BOD, whereas the 2nd is expressing implicit. Since what can be implicit can be explicit, and the restrictive permissions of the one follow to the other, implicit desire can still affect the grace's operation so long as it is not obstructed by an explicit rejection; one would assume that if God were to give such grace to accept, it would also address the potential for explicit rejection and to overcome that potential.

Both definitions align just fine with Abp. Lefebvre's brief treatment of the subject in Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Chapter 10 "Ecumenism":

Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian's formula, "Outside the Church there is no salvation," also reject the Creed, "I confess one baptism for the remission of sins," and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.

Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, "Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell." I told him "No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you."

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.

The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion.  They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God.  As priests we must state the truth.

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-10.htm

[james03]

The point still stands.  The Church changed its definition.  The first definition is what the Church always meant by the desire for baptism.  The second definition is heresy.

You do not receive Sanctifying Grace by loving God above all things, because that is impossible.  Nor do you get it by desiring your salvation.  Using this definition, the musloids who crashed the planes on 911 got the baptism of desire.  They laid down their life for God, the greatest act of love, and they did it because they desired salvation.  It is pure heresy.

You are saved by Faith in Jesus Christ.  Without Faith in Christ, you can not be saved.

[james03]

The first iteration which you quoted is more addressing explicit BOD,

It makes no such distinction.  It is defining Baptism of Desire, which is in accordance with what the Church always held prior to 1890.

[ts aquinas]

The Church changed its definition.

Although I agree with your personal stance, this needs to be demonstrated. Baltimore catechism does not = the church.

[Michael Wilson]

I have had many discussions with James on this forum, and on this very subject; he denies that there is such a thing as "implicit" faith in the Blessed Trinity; so it follows that he believes that anyone who states that there is such a thing, is at least materially heretical.  It does no good to quote Pius IX's "Quanto Conficiamur Moreore" on this subject, as I have done so in the past with no result. Also, pre 20th C. Manuals the same.

[james03]

It does no good to quote Pius IX's "Quanto Conficiamur Moreore" on this subject,

I don't know.  Give it a whirl.