Author Topic: Baptism of Desire.. (Read 5759 times)

Daegus · « **on:** August 20, 2011, 06:49:41 AM »

I know that baptism of desire is a topic that has been discussed here before, and I'm sure everyone is tired of discussing it, but I don't understand how it can possibly be reconciled with Catholic dogma. (Also, before you call me a "Feeneyite", please note that my denial of baptism of desire really has nothing to do with him and I don't know much about the man anyways)

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, 1547, On Baptism, Canon II:"If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema."

Shouldn't this decree of the Council of Trent disprove the whole BoD argument anyways? From what I understand, BoD does not in any way involve water and so I don't understand how anyone can say it is even a baptism at all. I accept Baptism of Blood because I have understood to be similar to a second baptism which applies only to those who have already been baptized.

I am incredibly hesitant to believe in baptism of desire because from what I do understand it does seem heretical. Even if certain saints have taught it or Popes have been of the opinion that it is possible/true, that really isn't enough for me if it is contrary to dogma.

Anyways, don't BoD advocates also say that BoD does not actually imprint the indelible mark of baptism on a person's soul? If that's true, how can it be said to be a baptism at all?

Without getting to into this, I want to know what you think.

SJB · « **Reply #1 on:** August 20, 2011, 07:00:29 AM »

Quote from: Daegus

I know that baptism of desire is a topic that has been discussed here before, and I'm sure everyone is tired of discussing it, but I don't understand how it can possibly be reconciled with Catholic dogma. (Also, before you call me a "Feeneyite", please note that my denial of baptism of desire really has nothing to do with him and I don't know much about the man anyways)

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, 1547, On Baptism, Canon II:"If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema."

Shouldn't this decree of the Council of Trent disprove the whole BoD argument anyways? From what I understand, BoD does not in any way involve water and so I don't understand how anyone can say it is even a baptism at all. I accept Baptism of Blood because I have understood to be similar to a second baptism which applies only to those who have already been baptized.

I am incredibly hesitant to believe in baptism of desire because from what I do understand it does seem heretical. Even if certain saints have taught it or Popes have been of the opinion that it is possible/true, that really isn't enough for me if it is contrary to dogma.

Anyways, don't BoD advocates also say that BoD does not actually imprint the indelible mark of baptism on a person's soul? If that's true, how can it be said to be a baptism at all?

Without getting to into this, I want to know what you think.

I know, I know ... says it all. If you know, why are you starting this thread? :wink:

Daegus · « **Reply #2 on:** August 20, 2011, 07:03:49 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Daegus
I know that baptism of desire is a topic that has been discussed here before, and I'm sure everyone is tired of discussing it, but I don't understand how it can possibly be reconciled with Catholic dogma. (Also, before you call me a "Feeneyite", please note that my denial of baptism of desire really has nothing to do with him and I don't know much about the man anyways)

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, 1547, On Baptism, Canon II:"If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema."

Shouldn't this decree of the Council of Trent disprove the whole BoD argument anyways? From what I understand, BoD does not in any way involve water and so I don't understand how anyone can say it is even a baptism at all. I accept Baptism of Blood because I have understood to be similar to a second baptism which applies only to those who have already been baptized.

I am incredibly hesitant to believe in baptism of desire because from what I do understand it does seem heretical. Even if certain saints have taught it or Popes have been of the opinion that it is possible/true, that really isn't enough for me if it is contrary to dogma.

Anyways, don't BoD advocates also say that BoD does not actually imprint the indelible mark of baptism on a person's soul? If that's true, how can it be said to be a baptism at all?

Without getting to into this, I want to know what you think.

I know, I know ... says it all. If you know, why are you starting this thread? :wink:

Did you.... Did you even read the thread?

I'm trying to get a better understanding of BoD and why it may or may not be heretical =.=

Exilenomore · « **Reply #3 on:** August 20, 2011, 07:04:59 AM »

Quote from: St. Alphonsus, 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".

Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality ["non ita stricte"] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from Baptism of blood – translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.

It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ.

(Translated by John Daly)

St. Alphonsus is a Saint and Doctor of the Church. One should not make caricatures of the salutary doctrine of the Church, pulling definitions out of their proper context.

spouse of Jesus · « **Reply #4 on:** August 20, 2011, 08:13:19 AM »

You are a catechmen or have faith but are denied baptism.
One who persecutes the church comes and asks you:"Do you believe in Jesus being The Son of God?"
If you say "yes" you are killed.
If you say "no" it is a grave sin.
If you say "yes", you die unbaptized.
If you say "no", the persecutor will rejoice and God will be offended.

The dillema has no other solution expect believing in BOB or BOD.

Daegus · « **Reply #5 on:** August 20, 2011, 08:24:10 AM »

Quote from: spouse of Jesus

You are a catechmen or have faith but are denied baptism.
One who persecutes the church comes and asks you:"Do you believe in Jesus being The Son of God?"
If you say "yes" you are killed.
If you say "no" it is a grave sin.
If you say "yes", you die unbaptized.
If you say "no", the persecutor will rejoice and God will be offended.

The dillema has no other solution expect believing in BOB or BOD.

Being that God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, do you really believe God could not foresee such a thing happening and not prevent that from even happening to begin with? If someone really had faith, why would God allow that to happen, begin omniscient as He is?

So you see that your "other solution" is really not very plausible when we consider how unreasonable it is.

Daegus · « **Reply #6 on:** August 20, 2011, 08:28:42 AM »

Quote from: Exilenomore

Quote from: St. Alphonsus, 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 ####o 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".

Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality ["non ita stricte"] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from Baptism of blood – translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.

It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ.

(Translated by John Daly)

St. Alphonsus is a Saint and Doctor of the Church. One should not make caricatures of the salutary doctrine of the Church, pulling definitions out of their proper context.

Being a Saint and a Doctor of the Church does not mean that one cannot be wrong. In fact, proofs of Saints and DoCs being wrong is all over history, the most classic being St. Thomas Aquinas's errors on conception.

Anyways.. The Church has always taught that there is no salvation outside the Church. Would you not agree that Catechumens are outside the Church? The Church has denied them burial among those inside the Church traditionally. The Church has also taught that water baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism of desire does not involve water then how can these people be saved?

I don't really feel that the arguments for baptism of desire are very good ones.

Daegus · « **Reply #7 on:** August 20, 2011, 08:30:30 AM »

Quote from: Daegus

Quote from: spouse of Jesus
You are a catechmen or have faith but are denied baptism.
One who persecutes the church comes and asks you:"Do you believe in Jesus being The Son of God?"
If you say "yes" you are killed.
If you say "no" it is a grave sin.
If you say "yes", you die unbaptized.
If you say "no", the persecutor will rejoice and God will be offended.

The dillema has no other solution expect believing in BOB or BOD.

Being that God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, do you really believe God could not foresee such a thing happening and not prevent that from even happening to begin with? If someone really had faith, why would God allow that to happen, being omniscient as He is?

So you see that your "other solution" is really not very plausible when we consider how unreasonable it is.

Fixed.

Exilenomore · « **Reply #8 on:** August 20, 2011, 08:42:03 AM »

There are Saints who where catechumens and who were martyred before having been able to receive water Baptism. The Holy Innocents, too, are in Heaven.

If one has access to water Baptism, but refuses to receive it, then one is condemned. If one has, moved by supernatural faith and charity, the sincere intention to receive it, but dies an unforeseen* death before the actual reception, that person receives the fruits of Baptism.

Also, when a Saint and Doctor of the Church says that a certain doctrine is de fide and that the contrary position is at least temerarious, then you can not simply dismiss it.

*Unforeseen by the said person, not by God.

Daegus · « **Reply #9 on:** August 20, 2011, 09:01:44 AM »

Quote from: Exilenomore

There are Saints who where catechumens and who were martyred before having been able to receive water Baptism. The Holy Innocents, too, are in Heaven.

With regards to saints who were Catechumens, I haven't seen any proof that any of those people did not receive water baptism at any point in time. Just because no known text explicitly says that they did doesn't mean that they didn't.

With regards to the Holy Innocents, they were martyred before the law of baptism was ever even established and made efficacious by Christ's Passion.

Quote

If one has access to water Baptism, but refuses to receive it, then one is condemned. If one has, moved by supernatural faith and charity, the sincere intention to receive it, but dies an unforeseen* death before the actual reception, that person receives the fruits of Baptism.

*Unforeseen by the said person, not by God.

Why does it matter of whether or not the person foresees this death or not? It's obvious that God does and I don't see why God would allow them to die without water baptism if He knew that they truly wanted to be saved. I just don't see why God would allow that to happen in cases where the person truly wants to enter the Church. Further, the fact that baptism of desire is far from being dogma (and the fact that it is quite a pressing issue) is what disinclines me from believing in it. I really don't want to err on the faith in such a way. Especially not with baptism which is quite a solemn issue.

Edit: I seriously don't know why you people feel the need to thumb down my posts. I am trying to understand how BoD can be reconciled with Catholic dogma. I'm not trying to start fights. Instead of trying to help you anonymous detractors thumb me down and offer nothing of substance? Wow.

Quote

Also, when a Saint and Doctor of the Church says that a certain doctrine is de fide and that the contrary position is at least temerarious, then you can not simply dismiss it.

I'm not sure you understand what it is that I'm arguing. Please repeat to me what you think it is I've said thus far and I'll tell you if that's what I'm trying to say.

Exilenomore · « **Reply #10 on:** August 20, 2011, 10:04:49 AM »

I do not deny that a Saint/Doctor can be mistaken, but when he says that a certain doctrine is de fide, and the contrary proposition temerarious, then it cannot simply be dismissed. Pope Pius XII has settled the case anyway, so there is no grounds for further debate. Also, Pope St. Pius V taught in Ex Omibus Afflictionibus that justification and supernatural faith and charity cannot be separated from the remission of sins.

It is the positive will of Christ that all receive water Baptism to be saved. So, water Baptism is a necessity. But it is not an absolute necessity, in that those who die without water Baptism through no fault of their own can be saved through supernatural desire for it.

qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit salvus erit qui vero non crediderit condemnabitur (St. Mark 16,16)

When speaking of those who will be condemned, Christ obviously speaks of those who refuse water Baptism because they do not believe it necessary, not of those who do want to receive it but happen to die before they could even receive an emergency Baptism.

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is a dogma of the Church, but it must be interpreted the way the Church interprets it.

Quote from: Daegus

With regards to the Holy Innocents, they were martyred before the law of baptism was ever even established and made efficacious by Christ's Passion.

According to the false logic of those who rigorously divorce the EENS dogma of it's true meaning, this would also be a violation of the dogma.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #11 on:** August 20, 2011, 10:10:55 AM »

Quote

Exilenomore said:
There are Saints who where catechumens and who were martyred before having been able to receive water Baptism. The Holy Innocents, too, are in Heaven.

Daegus said: With regards to saints who were Catechumens, I haven't seen any proof that any of those people did not receive water baptism at any point in time. Just because no known text explicitly says that they did doesn't mean that they didn't.

With regards to the Holy Innocents, they were martyred before the law of baptism was ever even established and made efficacious by Christ's Passion.

The books lives of the Saints said so, with approval of the Church, so when you stand before God, better to have that backing you, instead of some Feeynite, who is outside the Church because they deny a de fide teaching.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #12 on:** August 20, 2011, 10:11:59 AM »

Daegus · « **Reply #13 on:** August 20, 2011, 10:13:48 AM »

What I would like to know is whether or not natural water is absolutely necessary for a person to be baptized, and whether or not baptism (with water) is absolutely necessary for salvation.

Daegus · « **Reply #14 on:** August 20, 2011, 10:16:14 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote
Exilenomore said:
There are Saints who where catechumens and who were martyred before having been able to receive water Baptism. The Holy Innocents, too, are in Heaven.

Daegus said: With regards to saints who were Catechumens, I haven't seen any proof that any of those people did not receive water baptism at any point in time. Just because no known text explicitly says that they did doesn't mean that they didn't.

With regards to the Holy Innocents, they were martyred before the law of baptism was ever even established and made efficacious by Christ's Passion.

The books lives of the Saints said so, with approval of the Church, so when you stand before God, better to have that backing you, instead of some Feeynite, who is outside the Church because they deny a de fide teaching.

Are you saying that baptism of desire is a dogma of the faith? I have not seen any clear teaching on whether or not baptism of desire is a dogma of the faith. A saint saying that something is "de fide" does not constitute a dogma.