Author Topic: Catholic (vs. Heretical) Baptism of Desire (Read 14641 times)

Ladislaus · « **on:** August 07, 2014, 02:32:09 PM »

Since LoT and others persist in hiding behind the concept of Baptism of Desire and using it as cover for their heresies and their contempt for the Sacrament of Baptism and their contempt for the dogma that there can be no salvation outside the Church and their contempt for membership in the Church, I felt it necessary to start a separate thread in order distinguish between a CATHOLIC understanding of Baptism of Desire and their heretical distortion of the same. They use various forms of obfuscation to hide this and throw a bunch of chaff into the air as distraction.

LoT has admitted that he would personally consider God to be an "arbitrary tyrant" if He required Baptism for Salvation, despite the fact that His Son Our Lord most solemnly declared "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

LoT has contemptuously disparaged the Holy Sacrament of Baptism as "water and words" (in the tone of "smells and bells").

LoT has expressed disdain for membership in the Church and being part of Our Lord's Mystical Body by referring to it as "card-carrying".

These attitudes and this pseudo-theology is precisely what the Council of Trent was most emphatically addressing and condemning.

Trent DOGMATICALLY taught the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, against the Protestant heretics who had contempt for them (in the same mindset as LoT). Trent CONDEMNED the notion of an invisible Church and reaffirmed the requirement of membership in the Church for salvation.

If you look at EVERY SINGLE quasi-authoritative source cited by heretics like LoT and Ambrose to justify their gnostic/heretical/Protestant ecclesiology (the same ecclesiology, by the way, which led to Vatican II), they ALL view Baptism of Desire as applicable only to those who have all the necessary prerequisites to be Catholic (as defined by the Council of Trent) and lack absolutely nothing to be Catholic except the Sacrament itself.

After Trent, Catholic theologians were careful to state that in BoD people received the Sacrament in voto rather than saying that they were justified without the Sacrament ... out of respect for the solemn teaching of Trent regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation. Trent taught that the Sacrament of Baptism is the instrumental cause of justification. Consequently, in Baptism of Desire, it is STILL the Sacrament of Baptism that acts as the instrumental cause of justification, operating THROUGH the desire, i.e. that the formal OBJECT of the desire and not the subjective desire itself (=Pelagian ex opere operantis salvation) causes justification. It is the Sacrament of Baptism, the formal object of the desire, which causes justification, with the COOPERATION of the will (i.e. the actual subjective desire). To say that the desire itself justifies entails the two-fold heresy of Pelagianism and rejection of Trent's dogmatic teaching regarding the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

Let's look at the quasi-authoritative sources regarding Baptism of Desire:

St. Augustine -- BoD for CATECHUMENS (later no BoD at all)
SEVERAL Church Fathers -- no BoD whatsoever
Innocent II/Innocent III -- BoD for CATECHUMENS
St. Thomas Aquinas -- BoD for CATECHUMENS
St. Robert Bellarmine -- BoD for CATECHUMENS
Catechism of Trent -- BoD for CATECHUMENS
1917 Code of Canon Law -- BoD for CATECHUMENS

LoT, Ambrose, and heretics of their ilk want to substitute subjective "good intentions" for objective Catholic faith and objective intention to become Catholic and the necessity of the Sacraments.

Why? Because, by their own admission, they can't stand the thought that only Catholics can be saved. In other words, this "theology" is born out of their contempt for the Holy Dogma that There Is Absolutely No Salvation Outside the Church.

This ecclesiology IS in fact none other than the gnostic/Pelagian/Protestant "subsistence" ecclesiology of Vatican II from which ALL the errors and heresies of Vatican II proceed. Yet LoT, Ambrose, and others -- quite ironically, mostly the sedevacantists -- hold the SAME FUNDAMENTAL HERESIES THAT THEY USE TO DECLARE JORGE BERGOGLIO TO BE A HERETIC AND TO HAVE VACATED THE HOLY SEE.

Avoid these heretics on CI like the plague. If you believe in BoD, JUST MAKE SURE YOU HAVE A CATHOLIC VIEW OF BOD. Never say that such as these are justified WITHOUT the Sacrament of Baptism, but rather that they receive Baptism in voto ("in desire") and that the formal object of their desire, the Sacrament of Baptism, remains the instrumental cause of their justification. Never say that non-Catholics can be saved; they cannot. As the Holy Office under St. Pius X declared, if Catholics are asked whether non-Catholics can be saved, the answer MUST BE A SIMPLE, CATEGORIAL, UNQUALIFIED NO !!! Not a five-page dissertation which essentially undercuts the dogma, reduces EENS to a tautology and therefore a meaningless forumla, but "NO!!!"

Let your speech be yes, yes and no, no; anything more is of the devil.

Ad Jesum per Mariam · « **Reply #1 on:** August 07, 2014, 07:52:36 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Since LoT and others persist in hiding behind the concept of Baptism of Desire and using it as cover for their heresies and their contempt for the Sacrament of Baptism and their contempt for the dogma that there can be no salvation outside the Church and their contempt for membership in the Church, I felt it necessary to start a separate thread in order distinguish between a CATHOLIC understanding of Baptism of Desire and their heretical distortion of the same. They use various forms of obfuscation to hide this and throw a bunch of chaff into the air as distraction.

LoT has admitted that he would personally consider God to be an "arbitrary tyrant" if He required Baptism for Salvation, despite the fact that His Son Our Lord most solemnly declared "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

LoT has contemptuously disparaged the Holy Sacrament of Baptism as "water and words" (in the tone of "smells and bells").

LoT has expressed disdain for membership in the Church and being part of Our Lord's Mystical Body by referring to it as "card-carrying".

These attitudes and this pseudo-theology is precisely what the Council of Trent was most emphatically addressing and condemning.

Trent DOGMATICALLY taught the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, against the Protestant heretics who had contempt for them (in the same mindset as LoT). Trent CONDEMNED the notion of an invisible Church and reaffirmed the requirement of membership in the Church for salvation.

If you look at EVERY SINGLE quasi-authoritative source cited by heretics like LoT and Ambrose to justify their gnostic/heretical/Protestant ecclesiology (the same ecclesiology, by the way, which led to Vatican II), they ALL view Baptism of Desire as applicable only to those who have all the necessary prerequisites to be Catholic (as defined by the Council of Trent) and lack absolutely nothing to be Catholic except the Sacrament itself.

After Trent, Catholic theologians were careful to state that in BoD people received the Sacrament in voto rather than saying that they were justified without the Sacrament ... out of respect for the solemn teaching of Trent regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation. Trent taught that the Sacrament of Baptism is the instrumental cause of justification. Consequently, in Baptism of Desire, it is STILL the Sacrament of Baptism that acts as the instrumental cause of justification, operating THROUGH the desire, i.e. that the formal OBJECT of the desire and not the subjective desire itself (=Pelagian ex opere operantis salvation) causes justification. It is the Sacrament of Baptism, the formal object of the desire, which causes justification, with the COOPERATION of the will (i.e. the actual subjective desire). To say that the desire itself justifies entails the two-fold heresy of Pelagianism and rejection of Trent's dogmatic teaching regarding the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

Let's look at the quasi-authoritative sources regarding Baptism of Desire:

St. Augustine -- BoD for CATECHUMENS (later no BoD at all)
SEVERAL Church Fathers -- no BoD whatsoever
Innocent II/Innocent III -- BoD for CATECHUMENS
St. Thomas Aquinas -- BoD for CATECHUMENS
St. Robert Bellarmine -- BoD for CATECHUMENS
Catechism of Trent -- BoD for CATECHUMENS
1917 Code of Canon Law -- BoD for CATECHUMENS

LoT, Ambrose, and heretics of their ilk want to substitute subjective "good intentions" for objective Catholic faith and objective intention to become Catholic and the necessity of the Sacraments.

Why? Because, by their own admission, they can't stand the thought that only Catholics can be saved. In other words, this "theology" is born out of their contempt for the Holy Dogma that There Is Absolutely No Salvation Outside the Church.

This ecclesiology IS in fact none other than the gnostic/Pelagian/Protestant "subsistence" ecclesiology of Vatican II from which ALL the errors and heresies of Vatican II proceed. Yet LoT, Ambrose, and others -- quite ironically, mostly the sedevacantists -- hold the SAME FUNDAMENTAL HERESIES THAT THEY USE TO DECLARE JORGE BERGOGLIO TO BE A HERETIC AND TO HAVE VACATED THE HOLY SEE.

Avoid these heretics on CI like the plague. If you believe in BoD, JUST MAKE SURE YOU HAVE A CATHOLIC VIEW OF BOD. Never say that such as these are justified WITHOUT the Sacrament of Baptism, but rather that they receive Baptism in voto ("in desire") and that the formal object of their desire, the Sacrament of Baptism, remains the instrumental cause of their justification. Never say that non-Catholics can be saved; they cannot. As the Holy Office under St. Pius X declared, if Catholics are asked whether non-Catholics can be saved, the answer MUST BE A SIMPLE, CATEGORIAL, UNQUALIFIED NO !!! Not a five-page dissertation which essentially undercuts the dogma, reduces EENS to a tautology and therefore a meaningless forumla, but "NO!!!"

Let your speech be yes, yes and no, no; anything more is of the devil.

In your list of "quasi-authoritative sources" you left out those sources that taught implicit baptism of desire such as: St. Alphonsus Liguori, Pope Pius IX, The Baltimore Catechism and The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X to name some. Implicit baptism of desire is a teaching of the Catholic Church, although I do not believe it is de fide. The Church never clearly defined in an extraordinary way her teaching on implicit Baptism of Desire. Hence we have the abuses we see today. Feenyism is an over reaction to these abuses. Feenyism is a heresy plain and simple. On the other side are those who claim that non-Catholics are members of the Church. Of these when can divide them into two basic groups. Those who believe invincible ignorance+perfect contrition and charity=Church membership by desire (questionable), and people who believe even those who are not invincibly ignorant and even those who reject the Catholic faith can be members of the Catholic by desire (heresy). The invincible ignorance teaching seems to be much more prominent since two encyclicals from Pope Pius IX on this matter. Although Pope Pius IX seems to imply that invincibly ignorant non-Catholics are in the Church, he stops short of actually saying that. He does, however, say that they able to attain eternal life "by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace" (not that they are currently saved), and that God does not hold the sin of unbelief against the invincibly ignorant. This holy Pope only states the same as Christ, when Christ said to the pharisees, "If you were blind you should not have sin..." This does not however, mean that God will not require belief from them before they die. This also does not mean that the invincibly ignorant are in the Catholic Church while they are living.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** August 07, 2014, 08:23:05 PM »

Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam

In your list of "quasi-authoritative sources" you left out those sources that taught implicit baptism of desire such as: St. Alphonsus Liguori, Pope Pius IX, The Baltimore Catechism and The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X to name some.

Pope Pius IX taught no such thing.

I have seen where the Baltimore Catechism and St. Pius X Catechism teach BoD but I have not seen any citations regarding implicit BoD.

St. Alphonsus uses the term implicit in a different way than what you want it to mean, and his theology of BoD has been demonstrated to be faulty.

So you can list (most of it wrongly) about half a dozen sources that hold implicit BoD.

And let's get this straight, by implicit BoD you mean that non-Catholics can be saved.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** August 07, 2014, 08:31:57 PM »

So, JAM, do you believe that non-Catholics can be saved and that people can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism?

Ad Jesum per Mariam · « **Reply #4 on:** August 07, 2014, 09:46:52 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam
In your list of "quasi-authoritative sources" you left out those sources that taught implicit baptism of desire such as: St. Alphonsus Liguori, Pope Pius IX, The Baltimore Catechism and The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X to name some.

Pope Pius IX taught no such thing.

I have seen where the Baltimore Catechism and St. Pius X Catechism teach BoD but I have not seen any citations regarding implicit BoD.

St. Alphonsus uses the term implicit in a different way than what you want it to mean, and his theology of BoD has been demonstrated to be faulty.

So you can list (most of it wrongly) about half a dozen sources that hold implicit BoD.

And let's get this straight, by implicit BoD you mean that non-Catholics can be saved.

Pope Pius IX certainly could be taken to have implied BoD, although he wasn't as explicit as the Balt. Catechism and St. Pius X Catechism. I thought I explained that (later in my reply). The teaching is explicitly found in 2 major Catechisms of the Church. St. Alphonsus (Doctor in short order) taught it. I never stated "what I wanted it to mean" in my reply to you. Also, your remark regarding non-Catholics being saved makes no sense. All non-Catholics can be saved. The question is "at what point does a non-Catholic become Catholic?" When are they "in the Catholic Church." Most Feenyites say, "only when a Catechumen receives water baptism" This is a heresy. On the other side, there are those who say, "non-Catholics who are not invincibly ignorant are in the Church, provided they are basically good people." This is also a heresy. As I stated on another thread, St. Thomas says, explicit belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation are required at least. The two Catechisms (Balt. & St. Pius X) seem to say otherwise in regards to those who are invincibly ignorant. I believe Archbishop Lefebvre sided with the two Catechisms. The Church has not pronounced definitively and explicitly on her doctrine of implicit baptism of desire. If and when she does. I hope God gives us all the grace to follow the teaching wholeheartedly and that we cooperate with that grace. The teaching on explicit baptism of desire, however, has been given definitively and explicitly at the Council of Trent. This we must believe as Catholics.

Cantarella · « **Reply #5 on:** August 07, 2014, 10:19:14 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

This ecclesiology IS in fact none other than the gnostic/Pelagian/Protestant "subsistence" ecclesiology of Vatican II from which ALL the errors and heresies of Vatican II proceed. Yet LoT, Ambrose, and others -- quite ironically, mostly the sedevacantists -- hold the SAME FUNDAMENTAL HERESIES THAT THEY USE TO DECLARE JORGE BERGOGLIO TO BE A HERETIC AND TO HAVE VACATED THE HOLY SEE.

Avoid these heretics on CI like the plague. If you believe in BoD, JUST MAKE SURE YOU HAVE A CATHOLIC VIEW OF BOD. Never say that such as these are justified WITHOUT the Sacrament of Baptism, but rather that they receive Baptism in voto ("in desire") and that the formal object of their desire, the Sacrament of Baptism, remains the instrumental cause of their justification. Never say that non-Catholics can be saved; they cannot. As the Holy Office under St. Pius X declared, if Catholics are asked whether non-Catholics can be saved, the answer MUST BE A SIMPLE, CATEGORIAL, UNQUALIFIED NO !!! Not a five-page dissertation which essentially undercuts the dogma, reduces EENS to a tautology and therefore a meaningless forumla, but "NO!!!"

Here is a list of modernist errors brought by the heresy of "Salvation by Implicit Desire" or "Salvation by Justification Alone" that BODers actually promote (most SSPX and Resistance people at least believe in BOD for catechumens only, as they hold that the Catholic Faith at the very least! is necessary for justification. It is the sedevacantists (in their vast majority) that hold that not even the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation:

1.One can be saved outside the Church.
2.One can be saved without having the Catholic Faith.
3.Baptism is not necessary for salvation.
4.To confess the supremacy and infallibility of the Roman Church and of the Roman Pontiff is not necessary for salvation.
5.One can be saved without submitting personally to the authority of the Roman Pontiff.
6.Ignorance of Christ and His Church excuses one from all fault and confers justification and salvation.
7.One can be saved who dies ignorant of Christ and His Church.
8.One can be saved who dies hating Christ and His Church.
9.God, of His Supreme Goodness and Mercy, would not permit anyone to be punished eternally unless he had incurred the guilt of voluntary sin.
10.A man is sure of his salvation once he is justified.
11.One can be saved by merely an implicit desire for Baptism.
12.There are two Churches, the one visible, the other invisible.
13.There are two kinds of membership in the Church.
14.Membership in the Church can be invisible or even unconscious.
15.To know and love the Blessed Virgin is not necessary for salvation.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #6 on:** August 08, 2014, 05:11:31 AM »

http://www.scribd.com/doc/211357956/Sources-of-Baptism-of-Blood-Baptism-of-Desire

JPaul · « **Reply #7 on:** August 08, 2014, 08:10:20 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

http://www.scribd.com/doc/211357956/Sources-of-Baptism-of-Blood-Baptism-of-Desire

SSSSSSPPPPPPAAAAAAAMMMMMMM!!!!!!.............

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #8 on:** August 08, 2014, 08:47:05 AM »

FEENEYITE: I disagree with all the following Catholic teachings but I'm still a Catholic:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/211357956/Sources-of-Baptism-of-Blood-Baptism-of-Desire

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #9 on:** August 08, 2014, 11:41:52 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

http://www.scribd.com/doc/211357956/Sources-of-Baptism-of-Blood-Baptism-of-Desire

WOW! Now that is one very impressive collection of references.

Bravo!!

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #10 on:** August 08, 2014, 11:43:49 AM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

Quote from: Lover of Truth
http://www.scribd.com/doc/211357956/Sources-of-Baptism-of-Blood-Baptism-of-Desire

WOW! Now that is one very impressive collection of references.

Bravo!!

In fact, the list reads well as a shopping list for used books... abebooks.com

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #11 on:** August 08, 2014, 11:57:04 AM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
Quote from: Lover of Truth
http://www.scribd.com/doc/211357956/Sources-of-Baptism-of-Blood-Baptism-of-Desire

WOW! Now that is one very impressive collection of references.

Bravo!!

In fact, the list reads well as a shopping list for used books... abebooks.com

You can see why the Feeneyites cry when they see this. The onslaught in contradiction to their heresy is overwhelming even for them. It would take the years to sort through it all and take it out of context and claim each thing meant something than it really means, and claim they didn't get the Latin right or it was all mistranslated or "THEY ALL ERRED" as they are prone to do. No, instead they cry like little babies.

obertray imondday · « **Reply #12 on:** August 08, 2014, 02:21:32 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Since LoT and others persist in hiding behind the concept of Baptism of Desire and using it as cover for their heresies and their contempt for the Sacrament of Baptism and their contempt for the dogma that there can be no salvation outside the Church and their contempt for membership in the Church, I felt it necessary to start a separate thread in order distinguish between a CATHOLIC understanding of Baptism of Desire and their heretical distortion of the same. They use various forms of obfuscation to hide this and throw a bunch of chaff into the air as distraction.

LoT has admitted that he would personally consider God to be an "arbitrary tyrant" if He required Baptism for Salvation, despite the fact that His Son Our Lord most solemnly declared "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

LoT has contemptuously disparaged the Holy Sacrament of Baptism as "water and words" (in the tone of "smells and bells").

LoT has expressed disdain for membership in the Church and being part of Our Lord's Mystical Body by referring to it as "card-carrying".

These attitudes and this pseudo-theology is precisely what the Council of Trent was most emphatically addressing and condemning.

Trent DOGMATICALLY taught the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation, against the Protestant heretics who had contempt for them (in the same mindset as LoT). Trent CONDEMNED the notion of an invisible Church and reaffirmed the requirement of membership in the Church for salvation.

If you look at EVERY SINGLE quasi-authoritative source cited by heretics like LoT and Ambrose to justify their gnostic/heretical/Protestant ecclesiology (the same ecclesiology, by the way, which led to Vatican II), they ALL view Baptism of Desire as applicable only to those who have all the necessary prerequisites to be Catholic (as defined by the Council of Trent) and lack absolutely nothing to be Catholic except the Sacrament itself.

After Trent, Catholic theologians were careful to state that in BoD people received the Sacrament in voto rather than saying that they were justified without the Sacrament ... out of respect for the solemn teaching of Trent regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation. Trent taught that the Sacrament of Baptism is the instrumental cause of justification. Consequently, in Baptism of Desire, it is STILL the Sacrament of Baptism that acts as the instrumental cause of justification, operating THROUGH the desire, i.e. that the formal OBJECT of the desire and not the subjective desire itself (=Pelagian ex opere operantis salvation) causes justification. It is the Sacrament of Baptism, the formal object of the desire, which causes justification, with the COOPERATION of the will (i.e. the actual subjective desire). To say that the desire itself justifies entails the two-fold heresy of Pelagianism and rejection of Trent's dogmatic teaching regarding the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

Let's look at the quasi-authoritative sources regarding Baptism of Desire:

St. Augustine -- BoD for CATECHUMENS (later no BoD at all)
SEVERAL Church Fathers -- no BoD whatsoever
Innocent II/Innocent III -- BoD for CATECHUMENS
St. Thomas Aquinas -- BoD for CATECHUMENS
St. Robert Bellarmine -- BoD for CATECHUMENS
Catechism of Trent -- BoD for CATECHUMENS
1917 Code of Canon Law -- BoD for CATECHUMENS

LoT, Ambrose, and heretics of their ilk want to substitute subjective "good intentions" for objective Catholic faith and objective intention to become Catholic and the necessity of the Sacraments.

Why? Because, by their own admission, they can't stand the thought that only Catholics can be saved. In other words, this "theology" is born out of their contempt for the Holy Dogma that There Is Absolutely No Salvation Outside the Church.

This ecclesiology IS in fact none other than the gnostic/Pelagian/Protestant "subsistence" ecclesiology of Vatican II from which ALL the errors and heresies of Vatican II proceed. Yet LoT, Ambrose, and others -- quite ironically, mostly the sedevacantists -- hold the SAME FUNDAMENTAL HERESIES THAT THEY USE TO DECLARE JORGE BERGOGLIO TO BE A HERETIC AND TO HAVE VACATED THE HOLY SEE.

Avoid these heretics on CI like the plague. If you believe in BoD, JUST MAKE SURE YOU HAVE A CATHOLIC VIEW OF BOD. Never say that such as these are justified WITHOUT the Sacrament of Baptism, but rather that they receive Baptism in voto ("in desire") and that the formal object of their desire, the Sacrament of Baptism, remains the instrumental cause of their justification. Never say that non-Catholics can be saved; they cannot. As the Holy Office under St. Pius X declared, if Catholics are asked whether non-Catholics can be saved, the answer MUST BE A SIMPLE, CATEGORIAL, UNQUALIFIED NO !!! Not a five-page dissertation which essentially undercuts the dogma, reduces EENS to a tautology and therefore a meaningless forumla, but "NO!!!"

Let your speech be yes, yes and no, no; anything more is of the devil.

I don't know if it could be explained any better!

tdrev123 · « **Reply #13 on:** August 08, 2014, 03:04:15 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Here is a list of modernist errors brought by the heresy of "Salvation by Implicit Desire" or "Salvation by Justification Alone" that BODers actually promote (most SSPX and Resistance people at least believe in BOD for catechumens only, as they hold that the Catholic Faith at the very least! is necessary for justification. It is the sedevacantists (in their vast majority) that hold that not even the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation:

Can I ask why do you say that most sspx and resistance people hold BOD for catechumens only? (this is what i believe too and I am a sede) Do you mean in actual chapels or just on CI? And if that is actually true then why are there no sspx or resistance priests who teach what you say most people believe in (that go to their mass)?

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #14 on:** August 08, 2014, 03:05:42 PM »

Quote from: obertray imondday

Quote from: Ladislaus
bla bla, bla bla bla

I don't know if it could be explained any better!

Ignoratio elenchi