Pius IX proclaimed Baptism of desire for some people outside the Church. As far as I have seen, no cleric has ever said he was wrong, not even Fr. Feeney.

To whom it may concern,


In Fr Wathen's book Who Shall Ascend, he does in fact claim the term BOD and BOB do not appear in the Catechism of the Council of Trent until the Nineteenth century. It is in the first footnote of Part one-chapter three, section C. I will copy/paste it here with the paragraph it is footing. I must confess some sloppiness here as I put the wrong page number down. It is page 112 in my PDF copy.


Salvation cannot be gained by the merest desire for it, or a vague willingness to do God's will, or an unexpressed tolerance of God's existence and sovereignty, or whatever other way in which the term "baptism of desire" is understood, whose number seems as great as there are individuals who swear by it. And it is dishonest for anyone to deny that a major problem with the use of the expression is that no one may define the word authoritatively, and to act as if those who do not accept this definition are unreasonable or stone-hearted. The Church has never defined the word, nor used it in any of its official statements. 1.

1 Some will want to assert that the terms "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" are taught in "The Catechism of the Council of Trent. "Item1: In the original edition of The Catechism, there is no mention of either term. In fact, one will not find the insertion of these terms therein until the late Nineteenth century.



To DecemRationis,
I do not no on what authority Fr Wathen bases this position.

To whom it may concern,


In Fr Wathen's book Who Shall Ascend, he does in fact claim the term BOD and BOB do not appear in the Catechism of the Council of Trent until the Nineteenth century. It is in the first footnote of Part one-chapter three, section C. I will copy/paste it here with the paragraph it is footing. I must confess some sloppiness here as I put the wrong page number down. It is page 112 in my PDF copy.


Salvation cannot be gained by the merest desire for it, or a vague willingness to do God's will, or an unexpressed tolerance of God's existence and sovereignty, or whatever other way in which the term "baptism of desire" is understood, whose number seems as great as there are individuals who swear by it. And it is dishonest for anyone to deny that a major problem with the use of the expression is that no one may define the word authoritatively, and to act as if those who do not accept this definition are unreasonable or stone-hearted. The Church has never defined the word, nor used it in any of its official statements. 1.

1 Some will want to assert that the terms "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" are taught in "The Catechism of the Council of Trent. "Item1: In the original edition of The Catechism, there is no mention of either term. In fact, one will not find the insertion of these terms therein until the late Nineteenth century.



To DecemRationis,
I do not no on what authority Fr Wathen bases this position.

Wow. Thanks Joe. Need to do some investigating now. 

In all the commentaries on Acts 10:44-48, you will find (and St. Luke and St. Peter themselves imply it) that Cornelius the catechumen (and both St. Augustine and St. Thomas also teach this) received the Holy Spirit before his Baptism. Thus, he received justification by Baptism of Desire and salvation after receiving the Sacrament. The question is, whether all who receive Baptism of Desire will also receive the Sacrament of Baptism? Here, St. Augustine answers yes, certainly, while St. Thomas answers, no, not necessarily. This question is not settled by the Magisterium. St. Augustine's position is theologically defensible. There is a text in the Gospel of Nicodemus which has come up in recent research that suggests the Ot patriarchs were actually baptized in some way before entering heaven. If so, that would support St. Augustine's position. In the Middle Ages, there was that decree of Pope Innocent that said one can hold the opinion of the Blessed Fathers. The text of St. Augustine cited there, that "Baptism is administered invisibly" to the person who desired and did not despise it is not clear whether it refers to Baptism of Desire or to the Sacrament of Baptism. At any rate, the Church certainly decreed that justified catechumens will be certainly saved, because Baptism will at least invisibly be administered to them.

Now, for those of you who agree with the Dimonds and think BOD is a "heresy", especially if you are sedevacantists, explain why Pope St. Pius X and Pope St. Pius V (and Pope Leo XIII who approved the Baltimore Catechism etc) did not "lose their office" upon approving it.

Catechism of Pope St. Pius X: "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."

This clear and straightforward. Baptism of Desire certainly exists and the Dimonds are wrong and themselves outside the Church, where there is no hope or possibility of salvation, unless they return. Fr. Feeney's opinion as held by St. Benedict's centre has been declared permissible by the Church and requires closer study. It is an acceptable theological position but has not been absolutely proven yet.

With all due respect sir,

How did all men from Adam to Christ for 5200 years obtain grace and justice?

First of all, you shouldn't use your own personal exegesis to over turn the literal meanings of defined dogma. To do so is to deny the intentionality of language which means all defined truth needs further clarification in order to be held as true which robs it (Truth) and the speaker of it (the Magisterium) of authority and gives it (the authority) to the usurping "Pharisees" who presume to know better. Be very careful there young man, what I'm speaking of is condemned by pope Saint Pius the X in Lamentabili (  The dogmas of the faith are to be held only according to a practical sense, that is, as preceptive norms for action, but not as norms for believing. Condemned! ). On the contrary we must believe that when the Council of Trent defines that the only remedy for Original Sin is the Sacrament of Baptism in the form of the Church the case is closed. There is no forgiveness of Original Sin or sanctifying grace without Baptism. Actual grace only, which was the case of Cornelius who in fact still required Baptism.

Secondly, they didn't. They all went to Hell and waited for Jesus to go there and grant them Justification and then they still waited there to follow Him to heaven, yes even the Good Thief.





As for Cornelius, well he is as far removed from the Church as any non-Christian will ever be. He was separated geographically by a dangerous multiple day journey, he had no knowledge of the Catholic church or anyone who could lead him to the truth, and worse of all, St. Peter probably would not converse with him much less enter his home or initiate him into the church as St. Peter (and consequently the Church following Peter’s direction) would consider that “casting pearls before swine.” Cornelius was a religious man who had a fear of the Lord, which is the beginning of faith; he practiced natural virtue and was given grace from God including the gift of tongues as an external manifestation to Peter of God’s grace in Cornelius. Cornelius cooperated with the prevenient grace of God and moved his will to do what was necessary for his salvation. Miracles ensued which led to his evangelization and baptism. The obvious lesson from this story, believed by the early church, is that the Church is universal, but also learned here is that physical circuмstances cannot impede Divine Providence or interdict the necessity of the sacrament of baptism.

How about that pious story of a Saint. We can no more overturn defined dogma with those than we can with our own interpretation of Holy Scripture.

I hope I have helped,

What about the women to whom Jesus said, "your faith hath saved you." She was quite alive.

Almost the same difference. Yes, Trent's catechism is also talking about a person still alive, the difference is that Christ's words let us know that for the women, there can be no doubt that they went away in the state of grace and righteousness.

The Catechism otoh, stops short of any such certainty, rather it says that by the intention to receive, we only put ourselves in the way ("avail") of grace and righteousness.

So by Christ's words we are certain they were in grace and righteousness, whereas by Trent's teaching, the only thing for certain, is that the intention puts us in a position to receive grace and righteousness, not salvation. Which is to say that the intention does not guarantee grace and righteousness at all, let alone salvation. Yet regardless of all this, the BODers insist on saying this passage from the catechism proves the Church teaches a BOD.  

 

 

To answer some of the questions/objections directed at me, (sorry about the formatting; haven't got it right yet and haven't got the time to figure it out now)


How did all men from Adam to Christ for 5200 years obtain grace and justice? They received forgiveness through an Act of Contrition, or perfect love of God above all things, along with the explicit desire to do all the things He had commanded. There are countless examples of this in Sacred Scripture right from King David's tears of contrition, St. Mary Magdalene weeping at the feet of Christ (and the Lord says, her sins, which are many, are forgiven), St. Peter weeping after his denial etc even before Cornelius the Centurion received the Holy Spirit before his Baptism - a clear reference to Baptism by Desire of the Sacrament. Wherefore I say to thee: Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much. But to whom less is forgiven, he loveth less. (Luk 7:47)


. . .

Yes, Xavier, but the Council of Trent in its Session VI on justification says this:

CHAPTER IV.

A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein 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 Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

Does this not directly and clearly say that something has changed "since the promulgation of the Gospel" as to the manner of justification? It sure does. It says that now, in the age of the Catholic Church and the full revelation and promulgation by Her of the Gospel of Our Lord, justification "cannot be effected" without the sacrament, or the desire for it. The sacrament of baptism is now necessary for justification either in re or in votum. Your men "from Adam to Christ" were justified before the promulgation of the Gospel, not "since."

God changed the game my friend, and now there is no salvation outside the Church, or at least without an explicit desire for the sacrament - without which justification "cannot be effected." I understand that the latter part - the necessity of an explicit desire, is my theological opinion. But it fits with the language of the Council, Session VI, Chapter IV, and I've never heard anyone deal with this language in Trent adequately so as to explain how the justification before Christ of the men "from Adam to Christ for 5200" years - via contrition and an act of love and desire to do God's will, an "implicit" desire for baptism - can avail now after the Gospel's promulgation when Trent says things have now changed.

What changed since the promulgation of the Gospel such that now it "cannot be effected" without the sacrament of baptism or the desire "thereof"?

Perhaps you can explain that where others haven't.