Author Topic: Effects of the Heresy of Denying Baptism of Desire (Read 35692 times)

Mathieu · « **Reply #45 on:** March 19, 2014, 05:49:37 PM »

Quote from: St Alphonsus Liguori

Extract from : Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7.
Concerning Baptism

Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water, of desire 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 character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbutero 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 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 is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.

If St. Alphonsus believed that Baptism of Desire was *De Fide*, then does that make him a heretic?

Stubborn · « **Reply #46 on:** March 19, 2014, 05:54:59 PM »

Quote from: Mathieu

Quote from: St Alphonsus Liguori
Extract from : Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7.
Concerning Baptism

Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water, of desire 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 character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbutero 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 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 is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.

If St. Alphonsus believed that Baptism of Desire was *De Fide*, then does that make him a heretic?

No, it only makes him wrong.
He did what was later condemned by V1:

Quote

Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

Had he been alive after knowing the above decree, do you think he would have persisted teaching what Trent taught under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding? - or would he have submitted to the judgement of the Church and recanted his error and accepted what Trent, "as once declared", taught?

andysloan · « **Reply #47 on:** March 19, 2014, 06:00:03 PM »

Stubborn said:

"If your answer is yes, then since BOD is not a sacrament, you believe salvation is possible without any sacraments at all."

???????????????????????????????????

1 Timothy 6:3-5

"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to that doctrine which is according to godliness, He is proud, knowing nothing, but sick about questions and strifes of words; from which arise envies, contentions, blasphemies, evil suspicions, Conflicts of men corrupted in mind, and who are destitute of the truth."

Stubborn · « **Reply #48 on:** March 19, 2014, 06:07:45 PM »

Quote from: andysloan

Stubborn said:

"If your answer is yes, then since BOD is not a sacrament, you believe salvation is possible without any sacraments at all."

???????????????????????????????????

1 Timothy 6:3-5

"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to that doctrine which is according to godliness, He is proud, knowing nothing, but sick about questions and strifes of words; from which arise envies, contentions, blasphemies, evil suspicions, Conflicts of men corrupted in mind, and who are destitute of the truth."

What do you mean?

??????????????????????????????????????

John 3:5
Jesus answered: 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.

Ephesians 4:5
One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;... let him be anathema

CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

As I said, the repulsiveness you feel toward defending the necessity of the sacraments is your wake up call - answer it by doing the strictly Catholic thing. . . . . .or admit that such a thing is absolutely impossible for you to do.

St. Alphonsus
The heretic says that no sacrament is necessary.

Mathieu · « **Reply #49 on:** March 19, 2014, 06:13:02 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

No, it only makes him wrong.
He did what was later condemned by V1:

Quote
Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

Had he been alive after knowing the above decree, do you think he would have persisted teaching what Trent taught under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding? - or would he have submitted to the judgement of the Church and recanted his error and accepted what Trent, "as once declared", taught?

To say that he did something that was later condemned by Vatican I means that before 1870 no one previously understood that Dogmas were to be taken at face value? That someone of his holiness and calibre would attempt to twist a Dogma to his own agenda? Every good Catholic already knew and followed this: "Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding." It was nothing new - any well-intentioned Catholic would always believe a Dogma in exactly the way the Church intended. It was defined to arrest the onslaught of those who in bad faith tried to corrupt the innocent.

St. Alphonsus was a man who had a profound love for God and had an intelligence most likely superior to everyone on this forum put together. It is unreasonable to think that he was looking to interpret the Dogma in a different light from what was previously stated.

That being said, if, as you say, St. Alphonsus was wrong on this, where, then does that place him?