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.  

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Oops I misread your title.  

But "faith of desire" is a novel term and not used by the Church when she teaches BOD.

Correct.  This is my term to distinguish your heretical views from what you claim the Church teaches.  It is in fact YOUR IDEAS that are novel and heretical, and that's why I am deliberately distinguishing them from what the Church teaches.  I am granting for the sake of argument only that the Church teaches BoD.  So please don't take this thread off the rails and make it yet another BoD thread.  I am GRANTING in the context of this thread that the Church teaches BoD.  Granting that Church teaches BoD, you yourself do not hold that, but rather to the heretical Faith of Desire.

You keep arguing BoD as if by showing that the Church teaches BoD that you prove that non-Catholics can be saved.

I pointed out in the list of sources cited by Ambrose as proving that the Church teaches BoD that each and every one of these is referring SPECIFICALLY to CATECHUMENS and that your heretical extension of BoD beyond catechumens has never been taught or endorsed by the Church.

So, for instance, you cite the 1917 Code of Canon Law ... dishonestly ... as somehow proving your claim that non-Catholics can be saved, when the 1917 Code of Canon Law provision you cite speaks only of "CATECHUMENS" (uses the term explicitly).  As does every other source cited by Ambrose.

It is you who twist BoD beyond what the Church can be seen as having endorsed ... into your heretical notion that no-Catholics can be saved when the Church has taught dogmatically that THEY CANNOT.

Quote from: Lover of Truth

No one claims it is possible to be saved apart from a supernatural faith and perfect charity.

But you are claiming that this supernatural faith and charity can be had by heretics, schismatics, Muslims, Jews, infidels, etc. ... as if it can be somehow infused only on the basis of right conscience and good will, yada yada yada.

So you argue that since the Church teaches BoD that heretics, schismatics, Muslims, Jews, infidels, pagans can be saved. This DESPITE the Church's dogmatic definitions to the contrary.  And every authoritative passage cited by Ambrose refers only to CATECHUMENS.

It is in claming that heretics, schismatics, Mulsims, Jews, infidels, and pagans can be saved that you are in fact a heretic.

Quote from: Lover of Truth

You seem to have missed what the Church teaches.  Do you accept the possibility that a man can be saved apart from water?

You seem to have missed the entire stated intent of this thread.  I am conceding, for the sake of argument, that the Church teaches BoD.  That's precisely to prevent this topic from being derailed again.

[It is of course impossible to conciliate this use of the term soul with the expression "members of the soul of the Church." There are members of a body or of a society. There can be no members of the Holy Ghost. Furthermore the men and women in whom the Holy Ghost dwells through sanctifying grace do not constitute any social organization by themselves in this world. - Fenton]

As I had said before, the concept has gradually degenerated into a full grown heresy. Baptism of Desire has become a soft pillow for those modern relativists who prefer not to proselytize and play nice with everyone. BOD has served as  an excuse to defend Ecuмenism and Universal Salvation, both erroneous ideas, born out of sentimental liberal theology.

This was not really a problem before, since the teaching of Catholic Tradition that no one can be saved who is ignorant of the Gospel was quite clear and maintained by most. But thanks to the growing modernism, the heretical theory of salvation for everyone, even members of false religions, became the belief of even priests in the latter half of nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

This has culminated in our situation today, in which almost 100% of people who claim to be “Catholics” believe that Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Protestants, etc. can be saved without converting. Nowadays, the spiritual aim of conversion, (which would be true charity towards neighborhood) is being overridden and totally eclipsed by purely humanitarian works thanks to this.

If there's a criticism I have of some who have embarked upon the crusade on behalf of EENS, it's that it does appear as if some have succuмbed to "bitter zeal" and almost, almost I dare say, come across as relishing the fact that many are lost (because it proves them right).  Nothing in the created universe can be as tragic as the loss of a soul.  But it's none other than a firm belief in EENS combined with this wonderful love for souls and the desire that they be saved that leads to the great missionary zeal we have seen in the Church's history.  Neither belief in EENS without love for souls nor some vague love for souls without belief EENS can inspired true missionary zeal.  So it's PRECISELY out of a love for souls that we need to continue to defend a strict interpretation of EENS.

Let me save you some time Ladislaus:  I say now, have always said, and will always say that there is no salvation outside the Church.  Non-Catholics cannot be saved.