Brownson got it exactly right (full quote in my post here at #103):


Note what he says: "receiving the visible sacrament at least in voto et proxima dispositione." I think Lad would agree that's that's the main issue. I think this requires an "explicit desire," but that's besides the point and perhaps my problem. I talked about the "core concept" in this or another thread, and that's it: the possibility (a positive formulation of the Brownson's negation of the negative, "not impossible") of justification/salvation by votum.

Msgr. Fention expressed it thus:




Fenton says this is "the revealed teaching," and includes "an implicit votum." I'm not sure of that, but I'll accept that; anyway, as I said elsewhere, it doesn't matter: explicit or implicit, the core remains: the real possibility of salvation in Christ by votum.

St. Robert Bellarmine expressed it thus:

I'm pretty much done with this discussion [I think I spent way too much time on it already.  I've also noticed my posting in general is starting an upward trend again, and that's not good for me], but I think the core issue [as Lad mentioned on page 6] is squaring "possibility of salvation by desire" vs "absolutely necessary to receive water baptism for salvation".  And when I refer to salvation, I am referring to going to Heaven/seeing the Beatific Vision vs going to some sort of Limbo where there is no suffering.

The "absolute necessity" would be the receipt of the grace of the sacrament either in re or by votum.

I understand being done with the discussion. You express your view and clarify as necessary, then at some point it  becomes redundant unless some other issue introduces itself.

Unfortunately, the absolute necessary speaks of water baptism, so no the issue of squaring is still there.

Anyway, thanks for understanding.  I hope I didn't come off rude...it wasn't meant to be.

Ok, but not for St. Robert, St. Alphonsus, etc., and they were aware of, and cited, the Council of Trent.

I got this quote from St. Alphonsus from a poster who, believe it or not, was actually using it to show St. Alphonsus taught a BOD:

"The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching.  But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons:  for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary (necessitate Medii) as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire ( in voto)." - Saint Alphonsus Liguori

Taken from:  (An Exposition and Defence of All the Points of Faith Discussed and Defined by the Sacred Council of Trent, Along With the Refutation of the Errors of the Pretended Reformers, Dublin, 1846.)

Yes, with sudden death, even if someone happens to be Catholic, yet an obstinate sinner, such as divorced and "remarried" (living in sin), there's always that sorrow.  But we don't respond to that by claiming that Bergoglio was right and that one can be living in adultery and still be in a state of grace.

Now, as a Lutheran, your grandpa was likely validly baptized, so that does allow for the possibility (albeit very remote, naturally speaking) that he received some interior illumination and grace before he could no longer do so.  Time is of no consequence to God.  He can accomplish anything in a split millisecond of time, or can suspend time as needed.  Various saints (invoking God's power) have raised people back to life so they could be baptized.

And even in the case of a Jєω, as in 2Vermont's father, God CAN easily provide both conversion and the Sacrament, sending an angel to administer it.  St. Cyprian, who believed in "Baptism of Blood", stated that those martyrs receive THE SACRAMENT of Baptism.  I know that the Dimond Brothers call this out as a error.  But I'm pretty sure he meant exactly that.  He said that the blood supplied for the water while the angels pronounced the words (of the form).  So for him BoB was still the Sacrament of Baptism, except that blood was used instead of water.  Of course, Trent dogmatically taught that natural water must be used for the Sacrament.  But it's still interesting about what some Fathers REALLY meant by "Baptism of Blood," where for some of them it was not an exception to the necessity of the Sacrament but an alternate mode of administering it (with matter and form).

There's absolutely NO NEED TO POSIT Baptism of Desire even for emotional reasons.  Only those who lack faith feel compelled to do so, with one of their arguments being that God could be prevented by "impossibility" from bringing the Sacrament to His elect.  St. Thomas said of the pagan living in the jungle that, if they're properly disposed, God can (and will) send an angel if necessary to convert them.  What's to stop Him?  Impossibility?  If Our Lord God taught us that one must be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, there's nothing that could possibly get in the way of making that possible for His elect.  Even XavierSem who had been very much anti-Feeneyite, in the end, began to hold the opinion that God would bring the Sacrament to all His elect ... even if it meant using extraordinary means.  What need is there to speculate about substitutes for Baptism when something would render its reception "impossible"?  That's almost heretical, claiming that God is constrained by impossibility.  There's this general slur against Feneeyites that we believe that God is limited by the Sacraments, where it's really they who presume to limit God ... with "impossibility".  We simply believe that Our Lord will keep true to His word.  If He stated that the Sacrament is necessary for salvation, then you can be sure that He can and will get it to His elect.

I forget which saint it was, but there was a devout (apparently Catholic) woman who regularly received the Sacraments and then died.  It was revealed to the saint that the woman had not been validly baptized.  So he raised her back to life in order to baptize her.  While back, she stated that she had been without her "wedding garment".  That harkens of course to the parable of Our Lord in which He explained that those who show up to the banquet without their wedding garment will be cast out.

This miracle was mentioned in the biography of Saint Peter Claver, S.J. The woman was named Augustina. She was Saint Peter's "right-hand man" in his work with the slaves in Columbia.

How?  Even an implicit desire for baptism means the person is implicitly a catechumen.  It’s impossible to desire baptism without a) knowing about the Church, and b) knowing about baptism and what it means.  So, logically, if a person desires the Church and baptism, they are, by definition, a catechumen.  Implicit or explicit. 

—- You said:——-
I would not call that heresy, as the Church hasn't, and indeed some very great and wise Catholics have taught it.
———-

It might be, if you are defining implicit BOD as some vague “desire for God or truth”.  Someone can’t have BOD without a knowledge of the Church and the papacy and some general knowledge of Her requirements.  Someone can’t have BOD without the knowledge of what a sacrament is, what a priest is, and the purpose of the sacrament (ie membership in the Church). 

See, it is “implicit” in the knowledge of the Trinity/Incarnation that Christ was born into this world to 1) start a church, sent by the Father and 2) that Christ would send the Holy Ghost to sanctify us (by the sacraments/mass), that we may gain heaven. 

It would be heresy (and illogical word games) to say that one could desire BOD without knowing 1) what the church is and who started it and 2) that baptism = membership in Christ’s church. 

If someone doesn’t have this knowledge and desire then they don’t have BOD.  Such knowledge and desire means they are, implicitly, a catechumen.  So it’s impossible for ANYONE to have true BOD without being a catechumen. 

Right. Which is why St. Alphonsus states that there has to be at minimum a belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity to even "qualify" for such a possibility.

The point being, one has to understand the Trinity/incarnation as they relate to, and are connected to, the Church.  An unbaptized  person who rejects the Church/papacy cannot have BOD because if you reject the Church, you also reject Her sacraments.  That’s why only a catechumen can have BOD because to truly want baptism, you have to truly want the Church.  To separate baptism from the Church is a modernist heresy. 

Yes! I like the way St. Thomas puts it......

St. Thomas Aquinas' Catechetical Instructions (pdf attached):

"When a man is baptised the first question that is asked him is: "Do you believe in God?" This is because Baptism is the first Sacrament of faith. Hence, the Lord said: "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved.Baptism without  faith is of no value."

Which reminds me that that's yet *another* thing BODers either ignore or know nothing about - namely, the Church's procedures and rubrics for baptism. It seems if they trouble themselves to concern themselves about it at all, all they ever concern themselves with is the emergency rubrics which can be administered by literally anyone using the water from a puddle, but this is a among the rarest of occurrences, it's not the rule.

The fact is, the Church has very strict rules that are required for the recipient - adult or infant, and a set of rubrics for her baptismal ceremony that must be followed. For infants for example, the sponsors must give [the correct] answers for the infant or the Church will not baptize it. 

Through the parents and sponsors, the Church presumes an infant baptized in the Church has and will be raised in the faith - that is the reason they must answer for the infant. The proper disposition is presumed through the sponsors who take the baptismal vows and promises on behalf, in place of, and for the child. The sponsors vow that the child wants the Catholic faith and will be raised in the Catholic faith, in doing this, they answer for the child that the child has the "proper disposition" or the desire to be baptized. Without this, the priest cannot baptize the infant.

The parents and sponsors are promising *for* the infant, promising on behalf of the infant that the infant wants to be baptized, wants the faith, wants to be Catholic, wants eternal life and on and on - in a sense, they must convince the Church to baptize their infant by vowing for the infant that he will be raised a Catholic, or the priest cannot baptize him.

You wouldn't need to twist his words to see he teaches BOD, you would just need to read the next paragraph (#13).

You miss his point.  We know St. Alphonsus believed in a Baptism of Desire that sufficed for justification.  His point is that BoDers are often caught distorting passing and reading stuff into them that isn't thee.

At the same time, however, St. Alphonsus held that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation.  So either he's contradicting himself or else he too is making the justification vs. salvation distinction that was prevalent at the time.  There are other theologians who believed the same thing, that infidels could be justified, but not saved (de Lugo is the one that comes to mind).

Lots of bizarre things about "de presbytero non baptizato".  Apart from the fact that how can you have an unbaptized priest, Innocent "asserts without hesitation that ... this priest [went to heaven]" ... continuing to call him a priest, and somehow declaring that this man went to Heaven.  I guess we should immediately canonize this priest, since we have Innocent III's authority for it.  Then he "asserts without hesitation" [that this priest is in Heaven] "based on the authority of Augustine and Ambrose".  He does not teach it, but rather "asserts" (as if he were in a debate and opining in favor of it) nor is this letter addressed to the universal Church, and does not teach it by the authority of Sts Peter and Paul, i.e. his papal teaching authority, but on the authority of St. Augustine and St. Ambrose.  So now Augustine and Ambrose have the authority to define a dogma?  Of course, he's mistaken in appealing to that authority, since St. Augustine never taught it with authority, but rather clearly indicated that it was his own speculation, and retracted it later in life, and St. Ambrose didn't teach it at all (that's a misreading of his oration on Valentinian).  In a similar letter, Innocent proclaimed that the consecration at Mass would be valid if a priest merely thought the words but did not say them out loud.

Not only does this "de presbyter non baptizato" not meet the notes of infallibility, where the Pope is teaching something with HIS Apostolic authority, the authority of St. Peter, and teaching something to the Universal Church, that must be believed.  He's leaning on the authority of St. Augustine and St. Ambrose, who have no authority to define doctrine for the Church, and is clearly opining ("assert" to does not mean to teach authoritatively, but merely to argue or to opine).