CathInfo.com

I have never heard this.  I candidly admit that such an interpretation sounds like a bunch of nonsense.  No disrespect, DL, but that is my reaction. 

Or, and this opinion I argue was that of St. Ambrose, who is generally adduced as a proponent of Baptism of Desire, this BoD can refer to pre-baptized individuals, but in the very sense alluded to by DL.

St. Ambrose in De Sacramentis explicitly states that even good/devout catechumens cannot be saved if they die without Baptism.

So, does he change his mind in the famous oration about Valentinian?  Many people try to argue that.  But he makes a very interesting distinction that's overlooked.  He hopes that Valentinian may be rewarded for his piety and zeal, and by way of explanation, he says that even martyrs are washed but not crowned, so too he's hoping that Valentinian may receive a washing, but admits that he cannot receive the crown (since not even martyrs receive the crown without the Sacrament).

Recall that there are TWO graces from the Sacrament of Baptism, 1) remission of sin and 2) the Baptismal character.  So St. Ambrose appears to be saying that this BoD (like BoB) can obtain the one effect of Baptism, the remission of sin (washing) but not the Baptismal character (crowning).

This crowning was in fact a reference to entering the Kingdom of God, i.e. the Beatific Vision, glory (as it's called by the Greek Fathers).

So we have the dogmatic teaching of St. Sulpicius who states that when in danger of death, the Church must supply the Sacrament of Baptism to catechumens with all haste, lest every single (or each and every) one of them lose ("life and the kingdom") while desiring to receive the Sacrament.  Here again, he's saying that even if souls desire Baptism, they cannot obtain "the kingdom"; "life and the kingdom" refers to the supernaturally-elevated new life.

So I hold that there is a BoB/BoD that can remit sin, i.e. can justify, but that it does not suffice for entry into the Kingdom, the Beatific Vision, since it is precisely the character of Baptism that enables human beings to receive this supernatural faculty to see God as He is, a capacity that we lack by nature.  I hold that martyrs who would die without the Sacrament would go to a place of perfect natural happiness, i.e. to a Limbo very similar to that of the infants.  Those who have BoD, depending on how perfect their desire and contrition are can have UP to a similar complete remission, but also varying degrees short of that.

This again is the distinction between justification (remission of sin) and salvation (entry into the Beatific Vision).  While BoD/BoB suffice for the former, it does not for the latter.

For all those who claim that BoD is defined, or de fide, why is it then that we can find no definition of WHAT BoD is, how it works, what it can supply for and what it can't supply for, anywhere in the Magisterium?  Why is it that we have as many variations of BoD as there are people who believe in it, the only common denominator being that Baptism is not in fact necessary for salvation (in other words, the lowest common denominator is heresy).

There are in fact several passages in the Church Fathers where they speak of a BoB for someone who's know from elsewhere to have received the Sacrament of Baptism (in one case a priest).  So once again the term is being used in the sense of remitting sin.

So this so-called "BoD" and "BoB" ... which I find to be abhorrent expressions (with St. Robert's use of the phrase receiving [the one Sacrament] of Baptism in voto being much better), as these imply multiple Baptisms and are at least offensive to the pious ears of those who profess ONE Baptism in the Creed.  And of course "Desire" is also an attempt to water it down, and extended to pretty much any nice guy, whereas votum was a very restrictive notion more akin to "vow" or "resolution" ... does this BoD apply to just catechumens, to people with explicit faith in Our Lord and the Holy Trinity, to Jєωs and infidels, even to baptized heretics?  Your guess is as good as mine.  So when people say we must "believe" in BoD, OK, but we can't "believe in", i.e. "assent to" a phrase or a concept.  We can only intellectually assent to propositions.  Given that I cannot find WHAT I must purportedly believe about this BoD, how can I give the assent of faith to it?

Idiotic and bad-willled dishonesty.  So, what, then, theologians are infallible?  Well, of course, only when you want them to be.

At risk of repeating myself from the other thread:

My question is, when are you going to fire off the emails to Bishop Williamson calling him a bad-willed, sick joke? Surely he bears a much greater responsibility to get it right than random laymen.

I agree with you that from all I can see defined by the Church, there is no room for BOD. Perhaps for catechumens, but certainly not for Muslims, etc. And yet, here's the thing: if someone said they believed Muslims could be saved on this forum, they'd be castigated as the most heinous heretic. They'd be shown how it's very easy to disprove their position, and that if they still held to it, they must be an obstinate heretic. But you don't think all these bishops saying the same haven't seen these same canons of Trent, Unam Sanctam, etc.? Why aren't people rushing off to call them obstinate heretics?

Only the Dimonds seem to do that, and they're condemned on here for just that.

So which is it? Is it a very clear-cut case of heresy easily disproven even to laymen, lest they be sick jokes of ill will, in which case we all need to condemn the SSPX, the Resistance, the CMRI, anyone you can think of, right this instant, or is it not?

My question is, when are you going to fire off the emails to Bishop Williamson calling him a bad-willed, sick joke?

I personally know a gentlemen who lived in St Marys for years and he often talked to +W about the BOD issue.  I think +W is open to both sides of the debate, as is his personality.


As for +Lefebvre, he was French, and the French/German churches were the earliest to modernize, going back to the early 1800s (post French Revolution).  The point is, this is a centuries-old problem.  It's not all his fault.

This heresy became widespread today among traditionalists through the Lefebvre line, I suspect.

No way.  This has been a debated issue and orthodox problem going back centuries.  Orestes Brownson was debating it back in the 1800s.  The emotional/sentimentality problem which led to BOD has it roots (in my opinion) in 3 areas, going back to the 1500s:


1.  Discovery/Missionary activity in America - "How can these poor, ignorant indians be damned?"
   a.  Answer - Most indian tribes were blood-thirsty, war-making, devil-worshipping pagans who didn't follow the natural law.  They damned themselves.

2.  Protestantism in 1571 divided countries, communities and families - "How can my protestant family/friends be damned?  They're good people."
   a.  Answer - Those who left the Faith, or grew up in protestantism were well aware of Catholic Truth and rejected it.

3.  Modernism started in the 1600s inside the Church.  Protestanism, Heliocentrism, Democracy, Suppression of the Jesuits, attacks on the papacy, etc.  All this stuff started long, long ago and it's bearing horrible poisonous fruit right now.