Our Lord says: He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.
Along with the consistent infallible teaching of the Church, is it possible to extrapolate from this verse that those who die before Baptism, and who explicitly desired Baptism or shed their blood for the faith, may end up in a limbo of sorts similar to the limbo of infants?
Our Lord’s words seem to indicate that only the person who believes not shall be condemned and in other verses, including the above, only the Baptized can enter heaven. In no verse however do we have anything that would indicate a person who believes but dies before Baptism would be condemned to hell. Could “Baptism of Desire” & “Baptism of Blood” then be interpreted as a means not for salvation but of non-condemnation? Is there precedent for this at all in the Church Fathers or the Church’s teachings?
Any thoughts?
39 (https://biblehub.com/luke/23-39.htm) And one of those robbers who were hanged, blasphemed him, saying: If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. 40 (https://biblehub.com/luke/23-40.htm) But the other answering, rebuked him, saying: Neither dost thou fear God, seeing thou art condemned under the same condemnation? 41 (https://biblehub.com/luke/23-41.htm) And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done no evil. 42 (https://biblehub.com/luke/23-42.htm) And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom. 43 (https://biblehub.com/luke/23-43.htm) And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.
The good thief was not baptized. See Luke 23:
The good thief was not baptized. See Luke 23:He died in the Old Testament. He didn't need baptism.
Our Lord says: He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.
Along with the consistent infallible teaching of the Church, is it possible to extrapolate from this verse that those who die before Baptism, and who explicitly desired Baptism or shed their blood for the faith, may end up in a limbo of sorts similar to the limbo of infants?
Our Lord’s words seem to indicate that only the person who believes not shall be condemned and in other verses, including the above, only the Baptized can enter heaven. In no verse however do we have anything that would indicate a person who believes but dies before Baptism would be condemned to hell. Could “Baptism of Desire” & “Baptism of Blood” then be interpreted as a means not for salvation but of non-condemnation? Is there precedent for this at all in the Church Fathers or the Church’s teachings?
Any thoughts?
I believe that it's tenable, and in fact IMO probable ... and it is in fact my opinion. I started a thread on this a long time ago, called it "Ladislausian soteriology" or something where I posit precisely this, and I did in fact cite this very passage. It also reconciles what appear to be contradictory statements on the surface from St. Ambrose regarding Baptism of Desire. He distinguishes between a washing (which can be achieved possibly by BoD) but not a glory, in other words that BoB or BoD could conceivable wash from actual sin but not be enough to enter the beatific vision (which requires the Baptismal character).I would say physically he is an adult. Mentally with the full use of reason and a developed brain that an adult has, no.
So, for example, in addition to infants, you would have in Limbo someone who was unbaptized and mentally retarded his entire life. Such a person dies at the age of, say, 50. That person would be in Limbo. Is he an "adult"?
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/patristic-support-for-ladilausian-soteriology/
I would say physically he is an adult. Mentally with the full use of reason and a developed brain that an adult has, no.
So, for example, in addition to infants, you would have in Limbo someone who was unbaptized and mentally retarded his entire life. Such a person dies at the age of, say, 50. That person would be in Limbo. Is he an "adult"?This is an opinion I've held for a while now. My late cousin was severely mentally retarded and died as an "adult", but he, to my knowledge, was unbaptized. So he most likely subsists in Limbo rather than hell because he was incapable of sinning.
In case of emergency, Baptism by water can be replaced by Baptism of desire or Baptism by blood [sententia fide proxima]
Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis. It bestows sanctifying grace, which remits original sin, all actual sins, and the eternal punishments for sin. Venial sins and temporal punishments for sins are remitted according to the intensity of the subjective disposition. The baptismal character is not imprinted, nor is it the gateway to the other sacraments.
The Council of Trent teaches that justification from original sin is not possible "without the bath of regeneration or the desire for it (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto). DH 1524. Cf 1604, 741.
I'm honestly confused how people who claim to be traditional Catholics can presume to question settled doctrine that has the Council of Trent and at least three Doctors of the Church behind it.
There's nothing settled about it. There's a distinction between justification and salvation. That distinction was not invented by Father Feeney but was prevalent among theologians right around the time of Trent. Some held, for instance, that infidels could be justified but not saved.
As for BoD, it's nice that you mention the two Church Fathers who may have been in favor of it, but as per usual you ignore the 6-7 who explicitly rejected it. St. Augustine himself changed his mind and forcefully rejected it later in life. St. Ambrose made a distinction between washing and crowning, believing that people could be washed of the guilt of sin even if they were could not be crowned and enter the Kingdom.
We've had hundreds of page posted about this. It's not settled doctrine, and the preponderance of evidence is against Baptism of Desire.
For those interested in knowing what the Catholic Church has always taught
One Universal Church of the Faithful
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/one-universal-church-of-the-faithful/
Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis. It bestows sanctifying grace, which remits original sin, all actual sins, and the eternal punishments for sin. Venial sins and temporal punishments for sins are remitted according to the intensity of the subjective disposition. The baptismal character is not imprinted, nor is it the gateway to the other sacraments.
A lot of the disagreement about BoD on Cathinfo seems to be exacerbated by imprecise language being used. And many of the people using the language don't even realize that they are not making the proper distinctions. I think if these distinctions were made clear, we would see that we can actually agree on what the Church teaches.I disagree because I'm not sure language actually addresses the root cause, which isn't even BoD. The core problem, in my estimation, is that BoD discussion is just moving the problem back a step from the elephant in the room, which is the shifting of attitudes towards EENS. IF people could agree on EENS (lol) BoD would be a complete non-issue. Talking very precisely about BoD really does nothing as long as people disagree on the EENS dogma.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that there is "a distinction between justification and salvation." And, yes this distinction is formulated at the Council of Trent. The distinction is also made throughout the New Testament. I just say that so I am clear that I don't think it is some theological opinion that started with Trent.Speaking of justification, the sacrament of baptism or the desire thereof, Trent says:
To your second point, it seemed, in your first paragraph, that you were conceding Ott's BoD formulation, but restricting its efficacy to "justification" and withholding its efficacy in the context of "salvation." Is that correct? I ask because your second paragraph sounds like you are rejecting BoD, per se. Can you let me know which is the case?
If you mean the you do accept BoD in the context of "justification," as I do, then we are on the same page. That is the "settled teaching of the Church" that I was referring to, because that is how the Council of Trent (and Ott) formulate it. Whether BoD has any efficacy in the context of "salvation" is another matter entirely.
I disagree because I'm not sure language actually addresses the root cause, which isn't even BoD. The core problem, in my estimation, is that BoD discussion is just moving the problem back a step from the elephant in the room, which is the shifting of attitudes towards EENS. IF people could agree on EENS (lol) BoD would be a complete non-issue. Talking very precisely about BoD really does nothing as long as people disagree on the EENS dogma.I agree that BoD and EENS are interlocked. Specifically, they are interlocked by one's interpretation of what the word "salvation" means. But many people think "justification" and "salvation" are just two words that the Church uses to mean the same thing. That is not true. The Church teaches that "justification" and "salvation" are distinct. Means which bring about "justification" are necessary but not sufficient as means to achieve "salvation."
Speaking of justification, the sacrament of baptism or the desire thereof, Trent says:
"...since the promulgation of the Gospel, [justification] 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".
From this we know with dogmatic certainty:
1) Justification cannot be effected without the sacrament, or by the desire for the sacrament.
2) That we must receive the sacrament of baptism, if not, we cannot to enter into the kingdom of God.
This is Trent's infallible teaching on a BOD.
Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis. It bestows sanctifying grace, which remits original sin, all actual sins, and the eternal punishments for sin. Venial sins and temporal punishments for sins are remitted according to the intensity of the subjective disposition. The baptismal character is not imprinted, nor is it the gateway to the other sacraments.
1 (https://www.biblehub.com/acts/19-1.htm) And it came to pass, while Apollo was at Corinth, that Paul having passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples. 2 (https://www.biblehub.com/acts/19-2.htm) And he said to them: Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? But they said to him: We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost. 3 (https://www.biblehub.com/acts/19-3.htm) And he said: In what then were you baptized? Who said: In John's baptism. 4 (https://www.biblehub.com/acts/19-4.htm) Then Paul said: John baptized the people with the baptism of penance, saying: That they should believe in him who was to come after him, that is to say, in Jesus. 5 (https://www.biblehub.com/acts/19-5.htm) Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 (https://www.biblehub.com/acts/19-6.htm) And when Paul had imposed his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. 7 (https://www.biblehub.com/acts/19-7.htm) And all the men were about twelve.
Limbo of the infants is in hell, an earthly like paradise in hell. Hell is not one amorphous mass of equal punishments, Limbo is its paradise. Why can't there be other areas with, comparatively speaking, milder sufferings than the deeper pits of hell, with earthly like sufferings, like say a Panama in the summer with no air conditioning or DDT, like in the 1800's? What Ladislaus is describing does not have to be another limbo of the infants but can be lessor punishments areas in hell.
Right. I think there are slightly varying definitions of Hell, with some saying Limbo is in Hell, others not. When you define Hell as anywhere outside of Heaven and the Beatific Vision, such as in the Creed, where it says that Christ descended into Hell (the nether regions, inferos) ... He really was in the Limbo of the Fathers.Yes, for example: You have a Catholic and then you have a guy from Africa who has never heard of Christ. Both commit the same mortal sin. Who goes further into Hell? The Catholic does because he knew it was a sin, had the graces of Confession and knew the truth
One of the EENS dogmatic definitions states that the sufferings in Hell vary according to your sin. I also believe that the case of an unbaptized martyr, they would be in the same state of natural happiness that an infant would be, perhaps with even greater happiness than those infants due to the natural virtue of the martyrdom. We can read a lot into the Church's practice of insisting on early Baptism of catechumens during times of persecution. If there were some dogma that a BoB would take you straight to heaven without Baptism, then this would have been entirely unnecessary.
This misconception about Hell is in fact at the root of why so many people have an animus against EENS doctrine, where they envision some naturally virtuous people who died without the Sacrament being in the same state as Joe Stalin and Judas after death. That is not the case.
I also believe that the case of an unbaptized martyr, they would be in the same state of natural happiness that an infant would be, perhaps with even greater happiness than those infants due to the natural virtue of the martyrdom.One can only be a martyr for Christ by the grace of God. I do not see how there could be such a person that God could not have procured baptism for him too. Nothing happens by chance. Baptism is one of the easiest things to accomplish, anyone can do it to a person from the time they are born till a few seconds before God takes them. God takes no coffee breaks or naps.
One can only be a martyr for Christ by the grace of God. I do not see how there could be such a person that God could not have procured baptism for him too. Nothing happens by chance. Baptism is one of the easiest things to accomplish, anyone can do it to a person from the time they are born till a few seconds before God takes them. God takes no coffee breaks or naps.
As you can find even in Catholic Encyclopedia, there are three effects of the Sacrament of Baptism:
1) remission of the guilt of sin
2) remission of the temporal punishment due to sin
3) the Sacramental character
I hold that the Sacramental character is required for entry into the Kingdom, the beatific vision, as many Church Fathers taught.
Meanwhile, something like BoD/BoB could yield the other effects of the Sacrament, the remission of the guilt of sin and the remission of the temporal punishment due to sin. We see for instance, it is taught that baptized martyrs go directly to heaven because all their sin and the temporal punishment due to sin is remitted.
Similarly, I hold that BoB and, to a lesser extent, BoD, can also have that effect in the unbaptized, so that an unbaptized martyr would end up in Limbo.
Ladislaus said: We've had hundreds of page posted about this. It's not settled doctrine, and the preponderance of evidence is against Baptism of Desire.
So, Ladislaus, a few posts above when you responded directly to me, you made the following comment regarding BoD:
But your latest post seems to ACCEPT the doctrine of BoD, along with Ott's caveat that it is not equivalent to the Sacrament of Baptism. Is that your position? If so, we agree, and this is what Ott claims has always been the perennial teaching of the Church, meaning IT IS "settled doctrine." Do you still think it is not "settled doctrine?"
I think if we can come to an agreement about what BoD is and is not and what the Church teaching is and has always been, then the apparent disagreements that we find here on Cathinfo about the BoD will disappear. On Cathinfo, much of the discussion about BoD assumes that BoD an attack on the Sacrament, a tactic of Modernists, and must be purged from the lexicon of Traditional Catholicism. But that view is false and heretical according to the traditional texts on dogmatic theology.
Or if the fact disturbs you that the mysteries have not been solemnly celebrated, then you should realize that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated. But if they are washed in their own blood, his piety and his desire have washed him, also.
for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.
So, what I reject is the notion of Baptism of Desire as being sufficient for salvation and the Beatific Vision.This is basically what Father Feeney held, correct?
I believe that there is in fact a BoD, one that washes the guilt of sin,...
So, what I reject is the notion of Baptism of Desire as being sufficient for salvation and the Beatific Vision.
Good. Your first statement, that "there is in fact a BoD, one that washes the guilt of sin" is settled Catholic doctrine (of the third highest level), according to Ott's Fundamentals and the Council of Trent. We agree, and I hope all on Cathinfo agree also.
Good. Your first statement, that "there is in fact a BoD, one that washes the guilt of sin" is settled Catholic doctrine (of the third highest level), according to Ott's Fundamentals and the Council of Trent. We agree, and I hope all on Cathinfo agree also.
I believe that your second statement is plausible but completely in the realm of "theological opinion." And that opinion doesn't need to present a challenge to the "settled doctrine" in order to be true. In other words, one can accept BoD (as doctrinally-defined by the Church) and still believe something like your "salvation" thesis. The two are not mutually exclusive.
The Council of Trent doesn't even mention BoD.
The Council of Trent mentions the laver of regeneration and the desire thereof both as necessary conditions for justification. Only some retarded heretics misread the passage as stating the laver or the desire each as a sufficient condition.
Not even the laver of regeneration plus the desire thereof are a sufficient condition for justification. More things are required, as you can find out, actually reading cuм hoc tempore.
Learn to read, before again and again misinforming CI readers about the Council of Trent.
The Council of Trent doesn't even mention BoD."The laver of regeneration" = baptism
The Council of Trent mentions the laver of regeneration and the desire thereof both as necessary conditions for justification. Only some retarded heretics misread the passage as stating the laver or the desire each as a sufficient condition.
Not even the laver of regeneration plus the desire thereof are a sufficient condition for justification. More things are required, as you can find out, actually reading cuм hoc tempore.
Learn to read, before again and again misinforming CI readers about the Council of Trent.
"The laver of regeneration" = baptism
"the desire thereof" = the desire of baptism
the desire of baptism = baptism of desire
Therefore the Council of Trent most certainly does mention BoD, aka baptism of desire.
Please see my post (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/limbo-of-adults/msg767451/#msg767451) where I summarize Ott's discussion of baptism of desire in the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.
Even the part about BoD as washing from sin as "settled doctrine" is a stretch. It was speculation from a couple of Church Fathers. I happen to agree with it, that martyrdom brings about a complete washing, whereas "desire" brings about at least a partial washing.
The Council of Trent does not mention BoD, aka baptism of desire. Rather, it mentions desire of baptism. Don't fool yourself. It mentions desire of baptism as a necessary (and not as a sufficient) condition for justification. Don't fool yourself.
Don't worry, I got a copy of Ott. He is completely irrelevant.
If you want to be saved, you mustn't misrepresent the Council of Trent, making yourself a manifest heretic.
Noted. I will pray for your conversion.
No BOD/BOB debate is complete without mutual anathemas and excommunications.
:laugh2:
…It's an act of charity to inform each other about dogmas and condemnations.
"The laver of regeneration" = baptismNo Angelus, what you are doing is reading into Trent the exact opposite of what Trent actually says. It is really so simple that it is amazing that so many people do this.....
"the desire thereof" = the desire of baptism
the desire of baptism = baptism of desire
Therefore the Council of Trent most certainly does mention BoD, aka baptism of desire.
Please see my post (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/limbo-of-adults/msg767451/#msg767451) where I summarize Ott's discussion of baptism of desire in the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.
No chance. I won't convert to heresy.I have read cuм hoc tempore. In fact, I quoted from it here (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/limbo-of-adults/msg767451/?PHPSESSID=dolvmf2vboskebipe09tfas2e3#msg767451) in another post in this thread. I will quote it again in Ott's words (the words in red below are directly from cuм hoc tempore, Chapter 4):
You're now aware that you've got to read cuм hoc tempore, to find out that even preparation is necessary for baptism, that desire doesn't suffice.
The Council of Trent teaches that justification from original sin is not possible "without the bath of regeneration or the desire for it (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto)". DH 1524. Cf 1604, 741.
No Angelus, what you are doing is reading into Trent the exact opposite of what Trent actually says. It is really so simple that it is amazing that so many people do this.....I think the only thing that can make sense of what you have said to me is that you think, incorrectly, that I am saying the following:
Trent says that without the sacrament or the desire thereof that justification *cannot* be effected. If Trent did teach, or even mention a BOD, then Trent would have *had* to say, without the sacrament or the desire thereof that justification *can* be effected.
"...since the promulgation of the Gospel, [justification] 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".
Make sense now?
Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis. It bestows sanctifying grace, which remits original sin, all actual sins, and the eternal punishments for sin. Venial sins and temporal punishments for sins are remitted according to the intensity of the subjective disposition. The baptismal character is not imprinted, nor is it the gateway to the other sacraments.
Please stop promoting Ott as if he were the Magisterium. Vast majority of theologians during the past 100+ years were Modernists. Why do you think there wasn’t a peep out of them when Vatican II issued its decrees? I’m not particularly interested in what Ott has to say. At least quote someone like St. Alphonsus, would you? I disagree with St. Alphonsus on this issue as well, but at least I respect him ... unlike Ott.So I guess that means you have never read Ott's book. It is a technical manual, a traditional textbook for dogmatic theology students from 1952. He provides Magisterial sources in his discussion. I never claimed that his opinions were "the Magisterium."
I have read cuм hoc tempore. In fact, I quoted from it here (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/limbo-of-adults/msg767451/?PHPSESSID=dolvmf2vboskebipe09tfas2e3#msg767451) in another post in this thread. I will quote it again in Ott's words (the words in red below are directly from cuм hoc tempore, Chapter 4):
Quote
Since you seem to imply that the discussion of "Preparation" (I assume you mean cuм hoc tempore, Chapter 6) contradicts what I quoted above from cuм hoc tempore, Chapter 4, could you provide a quote or some form of rational argument to make your point?
I am saying this:Ok, just so we're not talking past each other, the Church at Trent teaches; no sacrament or desire means no justification. Nowhere does Trent teach justification is certainly attainable with either the sacrament alone or the desire alone.
The effects of the Sacrament of Baptism DO NOT EQUAL The effects of the "baptism of desire." This is what Ott stated and what the Church teaches.
You and others seem to think that because the word "baptism" is in the phrase "baptism of desire," that it means something like "the Sacrament of Baptism of desire" or, put another way, that one gains all the effects of sacramental baptism, even though there is not proper matter and form, as long as the person "desires" the Sacrament of Baptism. AGAIN, I am not saying that, and I never have said that in this discussion.
The phrase "Baptism of Desire" is a technical term in dogmatic theology with a very precise definition. Here is that definition again:Sorry no, in light of Trent's teaching, it does not make sense.
QuoteQuoteBaptism of desire works ex opere operantis. It bestows sanctifying grace, which remits original sin, all actual sins, and the eternal punishments for sin. Venial sins and temporal punishments for sins are remitted according to the intensity of the subjective disposition. The baptismal character is not imprinted, nor is it the gateway to the other sacraments.Do you see that? The Baptismal character IS NOT IMPRINTED with "baptism of desire." And "baptism of desire" IS NOT the gateway to the other sacraments. So, clearly, "baptism of desire" has some overlap with the Sacrament, specifically regarding remission of sins, but it is deficient in certain fundamental ways when compared to the Sacrament of Baptism. Also, its method of action is different from the Sacrament: ex opera operantis vs ex opere operato.
Make sense now?
The faithful are also to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for Baptism. In the first place they must desire
and intend to receive it; for as in Baptism we all die to sin and resolve to live a new life, it is fit that it be
administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord; it is to be forced upon none. Hence
we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual
without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. This disposition even infants are presumed to have,
since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken.
I think we are talking past each other, again. I agree that "cuм hoc tempore explains that additionally a preparation [for justification] is necessary." The "preparation" which is spoken of in Chapter is "cooperation with divine Grace." When I used the word "sufficient" in was in the context of the quote from cuм hoc tempore, Chapter 4 related to the larger discussion of "salvation" vs. "justification." I said:
To live and grow, yeast needs moisture, warmth, food and nutrients.
The statement "yeast cannot live and grow without moisture or warmth", does neither mean
- that moisture suffices for yeast to live and grow
- that warmth suffices for yeast to live and grow
- that warmth plus moisture suffices for yeast to live and grow
Moisture and warmth are necessary for yeast to live and grow, but moisture and/or warmth are not sufficient for yeast to live and grow.
Same situation with justification. Not even the laver of regeneration plus the desire thereof are sufficient for justification. cuм hoc tempore explains that additionally a preperation is necessary.
"Justification is not possible without X or Y" means that "X or Y" is a necessary condition for justification, and does not mean that "X or Y" is a sufficient condition for justification.
Conclusion: The Council of Trent teaches that the desire for the laver of regeneration is necessary, but not sufficient for justification.
P.S.: Please note that the well known debate whether X alone or alternatively Y alone are sufficent, is to no avail, since not even X plus Y are sufficient. (X: laver, Y: desire thereof)
The Council of Trent doctrine that I quoted from Ott DOES NOT refer to "salvation." Rather, it refers to "justification." Salvation and justification are different. The Church has always said that BoD is sufficient for "justification." The Church has never said the BoD is sufficient for "salvation."
Ok, just so we're not talking past each other, the Church at Trent teaches; no sacrament or desire means no justification. Nowhere does Trent teach justification is certainly attainable with either the sacrament alone or the desire alone.
So it is in this sense that sacramental baptism certainly does not equal a BOD.
Agree?
Do you see that? The Baptismal character IS NOT IMPRINTED with "baptism of desire." And "baptism of desire" IS NOT the gateway to the other sacraments. So, clearly, "baptism of desire" has some overlap with the Sacrament, specifically regarding remission of sins, but it is deficient in certain fundamental ways when compared to the Sacrament of Baptism. Also, its method of action is different from the Sacrament: ex opera operantis vs ex opere operato.
Make sense now?
Sorry no, in light of Trent's teaching, it does not make sense.
I see the quote, but where does Ott get this idea that a BOD "bestows sanctifying grace, which remits original sin, all actual sins, and the eternal punishments for sin", when Trent explicitly says that this cannot happen without the sacrament or the desire for the sacrament - as it is written, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
The overlap comes only when both the sacrament and the desire for the sacrament are applied at the same time, as Trent's catechism puts it:
So for adults, Trent teaches that in order for justification to be effected, both the sacrament and the desire for the sacrament are necessary, and also, in order for this to occur, the faithful are to be instructed in this.
I'm only quoting Trent and it's catechism, which means, as Lad said, Ott and many others, got it wrong....or Trent got it wrong, which is not possible.
Yes, we agree that Sacramental Baptism DOES NOT EQUAL "baptism of desire" as the Church understands it, and according to Ott.Ok, you said that: "baptism of desire" is a technical term with its own meaning. "Baptism of desire" is not simply another way of phrasing "desire for the Sacrament of Baptism."
Regarding the Trent Catechism, you have jumped from the context of the Sacrament of Baptism vs "baptism of desire" to the new context of the Sacrament of Baptism vs the "desire for the Sacrament of Baptism." I am trying to tell you that "baptism of desire" is a technical term with its own meaning. "Baptism of desire" is not simply another way of phrasing "desire for the Sacrament of Baptism."
So, no neither Trent nor Ott have gotten it wrong. Those people who are mixing up contexts and definitions are getting it wrong. BoD, properly understood, has nothing to do with the discussion of "the desire for the Sacrament of Baptism" in the Catechism. BoD is relevant to those people who died without access to the Sacrament but who had the proper dispositions for justification at the time of death, like the Penitent Thief.
Everyone wants to make BoD out to be this attack on the Sacrament of Baptism. Properly and traditionally understood, BoD is not an attack on the Sacrament. But the Modernists have exploited the ambiguity of the concept of BoD and the fact that it sounds a lot like the phrase "the desire for the Sacrament of Baptism." Modernists like to exploit things like that. They have been very successful. They have divided well-meaning Traditional Catholics on this very issue. Don't fall into their trap. Ott's precise definitions and references to Magisterial teaching is the way out of this confusion.
Ok, you said that: "baptism of desire" is a technical term with its own meaning. "Baptism of desire" is not simply another way of phrasing "desire for the Sacrament of Baptism."You said:
You also said that neither Trent nor Ott have gotten it wrong, I disagree with this assessment since Trent, by saying that the desire for the sacrament of baptism is ineffectual, admits that there is no other type of desire, nor any other type of sacrament of baptism.
Ott, in saying that Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis, is saying that it's efficacy is derived from the sacrament, without the sacrament, as if in some way a BOD is in and of itself an actual sacrament, albeit lesser than the sacrament of baptism. I am sure that I am not understanding this correctly since to say such a thing is to speak heresy, so where am I mistaken?
From the CE:
ex opere operantis i.e. by reason of the agent, would mean that the action of the sacraments depended on the worthiness either of the minister or of the recipient.
...Trent, by saying that the desire for the sacrament of baptism is ineffectual, admits there is no other type of desire, no any other type of sacrament of Baptism.
You said:I agree that you are right, it is not formulated as "the desire for the Sacrament of Baptism" anywhere, it is always formulated as "the desire thereof" - but they both mean the same thing because "the desire thereof" means "the desire for the sacrament of baptism."
If you know of it, can you please provide a quote (with the section reference) so that I can confirm that some docuмent from the Council of Trent says what you say in the short quote above? I ask this because your statement seems to use language very loosely.
First, you use the phrase "desire for the sacrament of baptism" when I have spent a few pages arguing that the Church has never phrased the concept of BoD in that way. In cuм hoc tempore, the concept of BoD is found in the second part of the phrase "the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof." As far as I know, it is not formulated as "the desire for the Sacrament of Baptism" anywhere else. I am arguing that the latter formulation ("the desire for the Sacrament of Baptism") is where the mistake comes in and introduces ambiguity that the Modernist deceivers exploit.
The Council of Trent (https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html)
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.
Second, nowhere have I said that I think that BoD is "ineffectual."No you haven't, but Trent does say it, see Trent's above quote in bold.
Third, BoD is not a "type of Sacrament of Baptism." The Sacrament of Baptism works ex opere operato, as do all the Sacraments. BoD works ex opere operantis (https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=33472). BoD is "extra-sacramental" in the way it works. BoD, therefore, depends on the worthiness of the recipient, i.e., on his subjective disposition to receive grace.From your above link for the definition of ex opere operantis: "A term mainly applied to the good dispositions with which a sacrament is received..."
A concrete example of this kind of extra-sacramental BoD is what happened with the Penitent Thief. He was a guilty, unwashed sinner moments before his death. But because of his good will and recognition of Jesus as "the Lord" who had the power to forgive him, though completely unworthy, the Penitent Thief was forgiven and guaranteed by Our Lord to be with Him in Paradise.
I agree that you are right, it is not formulated as "the desire for the Sacrament of Baptism" anywhere, it is always formulated as "the desire thereof" - but they both mean the same thing because "the desire thereof" means "the desire for the sacrament of baptism."
Below is the quote from Trent that you asked about...
No you haven't, but Trent does say it, see Trent's above quote in bold.
From your above link for the definition of ex opere operantis: "A term mainly applied to the good dispositions with which a sacrament is received..."
The sacrament of baptism is not received at all in a BOD, it is the sacrament which is altogether missing in a BOD, therefore ex opere operantis cannot possibly apply here.
The example of the Good Thief, St. Dismas, simply does not apply to a BOD at all because the sacrament of baptism was not even instituted so could not have been a requirement at that time. As it says in my above quote from Trent, the requirement for the sacrament of baptism went into effect ever "since the promulgation of the Gospel" and not before.
I anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and therefore reduces to some sort of metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless one is reborn of water and the Spirit (John 3:5)", let him be anathema.
So the question reduces to is "the laver of regeneration" a generic formulation of the concept of baptism (which would include both extra-sacramental baptism and the Sacrament of Baptism) or is "the laver of regeneration" a specific and exclusive formulation of the Sacrament of Baptism? I am saying the former. I think you are saying the latter.Not sure what "extra-sacramental baptism" is, because as there is only one Lord and one faith, there is only one baptism (Eph 4:5) , on that account, the laver of regeneration can only be the sacrament of baptism.
If my interpretation is correct, then "the desire thereof" can refer to either extra-sacramental baptism or the Sacrament of Baptism. If your interpretation is correct, then "the desire thereof" can only refer to the Sacrament of Baptism.
If I am correct, the understanding of the concept of BoD is equivalent to an extra-sacramental event of grace, similar to John's Baptism. If you are correct, the understanding of the concept of BoD is equivalent of the effect of the Sacrament of Baptism, which would contradict Canon 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism:
You see to interpret cuм hoc tempore, chapter 4 in the way you want to interpret it makes the words "or the desire thereof" meaningless and superfluous and contradictory to Canon 2. Do you understand this? That being the case. The words "or the desire thereof" must refer to something other than the Sacrament of Baptism, which Canon 2 says must involve "true and natural water."
Not sure what "extra-sacramental baptism" is, because as there is only one Lord and one faith, there is only one baptism (Eph 4:5) , on that account, the laver of regeneration can only be the sacrament of baptism.Extra-sacramental "baptism" or the extra-sacramental "laver of regeneration" is the spiritual "cleansing" that works ex opere operantis. Other Sacraments like the Sacrament of Confession and the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which all work ex opere operato, have similar extra-sacramental analogues, known as "perfect contrition" and "spiritual communion," respectively. The extra-sacramental analogues do not have the same method of operation (i.e., they work ex opere operantis) nor do they have same effect as the Sacrament that they mimic. But they do have some effect for those recipients who are properly disposed.
On that note, as found in Scripture, Titus 3:5 says "Not by the works of justice, which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost."
Which the Haydock commentary has this to say about that verse...
Ver. 5. Not by the works, &c. St. Paul in this verse alludes to the sacrament of baptism. This text is brought by divines to prove that baptism, like every other sacrament, produces its effect by its own power, (or, as it is termed in the schools, ex opere operato) independently of any disposition on the part of the receiver. We are saved, says the apostle, not by the works of justice, or any good works we have performed, but our salvation must be attributed solely to the mercy of our Saviour, God, manifested to us by the washing itself of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Ghost. --- By the laver of regeneration, &c.[2] That is, baptism, by which we are born anew the adoptive children of God, by the grace of the Holy Ghost, whom he hath poured, &c. (Witham)
Note the underlined in the commentary, we are not saved by any good works we have performed, but by God providing for us that which we need, "that is, baptism."
In my previous post, I gave you a logical reason why in the phrase "the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof" that the words "laver of regeneration" cannot possibly mean ONLY the Sacrament of Baptism. I said that Canon 2 on the Doctrine on Sacrament of Baptism from the Council of Trent excludes any interpretation that there is a "Sacrament of Baptism of desire." The only Sacrament of Baptism is the one that uses proper matter (water) and form. Can you please respond to what I said? Your last post completely ignored that point.The laver of regeneration means what it says no? i.e. being washed with water while the words are pronounced is "the laver."
The works that you cite, for example Scripture, gets its meaning from the interpretation given to it by the Church. So, as a Catholic, you should look to what the Church says Scripture means, unless the Church has been silent on that point. The Church has not been silent on either the Sacrament of Baptism or extra-sacramental baptism (which includes both BoD and BoB). As I have said over and over again, Ludwig Ott has provided a summary of the Church's perennial teaching on the matter.You must have missed it but go back and look, I did post the interpretation given to it by the Church, I quoted the commentary on that passage directly from the Haydock Bible wherein it says that the Laver of Regeneration *is* baptism, which is the same baptism and same interpretation of Trent. It's at the end of my last post.