CathInfo.com

Have I spotted a Dimond Doppelgänger?

* * *

To the point: We have receive the doctrine, referred to as “Baptism of Desire”, from the Ordinary Universal Magisterium of the Church. He who denies what comes from the Ordinary Universal Magisterium of the Church, is the one who espouses heresy.

An Extract from St Alphonsus Liguori’s Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7

Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water [“fluminis”], of desire [“flaminis” = wind] 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 [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 presbytero 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.

A few points, easy to miss:

1) "Baptism" of desire is not a sacrament.

2) "Baptism" of desire means different things to different people, and as such, eludes definition.

3) The principle and necessary component for any "baptism" of desire to be effective is perfect contrition, for without perfect contrition, and in the absence of the Sacrament of Baptism, there can be no salvation.

4) If it were to be defined (and authoritative definitions are extremely rare these days!) "baptism" of desire would be framed in the context of a special case of perfect contrition, and therefore would be something that the recipient could lose ~ that is, one could have it one moment, and lose it the next, which is problematic for definitive authority to clarify. One never loses the mark of Sacramental Baptism.

5) The Sacrament of Baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul that lasts for all eternity, but any "baptism of desire" would leave no such mark, and therefore calling it "baptism" of desire leads to misunderstanding, because it is not baptism, but merely a phrase popularly used to describe a desire FOR baptism.

6) There is no argument against desire, per se, among those who question the popular claim of "baptism" of desire. The problem isn't the use of the word, "desire," but rather the use of the word "baptism," because it isn't Baptism, at all. It is perfect contrition, which is a wonderful thing, something we ought to all strive to achieve at all times, but it is not a sacrament.

7) "Baptism" of desire is not dogma. It has never been defined, nor will it ever likely be defined, for the reasons above, and perhaps others. Therefore, questioning it cannot be a "heresy," and the subject is open to debate.