Yes, you're right. I didn't know about that of course.
I know what the source bowler used is, so i'll tell you: the Dimond's book.
Nevertheless, be that as it may, just because St. Alphonsus said it was de fide, doesn't make it so, for only a Pope can do that.
Also, i never bought the idea that the Council of Trent "explicitly teaches" BOD for several reasons:
1- Session 6 chapter 4 is dealing with Justification, not the Sacrament of Baptism. You would think if Trent defined BOD, it would at least be in the canons on Baptism and at least mention it no?
2- If you contend that it did taught that the VOW (not merely the desire) to receive baptism justifies, then why get baptized to begin with if you can just vow to receive it?
3- How long does this state in which you are justified by the vow last? Until you are able to get baptized? For days? Years? There is no mention of this whatsoever, which you would think would be necessary information.
4- Nowhere does the Council even mention "Baptism of desire" in any explicit way whatsoever, and yet you all contend it decisively settled the matter.
5- Since there is no mention at all of "baptism of desire" being a substitute in sesion 6 chapter 4 anyways, and since it is a fact it is speaking about the process of adult justification, and since it immediately says "as it is written: unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God", the only logical conclusion is that it means you have to desire baptism in order for it to be valid, which is basic teaching on baptism to begin with.
Cathedra,
It takes humility to admit when one is wrong, and fortitude to admit it publicly. By admitting this, I have grown in my respect for you. I am happy that we have cleared up the initial point that St. Alphonsus did not err in his citation.
I had suspected that Bowler's tract was the work of the Dimonds. Thank you for confirming that. Their sloppy way of writing about theology is their signature.
I will answer your points using your numbering. To your points:
1. Session 6, Chapter 4 was not defining Baptism of Desire as though it was a controversy that needed to be settled. It was reaffirming the teaching of the Church on an an uncontroverted point.
Keep in mind that Baptism of Desire was taught prior to Trent by some of the Church's greatest theologians of all time, St. Thomas, St. Albert the Great, St Bonaventure, St. Bernard of Clairvoux to name some. There was no controversy here, and that is why Trent did not treat it such a manner, no one ever denied Baptism of Desire, so no canons were needed to anathemaitize those who did deny it.
2. First, I do not know why you keep referring to the desire for Baptism as a vow to get baptized. The word used by Trent is "
voto" which is the dative of
votum.
Votum can be translated to "vow" but in the context of Trent, it is obvious that this is not the case. Only an amateur would make such a mistake.
This is the reason why the trained and educated translators and commentators of Trent never translate
votum to mean a vow. It also translates to a " a wish," or a "pledge" which is synonymous with a desire. A rule of thumb regarding translations, use pre-Vatican II translations of Latin as much as possible rather than rely on the mostly untrained translators of today, some of whom have an agenda.
Now, to your question. If one desires Baptism, and does not seek to fulfill his desire by getting baptized, then he is false. Baptism of Desire is not some sort of fleeting hope to someday get baptized, but it is a true desire to actually receive the sacrament. God is not mocked, and He knows our true intentions.
3. Time is irrelevant. It is one's love of God and a desire to fulfill His law by getting baptized that justifies the soul. If the desire is sincere and not false, the person will be taking active steps to receive the sacrament as soon as possible.
If a man states that he truly loves a woman, and ask her to marry him, but then keeps putting the wedding off for less than grave reasons, he is false. If one desires to please God, one follows God's Plan and His Law, and does not tell God, "I want to obey you, but let's wait a few years." Such a person is mocking God and is not truly desiring the Sacrament.
The state of justification remains unless a mortal sin is committed.
4. Yes, the Council does specifically teach Baptism of Desire. As St. Alphonsus brilliantly explained, it is taught is Session 6, Chapter IV. Let us again read from Trent:
In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which 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 Savior.
This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written:
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.[18]
Take note of the following from the text: The Council is teaching explicitly that both the sacrament of Baptism
or the desire for it does two things: It transfers someone from the state of sin to the state of grace (justification), and secondly, it makes them adopted sons of God.
The Council then references John 3:5 as its support of this teaching. By citing John 3:5, the Council is interpreting the words of Our Lord to mean
both the sacrament or the desire for it.
Now, when the Council states that both the Sacrament or the desire for it makes one an adopted son of God, that has a specific meaning, that one is an heir to the inheritance that is promised to us, namely the Beatific Vision, or Heaven.
The Council teaches this clearly, and that is why St Alphonsus teaches that it is
de fide, and specifically references Trent as his source. By referencing Trent as the source of his assertion, St. Alphonsus is not giving a mere opinion, he is witnessing to a truth explicitly taught in the Council of Trent, and due to this, the teaching is
de fide.5. Baptism of Desire is not a substitute for the Sacrament. To see it that way is perverse. Baptism of Desire is internal, meaning that it is between the God and the person. When the desire is made public, and the person becomes a catechumen, the desire is then both internal and external. For this reason, a Catechumen, as the Holy Canons teach can have a Catholic burial.
But, such is not the case with a person who has not yet become a catechumen, but desires the Sacrament. For example, John Smith, a Hindu, reads some books on the Catholic Faith, and then by God's grace has a radical conversion, accepts everything the Church teaches, and tells Our Lord that He loves Him, wishes to obey him, and desires to receive Baptism. Unfortunately for John, the nearest priest is far away, and it will take time to see him and become a catechumen.
Before John gets to see the priest, he dies, visibly outside the Church. He cannot have a Catholic burial, but he could still be saved through Baptism of Desire, as he had the Faith, and He loved God.
To your second point, in order to receive the Sacrament validly, one must not have a contrary intention, rather than an explicit desire. That is why people who do not explicitly desire baptism can be baptized, such as infants, the retarded, etc. Their sponsors assume the responsibility.
Another example could be a lax teenager who only receives Confirmation to please his parents, but does not care about the Sacrament. The Confirmation would still be valid so long as the teen did not have a contrary intention. One would have to intend to not receive the sacrament for it to be invalid based on intent.
Topic: St. Alphonsus on Baptism of Desire and Blood (Read 5825 times)