We ALL believe this.  Only some of us believe that such an individual will also receive the Sacrament of Baptism.

Based on how you've articulated it here, I have no quarrel with you.  You are perfectly free to believe in Baptism of Desire with the conditions laid out above.  I just don't happen to believe in it, since I believe that God will also give those who persevere in the manner you describe the Sacrament of Baptism ... without fail.

Your quarrel with is me that you claim that I am obliged to believe that such a one will not necessarily receive the Sacrament, whereas I dispute that.

Now Trent taught justification by a "Confession of Desire", that's for sure, but I also hold that someone who sincerely desires Confession, that God will not let him be cut down without it.  I believe 100% in Our Lord's promise of "Ask and you shall receive." ... as did St. Ambrose.

Great, Ladislaus. So do you agree with this, for instance, from SBC: "Saint Augustine taught, as is clear from this article’s epigram, that the providence of God would see to it that a justified catechumen would be baptized before death. God alone, in any event, knows which of those, with a votum for baptism and perfect contrition, He has justified. The Church can only assume, as the arm of Christ, the Principal Agent in baptism, that all are in need of receiving the sacramentin order to not only have all sin forgiven and abolished, but to be a member of the Church, the Body of Christ. Anticipating the rejoinder that no one is lost who dies in the state of grace, let me just affirm that I agree. Not only that I agree, but that I submit to this truth as I would a dogma of Faith. The Church, however, allows the faithful the freedom to believe that the providence of God will see to it that every person dying in the state of grace will also be baptized. This preserves the literal sense of Christ’s teaching in John 3:5: “Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” and His apostolic mandate to preach and baptize all nations in Mark 16: 15-16."

https://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html

St. Benedict's Centre does not see their position as contrary to Vatican II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Indeed, Fr. Feeney was reconciled to Rome under Pope Paul VI. Fr. Feeney professed the Athanasian Creed upon his reconciliation.

The later Doctors do not teach it, and even seem to rule it out, but St. Augustine did apparently teach it: God can miraculously supply someone to baptize a dying catechumen, or someone who converted to the Catholic Faith at the last minute, and He can also miraculously supply a Priest to absolve a dying penitent. But I hold those two doctrines, which SBC itself confesses, are quite certain: (1) Baptism of Desire certainly confers at least justification, and thus brings a soul within (the Soul of) the Church. (2) A person dying in the State of Grace, in the New Covenant, will certainly be saved, as Trent itself says in quoting the Word of the Lord. Someone who believes and confesses both those two doctrines, is allowed, I admit, by the Church, to hold to this theological speculation.

As a final aside, I'm surprised you would say the Baltimore Catechism or the Catechism of St. Pius X is not "the Church". That seems like an almost R&R approach to the issue, except applying R&R to earlier Popes. If that's the case, why not say the same thing about the New Catechism, for e.g. when it also teaches BOD, that it also "did not come from the Church" even if Pope John Paul II was Pope? Just curious. That's all. But no problem otherwise. We agree on this subject in the manner we discussed above. Now, to get to the others in my next post.

God Bless.

No debate, you are supposed simply answer clear questions with clear answers. I did not ask what Catholics who do not understand a doctrine always say first.

The Church is not correcting me nor anyone who agrees with the Church's infallible definitions - you are not 1) answering my questions and 2) not making any sense.


CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;... let him be anathema.

I say Trent says that the sacraments are necessary unto salvation - PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW MY INTERPRETATION IS FALSE.
IN YOUR OWN WORDS, WHAT DO YOU THINK THESE WORDS OF TRENT ACTUALLY MEAN?


the canon continues:

and [if anyone saith] that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

I say Trent says without the sacrament there can be no justification and without the desire for the sacrament there can be no justification. Again - PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW MY INTERPRETATION IS FALSE.
IN YOUR OWN WORDS, WHAT DO YOU THINK THESE WORDS OF TRENT ACTUALLY MEAN?


If you do not have it in you to answer my clear questions, THEN SAY SO.

I already answered it. You are unable to comprehend an answer, and then insist I must answer you again and again. Go back and read.

Let me answer you again: To the first bolded, yes. Trent teaches that the Sacraments of the New Law are necessary for salvation, though all indeed are not necessary for each individual. Yes. And then in the second bolded, which is part of the same canon, it explains what it means by this necessity, that "without them, or without the desire thereof [literally: aut eurom voto, without the desire of them]", men cannot obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification. Now, first of all, I already explained with a citation from St. Thomas, that BOD is not the Protestant error of faith alone, but the outcome of "faith that works by charity", which St. Paul praised as justifying, and about which St. Thomas cites St. Ambrose as proof that "faith that works by charity" justifies and even saves.

So BOD is not faith alone. It is faith that works by charity. Next, Trent explains that the Sacraments are necessary in such a way that, without them, or without the desire of them, the Grace of Justification cannot be obtained. Now, I gave you an example for this: If I say that my thirst cannot be quenched without water, or at least without some juice, then a logical inference is that the juice can substitute for the water. And this is how the authorized and qualified Doctors, unlike you, a layman not authorized by the Church, interpret Trent: The Desire can sometimes supply for the Water. And note that the desire of them is in the Plural. That means that there are Two Sacraments at least for which the Desire of the Sacraments obtains Justification. Those can only be Baptism and Penance.

The Church had already clearly explained in its section on Penance that the Desire for Penance, when contrition is perfect by charity, reconciles man to God even before the Sacrament is received. Voto is a very specific term that does not refer to a mere natural desire, but to a supernatural desire animated by charity and contrition. Trent would never have used voto with respect to Baptism, Penance and Holy Communion, unless it meant to teach and dogmatize, Baptism of Desire, Perfect Contrition, and Spiritual Communion respectively.

You can fight against this Truth as hard as you want. It won't change them one iota. Nor need anyone who loves God truly and thus desires to keep His Commandments, as the Lord said in the Gospel, fear that the preaching of Perfect Contrition, and Spiritual Communion, to take the other two relatively non-controversial examples, will decrease the desire or reverence for the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist. The reverse is true, someone who regularly strives, for e.g. by looking at a crucifix, to obtain perfect contrition and true sorrow for his sins when a Priest is inaccessible, will be the first in line for Confession as soon as he gets a Priest.

Similarly, someone who often makes Acts of Spiritual Communion, when unable to go to Mass, will be the first to go to Holy Mass, as soon as he gets opportunity. This is why the Council itself, and Doctors and Theologians qualified to explain, say that the Desire for the Sacrament is implicit in the act of perfect love of God or of contrition by which the sinner is immєdιαtely reconciled to God.
Finally, Trent's Catechism clearly says, for adults, Desire and Intention to receive Baptism, when an unforeseen accident occurs, avails to Grace and Justice. Trent says the danger present for infants, of being eternally lost, is not present. From this, the Doctors and Theologians, for nearly 5 centuries, rightly understood that BOD can justify and even save. I know you'll say "nothing is unforeseen to God", but the Catechism is talking about what is unforeseen to man. The Catechism is not talking about miraculous water Baptism.

If you want to interpret the Catechism that way, you would be contradicting it where it said the same danger is not present to infants.
I don't know if these detailed and patient explanations will have any impact on your already-made-up mind. But I post them anyway, for those who read, and lest you keep thinking your questions could not be answered. Anyway, the Doctors have already answered it.
God Bless.

I don't accept the phrase "Baptism of Desire".  I would reject not only the phrase here, but even the English translation of "Desire" as both defective and misleading, and the Catholic Encyclopedia agrees

Can you cite it? Here it is. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

I find the CE's explanation, authorized by Rome a 100 years ago, beautiful and perfect in explaining Baptism of Desire. I believe it was published in English as well, so the translation issue also shouldn't be a problem.

"Substitutes for the sacrament

The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.

The baptism of desire

The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The "baptism of the Holy Ghost" is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book "De Rebaptismate". The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. 

After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. 

This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice "except by the washing of regeneration or its desire" (voto). The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius.

We have already alluded to the funeral oration pronounced by St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen. The doctrine of the baptism of desire is here clearly set forth. St. Ambrose asks: "Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it because he asked for it." St. Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, IV.22) and St. Bernard (Ep. lxxvii, ad H. de S. Victore) likewise discourse in the same sense concerning the baptism of desire. If it be said that this doctrine contradicts the universal law of baptism made by Christ (John 3), the answer is that the lawgiver has made an exception (John 14) in favor of those who have the baptism of desire. Neither would it be a consequence of this doctrine that a person justified by the baptism of desire would thereby be dispensed from seeking after the baptism of water when the latter became a possibility. For, as has already been explained the baptismus flaminis contains the votum of receiving the baptismus aquæ. It is true that some of the Fathers of the Church arraign severely those who content themselves with the desire of receiving the sacrament of regeneration, but they are speaking of catechumens who of their own accord delay the reception of baptism from unpraiseworthy motives. Finally, it is to be noted that only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire."

As I've pointed out, the "cannot without" expression in Trent clearly indicates necessary cause, but not sufficient cause.

What about the example I gave to Stubborn? "Next, Trent explains that the Sacraments are necessary in such a way that, without them, or without the desire of them, the Grace of Justification cannot be obtained. Now, I gave you an example for this: If I say that my thirst cannot be quenched without water, or at least without some juice, then a logical inference is that the juice can substitute for the water. And this is how the authorized and qualified Doctors, unlike you, a layman not authorized by the Church, interpret Trent: The Desire can sometimes supply for the Water. And note that the desire of them is in the Plural. That means that there are Two Sacraments at least for which the Desire of the Sacraments obtains Justification. Those can only be Baptism and Penance."

As I mentioned earlier, it's no difficulty for God to bring the Sacrament to someone who perseveres in a state of justification until death.  Why wouldn't He?

I don't know. Many reasons. Maybe because He wants the soul to suffer in Purgatory for a while? I certainly agree He will grant such a soul all the graces necessary for its salvation, according to His Divine Promise. But those could be Justification+Perseverance only.

God Bless. 

It was just called to my attention that MHFM has a relatively recent video on this topic:

https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/council-of-trent-did-not-teach-baptism-of-desire/

I recommend their videos.  You might want to watch it a couple of times because Br Peter moves rapidly through a lot of material.  And actually it is a perfect video for this thread because it is specifically targeted to many of the points that have been brought up in this thread without getting into the issues concerning the necessity of professing the Catholic faith.  We all agree here (even PPV and XS) that explicit Catholic faith is necessary (and must be professed according to the Athanasian Creed) for salvation.  But the above video goes into detail on why we must believe that Trent did NOT teach BOD and why BOD is not consistent with Church doctrine.

Honestly, I couldn't really follow most of the second(the 2012 one) thread. The citations got incredibly long and I didn't understand a lot of the language, so I just found myself getting muddled and scrolling past. However, from the 1 Timothy 2:4 thread and what I grasped of that one, I thought Tornpage was the more convincing and I didn't think MRyan properly addressed his central point, that unbaptised infants are not given the necessary graces to be saved.

I'm still confused though. The Catholic Encyclopedia says that the proposition that anyone is predestined to be damned has been condemned. This would surely include Tornpage's resolution of the issue(that God wishes to save all men only in that He created the means by which all men can be saved, and doesn't wish for the salvation of every individual, and therefore not offering salvific grace to all of them). But I can't actually find any condemnation of such. Trent merely condemns the proposition that everyone who isn't predestined for salvation is damned, which would still allow for the unbaptised infant being offered no way to save itself.

I'm not sure about anything here, to be honest. What's your own resolution of the issue?

 

God willing, I'll start a new thread on God's salvific will in relation to the question of unbaptized infants who die in infancy in the near future so that this one is not derailed by our discussion. I'll start with St. Thomas in the Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 19, Article 6 and then look at St. Alphonsus's treatment of the issue. 

Xavier doesn't understand the subject enough to converse about it, which is why his posts are filled with quotes.  He should be ignored.

I think like LT basically said, Xavier's rejection of the Church's infallible teachings on the matter is the same as all BODers and can be traced directly to; "the ramifications of these teachings are simply too severe to accept", aka +Fr. Cekada's reasoning.

Ledeg, to what you asked on "absolutely necessary", here is the Catechism of St. Pius X. The Pope first says that Baptism is necessary,

16 Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?

A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

And then immєdιαtely in answering the next question, the same Saintly Pontiff explains that BOD/B can supply its absence.

17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?

A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.

Do you believe His Holiness Pope St. Pius X is contradicting himself from one question to the next? Or is teaching heresy here?

"God can provide the Sacrament wherever and whenever He chooses. And He can also provide forgiveness through Perfect Contrition wherever and whenever He chooses", that the sacraments and the Church are not necessary.

I stand by what I wrote in the bolded. The non-bolded is your own non sequitur. Baptism is so necessary for salvation that no one can obtain salvation without at least receiving Baptism in voto. The same for belonging to the Church. He must belong to the Church in voto in order to be saved.

I proved what I wrote from St. Alphonsus and St. Pius X. By an act of perfect love of God or contrition, a person can be justified. If he perseveres, he will receive the whole Faith and be saved.

No one will be saved without explicit faith in Christ, i.e. in the Trinity and Incarnation. Your other claim that you impute to me is thus also a strawman. I don't believe Muslims will be saved as Muslims.

Lad, quoting the CE: "The council does not mean by votum a simple desire of receiving baptism or even a resolution to do so. It means by votum an act of perfect charity or contrition, including, at least implicitly, the will to do all things necessary for salvation and thus especially to receive baptism."

Perfect? Whats the problem here?

Thank you for answering my questions.

You're welcome. Now, can you answer my example: "Now, I gave you an example for this: If I say that my thirst cannot be quenched without water, or at least without some juice, then a logical inference is that the juice can substitute for the water. And this is how the authorized and qualified Doctors, unlike you, a layman not authorized by the Church, interpret Trent: The Desire can sometimes supply for the Water. And note that the desire of them is in the Plural. That means that there are Two Sacraments at least for which the Desire of the Sacraments obtains Justification. Those can only be Baptism and Penance.

The Church had already clearly explained in its section on Penance that the Desire for Penance, when contrition is perfect by charity, reconciles man to God even before the Sacrament is received. Voto is a very specific term that does not refer to a mere natural desire, but to a supernatural desire animated by charity and contrition. Trent would never have used voto with respect to Baptism, Penance and Holy Communion, unless it meant to teach and dogmatize, Baptism of Desire, Perfect Contrition, and Spiritual Communion respectively." How do you answer the example of water and juice?

Here is Canon Law: "Canon Law (1917): Canon 737: “Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all ..."

The Church's defined dogmas are infallible in that sense in which She has Herself always understood them? Which interpretation does Canon Law back up? Yours or mine?

Vatican I also rejects that "a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands"

In which sense has the Church understood Her own dogma? In the sense that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire. The Church would never have said this if BOD didn't exist.

BOD's existence is dogmatically certain. The same and equally certain as Perfect Contrition and Spiritual Communion, as per Trent.