If the recipient desires to and receives the valid sacrament outside of the Church, the sacrament does it's part so far as removing Original sin, yet at the same time he commits a mortal sin. This is why conditional baptism is not an absolute requirement at all times for converts to the faith who've been baptized before entering the Church.

If one receives the sacrament for inheritance, marriage or some other reason without having a desire to receive it, I do not see that as being any different really than situation above.

When I'm talking about forced baptisms, I mean baptisms where there is zero consent.



Take the example of Innocent III:

Denzinger 411

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/the-catechism-of-the-council-of-trent-does-not-teach-baptism-of-desire/msg877636/#msg877636

This is contrary to the Christian religion, that anyone always unwilling and interiorly objecting be compelled to receive and to observe Christianity. On this account some absurdly do not distinguish between unwilling and unwilling, and forced and forced, because he who is violently forced by terrors and punishments, and, lest he incur harm, receives the sacrament of baptism, such a one also as he who under pretense approaches baptism, receives the impressed sign of Christianity, and he himself, just as he willed conditionally although not absolutely, must be forced to the observance of Christian Faith. . . . But he who never consents, but inwardly contradicts, receives neither the matter nor the sign of the sacrament, because to contradict expressly is more than not to agree. . . . The sleeping, moreover, and the weak-minded, if before they incurred weak-mindedness, or before they went to sleep persisted in contradiction, because in these the idea of contradiction is understood to endure, although they have been so immersed, they do not receive the sign of the sacrament; not so, however, if they had first lived as catechumens and had the intention of being baptized; therefore, the Church has been accustomed to baptize such in a time of necessity. Thus, then the sacramental operation impresses the sign, when it does not meet the resisting obstacle of a contrary will.

The person who consents to avoid physical harm (or in your examples, to acquire an inheritance or marriage)    =    consents conditionally, and the sacrament is received


The person who does not consent at all    =    zero consent, and no sacrament is conferred

Infants have their God Parents do the desiring for them. Trent's catechism states that the Church decides for insane adults, but those who never expressed a desire to be baptized are not to be baptized at all, except in danger of death.

Yes, in regards to infants, I remember someone posting that on a different thread, but I was wondering about infants who have lost their parents, but if the Church can decide in the case for insane adults, so too can they decide in the case of infants who have lost their parents.

I could be remembering it wrong, and perhaps the godparents responding in professing the faith for the child, rather than the desire for the baptism of the child.

When I'm talking about forced baptisms, I mean baptisms where there is zero consent.

Yes, this was a big problem in the days of protestantism in the 1500s.  There were people being forcefully baptized and Trent wanted to clear up the fact that a forced baptism (or any sacrament) is invalid.  Not just illicit but invalid.

Take the example of Innocent III:

Denzinger 411

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/the-catechism-of-the-council-of-trent-does-not-teach-baptism-of-desire/msg877636/#msg877636


Quote

Quote

This is contrary to the Christian religion, that anyone always unwilling and interiorly objecting be compelled to receive and to observe Christianity. On this account some absurdly do not distinguish between unwilling and unwilling, and forced and forced, because he who is violently forced by terrors and punishments, and, lest he incur harm, receives the sacrament of baptism, such a one also as he who under pretense approaches baptism, receives the impressed sign of Christianity, and he himself, just as he willed conditionally although not absolutely, must be forced to the observance of Christian Faith. . . . But he who never consents, but inwardly contradicts, receives neither the matter nor the sign of the sacrament, because to contradict expressly is more than not to agree. . . . The sleeping, moreover, and the weak-minded, if before they incurred weak-mindedness, or before they went to sleep persisted in contradiction, because in these the idea of contradiction is understood to endure, although they have been so immersed, they do not receive the sign of the sacrament; not so, however, if they had first lived as catechumens and had the intention of being baptized; therefore, the Church has been accustomed to baptize such in a time of necessity. Thus, then the sacramental operation impresses the sign, when it does not meet the resisting obstacle of a contrary will.

First he says one who violently has the sacrament forced on them and receives the sacrament albeit begrudgingly, does indeed receive the sacrament.

Then he says when the one receiving it expressly does not want it but receives it anyway "receives neither the matter nor the sign," that appears to mean what you've been saying, that the baptism never happened "because to contradict expressly is more than not to agree." Which is to say he still has Original Sin on his soul because he not only did not desire to be baptized, he received it against his will.

"Laver" is the greek word for "washing".  So "laver of regeneration" would be the act of washing in baptism, or the matter/form.  That is, the pouring of water and the form of the sacramental prayer.

So, "Laver of Regeneration" (matter/form) + Desire (proper disposition) = sacrament.
As, "Water" (natural means) + "Holy Ghost" (supernatural means) = sacrament.

Thus, you have to have both for the sacrament.  Can you only have the desire?  Sure.  Will that justify you?  It seems likely.  Will you go to heaven only justified, but not baptized?  Don't know.

Everytime I try to play "devil's advocate" and see if BOD fits, there's just holes in that block of cheese.  I can't make it work.  If one reads the entirety of Trent, the council does a good job of closing the loopholes.  But one only sees all the loopholes if you read Trent holistically.  If you pull out this phrase or that sentence, out of context, you can make it say anything.

Everytime I try to play "devil's advocate" and see if BOD fits, there's just holes in that block of cheese.  I can't make it work.  If one reads the entirety of Trent, the council does a good job of closing the loopholes.  But one only sees all the loopholes if you read Trent holistically.  If you pull out this phrase or that sentence, out of context, you can make it say anything.

Very true.  I used to believe in BoD because I had been under the impression that Trent taught it.  So one day I sat down and read both Sessions V and VI in the original Latin, and realized that Trent was not teaching BoD in any way, shape, or form.  This was not the intent of its teaching.  It was teaching about how the Sacraments work, through a cooperation of the ex opere operato effect of the Sacrament and the cooperation of free will (related to votum) with grace.  There was no intent here to teach the so-called alleged "Three Baptisms".  You would have expected a mention of the Third, but Trent's text, if read the BoDer way, would rule out a third Baptism that did not simply reduce to votum.  I read it over and over again and there was simply no way for me to squeeze "BoD" into the teaching.  Trent didn't rule it out either, but it clearly wasn't teaching it.

But when individuals take that famous passage out of context, leave out the quotation from Our Lord, and use the grossly mistranslated "except through", then and ONLY then can you see "BoD" in Trent.

It's just in every catechism, Catholic encyclopedia for the last 500 years, various writings of popes for hundreds of years.  But everyone missed it.  That's truly miraculous, why do you think it worked out that way?

You can actually answer by asking yourself why you yourself do not see the contradiction that *the opinion* of a BOD presents.