CathInfo.com

Here is another example of where a council could have easily defined baptism of desire, but again, the Holy Ghost did not:

From "Is Feeneyism Catholic" by Fr. Laisney p. 77, he quotes St. Alphonsus Ligouri:

"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 baptizado" and of the Council of Trent"


This quote from Fr. Laisney's book ONCE AGAIN is not complete. Here is the full text of what St. Alphonsus said (I've blued the part that was left out by Fr. Laisney):

St. Alphonsus: “Baptism by fire, however, is the perfect conversion to God through contrition, or the love of God above all things, with the explicit desire, or implicit desire, for the true river of baptism. As the Council of Trent says  (Sess. 14, Chap. 4), it takes the place of the latter with regard to the remission of the guilt, but does not imprint a character nor take away all the debt of punishment. It is called fire because it is made under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, who is given this name… Thus it is of faith (de fide) that men are saved even by the baptism of fire, according to c. Apostolicam, de pres. non bapt. and the Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4, where it is said that no one can be saved without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”

The author, Fr. Francois Laisney, does not include St. Alphonsus’ erroneous reference to Sess. 14, Chap. 4 of Trent when Laisney quotes the passage from St. Alphonsus on baptism of desire!  This is incredibly dishonest, of course, but Fr. Laisney of the SSPX omits it because he knows that St. Alphonsus was wrong in referencing Trent in that way; and, therefore, he knows that it pokes a big hole in his argument in favor of baptism of desire based on the obviously fallible St. Alphonsus.



There are errors in the very paragraph in which it is stated. To substantiate his position on baptism of desire, St. Alphonsus first makes reference to Sess. 14, Chap. 4 of the Council of Trent.

St. Alphonsus says:
“As the Council of Trent says (Sess. 14, Chap. 4), it takes the place of the latter with regard to the remission of the guilt, but does not imprint a character nor take away all the debt of punishment.”

This is completely wrong. Sess. 14, Chap. 4 of the Council of Trent does not say that baptism of desire “takes the place of the latter (i.e., baptism) with regard to the remission of the guilt,” as St. Alphonsus claims. Let’s look at the passage:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 4, on the Sacrament of Penance: “The Council teaches, furthermore, that though it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man to God, before this sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation must not be ascribed to the contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament which is included in it.”

The Council here defines that perfect contrition with the desire for the Sacrament of Penance can restore a man to the grace of God before the Sacrament is received. It says nothing of baptism! St. Alphonsus’ very premise – that baptism of desire is taught in Sess. 14, Chap. 4 – is erroneous. Trent says nothing of the sort. If the very premises upon which he argued baptism of desire were flawed and erroneous, how can one be bound to the conclusions that flow from such false premises?

Another related subject

Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 2, On Penance: “This sacrament of Penance, moreover, is necessary for the salvation of those who have fallen after baptism, as baptism itself is necessary for those not yet regenerated.”

Now, baptism of desire advocates will also quote Sess. 14, Chap. 2 of Trent to try to prove the point that people who have fallen into mortal sin can be justified and saved without the Sacrament of Penance by perfect contrition, and therefore people can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism, since Trent says that the necessity of the Sacrament of Penance for those in mortal sin is the same as the necessity of Baptism. But this argument also falters because just two Chapters later the Council of Trent explicitly states that one can be justified without the Sacrament of Penance by perfect contrition plus the desire for it. One cannot take one chapter of Trent out of context.



Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 4, On Penance: “The Council teaches, furthermore, that though it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man to God, before this sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation must not be ascribed to the contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament which is included in it.”



The Council of Trent clearly teaches three times that the grace of the Sacrament of Penance can be attained by the desire for the Sacrament of Penance (twice in Sess. 6, Chap. 14; and once in Sess. 14, Chap. 4), while it nowhere teaches the false doctrine of baptism of desire.


Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 14 on Justification: “Hence it must be taught that the repentance of a Christian after his fall is very different from that at his baptism, and that it includes not only a cessation from sins… but also the sacramental confession of the same, at least in desire and to be made in its season, and sacerdotal absolution, as well as satisfaction by fasting, almsgiving, prayers, and other devout exercises of the spiritual life, not indeed for the eternal punishment, which is remitted together with the guilt either by the sacrament or the desire of the sacrament, but for the temporal punishment…”



The fact that Trent clearly teaches at least three times that the desire for the Sacrament of Penance is efficacious for Justification, while it nowhere teaches baptism of desire, should tell baptism of desire advocates something; namely, that baptism of desire is not true.


And this is why the statement by Trent in Sess. 14, Chap. 2 on the necessity of the Sacrament of Penance does not equate to Trent’s statements on the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation, because the Council clearly clarifies its meaning on the necessity of the Sacrament of Penance just two Chapters later by defining that perfect contrition restores such a man to Justification without the Sacrament of Penance. While dogmatic canons stand alone, chapters must be taken in their complete context.

Here is another example of where a council could have easily defined baptism of desire, but again, the Holy Ghost did not

Bowler, why insist the Church solemnly define baptism of desire? Throughout the 2000 years of the Catholic Church, General councils were only called 20 times to solemnly declare anything. That's only 20 times out of 2000 years - an extremely small number of times.

Here is a quick summary of the first 18 of those 20 General Councils covering the first 1500 years of the Catholic Church. Notice - the Church solemnly defined barely anything during these 15 centuries. Why? Looking below we can see the Church only typically defines doctrines where necessary to combat a particular problem. So to answer the question you started this discussion with, the Church has no need to define BOD, or anything for that matter, in dogmatic decrees because the majority of what Catholics believe comes from the ordinary magisterium. Baptism of desire and blood come from the ordinary magisterium, so that is all that Catholics need.

1. Nicaea I,  325, condemned heresy of Arius, defined the divinity of Christ, formulated Nicene Creed
2. Constantinople I , 381, condemned heresy of Macedonius, defined divinity of Holy Ghost, confirmed and extended Nicene Creed
3. Ephesus, 431, condemned heresy of Nestorius, Defined one person in Christ, defended divine maternity of BVM
4. Chalcedon, 451, condemned heresy of Eutyches, declared Christ had 2 natures.
5. Constantinople II, 553, condemned books of Theoclorus favoring Nestorian heresy
6. Constantinople III, 680, condemned heresy of Monothelites, defined 2 wills in Christ
7. Nicaea II, 787, condemned heresy of Iconoclasts
8. Constantinople IV, 870, condemned and deposed Photius, suppressed Greek Schism
9. Lateran I, 1123, regulated rights of Church and Emperors in election of Bishops and Abbots.
10. Lateran II, 1139, suppressed last remnants of schism of Anacletus II, reaffirmed principles of Gregorian reform, banished Arnold of Brescia from Italy, condemned the heresy of Peter of Bruys.
11. Lateran III, 1179, reformed ecclesiastical discipline, decreed papal elections by two thirds majority of Cardinals, confirmed Peace of Venice.
12. Lateran IV, 1215, condemned Albigenses, Joachim of Floria, and Almaric of Bena; prescribed annual confession and communion, promoted ecclesiastical discipline, ordered crusade for recovery of the Holy Land.
13. Lyons I, 1245, called in behalf of the Holy Land, and on account of the hostility of Emperor Frederick II toward Holy See.
14. Lyons II, 1274, promoted ecclesiastical discipline, to affect the union of the Greeks with the Latin church, to aid the Holy Land.
15. Vienne, 1311, condemned the views of Olivi and heresies of Fraticelli, Dulcanists, Beghards, Beguines. Suppressed the Knights Templar, sought aid for the Holy Land.
16. Constance, 1414, suppressed Western schism, ecclesiastical reform in "head and members", Wycliff and Hus condemned.
17. Florence, 1438, called to affect union of Greeks and other oriental sects with the Latin Church; reestablish peace among Christian princes.
18. Lateran V, 1512, defined relations of Pope to general councils, condemned certain errors regarding nature of the human soul, called for crusade against the Turks.

Quote from: Matto

I think we know already that there are many decrees from councils that never mention BOD and always speak of the necessity of Baptism, just as we know that lots of people in the Church and even saints have believed in BOD and taught it, even in catechisms. There will always be a debate until a future pope, after the crisis is over, infallibly declares that BOD either does or does not exist.

Many doctrines have not been solemnly defined throughout the history of the Church, yet it would be considered heresy to deny them. Guardian Angels for instance - never solemnly defined - but you would be considered a heretic if you denied their existence because the Church has taught about them through the ordinary magisterium all along. People need to stop getting hung up on this imaginary need for things to be "defined".

Whether people are "hung up" on this "imaginary" need for things to be defined or not, no one can contradict that which has been defined.

It is blasphemous to claim the Church wasted it's time defining dogma - as though the need for infallibility defining truth in certain matters specifically to correct error, proclaim clearly the truth and to help us get to heaven and avoid an eternity in hell, is only imaginary therefore we can easily ignore them for doctrines of men which oppose the defined dogma.  

As Fr. Wathen said: "Most important of all is the consideration which we have dilated already: Holy Church enunciates the dogma Extra Ecciesiam expressly for the purpose of anathematizing just these kinds of expostulations and fictions. The views of those who hold this Liberal position are nothing but human reasonings; the Church would never make an ex cathedra definition of a truism."

All BOD is, is the explaining away of the dogma.