I have been asked to give a statement regarding the controversies that have plagued the forum recently regarding "baptism of desire" and find myself bound by conscience to do so. I am not addressing anyone in particular nor am I here to usurp the prerogatives of Holy Mother Church: to teach doctrine and to condemn error.

There are some points I must clarify before I continue:

1) Grace from the view point of dogmatic theology: These controversies ultimately hearken to the conflict amongst theologians regarding disputed matters pertinent to the mysteries of grace and predestination, which are amongst the most inscrutable and profound mysteries in the deposit of the faith. Errors regarding these mysteries have sprung forth the most wretched heresies, Calvin being the example that first comes to mind.

     ---> The question: How are grace and predestination being treated by those who have taken it upon themselves to interpret the teachings of the Church regarding these matters? How can such individuals understand these matters without the proper study of philosophy and theology under the tutelage of duly deputed teachers of the Catholic faith?

2) Grace from the view point of ascetic and mystical theology: The present day discussions regarding "baptism of desire" tend to ignore the synoptic view of the interior life from the first motions of actual grace to the full efflorescence of the life of grace in the soul which is the unitive way: the life of mystical contemplation and prayer.

     ---> The question: How does one outside the Church hope to achieve the plenitude of efflorescence of the interior life without the greats means of grace that Catholics have?

3) Grace from the view point of the actual predicament of Catholics in the present day: Present day clerics err in wasting too much time in useless discussion instead of emphasizing matters that are of great urgency, such as the super-nature of grace, the fewness of the elect, the great means of salvation and perfection, &c., with the pastoral zeal they have professed or should profess.

     ---> The question: How is it that so many Catholics have failed in attaining to the sanctity and prayer of a soul like the Little Flower, St. Teresa of Jesus, St. John of the Cross, St. Louis-Marie, &c., when they have everything in their disposal to achieve the mystical graces of union and contemplation and nothing to excuse tepidity and laxity? How could the clergy be better trained and disposed in spiritual direction in order to remedy this universal catastrophe? How could Catholics tread upon theological matters regarding the mysteries of grace and predestination when there is grave neglect and error (on the part of both laity and clergy) regarding the means of salvation and perfection in an epoch of the grossest materialism and error?

4) Finally, there is the matter of adherence to the magisterial authority of Holy Mother Church and of exercising intellectual decorum, modesty and humility before the authority of theologians who knew the Fathers better than we can hope to know and who (above all) exercised themselves in the interior life better than we do. As for me, it is not necessary for me to understand intellectually nor to find sentimentally agreeable what Holy Mother Church proposes for my belief in order for me to make the act of faith requisite for a Catholic because faith is a supernaturally infused virtue that is superior to the limitations of created intellect and extraneous sentimentality vitiated by original and actual sin. The very purpose of having Holy Mother Church as our guide is precisely to have her as a guide and not self.

However, it best to present what Rev. Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O. P., has written regarding this matter, and he presents these topics from the point of view that has been rarely considered. It may not seem to be pertinent to those who vouchsafe a mere glance at these pages, but it is profoundly relevant to the discussion regarding "baptism of desire."

From Our Savior and His Love for Us [Le Sauveur et son amour pour nous] (Trans. A. Bouchard; St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1951):

I read the whole thing. It was a difficult read IMO and I cannot see how it applies to a BOD . . . . . . .possibly because it was a difficult read.

You write Matthew to let him know in advance you will be getting down thumbed?

May I ask, why?

Hobbledehoy,

I will be forever grateful that your learning and commitment to sound Catholic teaching overwhelms mine. Many have been the times that I have found reason, balance, sense and maturity in the posts you have made, rife with quotations and selected texts from learned prelates. Thank you.

Honestly, however, I feel that issues like BOD/BOB/"Mystics" outside the Church are graduate-level physics being batted around by little children who still scribble with crayons.

I don't just mean people here on CI; I mean many, if not the majority, of the people these days that call themselves Catholic and even attempt to parse these ideas.

Really... I think one of your questions in the paragraphs preceding your scanned article was absolutely, perfectly pertinent and germane to this discussion. I think no one should be venturing beyond the scope of that question until practical, empirical evidence in our lives bears out a conformity with the answer to that question. Namely:

How is it that so many Catholics have failed in attaining to the sanctity and prayer of a soul like the Little Flower, St. Teresa of Jesus, St. John of the Cross, St. Louis-Marie, &c., when they have everything in their disposal to achieve the mystical graces of union and contemplation and nothing to excuse tepidity and laxity? How could the clergy be better trained and disposed in spiritual direction in order to remedy this universal catastrophe? How could Catholics tread upon theological matters regarding the mysteries of grace and predestination when there is grave neglect and error (on the part of both laity and clergy) regarding the means of salvation and perfection in an epoch of the grossest materialism and error?

And that, Deo volente, will be the last I ever contribute to these BOD/BOB/"soul of the Church" discussions.

Holy Doctors of the Church, pray for us.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

Quote from: Stubborn

I read the whole thing. It was a difficult read IMO and I cannot see how it applies to a BOD . . . . . . .possibly because it was a difficult read.

You write Matthew to let him know in advance you will be getting down thumbed?

May I ask, why?

Yes, it is a difficult read, precisely because the matter is very difficult. It does apply to the BOD controversy if you read carefully. I had prefaced it with my own observations/notes in an endeavor to contextualize the text.

That was a tangential point, the message I had written to Matthew was about whether or not I would post the thread at all. I decided to do so, as is obvious.

More texts from Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange are forthcoming.

It is not difficult to read in the sense that you are saying it. It is difficult to read in the sense that it is ponderous, he is a poor communicator. Great writers, great communicators, make the complicated easy to understand for everyone, from the farmer to the professor, they communicate to everyone. Garrigou-Lagrange makes the easy to understand complicated. He is a drag to read. I'd rather go get a tooth filling.

It is like reading Rahner, the chocolate of priest. He appeals to those that are impressed by what they don't understand. This is a big failing in the clergy types.

Quote from: bowler

Garrigou-Lagrange makes the easy to understand complicated. He is a drag to read. I'd rather go get a tooth filling.

Then provide somebody who isn't "a drag to read." You've provided nobody to date who EXPLAINS what you say you "understand."

What are you talking about? You are a believer in salvation for those that have no explicit desire to be Catholics, nor baptized, nor martyred, nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation? You have no support whatsoever in your belief from any Father, Doctor, Saint, and your belief is opposed the  the Athanasian Creed.

I've posted the Fathers clearly explaining what I believe, John 3:15 as it is written. If you want to convert you don't have to follow me just follow this teaching and you'll be alright. But you won't, because you have lost your mind, you have succuмbed to BOD Hypocricy. Practically no one that smokes the weed of baptism of desire of the catechumen ever stops there, they always end up in the really bad drug of implicit faith in a God that rewards.:

The Explanation of the Baltimore Catechism Concerning the Salvation of Non-Catholics orginally published in 1891
by Rev. Thomas L. Kinkead
from Lesson 11: On the Church
* 121. Q. Are all bound to belong to the Church?

A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it, cannot be saved.

Anyone who knows the Catholic religion to be the true religion and will not embrace it cannot enter into Heaven. If one not a Catholic doubts whether the church to which he belongs is the true Church, he must settle his doubt, seek the true Church, and enter it; for if he continues to live in doubt, he becomes like the one who knows the true Church and is deterred by worldly considerations from entering it.

In like manner one who, doubting, fears to examine the religion he professes lest he should discover its falsity and be convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith, cannot be saved.

Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never—even in the past—had the slightest doubt of that fact—what will become of him?

If he was  validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience. But if ever he committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult. A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin be forgiven? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, for the Protestant does not go to confession; and if he does, his minister—not being a true priest—has no power to forgive sins. Does he know that without confession it requires an act of perfect contrition to blot out mortal sin, and can he easily make such an act? What we call contrition is often only imperfect contrition—that is, sorrow for our sins because we fear their punishment in Hell or dread the loss of Heaven. If a Catholic—with all the instruction he has received about how to make an act of perfect contrition and all the practice he has had in making such acts—might find it difficult to make an act of perfect contrition after having committed a mortal sin, how much difficulty will not a Protestant have in making an act of perfect contrition, who does not know about this requirement and who has not been taught to make continued acts of perfect contrition all his life. It is to be feared either he would not know of this necessary means of regaining God’s friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of God.

If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church.

I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects. All infants rightly baptized by anyone are really children of the Church, no matter what religion their parents may profess. Indeed, all persons who are baptized are children of the Church; but those among them who deny its teaching, reject its Sacraments, and refuse to submit to its lawful pastors, are rebellious children known as heretics.

I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely, of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his whole life a mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter.

I do not speak here of pagans who have never heard of Our Lord or His holy religion, but of those outside the Church who claim to be good Christians without being members of the Catholic Church.

from Lesson 14: On Baptism
154. Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?

A. Baptism is necessary to salvation, because without it we cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven.

Those who through no fault of theirs die without Baptism, though they have never committed sin, cannot enter Heaven neither will they go to Hell. After the Last Judgment there will be no Purgatory. Where, then, will they go? God in His goodness will provide a place of rest for them, where they will not suffer and will be in a state of natural peace; but they will never see God or Heaven. God might have created us for a purely natural and material end, so that we would live forever upon the earth and be naturally happy with the good things God would give us. But then we would never have known of Heaven or God as we do now. Such happiness on earth would be nothing compared to the delights of Heaven and the presence of God; so that, now, since God has given us, through His holy revelations, a knowledge of Himself and Heaven, we would be miserable if left always upon the earth. Those, then, who die without Baptism do not know what they have lost, and are naturally happy; but we who know all they have lost for want of Baptism know how very unfortunate they are.

Think, then, what a terrible crime it is to willfully allow anyone to die without Baptism, or to deprive a little child of life before it can be baptized! Suppose all the members of a family but one little infant have been baptized; when the Day of Judgment comes, while all the other members of a family—father, mother, and children—may go into Heaven, that little one will have to remain out; that little brother or sister will be separated from its family forever, and never, never see God or Heaven. How heartless and cruel, then, must a person be who would deprive that little infant of happiness for all eternity—just that its mother or someone else might have a little less trouble or suffering here upon earth.

157. Q. How many kinds of Baptism are there?

A. There are three kinds of Baptism: Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.

158. Q. What is Baptism of water?

A. Baptism of water is that which is given by pouring water on the head of the person to be baptized, and saying at the same time, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

159. Q. What is Baptism of desire?

A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.

“Ardent wish” by one who has no opportunity of being baptized—for no one can baptize himself. He must be sorry for his sins and have the desire of receiving the Baptism of water as soon as he can; just as a person in mortal sin and without a priest to absolve him may, when in danger of death, save his soul from Hell by an act of perfect contrition and the firm resolution of going to confession as soon as possible....

160. Q. What is Baptism of blood?

A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood for the faith of Christ.

Baptism of blood, called martyrdom, is received by those who were not baptized with water, but were put to death for their Catholic faith. This takes place even nowadays in pagan countries where the missionaries are trying to convert the poor natives. These pagans have to be instructed before they are baptized. They do everything required of them, let us suppose, and are waiting for the day of Baptism. Those who are being thus instructed are called Catechumens. Someday, while they are attending their instructions, the enemies of religion rush down upon them and put them to death. They do not resist, but willingly suffer death for the sake of the true religion. They are martyrs then and are baptized in their own blood; although, as we said above, blood would not do for an ordinary Baptism even when we could not get water; so that if a person drew blood from his own body and asked to be baptized with it, the Baptism would not be valid. Neither would they be martyrs if put to death not for religion or virtue but for some other reason—say political.

161. Q. Is Baptism of desire or blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?

A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.

Correction:
If you want to convert you don't have to follow me just follow this teaching below (the explanation of the Baltimore catechism)and you'll be alright.

Notice I don't push my belief on sensible people who follow St. Thomas. But you at present reject St. Thomas, the Fathers, saints, doctors and the Athanasian Creed in your belief. In other words, you reject all of tradition.

It is not difficult to read in the sense that you are saying it. It is difficult to read in the sense that it is ponderous, he is a poor communicator. Great writers, great communicators, make the complicated easy to understand for everyone, from the farmer to the professor, they communicate to everyone. Garrigou-Lagrange makes the easy to understand complicated. He is a drag to read. I'd rather go get a tooth filling.

It is like reading Rahner, the chocolate of priest. He appeals to those that are impressed by what they don't understand. This is a big failing in the clergy types.

Wow, "like reading Rahner"!

I think reading the vitriol you endeavor to pass of as apologetics is like reading Rahner. This is exactly why I was compelled to renounce "Feeneyism" or whatever you would like to call it. It is the Jansenism of past ages brought back from the grave, and its fetid stench has many here on CathInfo quite nauseated now.

You and your cohorts whore the sacred texts of the Creeds, Canons, Fathers, Councils, &c., as a Protestant would whore the Holy Scriptures in an attempt to usurp the magisterial and juridical prerogatives of Holy Mother Church.

And to think you have the gall to derogate the greatest theologian of the 20th century...