I had never seen a couple of these before, so posting them all now (initially posted here: https://tradcath.proboards.com/thread/824/alphonsus-liguori-doctor-baptism-desire):


St. Alphonsus de Liguori (Doctor of the Church) – 1696-1787 AD:


1) Theologia Moralis, Lib.VI, Tract.II, Cap.I, no. 95-97:
Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water [“fluminis”], of desire [“flaminis” = wind] and of blood.

We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the Passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But 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 baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”

Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality [“non ita stricte”] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion
of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from baptism of blood — translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.

It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ.

*Source: Liguori, St. Alphonsus. Theologia Moralis. Tomus Quintus. Arranged by Heilig P. Mich., C.Ss.R. Mechliniae, 1845. <archive.org/details/theologiamorali02heilgoog> *Translation: < www.sedevacantist.com/baptism.html>



2) Theologia Moralis, Lib.III, Cap 1, Q. 2:
2. Is it required by a necessity of means or of precept to believe explicitly in the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation after the promulgation of the gospel?

The first opinion and more common and held as more probable teaches belief is by necessity of means; Sanch. in Dec. lib. 2. c. 2. n. 8. Valent. 2. 2. d. 1. qu. 2. p. 4. Molina 1. part. qu. 1. a. 1 d. 2. Cont. Tourn. de praeceptis Decal. cap. 1. art. 1. §. 2. concl. 1. Juven. t. 6. diss. 4. a. 3. Antoine de virt. theol. cap. 1. qu. 2. Wigandt tr. 7. ex. 2. de fide n. 22. Concina t. 1. diss. 1. de fide cap. 8. n. 7. cuм Ledesma, Serra, Prado, etc. Also Salm. tr. 21. c. 2. punct. 2. n. 15. Cuniliat. tr. 4. de 1. Dec. praec. c. 1. §. 2. et Ronc. tr. 6. c. 2. But the last three say that in rare cases it may happen that one can be justified by implicit faith only…

But the second opinion that is also sufficiently probable says by necessity of precept all must explicitly believe in the mysteries. However, for necessity of means it is sufficient to implicitly believe in the mysteries.

So Dominicus Soto (in 4. sentent. t. 1. d. 5. qu. un. art. 2. concl. 2.) where he says: Even though the precept of explicit faith (in the Trinity and Incarnation) absolutely obliges the whole world, yet there also are many who are invincibly ignorant [of the mysteries] from which the obligation excuses.

Franciscus Sylvius (t. 3. in 2. 2. qu. 2. art. 7. and 8. concl. 6.) writes: After the promulgation of the gospel explicit faith in the Incarnation is necessary for all for salvation by a necessity of precept, and also (that it is probable) a necessity of means…

Card. Gotti (Theol. t. 2. tr. 9. qu. 2. d. 4. §. 1. n. 2.) says: In my judgment the opinion which denies that explicit faith in Christ and in the Trinity is so necessary that no one can be justified without it is very probable. And he adds that Scotus holds this opinion…

Elbel. (t. 1. conferent. 1. n. 17.) writes today that this opinion is held by notables. DD. Castropal. part. 2. tr. 4. d. 1. p. 9. Viva in Prop. 64 damn. ab Innocent. XI. n. 10, Sporer. tr. 11. cap. 11. sect. 11. §. 4. n. 9. Laym. lib. 2. tr. 1. cap. 8. n. 5. who teach this is not less probable than the first, with Richard. Medin. Vega, Sa, and Turriano. Card. de Lugo, de fide d. 12. n. 91. calls the first speculatively probable, but defends this second view at length and in absolute terms as more probable, with Javell, Zumel, and Suarez d. 12. sect. 4. n. 10. the writings of Lugo likewise seem to be the opinion of St. Thomas 3. part. qu. 69. a. 4. ad 2. where the Doctor says: Before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit.

Wherefore, argues Lugo, just as Cornelius freely obtained grace by implicit faith, so even one can obtain the same in a place where the gospel is not perfectly promulgated. He will be able in such a place to obtain the same who is invincibly ignorant of the mysteries in a place where the gospel has not been sufficiently promulgated. They say it is repugnant to the divine goodness and providence to damn invincibly ignorant adults who live uprightly in accordance with the light of nature whereas Acts 10:35 says, “But in every nation he that feareth him and worketh justice is acceptable to him.” They respond that even though all the Scriptures and Holy Fathers’ testimonies oppose this opinion, their opinion is more easily explained by necessity of precept, or because ordinarily almost none are saved without explicit faith in the mysteries, because after the promulgation of the gospel almost no one labors out of invincible ignorance. Or that, says Lugo, they can be explained by implicit faith or explained by desire…

*Source: Liguori, St. Alphonsus. Theologia Moralis. Tomus Secundus. Arranged by Heilig, P. Mich., C.Ss.R. Mechliniae, 1845. <archive.org/details/theologiamorali06heilgoog> *Translation: <www.romancatholicism.org/ibranyi-books.html>



3) An Exposition and Defence of All the Points of Faith Discussed and Defined by the Sacred Council of Trent; Along with a Refutation of the Errors of the Pretended Reformers, commentary on sess.VII, can.IV:

11. Can. 4: Si quis dixerit sacramenta novae legis non esse ad salutem necessaria, sed superflua; et sine eis aut eorum voto per solam fidem homines a Deo gratiam justificationis adipisci, licet omnia singulis necessaria non siut, anathema sit."

12. The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching. But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons: for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary (necessitate Medii) as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire (in voto).

13. Soave says that at least the implicit desire of Baptism (the same holds for penance in regards to sinners) appeared to many of the fathers not to be necessary for justification: because Cornelius and the good thief were justified without having any knowledge of Baptism. But, Pallavicini says that this is a mere dream of Soave: for the theologians of Trent could not have adduced the example of Cornelius or of the good thief in defence of such an opinion, when everyone knew that the obligation of Baptism did not commence till after the death of the Saviour, and after the promulgation of the Gospel. Besides, who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole, wishes every part of that whole, and all the means for its attainment. In order to be justified without Baptism, an infidel must love God above all things and must have a universal will to observe the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive Baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament. For it is certain that to such desire is ascribed the spiritual regeneration of a person who has not been baptized, and the remission of sins to baptized persons who have contrition, is likewise ascribed to the explicit or implicit desire of sacramental absolution.


14. In the fourth canon the words licet omnia singulis necessaria non sint, were afterwards inserted. By this canon it was intended to condemn Luther, who asserts that none of the sacraments is absolutely necessary for salvation, because as has been already said, he ascribed all salvation to faith, and nothing to the efficacy of the sacraments.

*Source: Liguori, St. Alphonsus. An Exposition and Defence of All the Points of Faith Discussed and Defined by the Sacred Council of Trent, Along With the Refutation of the Errors of the Pretended Reformers. Dublin, 1846. Posted by “Ambrose” on <www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29637>

12. The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching. But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons: for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary (necessitate Medii) as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire (in voto).

13.

(. . .)

In order to be justified without Baptism, an infidel must love God above all things and must have a universal will to observe the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive Baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament. For it is certain that to such desire is ascribed the spiritual regeneration of a person who has not been baptized, and the remission of sins to baptized persons who have contrition, is likewise ascribed to the explicit or implicit desire of sacramental absolution.


14. In the fourth canon the words licet omnia singulis necessaria non sint, were afterwards inserted. By this canon it was intended to condemn Luther, who asserts that none of the sacraments is absolutely necessary for salvation, because as has been already said, he ascribed all salvation to faith, and nothing to the efficacy of the sacraments.

*Source: Liguori, St. Alphonsus. An Exposition and Defence of All the Points of Faith Discussed and Defined by the Sacred Council of Trent, Along With the Refutation of the Errors of the Pretended Reformers. Dublin, 1846. Posted by “Ambrose” on <www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29637>

Would St. Alphonsus say that a soul who dies justified, before the reception of the sacrament of baptism is saved?

If so, how is Luther not right in asserting that none of the sacraments is absolutely necessary for salvation? If a soul can be saved without the sacrament of baptism, then the sacrament  is strictly speaking not absolutely necessary for salvation.

Or is this the case where it's claimed this absolute necessity is, at the very least, in voto?

So that settles the argument then I hope.  St Alphonsus Doctor Of The Church says BOD is de fide.  Strangely I feel like there some who will not accept this.

18 of the 25 theologians surveyed by Fr. Cekada disagreed with St. Alphonsus.

So do we.  St. Alphonsus is just plain wrong on this issue.

There’s a glaring mistake in using the example of the Holy Innocents, namely that they died before the Sacrament of Baptism was instituted.

St. Alphonsus Ligouri and ALL the Fathers, Doctors, and Saints, rejected salvation by implicit faith, that is the salvation of the Muslim, Jҽωs, Hindus, Buddhists which I am certain is what you believe. So you reject the very saint that you bring forward.

This needs to be stated, over and over. It can never be stated too many times.

One either confesses the Athanasius Creed or not. There is no middle ground.

St. Alphonsus Ligouri and ALL the Fathers, Doctors, and Saints, rejected salvation by implicit faith, that is the salvation of the Muslim, Jҽωs, Hindus, Buddhists, which I am certain is what you believe. So you reject the very saint that you bring forward.

Your assertion carries within itself an internal contradiction:

St. Alphonsus is himself a Doctor of the Church, and he very obviously taught implicit baptism of desire (in addition to listing many others in the quotes above who taught the same).

That aside, can you please show me which doctors of the Church, after Trent, reject baptism of desire?

If the answer is none, perhaps you should reflect on why that might be?

22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.

Mystici Corporis
The Mystical Body of Christ, the Church
Pope Pius XII - 1943


https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12mysti.htm

From the excerpt I provided, just above your previous post:

“Although those who obtain the state of grace by means of the baptism of Blood or Desire, are members of the Church, but they do not have “social membership” here on earth unless baptized with water, since they do not have the character[18] of baptism which is imprinted on the soul in the baptism of water.”