That's interesting, but it's missing a lot, too. If it were a dogmatic definition, it wouldn't be missing a lot.

As a special case of perfect contrition, this so-called "baptism" of desire leaves no indelible mark on the soul like true, sacramental Baptism does. That's because as a special case of perfect contrition, it can be lost. One can have it one moment and lose it the next. So how would that be material for a definition?

Also, "baptism" of desire is not a sacrament. Christ did not institute any alternative kinds of Baptism. The Nicene Creed says, "I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins..." Why doesn't it say, "I believe in three baptisms, one that leaves an indelible mark and is a sacrament and two more that don't leave any mark and are not sacraments?" So if it's not a sacrament, and it leaves no mark on the soul, why call it "baptism," except to confuse the faithful?

Perhaps the good doctor would have revised his words if he had any idea of the extreme lengths liberals would go to make them into something else than what he had intended. St. Thomas Aquinas ordered his secretary to burn his Summa but his secretary disobeyed his order, fortunately for us.

So now this has become the so-called "baptism" of desire thread?  

you are misinterpreting what the Church teaches.

The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of water, which derives its efficacy both from Christ’s Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently, for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed

So the Nicene Creed and the Baptism of Desire are completely in accordance with each other.

I am only a layman myself, but I believe in the Baptism of Desire because Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine,

Saint Alphonsus Liguori, etc. all believed in it.

And it is taught by the Council of Trent, and also by the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

It is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Well, the Council of Trent does not contain  the words "baptism of desire" but it's been rather popular to "read" them into the council.

Also, Archbishop Lefebvre taught "baptism" of desire, but I wonder if he was aware of all the crabby arguments that would ensue in his wake?

As for the others, St. Thomas effectively denied the Immaculate Conception, but he would certainly have corrected himself if he had lived when the definition was handed down in 1854.

You have the right to believe it if you want, but you are clearly wrong to proclaim that it is "a dogma," because it's not a dogma. You have no right to insist that other Catholics believe it lest they be heretics or go to hell or whatever you will. In fact, this kind of display gives Catholicism a bad name. Think about that.

I know one priest who insists on "baptism" of desire, while he admits it's not a sacrament and leaves no indelible mark on the soul, but still thinks it's important so as to prevent "losing heaven by a technicality" for those who don't survive till their baptism day. He abandons the discussion when you bring up the "providence of God." BTW he also says that reading the Bible is too much work, and you don't really get enough meaning for contemporary man, so he doesn't recommend it.

...Just what a staunch Pentecostal Christian wants to hear, no?

If it were really important, why doesn't Rome define it, and then the subject would be closed to discussion?

So they don't define it, so it must not be that important.

Or, they don't define it because they don't have valid ordinations, right? I don't think that way, but if you do, then that's where our discussion runs aground, dead in the water -- no pun intended!  :whistleblower:

Listen, if you want to obsess over your Heresy, go and do it somewhere else.

This is yet more proof that you are wrong.
This mania. This tunnel vision.
This total lack of perspective.


The Church teaches the Baptism of Desire.

Just accept the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Do you really think that St,. Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine are wrong, and that your right?

So Neil, as we both agree about the Novus Ordo, tell me more about your opinion of it.