CathInfo.com

I wanted to share something a friend sent me on BOD, may be if interest in the discussion.

“#6303 BOD from cathen
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
From Cathollic encyclopaedia
=
Substitutes for the sacrament
The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.
==
The baptism of desire
The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism.
The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The "baptism of the Holy Ghost" is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book "De Rebaptismate".
.
The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him."
.
And again: "If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him."
.
Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received.
.
In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice "except by the washing of regeneration or its desire" (voto).
.
The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius.
.
We have already alluded to the funeral oration pronounced by St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen. The doctrine of the baptism of desire is here clearly set forth. St. Ambrose asks: "Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it because he asked for it."
.
St. Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, IV.22) and St. Bernard (Ep. lxxvii, ad H. de S. Victore) likewise discourse in the same sense concerning the baptism of desire. If it be said that this doctrine contradicts the universal law of baptism made by Christ (John 3), the answer is that the lawgiver has made an exception (John 14) in favor of those who have the baptism of desire.
.
Neither would it be a consequence of this doctrine that a person justified by the baptism of desire would thereby be dispensed from seeking after the baptism of water when the latter became a possibility. For, as has already been explained the baptismus flaminis contains the votum of receiving the baptismus aquæ. It is true that some of the Fathers of the Church arraign severely those who content themselves with the desire of receiving the sacrament of regeneration, but they are speaking of catechumens who of their own accord delay the reception of baptism from unpraiseworthy motives.
.
Finally, it is to be noted that only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire.


This is all I have on the topic, I think!  I am in fb contact with a couple of Feenyites who deny Baptism of Desire.  But more recently, one of them has gone quiet.  I only hope that he has digested these words.  AndFr Feeny was being attacked by other priests in his diocese, and reported to Rome, out of jealousy, because he was getting people from other parishes (and their plate contributions)!  I believe that the whole Baptism of Desire thing was a complete red herring.”

I note his comments on Fr Feeney.. the church has not ever condemned BOD so we as Catholics are feee to believe it.

You can no more receive all the effects of Baptism by "desire" than you can receive Holy Orders of Desire or Confirmation of Desire (the other two Character Sacraments).  Not sure which part of this does not compute to you.

You're a bumbling fool, who bumble and stumble from one error to another all because you hate the Church's EENS dogma and are simply looking for reasons to reject it, or to "distinguish" it away so that you can pretend you believe in it by paying lips service to the (for you meaningless) formula.

You cannot draw conclusions from Confession to Baptism, since they're completely different Sacraments.  In fact, Trent EXPLICITLY states that they are in fact different.  So unless you account for the differences, your "stands to reason" represents yet another epic fail.

Exactly right. 

It is my contention, consistent with the Church Fathers, that the character is in fact what bestows the supernatural faculty (that we lack by nature) that allows us to see God as He is, i.e. experience the Beatific Vision.  That's why the Fathers refer to it as the "crowning" ... ya know, to allow you to enter the KINGdom.  Get it? 

Here's where these BOD-nut-jobs get it wrong - they don't distinguish between the sacramental character and grace and Original Sin.  Which is the same distinguishing we keep telling them about - salvation vs justification.  Which is the same distinguishment that Trent made - because "BOD" was discussed in the chapter on justification, not baptism.

Here are 2 examples which clarify it:
1)  Unbaptized infants are guilt-free with regards to actual sin.  But they still have Original Sin and no baptismal character.  They are NOT a child of God, therefore they can't get to heaven.  They are NOT a child of God because they still have Original Sin.  They are "justified" but not saved.
a)  Child of God - no.
b)  Original Sin - yes.
c)  Justified (i.e. no actual sin) - yes.
d)  Eligible for heaven?  no.


2)  A catholic who dies in mortal sin.  They have been baptized and have the baptismal character; they are a child of God.  But they die in sin, so they are neither justified, nor saved.  But they are a child of God.
a)  Child of God - yes.
b)  Original Sin - no.
c)  Justified - no.
d)  Eligible for heaven?  yes, but due to mortal sin, they damned themselves.


Really, the whole BOD debate boils down to a lack of understanding of Original Sin.  Justification (i.e. contrition for sins) CANNOT REMOVE ORIGINAL SIN.  This is the error and heresy with which BODers falter.  Contrition for sins can get one justified as far as actual sins, but not Original Sin.  If one is justified but not baptized, they are like an unbaptised infant.  Guiltless before God (in regards to PERSONAL sins) but still guilty of Original Sin (Adam's sin).

There is no Church docuмent which says that ANYTHING OTHER than baptism removes Original Sin.  Zero.

Confession can make one justified because it removes actual sins.  A perfect act of contrition can do the same.  But neither confession/contrition can remove Original Sin.  Only Baptism can.

People misunderstand "justification" with also removing Original Sin.  No, it does not. 

Justification (alone) - removes actual sins.
Justification + baptism - removes actual + Original sin.

When Trent is discussing justification, is it IN RELATION TO BAPTISM.