Author Topic: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire (Read 18903 times)

gemmarose · « **on:** March 14, 2023, 10:08:25 PM »

Hello everyone, just to let everyone know Friarminor isn't associated or support any group out there.

https://twitter.com/1Friarminor/status/1623510195476340736?s=20

Ladislaus · « **Reply #1 on:** March 14, 2023, 10:38:06 PM »

This is correct. Even the term that's commonly translated into English as "accident" simply means circuмstance. This passage merely echoes nearly verbatim the teaching of St. Fulgentius who taught that confession of the faith can avail to salvation ... by keeping someone alive until God can bring them the Sacrament of Baptism.

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #2 on:** March 15, 2023, 01:11:14 AM »

St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, IIIa Q66 A11&12

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The sacrament of Baptism (Tertia Pars, Q. 66) (newadvent.org)

Article 11. Whether three kinds of Baptism are fittingly described—viz. Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit?
Objection 1. It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Ephesians 4:5): "One Faith, one Baptism." Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.
Objection 2. Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above (III:65:1). Now none but Baptism of Water is a sacrament. Therefore we should not reckon two other Baptisms.
Objection 3. Further, Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) distinguishes several other kinds of Baptism. Therefore we should admit more than three Baptisms.
On the contrary, on Hebrews 6:2, "Of the doctrine of Baptisms," the gloss says: "He uses the plural, because there is Baptism of Water, of Repentance, and of Blood."
I answer that, As stated above (III:62:5), Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this it is written (Isaiah 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): "The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable."
Reply to Objection 1. 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.
Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (III:60:1), a sacrament is a kind of sign. The other two, however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not sacraments.
Reply to Objection 3. Damascene enumerates certain figurative Baptisms. For instance, "the Deluge" was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of the salvation of the faithful in the Church; since then "a few . . . souls were saved in the ark [Vulgate: 'by water'," according to 1 Peter 3:20. He also mentions "the crossing of the Red Sea": which was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of our delivery from the bondage of sin; hence the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 10:2) that "all . . . were baptized in the cloud and in the sea." And again he mentions "the various washings which were customary under the Old Law," which were figures of our Baptism, as to the cleansing from sins: also "the Baptism of John," which prepared the way for our Baptism.

Article 12. Whether the Baptism of Blood is the most excellent of these?
Objection 1. It seems that the Baptism of Blood is not the most excellent of these three. For the Baptism of Water impresses a character; which the Baptism of Blood cannot do. Therefore the Baptism of Blood is not more excellent than the Baptism of Water.
Objection 2. Further, the Baptism of Blood is of no avail without the Baptism of the Spirit, which is by charity; for it is written (1 Corinthians 13:3): "If I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." But the Baptism of the Spirit avails without the Baptism of Blood; for not only the martyrs are saved. Therefore the Baptism of Blood is not the most excellent.
Objection 3. Further, just as the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which, as stated above (Article 11), the Baptism of Blood corresponds, so Christ's Passion derives its efficacy from the Holy Ghost, according to Hebrews 9:14: "The Blood of Christ, Who by the Holy Ghost offered Himself unspotted unto God, shall cleanse our conscience from dead works," etc. Therefore the Baptism of the Spirit is more excellent than the Baptism of Blood. Therefore the Baptism of Blood is not the most excellent.
On the contrary, Augustine (Ad Fortunatum) speaking of the comparison between Baptisms says: "The newly baptized confesses his faith in the presence of the priest: the martyr in the presence of the persecutor. The former is sprinkled with water, after he has confessed; the latter with his blood. The former receives the Holy Ghost by the imposition of the bishop's hands; the latter is made the temple of the Holy Ghost."
I answer that, As stated above (Article 11), the shedding of blood for Christ's sake, and the inward operation of the Holy Ghost, are called baptisms, in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water. Now the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost, as already stated (III:11. These two causes act in each of these three Baptisms; most excellently, however, in the Baptism of Blood. For Christ's Passion acts in the Baptism of Water by way of a figurative representation; in the Baptism of the Spirit or of Repentance, by way of desire. but in the Baptism of Blood, by way of imitating the (Divine) act. In like manner, too, the power of the Holy Ghost acts in the Baptism of Water through a certain hidden power. in the Baptism of Repentance by moving the heart; but in the Baptism of Blood by the highest degree of fervor of dilection and love, according to John 15:13: "Greater love than this no man hath that a man lay down his life for his friends."
Reply to Objection 1. A character is both reality and a sacrament. And we do not say that the Baptism of Blood is more excellent, considering the nature of a sacrament; but considering the sacramental effect.
Reply to Objection 2. The shedding of blood is not in the nature of a Baptism if it be without charity. Hence it is clear that the Baptism of Blood includes the Baptism of the Spirit, but not conversely. And from this it is proved to be more perfect.
Reply to Objection 3. The Baptism owes its pre-eminence not only to Christ's Passion, but also to the Holy Ghost, as stated above.

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #3 on:** March 15, 2023, 01:45:24 AM »

In The Teaching of the Catholic Church by Canon George Smith (1960), it states regarding Baptism of Desire that "today it is the opinion of all theologians": The Teaching of the Catholic Church; a summary of Catholic doctrine : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive p382-385

It is interesting to read the account of the funeral oration of St Ambrose for the Emperor Valentinian who died a catechumen before he could be baptised by St Ambrose: He heard people expressing regret that the Emperor died without baptism: "Will he not then receive the grace which he desired and obtain what he asked for?"

Stubborn · « **Reply #4 on:** March 15, 2023, 05:18:39 AM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on March 15, 2023, 01:45:24 AM

In The Teaching of the Catholic Church by Canon George Smith (1960), it states regarding Baptism of Desire that "today it is the opinion of all theologians": The Teaching of the Catholic Church; a summary of Catholic doctrine : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive p382-385

It is interesting to read the account of the funeral oration of St Ambrose for the Emperor Valentinian who died a catechumen before he could be baptised by St Ambrose: He heard people expressing regret that the Emperor died without baptism: "Will he not then receive the grace which he desired and obtain what he asked for?"

"Today" it is the teaching of all of today's theologians. Same as the NO is taught by all the bishops in union with the pope. The only thing that actually proves is unanimity in error.

Too add a little balance, a snip from Brother Francis......
"...If "Baptism of Desire" was something contained in the "deposit of Faith" and part of the Apostolic doctrine, why then would these faithful be grieved that Valentinlan had not been baptized with water?

The reason these faithful were grieved was because they believed that "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter the Kingdom of God." Perhaps too, they had been Instructed by Ambrose himself, who said:
'One is the Baptism which the Church administers: the Baptism of water and the Holy Ghost, with which catechumens need to be baptized . . . Nor does the mystery of regeneration exist at all without water: 'For unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom.' Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, with which he also signs himself; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot receive remission of his sins nor the gift of spiritual grace." (De Mysterlls,-THE DIVINE OFFICE)..."

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #5 on:** March 15, 2023, 06:45:30 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on March 15, 2023, 05:18:39 AM

If "Baptism of Desire" was something contained in the "deposit of Faith" and part of the Apostolic doctrine, why then would these faithful be grieved that Valentinlan had not been baptized with water?

The reason these faithful were grieved was because they believed that "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter the Kingdom of God."

This was, of course, in the Fourth Century, the Church had not long been out of exile. The Deposit of Faith was far from being clearly expounded on many things. Just think, St Augustine had only just started writing about Grace... It is understandable that the faithful may have had too-concrete an understanding of the necessity of Baptism. For what is the ordinary means of salvation does not limit the One Who established those means. Hence the instruction given to them by St Ambrose for their consolation. How could St Thomas speak so prolifically and with such certainty and eloquence on Baptism of Desire if Brother Francis were correct? How could he even be canonised, let alone held as the prince of theologians, if his theology contained errors against Apostolic doctrine? Do you really prefer Br Francis to St Thomas, Stubborn? How could St Thomas miss the fact that these faithful were grieved for this reason and not understand it as Apostolic doctrine which admits of no exception? it's ludicrous. St Thomas explains in the Summa "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."

A little more context from the great Latin Doctor, Ambrose, himself - it is very clear what he is instructing them. Surely the servants do not know better than the master:

(51) But I hear that you grieve because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism. Tell me: What else is in your power other than the desire, the request?* But he even had this desire for a long time, that, when he should come into Italy, he would be initiated, and recently he signified his desire to be baptized by me, and for this reason above all others he thought that I ought to be summoned. Has he not, then, the grace which he desired; has he not the grace which he requested? And because he asked, he received, and therefore it is said: ‘By whatsoever death the just man shall be overtaken, his soul shall be at rest’ (Wisdom 4:7).

(52) Grant, therefore, O holy Father, to Thy servant the gift which Moses received, because he saw in spirit; the gift which David merited, because he knew from revelation. Grant, I pray, to Thy servant Valentinian the gift which he longed for, the gift which he requested while in health, vigor, and security. If, stricken with sickness, he had deferred it, he would not be entirely without Thy mercy who has been cheated by the swiftness of time, not by his own wish. Grant, therefore, to Thy servant the gift of Thy grace which he never rejected … He who had Thy Spirit, how has he not received Thy grace?

(53) Or if the fact disturbs you that the mysteries have not been solemnly celebrated, then you should realize that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated. But if they are washed in their own blood, his piety and his desire have washed him, also.

(54) Do not, I beseech, O Lord, separate him from his brother, do not break the yoke of this pious relationship. Now Gratian, already Thine, and vindicated by Thy judgment, is in further peril, if he be separated from his brother, if he deserve not to be with him through whom he has deserved to be vindicated. …

(55) Your father also is present [Valentinian I], who under Julian spurned imperial service and the honours of the tribunate out of his love for the faith. Give to the father his son, to the brother his brother, both of whom he imitated, the one by his faith, the other equally by his devotion and piety …

(56) Offer the holy mysteries with your hands, with devoted love let us ask for his repose. Offer the heavenly sacraments, let us accompany the soul of our son with our oblations. ‘Lift up with me, O people, your hands to the holy place’ (Psalm 133(134):2), so that at least through this service we may repay him for his deserts. Not with flowers shall I sprinkle his grave, but I shall bedew his spirit with the odor of Christ. Let others scatter lilies in basketfuls. Christ is our lily, and with this lily I shall bless his remains, with this I shall recommend for his favor.

Source: Roy J. Deferrari, translator. “Consolation on the Death of Emperor Valerian.” Funeral Orations by Saint Gregory nαzιanzen and Saint Ambrose. The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation. New York: Fathers of the Church, 1953. 261–299, at 287–289. Retrieved from the Internet Archive, 23 September 2013.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** March 15, 2023, 07:29:45 AM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on March 15, 2023, 01:45:24 AM

In The Teaching of the Catholic Church by Canon George Smith (1960), it states regarding Baptism of Desire that "today it is the opinion of all theologians": The Teaching of the Catholic Church; a summary of Catholic doctrine : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive p382-385

Sure, and less than 5 years later, "Religious Liberty" was the "opinion of all theologians". I love this inconsistency from R&R here.

Canon Smith is not wrong, and he quite correctly characterizes it as an "opinion". For 700 years, every theology followed the later-found-to-be-erroneous opinion of St. Augustine regarding the fate of infants who die without Baptism.

So what of it?

PS -- we're all quite well aware of the opinion of St. Thomas et al, so no need to spam it in. We disagree with St. Thomas on this point, as we also disagree with him about the Immaculate Conception. There's never been any theological proof for Baptism of Desire and it can never surpass the theological note of speculation.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** March 15, 2023, 07:32:03 AM »

As for your Valentinian spam, St. Ambrose likened this state to that of unbaptized martyrs, but says of the martyrs also that they are "washed but not crowned". In other words, St. Ambrose believed that this piety/zeal/confession could remit or wash sin but it could not result in "crowning", i.e. entering the Kingdom of Heaven and the Beatific Vision. In other words, a justification without salvation ... just as Father Feeney held.

So, fail on the Valentinian quote.

Stubborn · « **Reply #8 on:** March 15, 2023, 07:35:34 AM »

Well, the whole a BOD subject is actually kinda ridiculous imo, I mean, the first ridiculous thing is that the idea itself is only ever defended by those already baptized, think about that for a minute.

I also think in some way that it may well be possible that God may be offended because His own faithful people are promoting the idea that He cannot or will not provide the sacrament that He very clearly mandated as a requirement for salvation (and on that account is obligated to provide), regardless of circuмstances.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #9 on:** March 15, 2023, 07:50:54 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 14, 2023, 10:38:06 PM

This is correct. Even the term that's commonly translated into English as "accident" simply means circuмstance. This passage merely echoes nearly verbatim the teaching of St. Fulgentius who taught that confession of the faith can avail to salvation ... by keeping someone alive until God can bring them the Sacrament of Baptism.

Yes, I recall you posting something from St. Fulgentius that had a striking similarity in language. It'd be nice to see that quote again.

The specific language of the Catechism of Trent, in one translation, is:

Quote

On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Baptism.shtml

While waiting for the quote from St. Fulgentius, I post the following quote from the theologians who annotated John 3:5 in the first English translation of the Douay Rheims in 1582, roughly contemporaneous with the Catechism and the Council of Trent, who said basically the same thing as the Catechism of Trent:

Quote

5. Born again of Water.] As no man can enter into this world nor have his life and being in the same, except he be born of his carnal parents: no more can a man enter into the life and state of grace which is in Christ, or attain to life everlasting, unless he be born and baptized of water and the Holy Ghost. Whereby we see first, this Sacrament to be called our regeneration or second birth, in respect of our natural and carnal which was before. Secondly, that this sacrament consisteth of an external element of water, and internal virtue of the Holy Spirit: Wherein it excelleth John's baptism, which had the external element, but not the spiritual grace. Thirdly, that no man can enter into the Kingdom of God, nor into the fellowship of Holy Church, without it.

Whereby the *Pelagians, and Calvinists be condemned, that promise life everlasting to young children that die without baptism, and all other that think only their faith to serve, or the external element of water superfluous or not necessary: our Saviour's words being plain and general. Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remediless necessity could not obtain it. Lastly, it is proved that this Sacrament giveth grace ex opere operator, that is, of the work itself (which all Protestants deny) because it so breedeth our spiritual life in God, as our carnal birth giveth the life of the world.

It'd be nice to see St. Fulgentius's quote, the Douay Rheims annotation, and the Catechism quote lined up.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #10 on:** March 15, 2023, 08:01:42 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 15, 2023, 07:32:03 AM

In other words, a justification without salvation ... just as Father Feeney held.

Are you really going to bring up the argument - now that we are hundreds of years post-Trent on justification - about justification without salvation again?

Of course it's possible to be justified without being saved: one does not know definitively regarding someone's salvation until they are dead. Perhaps millions upon millions - likely so - have been justified and baptized and not saved. To say one can be justified without being saved is a smokescreen in this context.

The crux is, if one departs this life in a state of justification with the requisite desire/ repentance without receipt of the sacrament - and this is the issue the Catechism and DR annotators are addressing - can one be saved? The DR annotators clearly say yes. I say the Catechism does as well.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #11 on:** March 15, 2023, 09:30:55 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on March 15, 2023, 08:01:42 AM

Are you really going to bring up the argument - now that we are hundreds of years post-Trent on justification - about justification without salvation again?

Think what you want ... and I don't want to debate this again here ... but the fact remains that St. Ambrose held that unbaptized martyrs were in a state of being washed but not crowned (into the Kingdom), and was speculating / hoping here that Valentinian could enter the same state or something like it by virtue of his piety / zeal / faith, etc. That's been the piece that everyone has missed in the famous Valentinian quote. Even St. Benedict Center had an article in which they felt St. Ambrose was contradicting himself ... because they did not notice the "crowned but not washed" distinction being made by St. Ambrose.

From the citation above:

Quote

Or if the fact disturbs you that the mysteries have not been solemnly celebrated, then you should realize that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated. But if they are washed in their own blood, his piety and his desire have washed him, also.

Just as the poster bolded the last section, everyone only SEES the last section. But they fail to notice the section before it --

NOT EVEN MARTYRS ARE CROWNED IF THEY ARE CATECHUMENS, FOR THYE ARE NOT CROWNED IF THEY ARE NOT INITIATED

So there's a state of being washed and of being crowned, and crowning is a reference to entering the Kingdom of Heaven (by way of the Sacramental character).

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #12 on:** March 15, 2023, 09:33:05 AM »

Quote

I say the Catechism does as well.

Depends which catechism you read. Older ones are much more orthodox. Even the original Baltimore Catechism of the 1800s was anti-BOD. It was later "updated". The enemies of the Church started infiltrating the Church way back in the 1400s. Let's not pretend that the devil didn't think of this until Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ in the 1700s.

The doctrine of EENS (and the flimsy, sentimental idea of BOD which is used to water-down EENS) has been under-attack ever since the post-Middle Ages when the heights of Catholicism started to decline. It also coincided with the dawn of exploration of the Americas, when liberal clerics (the precursors to Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ) started questioning Christ's "hard line" in order to save the "poor, innocent indians" whom (they heretically argue) God didn't care about.

When the facts show that God worked miracles for those groups of indians who He knew would listen to the Faith, by sending saints to bi-locate and give them the Divine Truths. These good-willed indians were few, and they followed the natural law. And God gave them the truth, by way of miracles. Which He promised.

The historical record shows that the vast majority of "poor, innocent indians" were anything but. They were constantly at war, their culture revolved around seeking more and more territory, and they worshipped satan (some directly, many indirectly) through their medicine-man "witches" who supported and encouraged cannibalism, human sacrifice and other atrocities.

Then when missionaries came to preach the gospel, most tribes killed them, or attempted to. Thus, God sent the devastating small pox virus to "wipe out" all those tribes who rejected His ministers. Notice that the small pox did not kill any tribes that accepted the Faith.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #13 on:** March 15, 2023, 09:36:47 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on March 15, 2023, 07:50:54 AM

Yes, I recall you posting something from St. Fulgentius that had a striking similarity in language. It'd be nice to see that quote again.

I'll try to find it again here. Interestingly, the Council of Florence's EENS definition was almost a verbatim citation from St. Fulgentius.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #14 on:** March 15, 2023, 09:37:31 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on March 15, 2023, 09:33:05 AM

Depends which catechism you read. Older ones are much more orthodox. Even the original Baltimore Catechism of the 1800s was anti-BOD. It was later "updated". The enemies of the Church started infiltrating the Church way back in the 1400s. Let's not pretend that the devil didn't think of this until Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ in the 1700s.

The doctrine of EENS (and the flimsy, sentimental idea of BOD which is used to water-down EENS) has been under-attack ever since the post-Middle Ages when the heights of Catholicism started to decline. It also coincided with the dawn of exploration of the Americas, when liberal clerics (the precursors to Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ) started questioning Christ's "hard line" in order to save the "poor, innocent indians" whom (they heretically argue) God didn't care about.

When the facts show that God worked miracles for those groups of indians who He knew would listen to the Faith, by sending saints to bi-locate and give them the Divine Truths. These good-willed indians were few, and they followed the natural law. And God gave them the truth, by way of miracles. Which He promised.

The historical record shows that the vast majority of "poor, innocent indians" were anything but. They were constantly at war, their culture revolved around seeking more and more territory, and they worshipped satan (some directly, many indirectly) through their medicine-man "witches" who supported and encouraged cannibalism, human sacrifice and other atrocities.

Then when missionaries came to preach the gospel, most tribes killed them, or attempted to. Thus, God sent the devastating small pox virus to "wipe out" all those tribes who rejected His ministers. Notice that the small pox did not kill any tribes that accepted the Faith.

Hi, Pax. I was specifically referring to the Catechism of Trent.

Author Topic: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire (Read 18903 times)

gemmarose

The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire

Ladislaus

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire

Plenus Venter

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire

Plenus Venter

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire

Stubborn

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire

Plenus Venter

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire

Ladislaus

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire

Ladislaus

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire

Stubborn

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire

DecemRationis

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire

DecemRationis

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire

Ladislaus

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire

Pax Vobis

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire

Ladislaus

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire

DecemRationis

Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire