Council of trent: no baptism of desire


#1

one of the earlier post by jgc, who at the end says he is father john hardon makes a mistake and says that the council of trent defined baptism of desire…the council of trent did not … baptism of desire is an implicit desire to follow God to the best of one’s ability…the council, in its decree on justification, states"…since the promulgation of the gospel justification cannot occur without the laver of regeneration or its desire." this would not be baptism of desire… this would be desire for baptism which is an explicit desire to recieve baptism… (catechumens) so to say trent defined baptism of desire is false…i do believe in baptism of desire but i want to be clear that trent didnt define it…


#2

Write coherently, please.

since the promulgation of the gospel justification cannot occur without the laver of regeneration or its desire

What part of this don’t you understand?

The Church’s Tradition holds that this desire can be explicit or implicit. Since this is not contradicted by Trent, what’s the problem?


#3

the normal understanding of the word desire is explicit… so u take the normal meaning of the word… its a desire for baptism not baptism of desire


#4

[quote=marineboy]one of the earlier post by jgc, who at the end says he is father john hardon
[/quote]

Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
Servant of God (1914-2000)
ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ481.HTM


#5

[quote=marineboy]the normal understanding of the word desire is explicit… so u take the normal meaning of the word… its a desire for baptism not baptism of desire
[/quote]

In ‘normal understanding’ “baptism of desire” and “desire of baptism” are equivalent.

Latin anyone?

“Quae quidem translatio post evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest, sicut scriptum est: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiirtu Sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei.” John. 3:5

. . . without the washing of regeneration or [without the] desire of it i.e., the washing of regeneration]. . .

Feel better now?


#6

[quote=marineboy]its a desire for baptism not baptism of desire
[/quote]

:banghead:

Objection 1. It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (John 3:5): “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” But those alone are saved who enter God’s kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.

Objection 2. Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: “We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism.” But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have the “faith that worketh by charity” (Gal. 5:6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.

Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary “without which something cannot be” (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that “some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit.” Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.

I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.

Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of “faith that worketh by charity,” whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: “I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for.”

Reply to Objection 1. As it is written (1 Kgs. 16:7), “man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart.” Now a man who desires to be “born again of water and the Holy Ghost” by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Rm. 2:29) that “the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God.”

Reply to Objection 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom “contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism,” i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without “faith that worketh by charity”), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, “but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire” as is stated 1 Cor. 3:15.

Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; “which, with God, counts for the deed” (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).

– Mark L. Chance, quoting Saint Thomas Aquinas


#7

Here is part of what the Catholic Encyclopedia at my parish says:

New Catholic Encyclopedia

Vol 12, Copyright 1967

Reprinted 17 volumes

1981 Jack Heraty & Assoc. Inc, Palatine IL

Under the heading:
SALVATION, NECESSITY OF THE CHURCH FOR

With the discovery of America, the whole problem of salvation through the Church once more confronted theologians in its concrete reality. If outside the Christian faith there is no salvation, what had been the fate of the peoples living in the Western Hemisphere? The positions taken by the reformers and Catholic theologians in this regard were diametrically opposed. The attitude of the reformers was one of pessimism. Luther held that explicit faith in Christ was absolutely necessary for salvation, and that therefore all pagans who had been excluded from the benefit of the Church’s preaching were the object of God’s reprobation and predestined to hell. The Catholic position was more optimistic. Some theologians, in the lack of a better solution, suggested that the doctrine on *Limbo might be applied to adults who had lived all their lives according to the precepts of natural law and died invincibly ignorant of the Church.

The official position in this regard, however, was elaborated in the Council of Trent. Defining the doctrine on grace, the Council insisted on its necessity and priority in the order of *justification and salvation; but it asserted that the infidel, under the influence of actual grace, can make a progressive preparation for faith and thus God will eventually lead him to justification and salvation. A question, however, still remained to be answered: how can an infidel, even with the help of grace, make an act of faith if he is ignorant of revelation and has not been reached by the preaching of the Church? .Here Suarez’s opinion became generally accepted, stating that implicit faith (fides in voto) in Christ and the Trinity would suffice wherever the gospel has not yet been divulged.


#8

And, since Thomas Aquinas isn’t the be all and end all of Catholic doctrine, we can always turn to the Catechism:

****1258 **The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 **For *catechumens *who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

– Mark L. Chance.


#9

in latin there is no understanding that baptism of desire and desire for baptism are the same…WHO TOLD U THAT??? WHOEVER DID WAS WRONG…baptism of desire is an implicit desire that is the defintion of the term—DESIRE FOR BAPTISM IS AN EXPLICIT DESIRE… U USE THE NORMAL USAGE OF THE WORD, IN THIS CASE DESIRE, UNLESS THERE IS A REASON NOT TO…the normal use of desire for something is explicit…example: u are thirsty so u desire a pepsi… so someone explicitly desires baptism… it is different than baptism of desire


#10

Please, again, by all that is right and decent, make an honest effort to write coherently. If it seems that people consistently don’t understand you, maybe it’s because you consistently can’t communicate clearly.

Compare this…

[quote=marineboy]in latin there is no understanding that baptism of desire and desire for baptism are the same…WHO TOLD U THAT??? WHOEVER DID WAS WRONG…baptism of desire is an implicit desire that is the defintion of the term—DESIRE FOR BAPTISM IS AN EXPLICIT DESIRE… U USE THE NORMAL USAGE OF THE WORD, IN THIS CASE DESIRE, UNLESS THERE IS A REASON NOT TO…the normal use of desire for something is explicit…example: u are thirsty so u desire a pepsi… so someone explicitly desires baptism… it is different than baptism of desire
[/quote]

…with this:

In Latin, there is no understanding that “baptism of desire” and “desire for baptism” are the same. Who told you that? Whoever did was wrong. Baptism of desire is an implicit desire. That is the definition of the term. Desire for baptism is an explicit desire. You use the normal usage of the word, in this case “desire,” unless there is a reason not to. The normal use of “desire” for something is explicit. Example: You are thirsty, so you desire a Pepsi. So someone explicitly desires baptism. It is different that baptism of desire.

See the difference? Now, admittedly, the second paragraph isn’t a whole lot clearer, but it is a step in the right direction.

Now, please go back and read the posts above, particularly the ones that reference the Catechism and Summa Theologiae. It has been the Church’s consistent teaching that someone who dies without the sacrament of Baptism can still enter Heaven by virtue of their desire for Baptism. As Aquinas observed, quoting Augustine of Hippo: “The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; 'which, with God, counts for the deed’ (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).”

– Mark L. Chance.


#11

[quote=marineboy]in latin there is no understanding that baptism of desire and desire for baptism are the same…WHO TOLD U THAT??? WHOEVER DID WAS WRONG…baptism of desire is an implicit desire that is the defintion of the term—DESIRE FOR BAPTISM IS AN EXPLICIT DESIRE… U USE THE NORMAL USAGE OF THE WORD, IN THIS CASE DESIRE, UNLESS THERE IS A REASON NOT TO…the normal use of desire for something is explicit…example: u are thirsty so u desire a pepsi… so someone explicitly desires baptism… it is different than baptism of desire
[/quote]

How good is your Latin?


#12

well mr .chance i will try to type slower…i am not denying baptism of desire–i believe in it… but trent was not talking about baptism of desire in its decree on justification…it was talking about an explicit desire for water baptism… baptism of desire is implict… baptism of desire and desire for baptism are totally different… my latin is very good by the way


#13

[quote=marineboy]in latin there is no understanding that baptism of desire and desire for baptism are the same…WHO TOLD U THAT??? WHOEVER DID WAS WRONG…baptism of desire is an implicit desire that is the defintion of the term—DESIRE FOR BAPTISM IS AN EXPLICIT DESIRE… U USE THE NORMAL USAGE OF THE WORD, IN THIS CASE DESIRE, UNLESS THERE IS A REASON NOT TO…the normal use of desire for something is explicit…example: u are thirsty so u desire a pepsi… so someone explicitly desires baptism… it is different than baptism of desire
[/quote]

And why do you keep harping on the same thing over and over again? Why do you persist in making claims clearly at odds with the CCC and, by extension, the Pope and the Magisterium and then don’t get why no one, other than some fringe rad trads, agrees with you? We know you believe that unless one is formally united with the Catholic Church, they are bound for hell. WE UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU’RE SAYING. It’s against the clear teaching of the Church, BUT WE GET IT. You’ve been answered by some excellent apologetics and yet you keep after it. You’re as bad as the fundies who come on to inform us as to why the Church is the Great Whore of Babylon. They’re beating a dead horse and so are you. Both you and they should write the Holy See, they to explain to the Holy Father why he’s going to Hell, and you to explain to him why THEY’RE going to Hell, because there isn’t anyone on these forums who can help either of you out with this. You’re wrong, you’ve been shown to be wrong, you’ve been shown to be wrong repeatedly. We can accept that you don’t believe you’re wrong, but really, you’ve crossed over into the realm of boring: the party guest that one moves away from as rapidly as possible. May I suggest that, like Popes Pius XIII and Michael I, you leave us to our reprobation?


#14

well u obviously have not read anything i wrote…i just said two posts ago that i beleive in baptism of desire…i was jsut pointing out that that is not what trent was saying… where have i ever said in any of my threads that i beleive the teaching of the church is that only formal members go to heaven …NO WHERE DID I EVER SAY THAT…so ur just making straw man arguments…what i have said was is that non-catholics can be saved but only if they are invincibly ignorant so before u type something like that why dont u check ur facts out…so if ur not goin to be fair in ur posts why dont u just not post at all—


#15

Dude: Check out all the threads you’ve started! They seem to have a common theme! And for pity’s sake, learn to type!


#16

[quote=marineboy]well u obviously have not read anything i wrote…i just said two posts ago that i beleive in baptism of desire…i was jsut pointing out that that is not what trent was saying… where have i ever said in any of my threads that i beleive the teaching of the church is that only formal members go to heaven …NO WHERE DID I EVER SAY THAT…so ur just making straw man arguments…what i have said was is that non-catholics can be saved but only if they are invincibly ignorant so before u type something like that why dont u check ur facts out…so if ur not goin to be fair in ur posts why dont u just not post at all—
[/quote]

Dude: Check out all of the threads you’ve started. They seem to have a common theme. How dumb do you think any person here is? If you don’t believe that one has to be formally Catholic, you certainly have fooled most of us. And for pity’s sake, for our sake, learn to type. Perhaps it would make your meaning more clear.


#17

dude u check ur threads before type something that is false… u called me a feeneyite and i am not…there is a common thread… that people need to become catholics in order to get to heaven unless they are invincibley ignorant…and catholics need to take apologetics seriously because people’s souls are at stake–that is the common thread but for u to make false stupid accusations is just wrong… and bordering on slander and dishonesty…u may need to go to confession cause u said somethiNG about me that was not true and slanderous… that i advocated a position contrary to church teaching … WHICH ISNT TRUE–AND --UNLESS U CAN FIND THE THREAD WHERE I SAID ONLY FORMAL MEMBERS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WILL GET TO HEAVEN THEN U SHOULD APOLOGIZE DUDE!!!


#18

[quote=marineboy]dude u check ur threads before type something that is false… u called me a feeneyite and i am not…there is a common thread… that people need to become catholics in order to get to heaven unless they are invincibley ignorant…and catholics need to take apologetics seriously because people’s souls are at stake–that is the common thread but for u to make false stupid accusations is just wrong… and bordering on slander and dishonesty…u may need to go to confession cause u said somethiNG about me that was not true and slanderous… that i advocated a position contrary to church teaching … WHICH ISNT TRUE–AND --UNLESS U CAN FIND THE THREAD WHERE I SAID ONLY FORMAL MEMBERS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WILL GET TO HEAVEN THEN U SHOULD APOLOGIZE DUDE!!!
[/quote]

I can’t do the thread link thing, so here:

“Protestantism: A Great Heresy,” post #166.
well perhaps i wasnt clear…when i say the church saves i mean that Jesus Chrsit saves, but He has commanded us to beleive in all His teachings in order to be saved…so in order to believe all His teachings one has to be a catholic …since the Catholic church is the only church to teach the fullness of truth… in order to be saved one must become a catholic ( that is beleive in all His teachings) unless one is invicibly ignorant and trys to follow God the best he can… i hope that clears it up

Now, how are you Catholic unless you’re*** formally*** Catholic? I believe one can be, but I believe what the CCC says about “certain, though imperfect.” Nothing in any of your posts would lead anyone to believe that you accept that. You’ve been told what the CCC says repeatedly, yet you keep posting on the same themes. And I would say that most people who come onto this site understand that apologetics are important. And oddly enough, I don’t feel prompted to go to confession for calling you to account for this tediously repetitive diatribe you are engaged in.


#19

“Protestantism: A Great Heresy”, Post #1, Marineboy
Protestanism has led many souls away from Christ and needs to be destroyed… Outside the Church there is no salvation absolutely applys to Protestants…


#20

I could go on, but I would again just refer you to the posts you’ve made and the threads you’ve started.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.