Archive for the ‘baptism of desire’ Category

radical sedevacantists who reject pope Pius XII on back

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

I was made aware of the radical sedevacantists who reject even Pius XII and the popes before him.

This website rejects such notion and idea that the Catholic Church’s magisterium had failed prior to the election of John XXIII.

The distinction between what is per se infallible and what is enjoyed with authoritative approval and is required of our religious assent because “he who hears you, hears me” is in favor of the teachings of the Popes who exercise the authority of the ordinary magisterium on a daily basis, such as in encyclicals.

I have looked at the accusations of heresy against Pope Leo XIII, Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, and Pius XII, and found them to be inconclusive, intellectually dishonest, and radical by methodology because the persons who make such accusations do not follow common teachings, Catholic principles, and common sense, leaving aside the fact that these persons discount even the legitimacy of the magisterium which did not oppose such teaching and ruling authority of those popes.

There is a drastic difference between claiming that the encyclicals are completely infallible due to its promulgation by a pope and believing that encyclicals require our religious assent due to their authoritative and binding nature, because the former proposition is false and radically un-Catholic and the latter is the constant belief held by all faithful Catholics.

Also from the very pinnacle of such intellectual pride comes the downfall of such individuals. On account of rejecting even what is permitted by Catholic theology, formulated by Catholic principles, and being not condemned by the magisterium, such endeavors to discount and even disapprove of all methods, both dogmatic and theoretical, against the teaching competence of the Church during the time of Pius XII and going back to Leo XIII.

The originating factor to such rejection of genuine theological principles held by the Church with high esteem, and rooted in Thomistic and scholastic fathers, is the discrediting of the Church’s constant harmonic relationship with approved and sanctioned teachers of philosophy and theology, in areas of salvation, the bond of charity and faith, and baptism of desire.

Pius XII and baptism of desire

Monday, June 14th, 2010

“In the present economy there is no other way of communicating [sanctifying grace] to the child who has not yet the use of reason [other than Baptism]. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice [i.e., Baptism of Desire] for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open….” –Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives, Oct. 29, 1951, qtd. in John McCarthy, Problems in Theology, Vol. I (Newman Press, 1956), p. 53

Mystical Body of Christ, June 29, 1943:
“As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible organization of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly… For even though unsuspectingly they are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer in desire and resolution, they still remain deprived of so many precious gifts and helps from heaven, which one can only enjoy in the Catholic Church.”

Dialogue of St. Catherine of Siena: Baptisms continued

Monday, May 3rd, 2010

“You see then that these Baptisms, which you should all receive until the last moment, are continual, and though My works, that is the pains of the Cross were finite, the fruit of them which you receive in Baptism, through Me, are infinite. This is in virtue of the infinite Divine nature, united with the finite human nature, which human nature endures pain in Me, the Word, clothed with your humanity. But because the one nature is steeped in and united with the other, the Eternal Deity drew to Himself the pain, which I suffered with so much fire and love. And therefore can this operation be called infinite, not that My pain, neither the actuality of the body be infinite, nor the pain of the desire that I had to complete your redemption, because it was terminated and finished on the Cross, when the Soul was separated from the Body; but the fruit, which came out of the pain and desire for your salvation, is infinite, and therefore you receive it infinitely. Had it not been infinite, the whole human generation could not have been restored to grace, neither the past, the present, nor the future. This I manifested in the opening of My Side, where is found the secret of the Heart, showing that I loved more than I could show, with finite pain. I showed to you that My love was infinite. How? By the Baptism of Blood, united with the fire of My charity, and by the general baptism, given to Christians, and to whomsoever will receive it, and by the baptism of water, united with the Blood and the fire, wherein the soul is steeped. And, in order to show this, it was necessary for the Blood to come out of My Side. Now I have shown you (said My Truth to you) what you asked of Me.”

Dialogue of St. Catherine of Siena: Baptisms

Monday, May 3rd, 2010
How they who are imperfect desire to follow the Father alone, but they who are perfect desire to follow the Son. And of a vision, which this holy soul had, concerning diverse baptisms, and of many other beautiful and useful things.

“As I have told you, these latter have issued forth from the house, which is a sign that they have arisen from imperfection and arrived at perfection. Open the eye of your intellect and see them running by the Bridge of the doctrine of Christ crucified, which was their rule, way, and doctrine. They place none other before the eye of their intellect than Christ crucified, not the Father, as they do who are in imperfect love and do not wish to suffer pain, but only to have the delight which they find in Me. But they, as if drunken with love and burning with it, have gathered together and ascended the three steps, which I figured to you as the three powers of the soul, and also the three actual steps, figured to you as in the Body of My only Son, Christ crucified, by which steps the soul, as I told you, ascended, first climbing to the Feet, with the feet of the soul’s affection, from thence arriving at the Side, where she found the secret of the Heart and knew the baptism of water, which has virtue through the Blood, and where I dispose the soul to receive grace, uniting and kneading her together in the Blood. Where did the soul know of this her dignity, in being kneaded and united with the Blood of the Lamb, receiving the grace in Holy Baptism, in virtue of the Blood? In the Side, where she knew the fire of divine Charity, and so, if you remember well, My Truth manifested to you, when you asked, saying: ’Sweet and Immaculate Lamb, You were dead when Your side was opened. Why then did You want to be struck and have Your heart divided?’ And He replied to you, telling you that there was occasion enough for it; but the principal part of what He said I will tell you. He said: Because My desire towards the human generation was ended, and I had finished the actual work of bearing pain and torment, and yet I had not been able to show, by finite things, because My love was infinite, how much more love I had, I wished you to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to you open, so that you might see how much more I loved than I could show you by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show you the baptism of water, which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood, shed for Me, which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also in those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of fire without the Blood, because the Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because, through love was It shed. There is yet another way by which the soul receives the baptism of Blood, speaking, as it were, under a figure, and this way the Divine charity provided, knowing the infirmity and fragility of man, through which he offends, not that he is obliged, through his fragility and infirmity, to commit sin unless he wish to do so; but, falling, as he will, into the guilt of mortal sin, by which he loses the grace which he drew from Holy Baptism in virtue of the Blood, it was necessary to leave a continual baptism of Blood. This the Divine charity provided in the Sacrament of Holy Confession, the soul receiving the Baptism of Blood, with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers, who hold the keys of the Blood, sprinkling It, in absolution, upon the face of the soul. But, if the soul be unable to confess, contrition of heart is sufficient for this baptism, the hand of My clemency giving you the fruit of this precious Blood. But if you are able to confess, I wish you to do so, and if you are able to, and do not, you will be deprived of the fruit of the Blood. It is true that, in the last extremity, a man, desiring to confess and not being able to, will receive the fruit of this baptism, of which I have been speaking. But let no one be so mad as so to arrange his deeds, that, in the hope of receiving it, he puts off confessing until the last extremity of death, when he may not be able to do so. In which case, it is not at all certain that I shall not say to him, in My Divine Justice: ’You did not remember Me in the time of your life, when you could, now will I not remember you in your death.’

Suprema haec sacra as explained by Msgr. Fenton

Friday, March 12th, 2010

The following, then, are the explicit lessons brought out in the text of the Suprema haec sacra:

(1) The teaching that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church is a dogma of the Catholic faith.

(2) This dogma has always been taught, and will always be taught, infallibly by the Church’s magisterium.

(3) The dogma must be understood and explained as the Church’s magisterium understands and explains it.

(4) The Church is necessary for salvation with both a necessity of precept and a necessity of means.

(5) Because the Church is necessary for salvation with the necessity of precept, any person who knows the Church to have been divinely instituted by Our Lord and yet refuses to enter it or to remain within it cannot attain eternal salvation.

(6) The Church is a general and necessary means of salvation, not by reason of any intrinsic necessity, but only by God’s institution, that is, because God in His merciful wisdom has established it as such.

(7) In order that a man may be saved “within” the Church, it is not always necessary that he belong to the Church in re, actually as a member, but it can sometimes be enough that he belong to it as one who desires or wills to be in it. In other words, it is possible for one who belongs to the Church only in desire or in voto to be saved.

(8) It is possible for this desire of entering the Church to be effective, not only when it is explicit, but also (when the person is invincibly ignorant of the true Church) even when that desire or votum is merely implicit.

(9) The Mystici Corporis reproved both the error of those who teach the impossibility of salvation for those who have only an implicit desire of entering the Church, and the false doctrine of those who claim that men may find salvation equally in every religion.

(10) No desire to enter the Church can be effective for salvation unless it is enlightened by supernatural faith and animated or motivated by perfect charity.

Theology: Baptism of Desire; Spiritual Communication

Thursday, March 11th, 2010

There are many “baptism of desire” heretics running around these days claiming to hold to the doctrine of the Church. Many of them legitimize their views on the basis that the Church holds them, and therefore they have a right to believe whatever they want to believe concerning baptism of desire and applying it to whomever they will to be saved. It is not the problem of baptism of desire, but the particular view on baptism of desire that is at variance with the teaching of the Church.

Firstly, the term of “baptism of desire” is subjectively misleading. When an ordinary person hears this term, the first thing that comes to mind is baptism of water and spirit, which is the only and true Sacrament of baptism. Some would say there is a contention there. The fact is “baptism of desire” is not a Sacrament. But how can “baptism of desire” recipients exist apart from those of the Sacrament of baptism?

They don’t.

The spiritual communication is the same, but the bodily is wanting.

James Latomus refers to these two bonds of union within the Church as the bodily communication and the spiritual communication.

“All ecclesiastical communication is either bodily or spiritual. The spiritual communication belongs to those who are in the house as composing the house itself. This is the communication of those who possess charity and who are united to the one God and among themselves. Likewise this spiritual communication pertains to those who are in the house, but who are not parts of the house itself. These are still spiritually joined to the parts of the house; and, on the other hand, the parts of the house are joined to them in Catholic peace. Although this Catholic peace is the effect of charity, its extension is far greater than that of charity, and it is found in some persons in whom charity does not exist. I mean charity of a pure heart, through which the Holy Ghost dwells in a man’s heart. Through this union the bad Catholic shares even spiritually in many gifts which the heretic and the schismatic do not share. The bad Catholic is deprived of these gifts when he is justly excommunicated and delivered over to Satan.

Likewise the bodily communication is divided. There is a certain bodily communication according to place, and in a common life, and in the active and passive communication of the visible sacraments. There is another bodily communication of superior and subject.”

Latomus, in his Ad Oecolampadium responsio, in the Opera (Louvain, 1550), 131v.

Answer to Scott

Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010

The Council of Trent declared:

‘By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”

(Decree on Justification).

The Desire for Baptism is clearly stated as being able to bring a man into the Kingdom of God. To deny this, as do the Dimond Brothers, is to stand contrary to Trent and commit a serious mortal sin. A very quick glance at their website will show that they have spent a lot of time promoting their heresies, and attack anyone as a heretic who accepts the clear teaching of the Council of Trent.

They also attack Our Lady by stating that she is not Co-redeemer with Christ, and accuse those of accepting this Catholic teaching as being heretics.

So, why is it ok for sedevacantists to denounce the Holy Father for hoping that unbaptised children may go to Heaven (which is, strictly speaking, permitted), and yet praise the Dimond Brothers despite them adhering to serious heresy?

OK. The quotation you give there has nothing to do with baptism of desire. Yes, it has everything to do with the desire for baptism for the impious. That is what it’s talking about there. For an adult who is seeking entrance into the Kingdom of God, there has to be shown a desire and willingness to accept the laver of regeneration. Without the desire, the effect will not take place. What happens is the indelible mark is imprinted on the soul, but the soul will not receive any grace. That’s what it’s talking about.

There is a certain way to present baptism of desire to the Dimonds without having a rebuke. Ask them about the necessity of precept and the necessity of means in moral and pastoral theology. They think it’s a bigger conspiracy that water baptism is being contested. They think it goes all the way back to the mid-1850’s. But people can show that baptism of desire was accepted on theological principles back to the Middle Ages.

Co-redemptrix is not a dogma. But if it were to become a dogma, a person who denies it would be a heretic. So far, you haven’t proven that the Dimonds are heretics. Am I saying they are going to Heaven? No. I’m simply saying that it’s one thing to be sinning against the virtue of faith, it’s another to be a heretic. If you think they are dishonest, that’s OK.

It is impossible for an unbaptized infant to go to Heaven. Pius XII said that for adults, an act of love with faith is required. But we are talking about adults who can make the full use of reason.

By the way, St. Thomas Aquinas was a material heretic for rejecting the immaculate conception of Mary before it was proclaimed. But I’m not saying that he was a formal heretic, or that he didn’t go to Heaven. Saints can be wrong, but not on what has already been defined.