Just to quickly recap many of the incorrect arguments commonly used to support belief in baptism of desire or baptism of blood.
"The Holy Innocents are proof of baptism of blood"
No they are not. Not only were most of them likely circumcised under the Old Law, the Law of Baptism was not promulgated until about 33 years later.
"The Good Thief is proof of baptism of desire or baptism of blood"
Same answer again.
"Of the 40 Martyrs of Sebaste, the one soldier who declared himself a Christian received baptism of blood"
The martyrs were able to have visitors to their prison and could very easily have evangelized and baptized any soldier who was graced with the interest to receive the Gospel.
"St. Emerantiana was a catechumen martyr and received baptism of blood"
Firstly this could be completely made up, secondly if it is not, just being a catechumen does not mean one is unbaptized, as the 2nd Canon of Nicaea shows: "For a catechumen needs time and further probation after baptism," and thirdly nobody can even say with absolute certainty that she is actually in Heaven anyway.
"St. Thomas taught baptism of desire/baptism of blood"
Nearly forty years before the first of many dogmatic definitions which rendered it heretical, and he was fallible besides.
"St. Alphonsus taught it after the Council of Trent"
He made mistakes, undeniable doctrinal mistakes on dogmatic issues. St. Alphonsus was incorrect about baptism of desire AND that he was wrong to state that a person could receive such a thing IMPLICITLY.
Here are his words, and you cannot deny that his conclusions do NOT logically follow:
St. Alphonsus Liguori, Moral Theology, Bk. 6: "We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved "without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it".
If it cannot be had without the laver, as is stated, then the desire does not suffice. If it cannot be had without the desire, then the laver does not suffice on its own either.
It really is that simple.
And many people evoke St. Alphonsus status as a Doctor or his genius in an attempt to claim that he would not have been ignorant of certain previous dogmatic definitions, but what follows is a demonstration that he was in fact ignorant of at least one of these (he did not have Google after all, if I am not too presumptuous in saying so).
St. Alphonsus Liguori, Moral Theology, Bk. 6: "Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality ["non ita stricte"] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from Baptism of blood – translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive."
No Suarez did not "rightly" teach that such a view was temerarious. Suarez and St. Alphonsus are both wrong to believe that martyrdom is a possible means for the remittance of original sin in infants. That a is heretical belief. Could that St. Alphonsus have been ignorant of the following dogmatic definition from two centuries before his day?
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, ex cathedra: "With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present AND THE ONLY remedy available to them is the SACRAMENT of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred..."
"The Catechism of Baltimore/Trent, etc teaches it"
We know very well that a Catechism can contain not only error but outright heresy, such as Baltimore stating that people may be saved while practicing false religions. But as for the Catechism of Trent, the original Latin text actually does NOT explicitly teach that a person who DIES unbaptized can be saved.
The original words of the Latin Catechism quite literally say that if some impediment, obstruction, snare or difficulty (impediat) should befall a man, which holds or abides (possint) a back from receiving the sacrament then the intention and determination to receive the sacrament and their repentance of sins will avail them to grace and righteousness. There is NOTHING about death in the Catechism, nor is it unreasonable to interpret such an ambiguous passage in the light of all the other solemn definitions of Holy Mother Church; ie: that "avail them to grace and righteousness" means that God will enable them to overcome whatever impediat has gotten in their way, since their repentance is true and He would therefore be pleased to bring them into the Faith.
All this is not proof, however
Now, none of the above actually proves that baptism of desire is a heresy, but all that's said above is undeniable, and it aids the case against those who believe in baptism of desire or blood even for catechumens.
But if you want to know that it is heresy, you need to go to the dogmatic definitions of the Holy See:
Here's your proof
"But the Council Trent teaches baptism of desire"
Only if you don't understand basic logic as understood by anyone in engineering. When it is said that something cannot take place without this or that, it means that if either one is missing it cannot take place. Whereas if you say something cannot take place without this AND that, all of a sudden you have now introduced the scenario in which it is impossible ONLY WHEN BOTH are missing.
Trent says the translation to the state of justification cannot take place without the laver of regeneration OR the desire thereof.
The very definition that everyone tries to use to support baptism of desire actually refutes them and it is just simply illogical to think otherwise. Ask an engineer who is not Catholic, as he'd be impartial enough to shoot straight. Why do you think there is a deliberate mistranslation out there of sine (without) to "except through"? It is an untenable and incorrect translation with no precedent in any Latin work I have ever seen (not that I am a Latin scholar, but I did specifically look for this)
But this decree aside, there are all the other decrees I mentioned as well. When you take them all together it is quite untenable to hold that a person can receive the grace of Baptism in any other way than by the normal application of the Sacrament, according to the matter and form prescribed by Jesus Christ, which except a man be born thus, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, as Truth says.
Truly, baptism of desire posits a reformation against the various decrees of Holy Church, but we know since the Vatican Council of 1870 that to consider any such reformation is unlawful, as the definitions are "of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable".
"But baptism of desire was never condemned as a heresy by the Church"
Pope Leo XIII made it clear in Satis Cognitum that anybody who dissents in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by the Church's authoritative Magisterium, such a one is not Catholic. Why because anything the least bit contrary to the Church's authoritative Magisterium is heresy.
"But that means that everyone has been a heretic since such and such a year..."
Not at all. Not only is this an argument from emotion (which is a logical fallacy in itself), but neither is the statement true. On deeper dogmatic matters not contained in the basic Christian Creed, a person may indeed fall into material heresy, while never committing the sin of heresy or losing his Catholicity. Such a person would only be a heretic when he sees that the Apostolic See has made a dogmatic definition, and then obstinately refuse to assent to that definition.
So no, just because baptism of desire is heresy, it does not logically follow that EVERYBODY was ejected from the Church. Heresy can fly under the radar, waiting for the perfect time to explode, and BoD has done so, despite that no honest argument will ever be able to support belief in it next to the dogmatic definitions of Holy Mother Church, every word therein being infallibly true.
BoD and BoB believers do not have a leg to stand on.
"The Holy Innocents are proof of baptism of blood"
No they are not. Not only were most of them likely circumcised under the Old Law, the Law of Baptism was not promulgated until about 33 years later.
"The Good Thief is proof of baptism of desire or baptism of blood"
Same answer again.
"Of the 40 Martyrs of Sebaste, the one soldier who declared himself a Christian received baptism of blood"
The martyrs were able to have visitors to their prison and could very easily have evangelized and baptized any soldier who was graced with the interest to receive the Gospel.
"St. Emerantiana was a catechumen martyr and received baptism of blood"
Firstly this could be completely made up, secondly if it is not, just being a catechumen does not mean one is unbaptized, as the 2nd Canon of Nicaea shows: "For a catechumen needs time and further probation after baptism," and thirdly nobody can even say with absolute certainty that she is actually in Heaven anyway.
"St. Thomas taught baptism of desire/baptism of blood"
Nearly forty years before the first of many dogmatic definitions which rendered it heretical, and he was fallible besides.
"St. Alphonsus taught it after the Council of Trent"
He made mistakes, undeniable doctrinal mistakes on dogmatic issues. St. Alphonsus was incorrect about baptism of desire AND that he was wrong to state that a person could receive such a thing IMPLICITLY.
Here are his words, and you cannot deny that his conclusions do NOT logically follow:
St. Alphonsus Liguori, Moral Theology, Bk. 6: "We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved "without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it".
If it cannot be had without the laver, as is stated, then the desire does not suffice. If it cannot be had without the desire, then the laver does not suffice on its own either.
It really is that simple.
And many people evoke St. Alphonsus status as a Doctor or his genius in an attempt to claim that he would not have been ignorant of certain previous dogmatic definitions, but what follows is a demonstration that he was in fact ignorant of at least one of these (he did not have Google after all, if I am not too presumptuous in saying so).
St. Alphonsus Liguori, Moral Theology, Bk. 6: "Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality ["non ita stricte"] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from Baptism of blood – translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive."
No Suarez did not "rightly" teach that such a view was temerarious. Suarez and St. Alphonsus are both wrong to believe that martyrdom is a possible means for the remittance of original sin in infants. That a is heretical belief. Could that St. Alphonsus have been ignorant of the following dogmatic definition from two centuries before his day?
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, ex cathedra: "With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present AND THE ONLY remedy available to them is the SACRAMENT of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred..."
"The Catechism of Baltimore/Trent, etc teaches it"
We know very well that a Catechism can contain not only error but outright heresy, such as Baltimore stating that people may be saved while practicing false religions. But as for the Catechism of Trent, the original Latin text actually does NOT explicitly teach that a person who DIES unbaptized can be saved.
The original words of the Latin Catechism quite literally say that if some impediment, obstruction, snare or difficulty (impediat) should befall a man, which holds or abides (possint) a back from receiving the sacrament then the intention and determination to receive the sacrament and their repentance of sins will avail them to grace and righteousness. There is NOTHING about death in the Catechism, nor is it unreasonable to interpret such an ambiguous passage in the light of all the other solemn definitions of Holy Mother Church; ie: that "avail them to grace and righteousness" means that God will enable them to overcome whatever impediat has gotten in their way, since their repentance is true and He would therefore be pleased to bring them into the Faith.
All this is not proof, however
Now, none of the above actually proves that baptism of desire is a heresy, but all that's said above is undeniable, and it aids the case against those who believe in baptism of desire or blood even for catechumens.
But if you want to know that it is heresy, you need to go to the dogmatic definitions of the Holy See:
Here's your proof
"But the Council Trent teaches baptism of desire"
Only if you don't understand basic logic as understood by anyone in engineering. When it is said that something cannot take place without this or that, it means that if either one is missing it cannot take place. Whereas if you say something cannot take place without this AND that, all of a sudden you have now introduced the scenario in which it is impossible ONLY WHEN BOTH are missing.
Trent says the translation to the state of justification cannot take place without the laver of regeneration OR the desire thereof.
The very definition that everyone tries to use to support baptism of desire actually refutes them and it is just simply illogical to think otherwise. Ask an engineer who is not Catholic, as he'd be impartial enough to shoot straight. Why do you think there is a deliberate mistranslation out there of sine (without) to "except through"? It is an untenable and incorrect translation with no precedent in any Latin work I have ever seen (not that I am a Latin scholar, but I did specifically look for this)
But this decree aside, there are all the other decrees I mentioned as well. When you take them all together it is quite untenable to hold that a person can receive the grace of Baptism in any other way than by the normal application of the Sacrament, according to the matter and form prescribed by Jesus Christ, which except a man be born thus, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, as Truth says.
Truly, baptism of desire posits a reformation against the various decrees of Holy Church, but we know since the Vatican Council of 1870 that to consider any such reformation is unlawful, as the definitions are "of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable".
"But baptism of desire was never condemned as a heresy by the Church"
Pope Leo XIII made it clear in Satis Cognitum that anybody who dissents in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by the Church's authoritative Magisterium, such a one is not Catholic. Why because anything the least bit contrary to the Church's authoritative Magisterium is heresy.
"But that means that everyone has been a heretic since such and such a year..."
Not at all. Not only is this an argument from emotion (which is a logical fallacy in itself), but neither is the statement true. On deeper dogmatic matters not contained in the basic Christian Creed, a person may indeed fall into material heresy, while never committing the sin of heresy or losing his Catholicity. Such a person would only be a heretic when he sees that the Apostolic See has made a dogmatic definition, and then obstinately refuse to assent to that definition.
So no, just because baptism of desire is heresy, it does not logically follow that EVERYBODY was ejected from the Church. Heresy can fly under the radar, waiting for the perfect time to explode, and BoD has done so, despite that no honest argument will ever be able to support belief in it next to the dogmatic definitions of Holy Mother Church, every word therein being infallibly true.
BoD and BoB believers do not have a leg to stand on.
