St. Alphonsus Liguori, the Council of Trent, and Baptism of Desire

One of my favorite books is The Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liquori.

 

By law, there are no excuses for clergy not knowing the dogmas on the sacrament of water baptism and outside the Church there is no salvation. Therefore, clerics who deny these dogmas could only be called formal heretics. Yet, we have many popes and saints who rightly taught the doctrine of Baptisms of Desire and Blood. One of those great saints is St. Alphonsus Liquori, (1696-1775 Doctor of the Church) who taught in his Moral Theology, Bk. 6, n. 95-7. Concerning Baptism:

Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water [“fluminis”], of desire [“flaminis” = wind] and of blood.

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”.

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.

It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John.

Again, St. Alphonsus Liquori

Truly Baptism of Blood is the pouring forth of blood, or undergone for the sake of the faith, or for some other Christian virtue; as teaches St. Thomas, Viva; Croix along with Aversa and Gobet, etc. This is equivalent to real baptism because [it acts] as if it were ex operato and like Baptism remits both sin and punishment. It is said to be quasi – as if, because martyrdom is not strictly speaking like a sacrament, but because those privileged in this way imitate the Passion of Christ as says Bellarmin, Suarez, Sotus, Cajetane, etc., along with Croix; and in a firm manner, Petrocorensis.

Therefore martyrdom is efficacious, even in infants, as is shown by the Holy Innocents which are indeed considered true martyrs. This is clearly taught by Suarez along with Croix and to oppose such an opinion is indeed temerarious. In adults it is necessary that martyrdom be at least habitually accepted from supernatural motives as Coninck, Cajetan, Suarez, Bonacina and Croix etc. teach. ….

Not in passing that such was also the teaching of Coninck, Cajetan, Suarez Bonacina and Croix.

 

CONCLUSION

1. Baptism of Desire must be accepted by Catholics because it’s taught by Trent according to the interpretation of the Latin documents by St. Alphonsus Liquori.

2. Arguing that St. Alphonsus Liguori was materially heretical or in theological error is erroneous because: a.) Not only was he not corrected or condemned, his position was promulgated by law and catechism, b.) even if he was wrong, he couldn’t be considered materially heretical or in theological error for contradicting a dogma especially since he said baptism of desire is de fide, and the Church would necessarily be condemned for affirming the teaching of St. Alphonsus Liquori.

I don’t argue very long with those who think they know better than St. Alphonsus Liguori because if they won’t accept his teaching, they won’t care at all what I have to say.

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Dr. Suzanne Humphries, The Health Ranger, and the Vaccine Cult

We Catholics understand how much evil is in the world considering that Rome has lost the Catholic Faith and is working hard to drag as many people to hell as possible. It’s not just our souls they want but our very lives. The following interview is exceptionally good. I almost stopped watching at about 12 minutes into it thinking I got the gist of it but I was wrong. It gets better and better as the interview continued.

Read Full Post »

The Cafeteria ‘Catholic’ Religion

One of my biggest gripes attending daily novus ordo mass years ago, was the blatant rejection of canon law and the rubrics of the mass. I would meet with priests and hear their phony explanations and was told twice that the novelties came from Rome.

Once I investigated why inclusive language was being used at mass and found the non-inclusive words in the liturgical books penciled out and replaced, which is condemned by Canon 846 of the 1983 Code of Law. [1] The priests knew, the bishop knew, and the people didn’t care and it didn’t stop there.

It was commonplace to hear lay folk rejecting Catholic teachings on the Real Presence, papal infallibility and the condemnation of artificial contraception. I remember once when liberals were invited to speak against the all-male priesthood at the University of Kentucky campus church while supporting diocesan priests attended in civilian clothes. I had a heated public conversation with one of the priests over artificial contraception which he openly supported.

The disgusting pick-and-choose mentality was everywhere and it was facilitated by the very leaders of the diocese. Then I discovered that my diocese was just a microcosm of the entire novus ordo religion. The Tradition in Action website does a good job showing this fact here. As seen from the “Revolution Photos” Rome actively participates and encourages the widespread abuses.

We also see the nonsense with “Catholic” celebrities and politicians. “Catholic” politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden openly promote abortion and homosexuality and are given communion each week in their “Catholic” churches.

Celebrities, such as Mark Wahlberg (who attends daily mass) makes movies so immoral he jokes about it at a family festival attended by “Pope” Francis as seen here.

Wahlberg is not alone. Look up other practicing “Catholic” celebrities and see how immoral their music, movies, and lifestyles are. Christina Aguilera, for instance, would pray and do the sign of the cross immediately before doing her immoral song and dance bit titled, Dirty.

If you say we’re all sinners and I’m being judgmental, you’d be missing the point. It’s one thing to sin, it’s quite another to think your sin is not sinful. It’s a pick-and-choose what is and isn’t sinful! “Pope” Francis is no exception. Where’s his condemnation on the immorality of his subject’s music, movies, or lifestyles? It appears he’s more concerned about those living in sin having the entitlement of receiving Communion. According to “Pope” Francis and his followers, it’s the sin of judgmentalism to openly condemn immorality.

On the other side of the spectrum, you have your conservative and traditional “Catholics” who know very well of the abuses and immoralities. Again, Tradition in Action is on the front-line rightly exposing the evils on their website.

However, they are not that far removed from their counterparts because they also pick and choose from their religion.

EWTN and Catholic Answers make excuses for their pope’s blasphemies and heresies and by doing so are just picking and choosing not to follow Christ and the Church while claiming to defend them.

The “traditionalists” such as the Remnant Newspaper, SSPX, and Tradition in Action pick and choose from their religion by ignoring and rejecting Vatican 2, the novus ordo mass, canonizations, apostolic exhortations, canon law, etc.

Their one common denominator is not that Francis is pope because some think Benedict XVI is still pope. Nope, the one common denominator is that sedevacantism is false.

What’s really comical is when you see people like John Salza and Robert Siscoe call their pope’s Amoris Laetitia heretical but then apply a 17th century theologian’s opinion as a dogmatic certainty that can’t be rejected even though many saints and canonists have done just that. You’ll never find them quoting as authoritative anything that came from the Vatican 2 popes, but sure enough, erroneous 17th century opinions are treated as infallible doctrines that must be professed to be Catholic. They expect to be heard and obeyed over their pope as the final interpreter of everything. Oh, and the Remnant Newspaper publishes and defends these two untrained knuckleheads as authorities over their pope.

What’s the point in believing only in the dogmas but rejecting encyclicals, apostolic constitutions, canon laws, etc.? It’s a pick-and-choose mentality, and it’s precisely this pick-and-choose mentality that makes the novel religion of “Pope” Francis divided in faith.

The first mark and Article of the Catholic Faith is ONENESS, which is a rejection of the pick-and-choose mentality. It’s all or nothing. Catholics are free to disagree on doctrines of opinions where the Church hasn’t settled the matter and therefore are not part of the Faith.

However, if you’re a subject to “Pope” Francis and you don’t hold all the doctrines on faith and morals he professes, you’re really professing your denial of the first Article of the Faith in practice. You’re as guilty of rejecting a dogma of the Faith as everyone else.

There’s no escaping it. The religion of “Pope” Francis is a cafeteria-styled religion in belief and practice. It fosters it in every way. You can even call an apostolic exhortation heretical and sign a public document saying so and the “pope” will do nothing, which apparently means you can even pick and choose what the “pope” teaches according to the “pope”. He obviously rejects the Article of Faith, but what difference does it make when you’re in a religion where you get to decide what is true?

 

 

Footnote

[1] Can. 846 §1. In celebrating the sacraments the liturgical books approved by competent authority are to be observed faithfully; accordingly, no one is to add, omit, or alter anything in them on one’s own authority.

Read Full Post »