Response to Anonymous "Against baptism of desire"

Anonymous said:

"the laver of regeneration or a desire for it

"OR" is the keyword. Now, did the theif who asked Jesus on the Cross "Lord,remember me in your kingdom" gain salvation? Of course he did, as Jesus attested "today you shall be with me in Paradise." Did Jesus lie? Did Jesus baptized him with water? No, by Jesus knowing his heart, his desire, Jesus saved him."

Response:

First, I already explained the "OR" part of this statement in the section "against baptism of desire" which you are attempting to refute. If you refuse to believe it then you are of bad will because it is easy to understand the plain meaning of the Council. It is the evil heretics that try to twist the mind of the Church and find meaning in it's words that are not there.

Second, to answer the question "did Jesus lie?", NO He did not. The Good Thief is in Heaven, but neither him nor Jesus went to heaven on the day of the Crucifixion. It was not until after the Ascension. He went to paradise where the fathers of the old testament were until the savior came, the "limbo of the fathers". The thief was with Jesus in "paradise" that day, listening to Him preach His Gospel. So let me ask you, did Jesus lie? If "paradise" was/is heaven, then He is a liar. Since they did not go to Heaven that day, "paradise" is not the same as Heaven, because Jesus is not a liar. Since every Catholic knows that nobody entered Heaven until Christ did, then the Good Thief must not have gotten to Heaven until after Jesus arrived.

Third, Jesus did not Baptize the Good Thief with water. The reason for this is that Water Baptism was not obligatory on everybody yet:

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”

So yes, Jesus saved him without water Baptism but, water Baptism was not necessary yet!
It is simple to understand if one is of Good Will.



Anonymous said:

"The false church claims everyone goes to heaven. This is opposite of baptism of desire teaching."

Response:

The false church does preach "Universal Salvation", but this is not the opposite of baptism of desire, it (Universal Salvation) is the only logical conclusion (of baptism of desire).
One cannot be a member of the Church without Water Baptism, and one cannot be saved without being a member of the Church.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith."

Proposition 1: No salvation outside the Church equals nobody being saved without the waters of Baptism.
Proposition 2: Somebody being saved desiring baptism without actual baptism, equals salvation outside the Church.

This is why Church writers use the words "Laver of Regeneration" and like phrases to stress the water aspect which is necessary. The desire and the actual physical act of initiation are necessary.

Would it be easier to lead to "Universal Salvation" with baptism of desire which allows for the possibility of salvation without Water Baptism (against many Dogmas) and not being a member of the Church? Or would it be easier to lead to "Universal Salvation" by saying that nobody can be saved without water Baptism period; that if one dies without Baptism he will surely perish.



Anonymous:

"I am Catholic since 1051, my mother, my grandmother, my great-grandmother and so on, all knew what the Church has always taught regarding baptism of desire. Even Jesus spoke of His 3 baptisms to show us that one is the sacrament and the others were justification, though no indelible mark on the soul, and of course, not the sacrament. Read St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica at newadvent.com to grasp the actual definition and see there that the Church approved it. It is the old encyclopedia of the Church and this explanation by the Church and her true popes cannot be disputed."

Response:

First, neither the Church's Popes nor any of the Council's have ever taught baptism of desire.

Second, Jesus did not talk about three different Sacraments of Baptism. Just one, with water, and no one can enter heaven without it.

Mark 16:15-16- “And he (Jesus) said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.”

John 3:5- “Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

I really don't know why you brought up the other baptisms Jesus spoke of. You admit that "no indelible mark on the soul, and of course, not the sacrament", but the Church teaches that indelible mark is membership in the Church and the Sacrament is absolutely necessary.

Council of Trent on Baptism, canon 5, ex cathedra: "If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema."

Third, St. Thomas was a great Saint and Theologian but was not infallible and also able to err in Theological speculations. He also said that the Virgin Mary was not immaculately conceived. When the Magisterium defines or teaches something and a saint teaches opposite, the Magisterium is to be believed.

Anonymous:

"Of course, there will be some who dispute the Church, those who think themselves above God and what He can do and cannot do. His Ways are immeasurable."

Response:

I agree. He has told us how to get to heaven. Those who think they know better than Him have invented new ways to get to heaven. He never revealed baptism of desire as a way to achieve Salvation.

Again:
John 3:5- “Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”


Anonymous:

"If you do reject reading the Summa, then all I can say is that you would be willfully ignorant, lost in someone elses Opinion, and still not quite a member of the true Church."

Response:

If you accept another man's opinion (i.e. St. Thomas) over what the Church has already defined then you are "lost in someone elses Opinion".



Anonymous:

"We must believe everything the Catholic Church has taught. Just because some fake "monk" teaches contrary things against the Church innovating some "new" teaching like new church does, certainly does not mean he is right."

Response:

This is like almost everybody who wants to believe in baptism of desire. Just empty remarks and criticisms and no proof to back up what you say.

I hope you see the Truth of Christ's Dogmas one day.