Outside the
Catholic Church There is No Salvation and refuting Baptism of Desire
-The
most comprehensive book, facts, arguments and articles on the Catholic Church’s
dogmatic teaching Outside the Church There is No Salvation and the baptism of
desire controversy-
By Bro. Peter Dimond
Outside the Catholic Church There is
Absolutely No Salvation [PDF FILE] – complete book- This is the most comprehensive book that has been
written on this dogma. This book answers
all of the major objections on the baptism issue, the baptism of desire
controversy, etc.; look through the Table of Contents if you are looking for a
particular issue or objection. (order it)
Outside the Church There
is No Salvation Audio Program
Some recent articles on this topic, an introduction
to the salvation
dogma and the baptism of desire question
OTHER
RECENT ARTICLES PERTAINING TO THIS ISSUE:
Examining the Theological Status of Geocentrism and Heliocentrism
and the Devastating Problems this creates for Baptism of Desire Arguments [PDF] *very important article which demolishes
popular baptism of desire arguments, contains a new quote from a pope on
geocentrism and much more
St. Alphonsus rejected the idea that souls in invincible
ignorance can be saved
An important new
quote from St. Alphonsus on this issue
Can
one be "inside" the Catholic Church without being a
"member"?
-A Review of the book, The Catholic Church and Salvation, by Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton-
(An article that deals with key issues relating to
the baptism of desire controversy, and the dogma Outside the Church There is No
Salvation)
Some
Comments on the Limbo Fiasco
-SOME
COMMENTS ON “FR.” HARRISON’S ARTICLE ON THE RECENT LIMBO FIASCO
-FALSE
TRADITIONALISTS HIDE THE TRUTH
-“FR.”
HARRISON’S ASTOUNDING OMISSION REGARDING BAPTISM OF DESIRE
*The
Catholic Church teaches that Outside the Catholic Church There is No
Salvation. This dogma means what it says
and says what it means.
Pope Eugene IV, Council
of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all
those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or
heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the
everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they
are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of
this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in
it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving
and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of
eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has
given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless
he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Unfortunately,
this dogma is denied by almost all who profess to be “Catholic” today. It is denied by almost all who claim to be
“traditional” Catholics, including the Fraternity of St. Peter, Society of St.
Pius X, Society of St. Pius V, CMRI, etc. as documented in the book above. These individuals and groups hold that the
above dogma on salvation doesn’t really mean that all who die without the
Catholic Faith are lost. They hold that
there are exceptions for certain people who die without the Catholic
Faith.
Bishop
Marcel Lefebvre (SSPX), Against the
Heresies, page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than
the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this
religion. There may be souls who,
not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior
dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love
which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are
able to be saved.”
This
is blatantly heretical.
The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fenton Article, Fall 2003, p. 7, on Outside the
Church There is No Salvation: “With the strict, literal interpretation of
this doctrine, however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the
strict interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible
ignorance, conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or
formal members of the Church at the moment of death. It is inconceivable to me that, of all the
billions of non-Catholics who have died in the past nineteen and one-half
centuries, none of them were in good faith in this matter and, if they were, I
simply refuse to believe that hell is their eternal destiny.”
This
is blatantly heretical. Notice that the
SSPV rejects the dogma as the Church has declared it.
Bishop
Robert McKenna, “The Boston Snare,” printed in the CMRI’s Magazine The Reign of Mary, Vol. XXVI, No. 83: “The doctrine, then, of no salvation outside
the Church is to be understood in the sense of knowingly outside the Church… But, they may object, if
such be the sense of the dogma in question, why is the word ‘knowingly’ not
part of the formula, ‘Outside the Church no salvation’? For
the simple reason that the addition is unnecessary. How could anyone know of the dogma and not be
knowingly outside the Church? The ‘dogma’ is not so much a doctrine
intended for the instruction of Catholics, since it is but a logical
consequence of the Church’s claim to be the true Church, but rather a solemn and material warning or declaration for the
benefit of those outside the one ark of salvation.”
This
is heretical. It is the same heresy
uttered above by the SSPX and SSPV, just in slightly different words. The CMRI holds that certain people who are
not Catholic can be saved. Bishop
McKenna, who wrote the article published in the CMRI’s magazine, confirmed for
us that he believes that “baptism of desire” can even save Jews who reject
Christ. All of these groups reject the
dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation as the Church has defined it
(that is, without exceptions). They all
hold that certain people who die without the Catholic Faith can be saved.
No
exceptions were ever mentioned in any of the dogmatic definitions on
salvation. On the contrary, all
exceptions were always excluded. That is
why no Catholic can financially support any of these heretical groups under
pain of grave sin. It is true that
people can be ignorant in good faith of certain
aspects of the Catholic Faith (e.g. certain dogmas). However, no one who is ignorant of the essential
mysteries of the Catholic Faith (the Trinity and the Incarnation) – or who
rejects another dogma of the Catholic Faith – can be saved. The Trinity and the Incarnation constitute
the Catholic Faith in terms of its simplest mysteries. No man above reason, no one who “wishes to be
saved,” can be saved without a belief in these mysteries of Catholic Faith.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence,
Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to
be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves
this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we
worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; neither
confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of
the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit, their glory is
equal, their majesty coeternal...and in this Trinity there is nothing first or
later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal
with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above,
both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be worshipped. Therefore let him who wishes to be saved,
think thus concerning the Trinity.
“But it is necessary for eternal salvation
that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus
Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith;
unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
The
above definition of the Athanasian Creed at the ecumenical Council of Florence
means that this Creed qualifies as a pronouncement from the Chair of St. Peter
(an ex cathedra pronouncement).
To deny that which is professed in the Athanasian Creed is to cease to
be Catholic. The Creed declares that
whoever wishes to be saved needs to hold the Catholic Faith and believe
in the Trinity and the Incarnation.
Notice the phrase, “whoever wishes to be saved” (quicunque
vult salvus esse).
This
phrase is without question the product and inspiration of the Holy Ghost. It tells us that everyone who can “wish”
must believe in the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation in order to be
saved. This does not include infants and
those below the age of reason, since they cannot wish! Infants are numbered among the Catholic
faithful, since they receive the habit of Catholic Faith at the Sacrament of
Baptism. But, being below the age of
reason, they cannot make any act of faith in the Catholic mysteries of the
Trinity and the Incarnation, an act which is absolutely necessary for the
salvation of all above the age of reason (for all who wish to be saved). Is it not
remarkable how God worded this infallible Creed’s teaching on the necessity of
belief in the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation in a way that would
not include infants? The Creed,
therefore, teaches that everyone above the age of reason must have a knowledge
and belief in the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation to be saved – no
exceptions. This creed, therefore, eliminates
the theory of invincible ignorance (that one above the age of reason
can be saved without knowing Christ or the true Faith) and further renders
those who preach it unable to profess this creed with honesty.
And
the fact that no one who wishes to be
saved can be saved without a knowledge and belief in the mysteries of the
Trinity and the Incarnation is the reason why the Holy Office under Pope
Clement XI responded that a missionary must, before baptism, explain these absolutely necessary mysteries to an
adult who is at the point of death.
Response of the Sacred Office to the
Bishop of Quebec, Jan. 25, 1703:
“Q. Whether a minister is bound, before
baptism is conferred on an adult, to explain to him all the mysteries of our
faith, especially if he is at the point of death, because this might disturb
his mind. Or, whether it is sufficient,
if the one at the point of death will promise that when he recovers from the
illness, he will take care to be instructed, so that he might put into practice
what has been commanded him.
“A. A promise is not sufficient, but a missionary is bound to explain to an
adult, even a dying one who is not entirely incapacitated, the mysteries of faith which are necessary
by a necessity of means, as are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the
Incarnation.” (Denz. 1349a)
Another
question was posed at the same time and answered the same way.
Response of the Sacred Office to
the Bishop of Quebec, Jan. 25, 1703:
“Q. Whether it is possible for a crude and
uneducated adult, as it might be with a barbarian, to be baptized, if there
were given him only an understanding of God and some of His attributes…
although he does not believe explicitly in Jesus Christ.
“A. A missionary should not baptize one who does not believe explicitly
in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to instruct him about all those matters
which are necessary, by a necessity of means, in accordance with the
capacity of the one to be baptized.” (Denz. 1349b)
Errors condemned under Pope Innocent XI, March 4, 1679,
#64: “A person is fit for absolution, however much he labors under an ignorance
of the mysteries of the faith, and even if through negligence, even culpable, he
does not know the mystery of the most blessed Trinity, and of the incarnation
of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Denz. 1214)
Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo
Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905:
“And so Our
Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a
great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that
everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those
mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be
numbered among the elect.’”
Pope
Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832, on no salvation outside
the Church: “Finally some of these
misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not
saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may
attain eternal life… You
know how zealously Our predecessors taught that article of faith which these
dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for
salvation… Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless
in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who
expressly testifies that THIS IS INDEED THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. He says: ‘The holy universal Church
teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts
that all who are outside of her will not be saved.’ Official
acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus,
in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran
IV, these things are written: ‘There is one universal Church of all the
faithful outside of which no one is saved.’ Finally the same dogma is also expressly
mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only
that which all Latin churches use, but also that which… other Eastern Catholics
use. We did not mention these selected testimonies
because We thought you were ignorant of
that article of faith and in need of Our instruction. Far be it from Us to have such an absurd and
insulting suspicion about you. But We
are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been
attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from
reinforcing this truth with many testimonies.”
The
truth that no one can above the age of reason can be saved who is ignorant of
the Catholic Faith (at least in its essential components) is a truth held and
taught by all the Saints and Doctors of the Church and the Church’s greatest
missionaries. They were all convinced,
as it is the teaching of the Catholic Church, that all who die in non-Catholic
religions and in ignorance of the Gospel are lost.
St. Augustine (+426): “Consequently both those who have not heard the gospel
and those who, having heard it, and having been changed for the better, did not receive perseverance… none of these are separated from that lump which
is known to be damned, as all are going… into condemnation.”
St. Isaac Jogues:
“Although, in all probability, I could escape [from the Iroquois] either
through the Europeans or through the other savages living around us, if I
should wish it, I decided to live on this cross on which Our Lord had fixed me
in company with Himself, and to die with His grace helping me… Who could instruct the prisoners who were
being constantly brought in? Who could
baptize them when they were dying, and strengthen them in their torments? Who could pour the sacred waters on the heads
of the children? Who could look after
the salvation of the adults who were dying, and after the instruction of those
in good health? Indeed, I believe
that it happened not without a singular providence of the Divine Goodness, that
I should have fallen into the hands of these very savages… These savages, I must confess, unwillingly and reluctantly have thus
far spared me, by the will of God, so
that thus through me, although unworthy, they might be instructed, they might
believe, and be baptized, as
many of them as are preordained for eternal life.” (Francis Talbot, Saint Among Savages: The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, p. 300.)
Could any statement from a Saint refute the heresy of salvation for the
“invincibly ignorant” better? St. Isaac
knew that those heathen who did not come to know the Catholic Faith and get
baptized simply were not preordained for eternal life.
Romans 8:29-30- “For whom He
foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son:
that he might be the first-born amongst many brethren. And
whom he predestinated, them he also called: and whom he called, them he
also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”
As Catholics, of course, we don’t believe as the heretic John Calvin, who
held a predestination according to which no matter what one does he is either
predestined for heaven or hell. That is
a wicked heresy. Rather, as Catholics we
believe in the true understanding of predestination, which is expressed by St.
Isaac Jogues and Romans 8 above. This
true understanding of predestination simply means that God’s foreknowledge from
all eternity makes sure that those who are of good will and are sincere will be
brought to the Catholic faith and come to know what they must – and that those
who are not brought to the Catholic faith and don’t know what they must were
not among the elect.
2 Corinthians 4:3: “And if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them
that are lost, in whom the
god of this world [Satan] hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light
of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine
unto them.”
(See
section 16 in the book, as well as the section on St. Isaac Jogues and St.
Francis Xavier, for more on this issue).
Many ask about the “baptism of desire” and “baptism
of blood.” This is the idea that an
unbaptized catechumen (a person who professes belief in the Catholic Faith and
is preparing to be baptized) can be saved without Baptism by his desire for it
or by his martyrdom. This idea has never
been taught in any infallible pronouncement of the Catholic Church. On the contrary, the infallible teaching of
the Catholic Church proves that no man can be saved without the Sacrament of
Baptism (see below). And while there
were certain Saints in favor of the idea that an unbaptized catechumen could be
saved without the Sacrament of Baptism, there were Saints and Doctors of the
Church (including the overwhelming teaching of the early Church) who rejected
the idea.
St. Gregory Nazianz, 381 AD: “Of those who
fail to be baptized some are utterly animal and bestial, according to whether
they are foolish or wicked. This, I
think, they must add to their other sins, that they have no reverence for this
gift, but regard it as any other gift, to be accepted if given them, or
neglected if not given them. Others know
and honor the gift; but they delay, some out of carelessness, some because of
insatiable desire. Still others are not
able to receive it, perhaps because of infancy, or some perfectly
involuntary circumstance which prevents them from receiving the gift,
even if they desire it…
“If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder,
solely by his intention and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon
as baptized one who desired Baptism, without having received Baptism. But, since you cannot do the former, how can
you do the latter? I cannot see it. If you prefer, we will put it like this: if
in your opinion desire has equal power with actual Baptism, then make the
same judgment in regard to glory. You
will then be satisfied to long for glory, as if that longing itself were
glory. Do you suffer any damage by not
attaining the actual glory, as long as you have a desire for it?” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2:
1012.)
Here
we see St. Gregory rejecting the idea of baptism of desire.
St.
John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And plainly must
we grieve for our own catechumens, should they, either through their own
unbelief or through their own neglect, depart this life without the saving
grace of baptism.” (Saint John Chrysostom, “The Consolation of Death,” Sunday
Sermons of the Great Fathers, vol. IV, p. 363.)
Here
we see St. John Chrysostom rejecting the idea of baptism of desire.
St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391
A.D.:
“You have read, therefore, that the three
witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw
any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of
Christ? A common element without any
sacramental effect. Nor on the
other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless
a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of
God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen
believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but,
unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient
of the gift of spiritual grace.” (Jurgens, The
Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2: 1330.)
St.
Augustine, 391: “When we shall have come into His [God’s] sight, we shall
behold the equity of God’s justice. Then
no one will say:… ‘Why was this man
led by God’s direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly
as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster, and was not baptized?’
Look for rewards, and you will find
nothing except punishments.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 1496.)
It is well-known and easily discovered that many
saints rejected the idea of baptism of desire, yet we still see the following
grievous lies printed in books by the Society of St. Pius X and others.
Fr. Jean-Marc
Rulleau (SSPX), Baptism of Desire, p.
63: “This baptism of desire makes up for
the want of sacramental baptism… The existence of this mode of salvation is a truth taught by the Magisterium of the
Church and held from the first centuries by all the Fathers. No Catholic theologian has contested it.”
Fr. Francois Laisney (SSPX), Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 79, on
Baptism of desire: “It is not only the
common teaching, but unanimous teaching; it is not only since the early
part of this millennium, but rather from the beginning of the Church…”
These
are lies which brainwash people. Furthermore,
of the saints who did believe in baptism of desire, none of them ever
extended it to anyone besides an unbaptized catechumen (i.e., a person who
believed in the Catholic Faith and wanted to be baptized.) They would all condemn as heretical the idea
that “baptism of desire” saves a person who is part of another religion or who
doesn’t believe in Jesus Christ. In
fact, even some of those saints who believed in baptism of blood rejected the
idea of baptism of desire. They held
that only martyrs were an exception to the Sacrament of Baptism:
St.
Cyril of Jerusalem, 350 A.D.: “If any
man does not receive baptism, he does not receive salvation. The only exception is the martyrs...”
(Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers,
Vol. 1: 811.)
St.
Fulgence, 523: “From that time at which Our Savior said: “If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into
the kingdom of heaven,’ no one can, without the sacrament of baptism, except
those who, in the Catholic Church, without Baptism pour out their blood for
Christ…”
(Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers,
Vol. 3: 2269.)
I mention these facts, which are covered in much
more detail in the book, to show how far have we come in our day, where almost
100% of those who argue in favor of baptism of desire/blood don’t even believe
in baptism of desire or blood at all!
They believe in salvation for non-Catholics and people who don’t even
believe in Christ and dishonestly call it “baptism of desire”! They believe that “baptism of desire” somehow
saves certain Jews, Buddhists, pagans, Muslims, etc.! How horrified would the saints and fathers be
by the heretical teaching of the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, etc., that souls can be
saved in other religions, which is reflected in the quote below from Archbishop
Lefebvre?
Bishop
Lefebvre (SSPX), Against the Heresies,
pages 217-218: “This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned. It is necessary to understand the
formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church: ‘Outside the Church there is no
salvation.’ When we say that, it
is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the
Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the
Catholic Church go to hell. Now, I
repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they
are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla
Salus. This must be preached.”
For instance, even
though St. Fulgence believed in baptism of blood and is even quoted in the
Society of St. Pius X’s book on the subject, he teaches exactly the opposite of
what you just read from Bishop Lefebvre – which heresy is also what the SSPV,
CMRI, etc., etc., believe:
St. Fulgence, The Rule of Faith, 526 A.D.: “Hold most
firmly and never doubt in the least that not only all the pagans but also all the Jews and all the heretics and
schismatics who end this present life outside the Catholic Church are about to
go into the eternal fire that was prepared for the devil and his angels.”
St. Fulgence would
condemn the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI as heretical.
So would St. Alphonsus and all the saints.
St.
Alphonsus: “See also the special love which God has shown you in bringing you
into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic or true Church. How many are born among the pagans, among
the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.” (Sermons
of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219.)
The point is that almost no one who today claims
to believe in baptism of desire or blood limits it to only unbaptized
catechumens, as the saints did. Almost
everyone who argues for “baptism of desire” argues for salvation without the
Catholic Faith and outside the Church.
They extend it to people who don’t even believe in Jesus Christ or
desire baptism, which is heretical. That
is why almost 100% of those who believe in baptism of desire are unfortunately
heretics who totally reject the dogma that the Catholic Faith is necessary for
salvation, and that all who die as non-Catholics are lost.
Pope St. Gregory the Great, quoted in Summo
Iugiter Studio, 590-604:
“The holy universal
Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and
asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.”
Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum (# 14), May
5, 1824:
“It
is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the
wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who
profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and
contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members… by divine
faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism… This is why we profess that
there is no salvation outside the Church.”
Pope Clement VI, Super
quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351:
“In the second
place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no
man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and
outside the obedience to the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.”
Pope
Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex
cathedra: “This true
Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess
and truly hold…” (Denz. 1000)
Pope
Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle, that
‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who
contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any
religion whatever. They should consider
the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against
Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather
with Him. Therefore, ‘without a
doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and
inviolate (Athanasian Creed).”
But what about the idea of baptism of desire or
blood just for unbaptized catechumens?
Is this a true position? No. While a person could be in good faith for a
certain period of time believing that an unbaptized catechumen could be saved
without the Sacrament of Baptism (since it has been taught by fallible saints
and certain fallible texts), the fact of the matter is that baptism of desire
(even if just limited to unbaptized catechumens) is a false idea that
contradicts the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.
The
idea that any man can be saved without Baptism by “baptism of desire”
contradicts the dogma that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation,
and that Our Lord’s words in John 3:5 are literal. This is what Catholics are bound to believe:
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent,
Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, 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.”
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent,
Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If
anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our
Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be
born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into
some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence,
“Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to
the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it
we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And
since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are
born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into
the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and
natural water.”
This
means that no one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism. Once a person understands these facts, he
cannot hold baptism of desire under any form, and no Catholic should support any priest or organization who doesn’t
completely reject this false theory.
Here are just a few more arguments from the infallible teaching of the
Church which refute the idea of baptism of desire, which no baptism of desire
advocate can answer or will ever answer:
Just a few of the arguments from the
infallible Magisterium refuting “baptism of desire”
The
Council of Trent only mentions the word “catechumens” one time in its dogmatic
teaching, and it states that catechumens don’t have the Faith which
gives life eternal:
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent,
Session 6, Chap. 7 on Justification, ex cathedra: “… the instrumental cause [of Justification] is the
Sacrament of Baptism, which is the ‘Sacrament of Faith,’ without faith no
one is ever justified… This Faith,
in accordance with Apostolic Tradition, catechumens
beg of the Church before the Sacrament of Baptism, when they ask for ‘faith
which bestows life eternal,’ (Rit. Rom., Ordo Baptismi).”
The
dogmatic Council of Vienne infallibly defined that all Catholics must profess
only one baptism of water, not three: of water, blood and desire.
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne,
1311-1312, ex cathedra:
“Besides, one baptism which regenerates all who are
baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as
‘one God and one faith’ [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in
the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be commonly the perfect remedy for
salvation for adults as for children.”
Pope
Boniface VIII defined as a dogma that every human creature must be subject to
the Roman Pontiff to be saved, and it is a dogma that only those sacramentally
baptized become subjects of the Roman Pontiff and the Church.
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam,
Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“Furthermore,
we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they
by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
All men, including infants, become subjects of the
Church only by the Sacrament of Baptism.
Pope Leo XIII, Nobilissima
(# 3), Feb. 8, 1884:
“The Church,
guardian of the integrity of the Faith – which, in virtue of its authority,
deputed from God its Founder, has to call all nations to the knowledge of
Christian lore, and which is consequently bound to watch keenly over the
teaching and upbringing of the children placed under its authority by
baptism…”
Pope
Julius III, Council of Trent, On the Sacraments of Baptism and
Penance, Sess. 14, Chap. 2, ex cathedra: “… since the
Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the
gate of baptism. For what have I
to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle. It is otherwise with those of the household
of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made
‘members of his own body’ (1 Cor. 12:13).” (Denz. 895)
It is not possible,
therefore, to be subject to the Roman Pontiff without receiving the Sacrament of
Baptism, since the Church (and the Roman Pontiff) cannot exercise judgment
(jurisdiction) over an unbaptized person (de
fide, Trent). And since it is not
possible to be subject to the Roman Pontiff without the Sacrament of Baptism,
it is not possible to be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism, since every
human creature must be subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation (de fide, Boniface VIII).
Pope
Innocent III infallibly declared that there is one universal Church OF THE
FAITHFUL, outside of which no one at all is saved. Catholic Tradition, Liturgy and the Fathers
unanimously teach that only the water baptized (not unbaptized catechumens) are
part of “the faithful.”
Pope
Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex
cathedra: “THERE IS INDEED ONE UNIVERSAL CHURCH OF THE FAITHFUL,
outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest
and sacrifice.”
In
the early Church, the unbaptized catechumens (i.e., those who had not received the
Sacrament of Baptism) had to leave after the Mass of the catechumens, when
the faithful professed the Creed. The
unbaptized were not allowed to stay for the Mass of the faithful, because
it is only by receiving the Sacrament of Baptism that one becomes one of the
faithful. This is the teaching of
Tradition.
Casimir Kucharek, The Byzantine-Slav
Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom: “In
Canon 19 of the Synod of Laodicea (A.D. 343-381), for example, we read: ‘After
the sermons of the bishops, the prayer for the catechumens is to be said by
itself first; when the catechumens have gone out, the prayer for those
who are doing penance; and after these… there should then be offered the
three prayers of the faithful…’”
This
dismissal of the catechumens before the Liturgy of the Faithful was present in
all the ancient liturgical rites of the Catholic Church. It is the universal teaching of Tradition,
and acknowledged by all the fathers.
Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Membership in the Church, p. 309:
“3. Catechumens are not to be counted among the members of the Church… The
Church claims no jurisdiction over them (D 895). The
Fathers draw a sharp line of separation between Catechumens and ‘the faithful.’”
The
infallible definition of Pope Innocent III at the Fourth Lateran Council reads in original Latin: “Una vero est
fidelium universalis ecclesia, extra quam nullus omnino salvatur…” The Latin words nullus omnino mean
“absolutely nobody.” Absolutely nobody
outside the one Church of the faithful is saved. Since the one Church of “the faithful” only
includes those who have received the Sacrament of Baptism – as Apostolic
Tradition, Liturgical Tradition and Church dogma show – this means that
absolutely nobody is saved without the Sacrament of Baptism.
It
is also a dogma that no one can be justified from the state of sin without
cleansing from the Blood of Jesus Christ.
Pope
Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 5, on original sin, ex cathedra:
“If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam... is taken away either by the
forces of human nature, or by any remedy other than the merit of the one
mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who has reconciled us to God in his
own blood, ‘made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption’
(1 Cor. 1:30); or if he denies that the merit of Jesus Christ is applied to
adults as well as to infants by the sacrament of baptism… let him be
anathema.”
The
advocates of baptism of desire and blood hold that when one receives baptism of
desire or blood he is justified by the Spirit and cleansed by the Blood of
Christ without the water of baptism.
Fr.
Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic?,
pp. 35-36: “…the emphasis of the whole passage [John chapter 3] is on the spiritual rebirth…It is thus
perfectly legitimate to interpret with the Fathers that the absolute necessity applies to the spiritual rebirth…Contrary to
what the followers of Fr. Feeney pretend, the
emphasis of this whole passage is not on water, but on rebirth. By holding with the Church that the rebirth is what is absolutely necessary,
and that water is necessary ‘re aut voto,’ one respects the truth of the
words of Our Lord and the truth of the interpretation of the Church. By pretending that water itself is absolutely
necessary without any exception whatsoever, one departs from the interpretation
of the Church.”
Here
you have the position of baptism of desire explained. Its advocates hold that rebirth (or being
“born again”) of the Spirit and the Blood is absolutely necessary – since no one
can be saved without cleansing from the Blood of Christ and justification by
the Spirit – but that this rebirth of the Spirit and the Blood can be
separate from the water of baptism.
But this concept is directly contrary to the infallible teaching of Pope
St. Leo the Great.
Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic
letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:
“Let him heed what the blessed apostle
Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the
sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over
the same apostle’s words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty
way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and
silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or
spot (1 Pet. 1:18). Nor should he
withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of
Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin (1 Jn. 1:7); and
again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith. Who is there who conquers the world save one
who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in
water only, but in water and blood. And
because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give
testimony – Spirit and water and blood.
And the three are one. (1
Jn. 5:4-8) IN OTHER WORDS, THE
SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE
WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE
ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM
IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”
Pope
St. Leo defines that in Sanctification, the
Spirit of Sanctification and the Blood of Redemption cannot be separated
from the water of baptism!
Thus, there can be no rebirth by the
Spirit and the Blood without
the water of baptism! This infallibly
teaches exactly the opposite of baptism of desire and blood, which is that
sanctification (or rebirth) by the
Spirit and the Blood without
water is possible! In light of
this dogmatic letter, as well as the other facts already brought forward,
baptism of desire and baptism of blood cannot be held; for these theories
separate the Spirit and the Blood from the water in sanctification.
Pope
St. Leo the Great’s teaching above is infallible and dogmatic. It is part of the dogmatic Council of
Chalcedon, and Pope St. Gelasius even anathematized anyone who would contradict
it even in regard to one iota!
Pope St. Gelasius, Decretal, 495: “Also
the epistle of blessed Leo the Pope to Flavian… if anyone argues concerning the
text of this one even in regard to one iota, and does not receive it in all
respects reverently, let him be anathema.”
As
we can see, the truth that no one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism
is the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church. But, in our day a calumny of abominable
proportions has been spread widely.
According to this calumny, the truth you just read was the invention of
a man. Nothing could be farther from the
truth. The teaching that no man can be
saved without the Sacrament of Baptism is the truth of Jesus Christ, defined as
a dogma by the Church. It is those who
deny this divinely revealed truth who embrace an invention of man.
It
should also be noted that in the history of the Catholic Church there is not
a single tradition that can be cited for praying for – or giving ecclesiastical
burial to – catechumens who died without baptism. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1907) had
the following to say about the actual Tradition of the Church in this regard:
“A certain statement in the funeral oration
of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a
proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died
before baptism. There is not a vestige
of such a custom to be found anywhere… The practice of the Church is
more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga
(572 AD): ‘Neither the commemoration
of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi]
is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.” (The
Catholic Encyclopedia, “Baptism,” Volume 2, 1907, p. 265.)
There
you have the teaching of Catholic Tradition.
No catechumen who died without the Sacrament of Baptism received prayer,
sacrifice or Christian burial! The
Council of Braga, in 572 A.D., forbade prayer for catechumens who died without
baptism. Pope St. Leo the Great and Pope
St. Gelasius had earlier confirmed the same Church discipline – which was the
universal practice – forbidding Catholics to pray for unbaptized catechumens
who had died. This means that the
belief in the early Church was that there was no such thing as baptism of
desire.
1 Peter 3:20-21: “…
when they waited for the patience of God
in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight
souls were saved by water. Whereunto baptism being of the like
form, now saveth you also…”
Titus 3:5- “Not by the works of justice, which we have
done, but according to his mercy, he
saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost…”
All of this is just a brief introduction to
the issue. For much more information
please consult the book.
Regarding the
Interpretation of Dogma
An important
question about the interpretation of dogmatic statements and one’s authority to
use them?
Hi,
Some say that quoting dogmatic statements to
prove that Benedict XVI is a heretic, that a heretic is not the Pope, that
people cannot be saved without Baptism, etc. is like a Protestant privately
interpreting Sacred Scripture. What is
the response to this?
MHFM: Thank you for your question. The people who make this assertion don’t
understand Catholic teaching or what constitutes fidelity to the
Magisterium. This issue of
“interpretation” was addressed in our book Outside
the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation, but we’ve recently come
across an additional point that is extremely important in this regard. In its Decree on the Sacrament of Order, the
Council of Trent solemnly declared that the dogmatic canons of Trent are for
the use of all the faithful!
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 13, Chap. 4: “These are the matters which
in general it seemed well to the sacred Council to teach to the faithful of
Christ regarding the sacrament of order.
It has, however, resolved to
condemn the contrary in definite and appropriate canons in the following
manner, so that all, making use of the rule of faith, with the
assistance of Christ, may be able to recognize more easily the Catholic truth
in the midst of the darkness of so many errors.” (Denz. 960)
The
word “canon" (in Greek: kanon) means a reed; a straight rod or bar;
a measuring stick; something serving to determine, rule, or measure. The Council of Trent is infallibly declaring
that its canons are measuring rods for “all”
so that they, making use of these rules of Faith (the meaning of
the word “canon”), may be able to recognize and defend the truth in the midst
of darkness! This very important
statement blows away the claim of those who say that using dogmas to
prove points is “private interpretation.”
This canon teaches exactly the opposite of what they assert: that all
cannot make use of these rules of Faith!
This is a very important statement not only for the salvation/baptism
controversy, but also for the sedevacantist issue.
The
point of the dogmas is so that the faithful know what they must believe and
reject, so that they are independent of the mere opinions of men, and are
following the infallible truth of Christ.
If the faithful have to rely to someone else giving their version or
understanding of the dogmatic definition, then that (fallible) person becomes
the rule of faith, and not the infallible dogmatic definition.
St. Francis De Sales explained it well against the Protestants.
St. Francis De Sales (Doctor of the
Church), The Catholic Controversy, c.
1602, p. 228: “The Councils… decide and
define some article. If after all
this another test has to be tried
before their [the Council’s] determination is received, will not another also be wanted? Who will not want to apply his test, and whenever
will the matter be settled?... And why not a third to know if the second is
faithful? – and then a fourth, to test the third? Everything must be done over again, and
posterity will never trust antiquity but will go ever turning upside down the
holiest articles of faith in the wheel of their understandings… what we say is that when a Council has
applied this test, our brains have not
now to revise but to believe.”
The “interpretation” ends with the words of the dogma itself! If it doesn’t, then it never ends, as we saw above – you just have fallible interpretation after fallible interpretation after fallible interpretation after fallible interpretation. If the buck doesn’t stop with the infallible definition (the Chair of Peter), then it never stops. I pointed this fact out to a somewhat well-known “apologis