baptism

A VOICE CRYING IN THE

WILDERNESS

newsletter#2

A Short Refutation of the Theory of Baptism of Desire

- by Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B. -

In many ways the dogma outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation is the most important dogma in the Catholic Church. Connected with this is the necessity of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism. But today both of these truths are almost universally denied by those calling themselves Catholic. They assert that the unbaptized can be united to the Church, justified (attain the state of grace) and saved by what is called baptism of desire. A tiny minority of those who believe in baptism of desire (less than 1%) limit it to those who actually desire baptism and believe in the Catholic religion (e.g., unbaptized catechumens). The vast majority of them (more than 99%) extend the possibility of salvation by baptism of desire to pagans, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. and people of no religion, who do not actually desire baptism or believe in the Catholic Faith. This majority group also somehow extends the "saving capability" of baptism of desire to Protestants, even though Protestants have already been baptized.

In this newsletter we will show that the Catholic Church has infallibly taught that one cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost (i.e., actually receiving the Sacrament of Baptism). The discussion will focus mainly on baptism of desire as it is believed by the tiny minority (for those who actually desire baptism and believe in the Catholic religion), because the majority’s definition of baptism of desire (that baptism of desire saves those who don’t believe in the Catholic Faith or actually desire baptism) is directly contrary to many defined dogmas, was never held by any saint, and is a denial of the Athanasian Creed which defined that whoever wishes to be saved must believe in Jesus Christ, the Most Holy Trinity and the Catholic Faith.

Baptism of Desire – On the Witness Stand

1) Are the words of Jesus Christ in John 3:5 (" Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.") to be taken as they are written, or not as they are written?

All defenders of the theory of baptism of desire must admit that they believe that John 3:5 is not to be taken literally. They agree that baptism of desire cannot be true if John 3:5 is understood as it is written. So the question is: Does the Catholic Church understand John 3:5 as it is written or not?

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: "In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT THE LAVER OF REGENERATION OR A DESIRE FOR IT, AS IT IS WRITTEN: UNLESS A MAN BE BORN AGAIN OF WATER AND THE HOLY GHOST, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD (JOHN 3:5)."

The reader can see very clearly that the Council of Trent teaches that John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written (Latin: sicut scriptum est), thereby excluding any possibility of baptism of desire. Ironically, the Council defines this in Sess. 6, Chap. 4, the very passage which baptism of desire proponents quote all the time to favor their position. In fact, this passage is brought up by baptism of desire proponents as their single strongest – and perhaps only – argument from the Papal Magisterium. It is their "trump card". Why do they think this?

The baptism of desire people believe that the use of the word "or" (Latin: aut) in the above passage means that justification can take place by the water of baptism or the desire for it. But a careful look at the passage proves this to be false. The passage says that justification cannot take place without the laver of regeneration (water baptism) or the desire for it; in other words, both are necessary. Suppose I said, "This shower cannot take place without water or the desire to take one." Does this mean that the shower takes place by the desire to take a shower? Absolutely not. It means that both are necessary. In fact, the Latin word aut ("or") is used in the same way in other passages in the Council of Trent. In the introduction to the decree on Justification, the Council strictly forbids anyone to "believe, preach or teach" (credere, praedicare aut docere) other than as it is defined and declared in the decree on Justification.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Introduction: "... strictly forbidding that anyone henceforth may presume to believe, preach or teach, otherwise than is defined and declared by this present decree."

Does "or" (aut) in this passage mean that one is only forbidden to preach contrary to the Council’s decree on justification, but one is allowed to teach contrary to it? No, obviously "or"(aut) means that both preaching and teaching are forbidden, just like in chapter 4 above "or" means that justification cannot take place without both water and desire. Another example of the use of aut to mean "and" (or "both") in Trent is found in Sess. 21, Chap. 2, the decree on Communion under both species (Denz. 931).

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 21, Chap. 2: "Therefore holy mother Church... has approved this custom of communicating under either species, and has decreed that it be considered as a law, which may not be repudiated or be changed at will without the authority of the Church."

Does aut in this declaration mean that the Council’s decree may not be repudiated, but it may be changed? No, obviously it means that both a repudiation and a change are forbidden. This is another clear example of how the Latin word aut can be used in contexts which render its meaning "and" or "both". And these examples blow away the claim of baptism of desire supporters: that the meaning of aut in Chapter 4, Session 6 is one which favors baptism of desire.

But why does Trent define that the desire for Baptism, along with Baptism, is necessary for justification? In the past we did not answer this question as well as we could have, because we thought that Sess. 6, Chap. 4 was distinguishing between adults and infants. But further study of the passage reveals that in this chapter Trent is defining what is necessary for the iustificationis impii - the justification of the impious (see quote above). The "impious" cannot refer to infants - who are incapable of committing actual sins (Trent, Sess. V, Denz. 791). Therefore, in this chapter Trent is dealing exclusively with those above the age of reason who have committed actual sins, and for such persons the desire for baptism is necessary for justification. That is why the chapter defines that justification cannot take place without the water of baptism or the desire for it.

Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism - Dispositions for Baptism, Tan Books, p. 180:

"INTENTION - ... In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it…"

So, far from being in favor of baptism of desire, this chapter of the Council of Trent actually goes against it. It defines that justification of the impious cannot take place without the water of baptism or the desire for it. We know this interpretation of this passage is correct, because if what baptism of desire proponents say were correct, we would actually have the Council teaching us in the first part of the sentence that John 3:5 is not to be taken as it is written (desire sometimes suffices), while simultaneously contradicting itself in the second part of the sentence by telling us to take John 3:5 as it is written (sicut scriptumest)! But this passage is infallible and there is no contradiction contained therein. So let every baptism of desire supporter cease preaching that Sess. 6, Chap. 4 teaches that justification "can" be effected by water or desire, which is certainly not what the Council says. Let them cease preaching that John 3:5 is not to be taken AS IT IS WRITTEN. Let them cease quoting the horrible mistranslation of this passage as it is found in Denzinger (which many of them continue obstinately to do after it has been pointed out to them). And furthermore, let not these people think that they justify themselves before the all-knowing God by ignoring the above facts and continuing to obstinately assert that Sess. 6, Chap. 4 definitely teaches baptism of desire. They cannot be justified asserting this even by quoting famous Church theologians, who were mistaken in good faith; for God did not give the charism of infallibility to theologians, however great, but to Peter and his successors alone (Lk. 22:31-32).

Some baptism of desire supporters also bring forward Sess. 7, Can. 4 on the Sacraments to somehow try to prove baptism of desire. But it’s obvious that this canon does not teach that either the sacraments or the desire for them is sufficient for justification, as some claim, but that it condemns those who assert that neither the sacraments nor the desire for them is necessary for justification, and that faith alone suffices. It does not affirm that either is sufficient, but condemns those who assert that neither is necessary. For a full discussion of this canon we refer you to the section on it in issue #6 of our magazine.

It is also quite interesting to consider that whereas the Council of Trent never teaches baptism of desire, it teaches no less than three times (twice in Sess. 6, Chap. 14 and once in Sess. 14, Chap. 4) that the desire for the Sacrament of Penance (if a person has perfect contrition) can suffice for justification before Penance is actually received. This efficacy of the desire for the Sacrament of Penance is mentioned three times, but the supposed efficacy of the desire for baptism (baptism of desire) is not mentioned at all. This should indicate something to those who believe in baptism of desire: God didn’t allow it to be taught in the infallible Council of Trent or any other Council or even in any Papal encyclical in the history of the Church, because it is an erroneous theory. John 3:5 is true exactly as it is written (Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4). If the concept of baptism of desire were a true teaching of the Church, then the Council of Trent definitely would have included it in the canons on Baptism or in the chapters on Justification. But it’s nowhere to be found. It’s also noteworthy that the terms baptism of desire and baptism of blood are not found anywhere even in The Catechism of the Council of Trent - contrary to what many assert. For a discussion of what The Catechism of the Council of Trent does and does not teach on Baptism, consult the section on it in issue #6 of our magazine.

2) Is there one baptism or are there three?

Is there only one baptism celebrated in water? Or do three baptisms exist: water, blood and desire? Let us quote the teaching of the Church: The Dogmatic Nicene Creed: "We confess one baptism for the remission of sins." Countless Popes have professed the dogma that there is only one baptism (see issue #6 of our magazine for quotes from no less than 9 other Popes). Did baptism of desire proponents ever wonder why countless Popes have professed that there is only one baptism, and not a single one of them bothered to define the so-called "other two" (desire and blood)? Why has not a single Pope ever used the terms "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood"? Why did two general councils of the Church – Lateran IV and Vienne – define ex cathedra only one baptism which is of water?

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: "But the sacrament of baptism is consecrated in water at the invocation of the undivided Trinity – namely, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – and brings salvation to both children and adults when it is correctly carried out by anyone in the form laid down by the Church."

If the sacrament of baptism brings salvation to children and adults (de fide), then without it there is no salvation!

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."

Here Pope Clement V defines as a dogma that ONE BAPTISM must be faithfully confessed by all, which is celebrated in water. This means that all Catholics must profess one baptism of water, not three baptisms: of water, blood and desire. To confess "three baptisms", and not one, is to reject Catholic dogma.

3) Are those who have not received the Sacrament of Baptism part of the faithful?

Who are the faithful? Can one who has not been baptized be considered part of the faithful? I have not, as yet, heard any believer in baptism of desire try to answer this question. The following facts explain why I have not yet gotten an answer to this question; it is because they cannot answer this question.

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."

As many of you know, the Catholic Mass is divided into two parts: the Mass of the catechumens (those training to be baptized) and the Mass of the faithful (those baptized). Need one say more? In the early Church, the unsacramentally baptized (i.e., those who had not been baptized with water) 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. This teaching of Tradition is why in the Traditional Rite of Baptism, the unbaptized catechumen is asked what he desires from holy Church, and he answers "Faith." The unbaptized catechumen does not have "the Faith", so he begs the Church for it in the "Sacrament of Faith" (Baptism), which alone makes him one of "the faithful."

St. John Chrysostom (Hom. in Io. 25, 3), Bishop and Doctor of the Church:

"For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful… One has Christ for his King; the other sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes… Since then we have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion?… Let us then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city above… for if it should come to pass (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble."

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) which without hope and charity faith cannot bestow."

And with these facts in mind (that a catechumen "begs" for the faith because he isn’t part of the faithful), remember the definition of Pope Innocent III at the Fourth Lateran Council: "There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved…" The original Latin reads: "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.

4) Is Our Lord’s command to be baptized impossible for some to fulfill?

Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism, Tan Books, p. 171:

"Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave to 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."

As proven above, God commanded all men to be baptized. The supporters of the theory of baptism of desire argue that for some people the command to be baptized is impossible to fulfill.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 11 on Justification, ex cathedra:

"... no one should make use of that rash statement forbidden under anathema by the Fathers, that the commandments of God are impossible to observe for a man who is justified. ‘FOR GOD DOES NOT COMMAND IMPOSSIBILITIES, but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do…"

Is Lefebvrism Catholic?

Recently, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX – Lefebvrists) published two books attacking the teaching of the Church on Baptism. They spend their time trying to figure out ways for people to be saved without baptism – but to no avail. Baptism of Desire by Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau was published by the SSPX in 1999, while Is Feeneyism Catholic? by Fr. Francois Laisney was published in 2001. The premise of these books - especially Is Feeneyism Catholic? - is that it is not Catholic to take John 3:5 as it is written. Such a premise not only condemns the teaching of the Council of Trent, that John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written (as we have shown), but it literally means that you are not Catholic if you believe exactly what the following Magisterial teaching declares:

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Exultate Deo, 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 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."

Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (# 15), Dec. 11, 1925 (to all patriarchs, primates, archbishops, and bishops): "Indeed this kingdom is presented in the Gospels as such, into which men prepare to enter by doing penance; moreover, they cannot enter it except through faith and baptism, which, although an external rite, yet signifies and effects an interior regeneration."

Here we see the Council of Florence authoritatively teaching that no one at all can be saved without water baptism, and Pope Pius XI teaching that no one can enter the kingdom of God without faith and the external rite of baptism (i.e., the sacrament administered in water). The Society of St. Pius X’s books teach that these statements of Pope Eugene IV and Pope Pius XI are not Catholic. Anyone who obstinately promotes, defends or supports such a view (or the books) is a heretic, which unfortunately also includes the Society of St. Pius V, the C.M.R.I. and most other independent priests. One who would obstinately give financial support to such a group would also be a heretic, for then one would be supporting their heretical position, among others. All of these groups also believe that people can be saved in non-Catholic religions, which totally rejects the dogma that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. The C.M.R.I. actually printed an article in their magazine, The Reign of Mary, entitled "The Salvation of Those Outside the Church." It is not possible to deny the dogma more directly.

Besides the heretical premise described above, there is much, much more that could be mentioned about the recent works of the Society of St. Pius X, especially Is Feeneyism Catholic? by Father Laisney. You don’t want to miss our in-depth review of these books in issue #6 of our magazine, in the section on the Society of St. Pius X. But here we will just mention a few things about each book.

Baptism of Desire by Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau pretends to be an examination of the Church’s teaching on what is necessary for salvation: the necessity of baptism, the necessity of faith in Jesus Christ, etc. Yet amazingly, in the entire book, the author does not quote one (I repeat, not one) of the ex cathedra (infallible) Papal statements on Outside the Church There is No Salvation! I guess he didn’t feel they were relevant? He did feel it important to mention, however, that Baptism of Desire can occur among paganism (BOD, p. 64); that justifying faith can come from false religions (BOD, p. 61); that it is an error to attribute infallibility to every document of the Magisterium (BOD, p. 9) – all of which is heresy! The author also states that to refuse St. Thomas Aquinas is to refuse the Magisterium (BOD, p. 11)! This utterance is particularly absurd and quite hypocritical when we consider that the same author, when treating of whether implicit or explicit faith in Jesus is necessary to be saved (pp. 56-57), remarks that he’s not sure what authority St. Thomas’ opinion on this point holds – since St. Thomas says that explicit belief in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation and the Society of St. Pius X does not! So much for "to refuse St. Thomas Aquinas is to refuse the Magisterium."

As distressing as Baptism of Desire was, Fr. Laisney’s book Is Feeneyism Catholic? is even worse. For instance, there are these incredible statements of Father Laisney:

Father Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, pp. 47-48: "Moreover, the very Council of Florence, in the very same decree for the Jacobites (part of the bull Cantate Domino) mentions baptism of desire!… Thus far from being against Baptism of Desire, the very Council of Florence, the very bull Cantate Domino, teaches it as being ‘another remedy’ permitting a delay for adult catechumens for the reasons given by St. Thomas."

This is scary, especially from one who claims to be a traditional Catholic priest. The Council of Florence mentions absolutely nothing about baptism of desire! It mentions nothing of adult catechumens; and it mentions nothing of "baptism of desire" being "another remedy" "for the reasons given by St. Thomas"! These are all lies! And Fr. Laisney knows that this is true. But because he is so diabolically and uncontrollably biased and obsessed in his quest to prove that men can be saved without baptism, he could not refrain from adding them in – to his own perdition, if he does not convert. And then there are Fr. Laisney’s amazing contradictions:

Fr. Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 9: "… this is Baptism of Blood, which – the Church teaches – can save also little children dying with their parents for Christ."

Fr. Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 22: "Note that an infant, not having yet the use of his reason, has no other possibility to be saved than through the actual reception of the sacrament of baptism, i.e., baptism of water."

Hello? On page 9 he asserts that infants can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism – by baptism of blood. On page 22 he assures us that "there is no other possibility" for infants to be saved other than the Sacrament of Baptism. Fr. Laisney cannot even avoid contradicting himself about what he says "the Church teaches" (page 9), let alone what the Church really teaches. The worst part of this mess is that Pope Eugene IV dogmatically defined that infants have no other remedy for original sin other than the Sacrament of Baptism, a dogma which Laisney quotes on page 47! - denies on page 9! - affirms on page 22! - and then denies again on page 77! This type of dishonesty, contradiction and heresy characterizes the books of the Society of St. Pius X on baptism and salvation.

Moreover, the SSPX – Lefebvrists continue to promote the heretical idea that people can be saved in false religions. The books by Archbishop Lefebvre, particularly Against the Heresies (pp. 216-218) and Open Letter to Confused Catholics (pp. 73-74) – two of the SSPX’s best sellers – blatantly deny the dogma that men are saved only in the Catholic religion. In Against the Heresies page 216, Lefebvre writes: " Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.)…" Page 217 says: "One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions…" Page 218: "When we say that (Outside the Church there is no salvation), 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." Will anyone considering himself a "traditional Catholic" have the audacity to say that these statements from Lefebvre are not heretical? They are blatantly heretical! Anyone who would say that they are not heretical is a heretic himself who rejects the defined dogma "outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation." No Catholic who knows that the SSPX teaches and promotes heresy, as we have just proven, can give them a penny of financial support if he desires to remain Catholic. The following words of Pope Gregory XVI could have been addressed specifically to the SSPX and those who defend the heretical teaching that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion.

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), 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."

Strange Heresy?

In May of 1999, the St. Benedict Center in Richmond, NH accused us in their newsletter of holding a "strange heresy". The subject of their attack was our view that the true justification of a sinner (i.e., the state of grace) cannot be attained without water baptism. They hold that while baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation by divine law, one can be regenerated (justified/born again) by the mere desire for baptism. They believe in a baptism of desire that justifies but does not save, and they call our view that there is no justification at all without baptism heretical. The absolute stupidity of such an assertion by the modern-day St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire becomes very clear when this topic is examined more deeply. For example, they accuse us of holding a strange heresy when this was the teaching of St. Ambrose (W. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Liturgical Press, Vol. 2:1330).

St. Ambrose: "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."

What’s amazing about this is that the St. Benedict Center (Richmond, NH) even quotes this passage from St. Ambrose in their books to prove their position (e.g., Father Feeney and the Truth about Salvation, p. 132). So this position – that one cannot be justified without baptism – is put forward as true by the St. Benedict Center when they quote St. Ambrose; but in their newsletter they call this very same position a "strange heresy" because they feel like attacking Most Holy Family Monastery. What incredible hypocrisy! Furthermore, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, as early as the year 451, had already defined this doctrine as St. Ambrose expressed it and as we believe it.

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."

Before we get into the tremendous significance of this pronouncement, we will give a little background on this dogmatic letter. This is Pope St. Leo the Great’s famous dogmatic letter to Flavian, originally written in 449, and later accepted by the Council of Chalcedon – the fourth general Council of the Church – in 451 (quoted in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Georgetown Press, Vol. 1, p. 81). It is one of the most important documents in the history of the Church. This is the famous letter which, when read aloud at the dogmatic Council of Chalcedon, caused all of the fathers of the Council (more than 500) to rise to their feet and proclaim: "This is the faith of the Fathers, the faith of the apostles; Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo." The very letter in itself embodies the term ex cathedra (speaking from the Chair of Peter), as proven by the reaction of the fathers at Chalcedon. This dogmatic letter of Pope Leo was accepted by the Council of Chalcedon in its definition of faith, which was approved authoritatively by Pope Leo himself. It is unquestionably dogmatic and Magisterial.

And if that were not sufficient to prove that Pope Leo's letter is without question infallible, consider the fact that it was also approved by Pope Vigilius at the Second Council of Constantinople (553) and by Pope St. Agatho at the Third Council of Constantinople (680-681). It was also confirmed infallibly by a number of other Popes, including: Pope St. Gelasius, Pope Pelagius II, 553 (Den. 246) and Pope Benedict XIV, 1743 (Denz. 1463). Because of the tremendous significance of Pope Leo's letter to the topic at hand, we will quote an extract from Pope St. Gelasius which shows how no one can contradict, in the slightest way, this dogmatic epistle of Pope Leo to Flavian.

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." (Denz. 165)

Here we have Pope St. Gelasius speaking ex cathedra to condemn anyone who would depart, even in regard to one iota, from the text of Pope Leo's dogmatic epistle to Flavian.

Now, in the section of Pope Leo’s dogmatic letter quoted above, he is dealing with the sanctification by the Spirit. "Sanctification by the Spirit" is the term for Justification from the state of sin (the state of grace). No one can get to heaven without Sanctification by the Spirit, as everyone professing to be Catholic admits. Pope St. Leo affirms, on the authority of the great apostles Sts. Peter and John, that this Sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood. It is only by receiving the blood of Redemption, he proves, that one can be changed from the state of Adam (original sin) to the state of grace (justification/sanctification). It is only by this Blood that Sanctification by the Spirit works. This dogma was also defined by the Council of Trent.

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."

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: "But although Christ died for all, yet not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His Passion is communicated."

It is a divinely revealed truth that no one can be freed from the state of sin and sanctified without the application the blood of Redemption to him. Of this no Catholic can doubt.

Baptism of desire/blood advocates – as well as the St. Benedict Center, since they believe in justification by desire – explain that the blood of Redemption, which effects the Sanctification by the Spirit, is applied to the soul by the desire for baptism or by his martyrdom, without water baptism. They assert that the Spirit of Sanctification and the blood of Redemption are able to bring a soul to this Justification/Sanctification without water baptism. But this is exactly the opposite of what Pope Leo the Great defines dogmatically! Let us quote the crucial portions of his statement again:

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)… 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! You must be baptized with water to receive the Spirit of Sanctification and the blood of Redemption, according to this dogma. There can be no Justification by the Spirit and the Blood without the water! This excludes the very concept of baptism of desire and baptism blood, which is that sanctification by the Spirit and the Blood without water is possible.

A sinner cannot be sanctified by the Spirit and the Blood, which he must in order to be saved, without the water of Baptism. In light of this dogmatic letter, baptism of desire and baptism of blood cannot be held, for these theories separate the Spirit and the Blood from the water in sanctification.

And lest someone tries to find fault with this infallible definition by arguing that the Blessed Virgin Mary is an exception to it, it should be recognized that Pope St. Leo is defining on sanctification/justification from the state of sin.

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)…"

The Blessed Virgin Mary had no sin. She was conceived already in a state of perfect sanctification. Since Pope Leo is defining on sanctification/justification from sin, his definition does not apply in any way to her.

Therefore, there can be no Justification of a sinner without water baptism (de fide). There can be no application to a sinner of Christ’s Redemptive Blood without water baptism (de fide). There can be no salvation without water baptism (de fide). By separating the Spirit of Sanctification and the Blood of Redemption from the water of baptism, baptism of desire and blood advocates – and the St. Benedict Center – teach contrary to Pope Leo’s dogmatic pronouncement. And this is HERESY!

The significance of Pope St. Leo’s pronouncement is tremendous. It naturally crushes any idea of salvation the supposedly "invincibly ignorant." These souls cannot be sanctified and cleansed by the Blood of Christ without receiving the saving waters of baptism, which God will bring to those of good will. The Sacrament of Baptism is the only way that the Blood of Christ is applied to a sinner.

The dogma that the blood of Christ is applied to a sinner in the Sacrament of Baptism was defined by the Council of Trent; however, the definition is not as specific as Pope Leo’s. The difference is that, whereas Trent’s definition sets forth the principle that the blood of Christ is applied to a sinner in the sacrament of baptism, Pope Leo’s definition confirms that this means that the blood of Christ can be applied to a sinner only by the Sacrament of Baptism.

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."

Pope St. Leo’s pronouncement also radically confirms the Church’s consistent understanding of the words of Jesus Christ in John 3:5 in their absolutely literal sense: Unless a man is born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Those who comprehend this pronouncement from Pope Leo must reject any belief in the theories of baptism of desire and blood. They must cease believing and teaching that sanctification by the Spirit comes without the Spirit, the blood and the water. Those who refuse to do this are obstinately contradicting the teaching of the Church. To obstinately contradict the teaching of the Church is to fall into heresy. To fall into heresy without repentance is to lose one’s salvation.

Some may wonder why some early Church fathers, saints, and theologians taught baptism of desire and blood even after the time of Pope Leo’s pronouncement. The answer is simple: They were unaware of Pope Leo’s definitive pronouncement in this regard. They were erring in good faith. They were fallible human beings. They were not aware that their position was contrary to the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.

But once one recognizes that this position on baptism of desire and blood is contrary to the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church – as a careful consideration of Pope Leo’s pronouncement proves – one must change his position if he wants to remain Catholic and save his soul. Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo and confirmed for us that the Spirit of Sanctification and the Blood of redemption cannot be separated from their link with water baptism, so we must align our position with this or else we don’t have the faith of Peter.

There are other errors in the St. Benedict Center’s explanation of Justification, which are catalogued in issue #6 (see Errors of the Current St. Benedict Center). Since these errors deal with finer points of this issue, there is no doubt that many supporters of the St. Benedict Center have held - and some still may hold - these errors in good faith, while affirming the dogma that the Catholic Faith and Baptism are necessary for salvation. But the current day leadership and many of its affiliates are obstinate and refuse to correct themselves, and bring down on their heads definite anathema when they condemn the teaching of the Church described above as a strange heresy. The most obvious area in which they show themselves to be obstinate against the teaching of the Church on this issue is in regard to the dogma that "outside the Church there is no remission of sins." The St. Benedict Center holds that an unbaptized catechumen is outside the Catholic Church (which is correct, since only Baptism makes one a member), but that the same unbaptized catechumen can have Justification (remission of sins and sanctifying grace) by his desire for baptism, while he is still outside the Church. This is contrary to the ex cathedra definition of Boniface VIII below. It is therefore heresy to say, as they do, that one who is outside the Church can have his sins remitted. We pray that the affiliates of the St. Benedict Center will change their heretical position on this matter, as well as their heretical allegiance to the Vatican II Church, because they have endured unjust persecution from heretics who hate the dogma outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation and Our Lord Jesus Christ’s doctrine on the necessity of Baptism.

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:

"With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church OUTSIDE OF WHICH THERE IS NO SALVATION NOR REMISSION OF SIN… Furthermore we declare, say, define and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff."

John 3:5 vs. John 6:54

Some writers, including Fr. Laisney in Is Feeneyism Catholic?, have tried to refute a literal interpretation of John 3:5 by appealing to the words of Our Lord in John 6:54: "Amen, amen I say to you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you." They argue that the language in this verse is the same as in John 3:5, and yet the Church doesn’t take Jn. 6:54 literally – for infants don’t need to receive the Eucharist to be saved. But the argument falters because the proponents of this argument have missed a crucial difference in the wording of these two verses.

John 6:54- "Amen, amen I say to you: EXCEPT YOU EAT the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."

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."

Our Lord Jesus Christ, when speaking on the necessity of receiving the Eucharist in John 6:54, does not say: "unless a man eat the flesh of the Son of man…" He says: "Except you…" His words, therefore, are clearly intended for the people to whom He was speaking, not every man. Since the people to whom He was speaking could receive the Eucharist, they had to in order to be saved. This applies to all who can receive the Eucharist, which is what the Church teaches. But in John 3:5 Our Lord unequivocally speaks of every man. This is why the Catholic Church’s magisterial teaching, in every single instance it has dealt with John 3:5, has taken it as it is written (see Council of Carthage, Denz 102; Florence, Denz. 696; Trent, Sess. 5, no. 4, Denz. 791; Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4; Trent, Can. 2 and 5 on Baptism, Denz. 858 and 861.). Also, one should note that Trent’s Canons on Baptism are Canons on the Sacrament (Canones de sacramento baptismi). This means that Can. 5 (see below) condemns anyone who says that the Sacrament of Baptism (i.e., water baptism) is not necessary for salvation. It also takes John 3:5 literally once again, as the Church always does.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, Can. 5: "IF ANYONE SHALL SAY THAT BAPTISM IS OPTIONAL, THAT IS, NOT NECESSARY FOR SALVATION (cf. John 3:5): let him be anathema."

John 3:5-7: "Jesus answered: 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… WONDER NOT, that I said to thee, YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN."

Extra copies available of the 4-page version of this newsletter: 10- $5.00, 25- $10.00, 75- $20.00, 250- $30.00, 500- $50.00 (prices include shipping). For a hard copy of issue #6 of A Voice Crying in the Wilderness ("Outside the Catholic Church there is Absolutely No Salvation") - $20.00 (price includes shipping). Issue#6 will also be posted on our web site. Contact: Most Holy Family Monastery, 4425 Schneider Rd., Fillmore, NY 14735, (800)275-1126 or (585)567-4433.

Sitemap