IMPORTANT NEW QUOTES AND POINTS ON THE SALVATION DOGMA AND REFUTING “BAPTISM OF DESIRE”

 

By Bro. Peter Dimond

There are hundreds of critical quotes, arguments and facts on this topic which can be found in our book and in our other materials.  This file will contain just new quotes and points which we consider interesting and important.  It will be expanded as time goes along.

 

St. Robert Bellarmine says St. Thomas might not have seen the seventh and eighth councils

 

MHFM: This is an interesting new quote we recently came across from St. Robert Bellarmine regarding St. Thomas Aquinas.

 

St. Robert Bellarmine: “It is very credible that St. Thomas, Alexander of Hales, and other scholastic doctors had not seen the second synod of Nice [Nicea II], nor the eighth general synod… [they] were long in obscurity, and were first published in our own age, as may be known from their not being extant in the older volumes of the councils; and St. Thomas and the other ancient schoolmen never make any mention of this Nicene Synod.” (De Imag. Sanct. Lib. II. Cap. Xxij.; quoted in NPNF2, Vol. 14, p. 526)

 

St. Robert Bellarmine says that St. Thomas Aquinas was probably unaware of what was taught in the seventh and eighth ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church: that is, the Second Council of Nicea in 787, and the Fourth Council of Constantinople in 869-870.  This is a significant statement.  Some people have argued that it’s impossible or unthinkable that a doctor of the Church could be wrong or ignorant of something taught at a council.  We have tried to tell them otherwise.  The teaching of doctors of the Church is important, but it is not infallible.  A doctor of the Church can be wrong and even ignorant of certain things that have been taught by the Church.  Their teaching certainly does not weigh more than the teaching of the Magisterium.

 

Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”

 

Errors of the Jansenists, #30: “When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold it and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope.”- Condemned by Pope Alexander VIII

 

Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: “This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.’”

 

So we can see that the defenders of “baptism of desire”– and even those who say that it’s unthinkable that baptism of desire could be incompatible with Catholic teaching if a doctor of the Church believed in it – are wrong again.

 

Baptism of desire refuted by what it means to be “born again”

 

In the following audio, an important new argument against “baptism of desire” is discussed.  This argument deals with what it means to be “born again.”

 

Exposing two heretical books promoted by "traditionalists," Suprema haec sacra, refuting baptism of desire, and a new argument [new 54 min. audio]

 

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Decree on Original Sin, #5: “If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only touched in person or is not imputed, let him be anathema. For in those who are born again, God hates nothing, because "there is no condemnation, to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism unto death" [Rom. 6:4], who do not "walk according to the flesh" [Rom. 8:1], but putting off "the old man" and putting on the "new, who is created according to God" [Eph. 4:22 ff.; Col. 3:9 ff.], are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless and beloved sons of God, "heirs indeed of God, but co-heirs with Christ" [Rom.8:17], so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven. But this holy Synod confesses and perceives that there remains in the baptized concupiscence of an inclination, although this is left to be wrestled with, it cannot harm those who do not consent, but manfully resist by the grace of Jesus Christ. Nay, indeed, "he who shall have striven lawfully, shall be crowned" [2 Tim. 2:5]. This concupiscence, which at times the Apostle calls sin [Rom. 6:12 ff.] the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood to be called sin, as truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is from sin and inclines to sin. But if anyone is of the contrary opinion, let him be anathema.”  (Denz. 792)

 

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, Chap. 3: “For, as indeed men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation, they contract through him, in conception, injustice as their own, so unless they were born again in Christ, they never would be justified, since in that new birth through the merit of His passion, the grace, whereby they are made just, is bestowed upon them.” (Denz. 795)

 

As we see here, one must be “born again” to be justified (put into a state of grace), and therefore to be saved.  We also see that those who are “born again” not only receive the state of grace, but also a complete remission of the temporal punishment due to their sins.  That’s what the Sacrament of Baptism gives.  That’s why those who are “born again” go straight to Heaven if they die immediately after baptism.  They wouldn’t need to go to Purgatory to satisfy for the temporal punishment due to their sins which were committed before baptism.  It was all taken away when they were “born again.”

 

Why is this important?  It’s important because St. Alphonsus, in explaining what he believes about “baptism of desire,” says that “baptism of desire” does not take away the punishment due to sins.  That’s a big problem for the (false) idea of “baptism of desire” – a devastating one, in fact.  By admitting that it doesn’t take away the temporal punishment due to sin, St. Alphonsus is saying that it doesn’t give the actual grace which is proper to baptism and that it doesn’t make one “born again”; for the Council of Trent defines that those who are “born again” have everything removed and would go straight  to Heaven.

 

Therefore, St. Alphonsus’ teaching on baptism of desire is simply dead wrong.  He made an error.  He was not infallible.  It cannot be reconciled with the teaching of the Church.  Baptism of desire is a false and man-made theory, which is why its most impressive defenders explain it in ways that cannot be reconciled with Catholic teaching or even with other definitions of the “theory.”

 

Important new quotes and points will be added to this file as time goes along…

 

 

Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation and refuting baptism of desire - book, audio program, articles

 

 

 

 

www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com

www.vaticancatholic.com