Thefolly of those who obstinately and tenaciously fight for baptism of desire

By Bro. Peter Dimond

IT’SA FACT THAT EVERY SINGLE SAINT AND DOCTOR IN THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH WHO BELIEVEDIN BAPTISM OF DESIRE ONLY APPLIED IT TO CATECHUMENS WHO BELIEVED IN JESUSCHRIST AND THE TRINITY.

Ihate to have recourse to practical arguments, since all dogmas are not only tobe professed, but also interiorly believed:

Pope St. Pius X condemned the followingModernist proposition on July 3, 1907 in “Lamentabili Sane”: “The dogmas offaith are to be held only according to a practical sense, that is, aspreceptive norms for action, but not as norms for believing.”- Condemned

However,with this issue, if we move away for a moment from all of the dogmaticarguments which refute baptism of desire (found here: The Book: Outside theCatholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation), there area few practical considerations which show that it’s absurd and foolish forpeople to make an issue of defending “baptism of desire.” 

Asstated above, the saints who believed in baptism of desire only applied it tothose who believed in Jesus Christ and the Trinity.  That’s why there aren’t any quotes fromsaints or doctors stating that a Jew or a Buddhist or a Muslim can be united tothe Church through his “invincible ignorance.” Therefore, any person defending“baptism of desire” is spending all of his time and effort trying to convincepeople that unbaptized catechumens don’t need to be baptized.  How many people fall into a situation wherethey die just before baptism?  Almost none.  Further,baptism of desire advocates don’t know that such individuals are saved, notonly because the opposite is infallibly true, but because they cannot say, even in their own minds, that such individualsinfallibly had the proper dispositions to receive “baptism of desire.”

Thus,even if it were true that such a tiny number of individuals could be saved (which it isn’t), what good canpossibly come out of insisting that they can? The answer is none.  Anyone whothinks about it should admit that no good comes out of this effort, but only indifferentismfrom those many individuals who will conclude – and the millions who haveconcluded – that because a catechumen can be saved without baptism, others canas well.  Since only bad results can andhave from the insistence that baptism is not necessary for catechumens, whatgood is there in fighting for it?  Why onearth can’t they simply affirm as St. Ambrose, St. John Chrysostom and St.Augustine did, that all – including catechumens – need to be baptized forsalvation?

St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391A.D.:

“You have read, therefore, that the threewitnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdrawany one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid.  For what is water without the cross ofChrist?  A common elementwithout any sacramental effect.  Nor on the other hand is there any mysteryof regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man beborn again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John3:5]  Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the LordJesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name ofthe Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive theremission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the EarlyFathers, Vol. 2: 1330.)

St. John Chrysostom, Hom. inIo. 25, 3:

“Forthe 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 meatwhich decays and perishes… Since then we have nothing in common, in what, tellme, shall we hold communion?… Let us then givediligence that we may become citizens of the city above… for if it should come to pass (which God forbid!) that through thesudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have tenthousand virtues, our portion will be none other than hell, and the venomousworm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.”

St. Augustine,391: “When we shall have come into His [God’s] sight, we shall behold theequity of God’s justice.  Then no onewill say:… ‘Whywas this man led by God’s direction to be baptized, while that man, though helived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster, and wasnot baptized?’ Look for rewards, andyou will find nothing except punishments.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3:1496.)

Whycan’t they simply affirm, with Jesus Christ and the Council of Trent, thatunless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into theKingdom of God?

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent,Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “Ifanyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessaryfor 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:  “Ifanyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, andon 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, ex cathedra:  “Holy baptism, which is the gateway tothe spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through itwe are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church.  And since death enteredthe universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water andthe Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’[John 3:5].  The matter ofthis sacrament is real and natural water.”

Whycan’t they simply affirm, with Pope Clement V and the infallible Council ofVienne, that there is only one baptism of water which must be confessed by allCatholics?

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne,1311-1312, ex cathedra: “Besides, one baptism which regenerates all who arebaptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as‘one God and one faith’ [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water inthe name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be commonly the perfect remedy forsalvation for adults as for children.”

Whycan’t they simply affirm, with Pope Pius IX, that there is one Lord, one Faithand one Baptism and that it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry?

Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadem: “For, in truth, whenreleased from these corporeal chains, ‘we shall see God as He is’ (1 John 3:2),we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercyand justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by thismortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, inaccordance with Catholic teaching, there is ‘one God, one faith, one baptism’[Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.”

Thefruits of this theory (or if you want to call it a perversion of the originalfalse theory) are undeniably horrible – indeed abominable – since it is a factthat basically everyone who denies the necessity of Christ hides under thesupposed “shield” of “baptism of desire” to justify his or her heresy.  Even baptism of desire advocates cannot denythis fact.  Baptism of desire, in ourday, is truly and literally a false Christ: it “saves” people – according toalmost every “Catholic” today – who don’t even believe in Jesus Christ.  So, why can’t people simply affirm with theCouncil of Trent – which only mentions the word “catechumens” one time in itsdogmatic teaching and states that catechumens don’t have the Faith whichgives life eternal – that all must be baptized to be saved, and move on?

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent,Session 6, Chap. 7 on Justification, ex cathedra:“… the instrumental cause [ofJustification] 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 theSacrament of Baptism, when they ask for ‘faith which bestows life eternal,’(Rit. Rom., Ordo Baptismi).”

In light of theseconsiderations, any reasonable person would have to admit that it is absurd –IT IS FOLLY, since it accomplishes nothing good but only evil – to obstinatelyinsist that men don’t need baptism.  Anysincere and reasonable person would agree that all must be baptized forsalvation and move on. 

Butthose who tenaciously defend the ideaof “baptism of desire” cannot simply affirm that all must be baptized forsalvation and move on (even though this is defined by the Church) because thosewho tenaciously and obstinately defend “baptism of desire” (in the face of theinfallible arguments against it, and in the face of the facts refuting thefalse objections in its favor) are evil. They have an evil spiritual element working in them that thwarts reasonand good sense, which is rebelling against the necessity of Our Lord JesusChrist and the Catholic Faith.  That’s the only reason for their evil andabominable insistence that men don’t need baptism.  They are accomplishing nothing exceptspreading the idea that Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith are not necessaryfor man’s salvation.  If it were just amatter of unbaptized catechumens, then they would never tenaciously (inthe face of all the arguments) defend baptism of desire.  They tenaciously defend baptism of desirebecause there is more at stake for them than the catechumen issue.

Whenthese tenacious defenders of baptism of desire appear before the Judgment Seatof Our Lord Jesus Christ, the one who laid down the requirement that unless aman is born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter the Kingdom ofGod (John 3:5), they will be condemned to eternal damnation not only fortenaciously denying His truth that all men must be baptized (a solemnlydefined dogma), but also for obstinatelyasserting something (that one doesn’t need His baptism) which does not benefitanyone, even from their falseperspective that certain men can be saved without baptism.

Thereare so many arguments (not from fallible teaching, but infallibleteaching) which refute baptism of desire. They come from dogmatic teaching on Church membership, dogmatic teachingon subjection to the Roman Pontiff, dogmatic definitions on the Sacrament ofBaptism, dogmatic teaching on the Church’s literal understanding of John 3:5,etc.  Any good-willed person whoconsiders all of it will agree that no one can be saved without baptism. 

However,when we consider the practical reasons discussed above in conjunctionwith the infallible teaching on the necessity of baptism, one can onlyscratch his head, dumbstruck at the foolishness and the bad will ofthose who, in accomplishing nothing but spreading a false Christ and a falsepath to salvation, tenaciously defend the idea that baptism is notnecessary.  They do this to no effect other than tospread religious indifferentism and give non-Catholics a reason for remainingunbaptized and outside the Church. Their tenacious defense that men don’t need baptism is simply an attackon Our Lord Jesus Christ, His necessity and His salvation, which He hasconnected with His Baptism:

1 Peter 3:20-21: “… when they waited for the patience of God inthe days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eightsouls were saved by water.  Whereunto baptism being of the likeform, now saveth you also…”

Titus 3:5- “Not by the works of justice, which we have done, but according tohis mercy, he saved us, by the laverof regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost…”

Andto think that people are being thrown out of “traditional” chapels for holdingthat all men must be baptized… it’s evil and abominable.

www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com