A Short Refutation of the Theory of Baptism
of Desire
-
Bro. Peter Dimond -
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
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
Catechism
of the Council of
"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
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."
"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.
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
"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),
Here we see the Council of
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
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
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. 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
What’s amazing about this is
that the
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
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
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
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
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
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam,
"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
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
Our Lord Jesus Christ, when
speaking on the necessity of receiving the Eucharist in John
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."
www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com