Debates on the dogma Outside the Church There is No
Salvation and the idea of “baptism of desire”
These are some recent debates we had
on Outside the Church There is No Salvation and “baptism of desire.” The following four were the only people
confident enough to do a recorded phone conversation about the issue (3
“traditionalists” and 1 member of the Novus Ordo). Even though we had numerous sedevacantist
priests on the phone and specifically asked them to have a recorded
conversation about the issue, including Bishop McKenna, Fr. Collins, Fr. Adam
C., none of them were confident enough to have a recorded discussion.
This is particularly revealing,
especially when we consider that they claim to be correct and
knowledgeable. If they claim to
understand the Church’s teaching on this issue, why the reluctance? Why are they so afraid to simply discuss the
issue in a recorded conversation? It’s
because their positions would be refuted and exposed. We also had about five other outspoken
lay-proponents of baptism of desire on the phone. Many of them even had time to discuss the
issue, but wouldn’t have it recorded.
It’s a shame that they did not give permission for the exchanges to be
recorded because their false positions were refuted. If anyone is willing to debate the issue in a
telephone conversation, contact us.
Debate on baptism of desire with sedevacantist Ken Bird [1 hr. 46 min. audio – Jan. 2009]
This
Ken is a different Ken from the one below.
This Ken, who originally liked our material, became very much opposed to
us and to our material after being persuaded by arguments for baptism of desire
which were made by other sedevacantist priests,
bishops and groups. He became convinced
that they had the truth on this issue and that we did not. The cordial tone of this conversation doesn’t
really capture how very opposed Ken had become to our position. Coming into the conversation, Ken thought
that we were completely wrong, heretical and theologically ignorant on the
issue. He denounced us in no uncertain
terms. To our pleasant surprise and to
his credit, in the course of the conversation Ken couldn’t resist the arguments
from dogmatic teaching which refute baptism of desire and he changed his
position! Many angles to the baptism of
desire controversy are discussed in this exchange, especially later on. However, we simply didn’t get to some other
facets of this issue. (As an example, a
passage in Sess. 7 of the Council of Trent is mentioned in passing but we
simply never got to discussing it.)
Debate on baptism of desire with
"traditionalist" Roger Owen [24
min. audio – Jan. 2009]
Roger
claims to be a traditional Catholic. He
wrote to us saying that we are wrong on the baptism of desire issue. He said that the Church teaches that people
can be justified before baptism by desire.
He agreed to call us and debate/discuss the issue. Unfortunately, this debate only lasted 24
minutes. Roger suddenly became unwilling
to discuss the issue after his first few arguments were refuted. (Since Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of the Council of
Trent is discussed here and in following conversations, it should be emphasized
that the reason for the inclusion of the word “desire” in that passage is
because it’s talking about justification of adults and it’s necessary for those
above the age of reason to desire water baptism, in addition to being baptized,
as the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches. That’s discussed more at length in the
section on that decree in our book.)
Debate-exchange on baptism of
desire with sedevacantist Ken G. [8 min. audio – Jan. 2009]
This
is an interesting short telephone exchange with a sedevacantist supporter of
baptism of desire named Ken G. He has
strongly criticized and attacked people who don’t believe in “baptism of
desire,” such as ourselves. We would characterize this individual as part
of the vicious crowd of pro-baptism of desire heretics in our day. He purports to be a knowledgeable “Catholic”
who understands the traditional faith.
This conversation, although short, reveals that he doesn’t understand
the Catholic faith. It exposes his bad
will and his false position, even though we barely had any time at all to
develop anything, but only to quickly refute the first two objections he
raised.
He
only stays on the telephone for eight minutes and barely gives us a chance to
speak. In that short time, however, one
of the myths that is central to his belief in baptism
of desire (the false idea that a doctor of the Church cannot teach doctrinal
error) is refuted. His false
understanding of theology is further exposed.
He asserts that we are wrong and that we don’t have the authority to
denounce anyone as a heretic. When that
is refuted by simply pointing out that, based on such an assertion, he could not
denounce Benedict XVI as a heretic; and he should therefore submit to the
Vatican II Church, we see that he gets flustered, contradicts himself, and runs
from that fact which just refuted his false assertion. His assertion, that we don’t have the authority
to say anyone is a heretic, undercuts his own rejection of the Vatican II sect
and forces him to conclude that he cannot denounce Benedict XVI as a
heretic. He thus proves that he is a
complete modernist.
If
he had stayed on the phone longer, all of his false arguments would have been
refuted. That’s why he (in his bad will)
had to skip out early and attempt to not let me speak for the duration of the
time he stayed on the phone. This
conversation shows us again that the baptism of desire advocates, including the
most knowledgeable, have nothing to prove their position with except for a
collection of fallible arguments and theological myths (such as that a doctor
of the Church cannot make a doctrinal error) which crumble when put to the
test. That’s why it’s so hard to get any
of them to do this kind of thing. They
prefer to hide behind their computers (where they cannot be put on the spot)
and ignore and pervert the truth by specious argumentation. He also says that disputes on this issue are
simply Satan’s attempt to divide “traditional Catholics.” On the contrary, it is the heresy that people
don’t need to be baptized Catholics to be saved, which he and others accept and
defend, which has been the key to the Vatican II apostasy and which divides
them from the Catholic faith. In fact,
this conversation reveals how his heresy on this point leads him into
modernistic apostasy, that people don’t have the authority to denounce anyone
as a heretic. Heretics such as this must
be refuted and exposed.
Debate-exchange with William Golle
on baptism of desire - part 1 [51 min. audio – Jan. 2009]
Debate-exchange with William Golle
on baptism of desire - part 2 [29 min. audio – Jan. 2009]
This is a debate/discussion with William Golle. He believes in baptism of desire and is also
a member of the Vatican II Church under Benedict XVI. This was an informal debate, but the
understanding was that he would let me speak without interruption and vice
versa. After letting Mr. Golle speak without interruption to begin this
debate/exchange, notice that almost
immediately after I begin to speak (about the 3:06 mark) he interrupts me. This would set the tone for this exchange, in
which he interrupted me repeatedly.
Conforming to this tone which was set by Golle,
we began to interrupt each other throughout.
Nevertheless, despite this choppy
and highly contentious format in the first part, many very interesting and
important points are covered.
In Part 1 of this exchange, we see again that baptism of desire is
a tower of sand. All of the arguments
raised for baptism of desire are from fallible sources and can be refuted. In short, the arguments do not prove that the
Catholic Church has taught baptism of desire.
We also see that Golle is forced to admit that
a very source which he deems definitive on this issue (the Catechism attributed
to Pius X) teaches heresy on this very issue; but then he tries to deny it
after having admitted it. Invincible
ignorance is also discussed. Among other
things, we see that Mr. Golle shows profound
dishonesty on numerous fronts. For
instance, he asserts that St. Thomas taught invincible ignorance, which is not
true. At the 30-minute mark, Mr. Golle claims that he does not believe that Jews can be
saved. In the second section, however,
he bluntly admits that they can be saved, demonstrating again that he (and
others who hold his position) are utter liars.
After the
first 50-minutes of this exchange, we agreed to pause
the recording and start afresh (in Part 2) with an exchange during which each
of us would remain silent for about 2 minutes as the other person spoke. It’s a shame (and probably not an accident)
that only 30-minutes into this imposed silence format, he didn’t want to go any
longer. In the second section, his
claims on the Council of Trent are addressed and refuted, including the common
error that Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent taught that desire for baptism justifies,
which it does not. It taught that
justification cannot happen without water baptism or the desire for it (as in a
shower cannot be taken without soap or water – both are necessary), mentioning
the desire because it’s discussing adult justification and recipients above the
age of reason must desire water baptism to be justified, in addition to being
baptized.
www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com