The Dogma that there
is No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church and without the Catholic Faith and
refuting baptism of desire
-The
most comprehensive book, facts, arguments and articles on the Catholic Church’s
dogmatic teaching Outside the Church There is No Salvation and the baptism of
desire controversy-
By Bro. Peter Dimond
Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No
Salvation
[PDF
FILE] – complete book- This is the most
comprehensive book that has been written on this dogma. This book answers all of the major objections
on the baptism and salvation issue. It
contains the most important papal pronouncements on this issue, a whole history
of the “baptism of desire” controversy, many
detailed sections covering all angles of the “invincible ignorance” objection,
a section responding to every objection you’ve probably heard of on this topic
and many that you haven’t. This is the
first and only book to have covered all of the dogmatic definitions on this
topic about salvation from the ecumenical councils (including the little-known
ones from the Council of Vienne and the Fifth Lateran Council – see section
1). Look through the Table of Contents
if you are looking for a particular issue or objection. But we strongly recommend that people obtain
this book from us for only $4.00 so that they can have all the quotations in
book form.
Pope
Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832, on no salvation outside the Church: “You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that article of
faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith
and of unity for salvation… Omitting other appropriate passages which are
almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise St.
Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that THIS IS INDEED THE TEACHING
OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. He says: ‘The
holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly
except in her and asserts that all
who are outside of her will not be saved.’ Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus,
in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran
IV, these things are written: ‘There is one universal Church of all the
faithful outside of which no one is saved.’ Finally the same dogma is also expressly
mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only
that which all Latin churches use, but also that which… other Eastern Catholics
use. We did not mention these selected
testimonies because We thought you were
ignorant of that article of faith and in need of Our instruction. Far be it from Us to have such an absurd and
insulting suspicion about you. But We
are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been
attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from
reinforcing this truth with many testimonies.”
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence,
“Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 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 again 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.”
File of Recent Audio Debates on
"Baptism of Desire” and Outside the Church There is No Salvation
Outside the Church and
without the Catholic Faith There is No Salvation Audio Program
Recent Articles and
Audios on Outside the Church There is No Salvation
Interesting new quotes and points on the salvation issue
You can order
the 336-page book on No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church here for only
$4.00
Outside the Catholic Church There is
Absolutely No Salvation
By Bro. Peter Dimond,
O.S.B.
“By far the best and most in-depth book that
has ever been written on the Catholic Church’s infallible teaching on the
necessity of the Catholic Faith and the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation.”
(from many who have read it)
2nd
edition, Copyright ©
2006:
Most Holy Family Monastery. All rights
reserved. *Give this document about 3 minutes to load before clicking on
later sections.*
Permission is granted to
make copies of this book or to quote sections from it, but the author’s name
must be given. The book is
available in softback from Most Holy Family Monastery. Get a copy of the new book for only $4.00 or 10 copies for $25.00 or 24
copies for $50.00 (prices include shipping).
Listing of Sections (CLICK ON ANY SECTION BELOW TO GO
DIRECTLY TO IT)
1. The Chair
of St. Peter on Outside the Church There is No Salvation – page 8
2. The Keys of
St. Peter and his Unfailing Faith – page
9
·
The Chair
of St. Peter Speaks the Truth that Christ Himself Delivered – page 12
3. Believe
Dogma as it was once declared – page 13
4. Other
Popes on Outside the Church There is No Salvation – page 15
5. The Sacrament of Baptism is
the only Way into the Church – page 18
6. The One Church of the Faithful
– page 19
7. Subjection to the Church/Roman
Pontiff – page 23
8. The Sacrament of Baptism is
Necessary for Salvation – page 24
9. Water is Necessary for Baptism
and John 3:5 is literal – page 25
10.
Infants Cannot Be Saved Without Baptism – page 28
11. Those who Die in Original Sin or
Mortal Sin Descend into Hell – page 30
12. There is only One Baptism, Not Three – page 31
13. The Athanasian Creed – page 33 – and There is No Salvation for members of Islam, Judaism or other
heretical or schismatic non-Catholic sects - page
36
● Specific Catholic Teaching against Judaism – page 37
● Specific Catholic Teaching against Islam – page 38
● Specific Catholic Teaching against Protestant and
schismatic sects – page 39-41
● Concerning
those validly baptized as infants by members of non-Catholic sects –
41
14. Baptism of
Desire and Baptism of Blood – Erroneous traditions of Man – page 42
·
The
Fathers are unanimous from the beginning on Water Baptism– page 43
·
The theory of baptism of blood
– a tradition of man– page 51
·
Two of the earliest
statements on baptism of blood– page 55
·
Unbaptized
Saints? – the Acts of Martyrs – page 57
·
The Forty
Martyrs of Sebaste – page 58
·
St.
Emerentiana – pages 60-61
·
St.
Alban and his converted guard– page 62
·
Summarizing the Facts on Baptism of Blood– page 63
·
Miraculous Baptisms– page 64
·
The
Theory of Baptism of Desire – a tradition of man– page 68
·
St. Gregory Nazianz –page 76
◦ St. Gregory Nazianz and the
Roman Breviary – page 77
·
St. John Chrysostom– page 77
·
Liturgical Tradition and Apostolic Burial
Tradition– page 79
·
St. Bernard– page 82
·
St.
Thomas Aquinas – page 85
·
The
Dogmatic Council of Vienne (1311-1312) – page
87
·
St. Thomas Aquinas rejected “Invincible Ignorance” – page 88
15. Pope St. Leo the Great Ends the Debate – page 89
● Pope Leo the Great infallibly declares that the water of baptism is
inseparable from the spirit of justification
-
Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of the Council of Trent–
page 95
·
Aut used to mean “and” in the context of Councils– page
97
·
An interesting E-Mail
regarding this passage of Trent– page 99
- The Dogma, Pope Pius IX and
Invincible Ignorance– page 105
·
What about Pope Pius IX? – page
107
·
Singulari Quadem (an
allocution to the Cardinals) – page 107
·
Quanto Conficiamur Moerore– page
110
1.
St. Paul (p. 115), Fr. Francisco de
Vitoria (p. 115), St. Augustine and St. Prosper (p. 116) against Invincible
Ignorance
·
Other Popes and Saints against
Invincible Ignorance– page 117
1.
Pope Benedict XIV, Pope St. Pius X, Pope
Paul III, Pope Gregory the Great, Fr. De Smet, Pope Pelagius I, etc. against
Invincible Ignorance
·
Sacred Scripture against Invincible
Ignorance, and evidence of the Immediate Dissemination of the Gospel throughout
the whole world– page 121
1.
St. Justin Martyr, Acts of the Apostles,
St. Paul’s epistles, St. Irenaeus, St. Clement, Tertullian, etc. on the immediate
dissemination of the Gospel
2.
Acts 2:47: the Lord added daily to the
Church such as should be saved (p. 125)
3.
Early evidence in
·
Salvation for the “Invincibly Ignorant”
reduced to its absurd principle – page 128
·
Jesus Christ against
Invincible Ignorance– page 129
- The “Private Interpretation” Objection– page 131
17. Some Other Objections – page 134
·
The Catechism of the Council
of Trent– page 134
·
St. Alphonsus Liguori– page
148
·
Trent’s Teaching on the
Necessity of Penance vs. its Teaching on the Necessity of Baptism– page
155
·
The Argument From Silence– page
158
·
The Argument that Baptism is
impossible for some to receive– page 163
·
The Errors of Michael Du Bay– page
163
·
How can baptism of desire be
contrary to dogma when… - page
167
·
Cornelius the Centurion– page
169
·
The Good Thief and the Holy
Innocents– page 170
·
The “You Can’t Judge” Heresy– page
171
·
The “Objective-Subjective”
Heresy– page 172
·
The “Within but not a Member”
objection of Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton – page
174
·
Bayside, Medjugorje and Other
False Apparitions– page 176
·
The Brown Scapular– page
178
18. The Soul of the Church Heresy – page
179
19. Baptism of Desire vs. the
Universal and Constant Teaching of Theologians – page 182
·
Tuas Libenter and the
so-called common consent of theologians–
page 182
·
The very theologians they
bring forward disprove their position– page 188
·
Theologians are unanimous that only the water baptized are
part of the Church– page 190
·
Theologians unanimously define
the Catholic Church as a union of Sacraments– page 193
·
Universal Tradition on Baptism
affirmed even by modern heretical catechisms– page 198
·
The
·
The Catechism attributed to
Pope St. Pius X– page 200
20. Exultate
Deo Also Ends the Debate – page
202
21. The New Testament is Clear that the Sacrament of Baptism is Indispensable
for Salvation– page 205
·
The
Great Commission: Matthew 28 and Mark 16– page
205
·
1
Corinthians 12:13– page 207
·
Galatians
3 – Faith is Baptism– page 208
·
Titus 3:5
– Baptism Saves Us– page 210
·
Acts 2 and
the First Papal Sermon– page 212
·
Acts 16 –
The jailer and his entire house are baptized immediately – page 213
·
1 Peter
3:20-21 – Water Baptism and the Ark– page
213
22. Other Scriptural Considerations – page 215
·
The Baptism of God– page
215
·
John 3:5 vs. John 6:54– page
216
23. All
True Justice and the Causes of Justification – page 216
·
All true justice meets up with the sacraments– page 216
·
The instrumental and the efficient causes of Justification– page 217
26. The
Case of Father Feeney – page 232
27.
Protocol 122/49 (Suprema haec sacra)– page 235
28.
Heresy Before Vatican II – page 245
29.
Mystici Corporis – page 250
30.
Pope Pius XII, Father Feeney and the Dogma – page 254
31.
The Verdict is in: Boston Leads the Way in a Massive Priestly Scandal
that
Rocks the Nation– page 261
32.
The Heretics Testify– page 268
33.
A Note to Those Who Believe in Baptism of Desire – page 273
34.
The Degenerate Result of Heresy against this Dogma– page 276
·
The
Errors of the Current St. Benedict Center– page
281
·
The Society of St. Pius X– page 287 (Against the Heresies – p. 287; Open Letter to Confused
Catholics – p. 289; Time Bombs of the Second Vatican Council – page 290; Bishop Fellay says Hindus can
be saved – page 290;
Baptism
of Desire – p. 291; Is Feeneyism Catholic? – p.
295)
·
The Society of St. Pius V– page 304
·
The CMRI and other priests– page 309
Appendix–
• The Form of Baptism – page 317
• The Profession of Faith for converts to the
Catholic Faith – page 318
• The Apostles’ Creed – page 320
Endnotes– page 320
The dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation and the
necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism can actually be covered in one page
(see section 1 and section 8). This is
because this truth is exactly the same as defined by our first pope:
“… the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ… Nor is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name, under heaven,
given to men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12).
There is
no salvation outside of Jesus Christ, and the Catholic Church is His Mystical
Body. Since there is no entering into
the Catholic Church of Christ without the Sacrament of Baptism, this means that
only baptized Catholics who die in the state of grace (and those who become
baptized Catholics and die in the state of grace) can hope to be saved – period.
“If anyone abideth not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and
shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he
burneth.” (John 15:6)
The only reason that this
document that you are looking at is approximately 300 pages long, and delves
into a variety of issues in great detail, is simply because of the almost unceasing attacks against – and
almost universal denial of – these otherwise simply expressed truths in our
day.
The reader will notice that
I’ve gone out of my way to answer every single significant objection raised
against the true meaning of Outside the Church There is No Salvation and the
necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism, while the people who write books and
articles against these truths almost never address any of the arguments from
the teaching of the Church that we bring forward, simply because they cannot
refute the facts.
Some of the liberals who read
this document will also make the objection that it is “bitter” or
“uncharitable.” But this is not
true. The “foundation of charity is faith
pure and undefiled” (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium
Animos, #9). The statements in this
document relating to Outside the Church There is No Salvation are made out of a
desire to be faithful to Jesus Christ and His truth. A Catholic tells his neighbor the truth on
this issue without compromise simply because he loves his neighbor.
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos
#9, Jan. 6, 1928: “Everyone knows that
John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the
secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the
memories of his followers the new commandment ‘Love one another,’ altogether
forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt form
of Christ’s teaching: ‘If any man come to you and bring not this
doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you’ (II
John 10).”
A Catholic who refuses to denounce heresy
and heretics (when necessary) is not acting charitably, but uncharitably.
Pope Leo
XIII, Sapientiae Christianae #14,
Jan. 10, 1890: “St. Thomas maintains: ‘Each one is under obligation to show
forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to
repel the attacks of unbelievers.’ To recoil before an enemy, or to keep
silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part
of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of
what he professes to believe.”
The reader will also notice
that each numbered section of this document was intended to be, for the most
part, complete in itself; that is to say, one can read an individual section of
this document and find the relevant citations from the teaching of the Church
re-quoted for him without having to find them in a different part of the
document.
I strongly encourage the
reader to read the entire document, because the subjects dealt with in this
document are all important; but, in my opinion, the most important sections of
this document that the reader definitely does not want to miss are: 1- 4, 6-8,
13-16, 18, 21, 24-27, 31- 34.
The reader will see that the
conclusions that are formed in this document are formed on the basis of the
infallible teaching of the Chair of St. Peter.
Those who reject these facts, therefore, are not simply rejecting my
opinions; they are rejecting the teaching of the Chair of St. Peter (the dogmatic
teachings of the Catholic Church).
Pope
Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of
the apostle that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5) may those fear who contrive the notion that
the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony
of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk.
11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him.
Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they
will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate”
(Athanasian Creed).
-Bro. Peter
Dimond, O.S.B. (May 3, 2004),
2nd edition (Oct. 30, 2006)
1. The
Chair of St. Peter on Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation
The
following statements on Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation are
from the highest teaching authority of the Catholic Church. They are ex cathedra Papal decrees
(decrees from the Chair of St. Peter).
Therefore, they constitute the teaching given to the Catholic Church by
Jesus Christ and the Apostles. Such
teachings are unchangeable and are classified as part of the solemn magisterium
(the extraordinary teaching authority of the Catholic Church).
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.”[i]
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
absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”[ii]
Pope
Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
“Since
however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects,
for exempt and non-exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there
is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and
one baptism…”[iii]
Pope Eugene
IV, Council of
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the
Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will
without a doubt perish in eternity.”[iv]
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex
cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes,
professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not
only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal
life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and
his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that
only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to
salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of
the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved,
no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in
the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the
Catholic Church.”[v]
Pope Leo X,
Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
“For,
regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to
the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and
they all have one Lord and one faith.”[vi]
Pope Pius
IV, Council of Trent, “Iniunctum nobis,” Nov. 13, 1565, ex
cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can
be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”[vii]
Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16,
1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which
no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly
hold…”[viii]
Pope Pius
IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex
cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be
saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”[ix]
2. The Keys of St.
Peter and his Unfailing Faith
It is a fact of history, scripture and
tradition that Our Lord Jesus Christ founded His universal Church (the Catholic
Church) upon St. Peter.
Matthew 16:18-19-“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter: and upon this rock I
will build my Church, and the gates
of hell shall not prevail against it. And
I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it
shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it
shall be loosed also in heaven.”
Our Lord made St. Peter the first pope,
entrusted to him His entire flock, and gave him supreme authority in the
universal Church of Christ.
John 21:15-17-“Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou
me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou
knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest
thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He
saith to him: Feed my lambs.
He saith to him a third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him
the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all
things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.”
And with the supreme authority that Our
Lord Jesus Christ conferred upon St. Peter (and his successors, the popes)
comes what is called Papal Infallibility.
Papal Infallibility is inseparable from Papal Supremacy – there was no
point for Christ to make St. Peter the head of His Church (as Christ clearly
did) if St. Peter or his successors, the popes, could err when exercising
that supreme authority to teach on a point of Faith. The supreme authority must be unfailing on
binding matters of Faith and morals or else it is no true authority from Christ
at all.
Papal Infallibility does not mean that a
pope cannot err at all and it does not mean that a pope cannot lose his soul
and be damned in Hell for grave sin. It
means that the successors of St. Peter (the popes of the Catholic Church)
cannot err when authoritatively teaching on a point of Faith or morals to be
held by the entire Church of Christ.
We find the promise of the unfailing faith for St. Peter and his
successors referred to by Christ in Luke 22.
Luke 22:31-32- “And the Lord said:
Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have all of you, that he may sift
you as wheat: But I have prayed for
thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted,
confirm thy brethren.”
Satan desired to sift all the Apostles
(plural) like wheat, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter (singular), that his faith
fail not. Jesus is saying that St.
Peter and his successors (the popes of the Catholic Church) have an unfailing
faith when authoritatively teaching a point of faith or morals to be held by
the entire
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, ex
cathedra:
“SO, THIS GIFT OF TRUTH AND A NEVER
FAILING FAITH WAS DIVINELY CONFERRED UPON PETER AND HIS SUCCESSORS IN THIS
CHAIR…”[x]
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, ex
cathedra:
“… the See of St. Peter always
remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our
Lord the Savior made to the chief of His disciples: ‘I have prayed for thee [Peter], that thy faith fail not ...’”[xi]
And
this truth has been held since the earliest times in the Catholic Church.
Pope St. Gelasius I, epistle 42, or Decretal de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, 495: “Accordingly, the see of Peter the Apostle of the
Church of Rome is first, having neither spot, nor wrinkle, nor
anything of this kind (Eph. 5:27).”[xii]
The word “infallible” actually means “cannot
fail” or “unfailing.” Therefore, the
very term Papal Infallibility comes
directly from Christ’s promise to St. Peter (and his successors) in Luke 22,
that Peter has an unfailing Faith.
Though this truth was believed since the beginning of the Church, it was
specifically defined as a dogma at the First Vatican Council in 1870.
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4,
Chap. 4:
“…the Roman
Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [from
the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and
teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he
explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church... operates with that infallibility with
which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining
doctrine on faith and morals; and so
such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus
of the Church, are unalterable.”[xiii]
But how does one know when a pope is
exercising his unfailing Faith to infallibly teach from the Chair of St.
Peter? The answer is that we know from
the language that the pope uses or the manner in which the pope teaches. Vatican I defined two requirements which must
be fulfilled: 1) when the pope is carrying out his duty as pastor and teacher
of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority; 2)
when he explains a doctrine on faith or morals to be held by the entire Church
of Christ. A pope can fulfill both of
these requirements in just one line, by anathematizing a false opinion (such as
many dogmatic councils) or by saying “By our apostolic authority we declare…”
or by saying “We believe, profess, and teach” or by using words of similar
importance and meaning, which indicate that the pope is teaching the whole
Church on Faith in a definitive and binding fashion.
So, when a pope teaches from the Chair of
Peter in the manner stipulated above he cannot be wrong. If he could be wrong, then the
Luke 10:16- “He that heareth you,
heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me…”
Matthew 18:17 -“And if he will not
hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, 1896:
“… Christ instituted a living,
authoritative and permanent Magisterium… If
it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God
Himself would be the author of error in man.”[xiv]
THE CHAIR OF PETER SPEAKS THE TRUTH THAT CHRIST
HIMSELF DELIVERED
The truths of faith which have been
proclaimed by the popes speaking infallibly from the Chair of Peter are called
dogmas. The dogmas make up what is
called the deposit of Faith. And the
deposit of Faith ended with the death of the last apostle.
Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile,
The Errors of the Modernists #21: “Revelation, constituting the object
of Catholic faith, was not completed with the apostles.”[xv] - Condemned
This means that when a pope defines a dogma from the Chair of Peter he
does not make the dogma true, but rather he proclaims what is already
true, what has already been revealed by Christ and delivered to the Apostles. The dogmas are therefore unchangeable, of
course. One of these dogmas in the
deposit of Faith is that Outside the Catholic Church There is No
Salvation. Since this is the teaching of
Jesus Christ, one is not allowed to dispute this dogma or to question it; one
must simply accept it. It does not
matter if one doesn’t like the dogma, doesn’t understand the dogma, or doesn’t see justice in the dogma. If one doesn’t accept it as infallibly true
then one simply does not accept Jesus Christ, because the dogma comes to us
from Jesus Christ.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:
“…
can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by that
very fact falling into heresy? – without separating himself from the Church? –
without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing
can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others. Faith,
as the Church teaches, is that
supernatural virtue by which… we believe what He has revealed to be true, not on
account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of human reason
[author: that is, not because it seems correct to us], but because of the
authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived…
But he who dissents even in one point
from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby
refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.”[xvi]
Those who refuse to believe in the dogma Outside
the Church There is No Salvation until they
understand how there is justice in it are simply withholding their Faith in
Christ’s revelation. Those with the
true Faith in Christ (and His Church) accept His teaching first and
understand the truth in it (i.e., why
it is true) second. A Catholic does not
withhold his belief in Christ’s revelation until he can understand it. That is the mentality of a faithless heretic
who possesses insufferable pride. St.
Anselm sums up the true Catholic outlook on this point.
St. Anselm, Doctor of the Church, Prosologion, Chap. 1: “For I do not seek to understand that I may
believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe, that unless I believed, I should not understand.”[xvii]
Romans
11:33-34- “O the depth of the riches of
the wisdom and of the knowledge of God!
How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counselor? Or who hath
first given to him, and recompense shall be made him?”
Isaias
55:8-9- “For my thoughts are not your
thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as
the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your
ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts.”
3. Believe Dogma as it was once declared
There is only one way to believe dogma: as holy mother Church has once
declared.
Pope Pius
IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex
cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be
perpetually retained, which
This definition of the First Vatican Council is critically important for
dogmatic purity, because the primary way the Devil attempts to corrupt Christ’s
doctrines is by getting men to recede (move away) from the Church’s
dogmas as they were once declared.
There is no meaning of a dogma other than what the words themselves
state and declare, so the Devil tries to get men to “understand” and
“interpret” these words in a way that is different from how holy mother Church
has declared them.
Many of
us have dealt with people who have attempted to explain away the clear meaning
of the definitions on Outside the
Church There is No Salvation by saying, “you must understand
them.” What they really mean is that you
must understand them in a way different from what the words themselves state
and declare. And this is precisely
what the First Vatican Council condemns.
It condemns their moving away from the understanding of a dogma which
holy mother Church has once declared to a different meaning, under the specious
(false) name of a “deeper understanding.”
Besides those who argue that we must “understand” dogmas in a different
way than what the words themselves state and declare, there are those who, when
presented with the dogmatic definitions on Outside the Church There is No Salvation, say, “that is your interpretation.” They belittle the words of a dogmatic formula
to nothing other than one’s private interpretation. And this also is heresy.
Pope St.
Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22:
“The
dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from
heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the
human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned[xix]
Pope St.
Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #54:
“The
dogmas, the sacraments, the hierarchy, as far as pertains both to the
notion and to the reality, are nothing but interpretations and the
evolution of Christian intelligence, which have increased and perfected the
little germ latent in the Gospel.”- Condemned[xx]
Dogmas of the faith, like Outside
the Church There is No Salvation, are truths fallen from heaven;
they are not interpretations. To accuse
one who adheres faithfully to these truths fallen from heaven of engaging in
“private interpretation” is to speak heresy.
The
very point of a dogmatic DEFINITION is to DEFINE precisely and exactly what the
Church means by the very words of the formula.
If it does not do this by those very words in the formula or document
(as the Modernists say) then it has failed in its primary purpose – to define –
and was pointless and worthless.
Anyone
who says that we must interpret or understand the meaning of a dogmatic
definition, in a way which contradicts its actual wording, is denying the whole
point of the Chair of Peter, Papal Infallibility and dogmatic definitions. He is asserting that dogmatic definitions are
pointless, worthless and foolish and that the Church is pointless, worthless
and foolish for making such a definition.
Also,
those who insist that infallible DEFINITIONS must be interpreted by non-infallible
statements (e.g., from theologians, catechisms, etc.) are denying the whole purpose
of the Chair of Peter. They are
subordinating the dogmatic teaching of the Chair of Peter (truths from
heaven) to the re-evaluation of fallible human documents, thereby inverting
their authority, perverting their integrity and denying their purpose.
Pope
Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (#7), Aug.
15, 1832: “… nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing
changed; nothing added; but they must be
preserved both as regards expression and meaning.”[xxi]
Thus, there
is no “strict” or “loose” interpretation of Outside the Church There is No
Salvation, as the liberal heretics like to emphasize; there is only what the
Church has once declared.
4. Other Popes on Outside the Church There is No
Salvation
In addition to the ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter)
proclamations of the popes, a Catholic must also believe what is taught by the
Catholic Church as divinely revealed
in her Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (Magisterium = the teaching authority
of the Church).
Pope Pius IX, Vatican I, Sess.
III, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: “Further,
by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are
contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are
proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and
universal teaching power, to be believed as
divinely revealed.”[xxii]
The teaching of the Ordinary
and Universal Magisterium consists of those doctrines which popes, by their
common and universal teaching, propose to be believed as divinely
revealed. For instance, in their
common and universal teaching, approximately 10 popes have denounced the
heretical concept of liberty of conscience and worship as contrary to
revelation. A Catholic cannot reject
that teaching. The teaching of the
Ordinary and Universal Magisterium can never contradict the teaching of the
Chair of Peter (the dogmatic definitions), of course, since both are
infallible. Thus, the Ordinary and
Universal Magisterium does not actually have to be considered at all in regard
to Outside the Church There is No Salvation, because this dogma has been
defined from the Chair of Peter and nothing in the Ordinary and Universal
Magisterium can possibly contradict the Chair of Peter. So beware of those heretics who try to
find ways to deny the Church’s dogmatic teaching on Outside the Church There is
No Salvation by calling fallible, non-magisterial statements which
contradict this dogma, part of the “Ordinary and Universal Magisterium,” when
they aren’t. This is a clever ploy of
the heretics.
But the following
quotations from many popes are reaffirmations of the dogma Outside the Church
There is No Salvation. These teachings
of the popes are part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium – and are
therefore infallible – since they reiterate the universal teaching of the Chair
of St. Peter on the Catholic dogma Outside
the Church There is No Salvation.
Pope St.
Gregory the Great, quoted in Summo Iugiter Studio, 590-604:
“The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship
God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not
be saved.”[xxiii]
Pope
Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:
“By the
heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of
heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and
Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20,
1351:
“In the second place, we ask whether you and the
Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers
outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience to the Pope of
Rome, can finally be saved.”[xxv]
Pope St.
Pius V, Bull excommunicating the heretic
Queen Elizabeth of England, Feb. 25, 1570: “The sovereign jurisdiction of the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church,
outside of which there is no salvation, has been given by Him [Jesus
Christ], unto Whom all power in Heaven and on Earth is given, the King who
reigns on high, but to one person on the face of the Earth, to Peter, prince of
the Apostles... If any shall contravene this Our decree, we bind them with the
same bond of anathema.”[xxvi]
Pope Leo
XII, Ubi Primum (# 14), May 5, 1824:
“It is impossible for the most true God,
who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good
men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often
inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal
rewards on their members… by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one
baptism… This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the
Church.”[xxvii]
Pope Leo
XII, Quod hoc ineunte (# 8), May 24, 1824: “We address all of you who
are still removed from the true Church and the road to salvation. In this universal rejoicing, one thing is
lacking: that having been called by the inspiration of the Heavenly Spirit and
having broken every decisive snare, you might sincerely agree with the
mother Church, outside of whose teachings there is no salvation.”[xxviii]
Pope
Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle, that
‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who
contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any
religion whatever. They should consider
the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against
Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather
with Him. Therefore, ‘without a
doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and
inviolate (Athanasian Creed).”[xxix]
Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (#
2), May 27, 1832:
“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.”[xxx]
Pope Pius IX, Ubi primum (# 10), June 17, 1847: “For ‘there is
one universal Church outside of which no one at all is saved; it contains regular
and secular prelates along with those under their jurisdiction, who all
profess one Lord, one faith and one baptism.”[xxxi]
Pope Pius IX, Nostis et Nobiscum (# 10), Dec. 8, 1849: “In
particular, ensure that the faithful are deeply and thoroughly convinced of
the truth of the doctrine that the Catholic faith is necessary for attaining
salvation. (This doctrine, received from Christ and emphasized by the
Fathers and Councils, is also contained in the formulae of the profession of
faith used by Latin, Greek and Oriental Catholics).”[xxxii]
Pope Pius
IX, Syllabus of Modern Errors, Dec. 8, 1864 - Proposition 16: “Man may,
in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal
salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.”[xxxiii]
– Condemned
Pope Leo
XIII, Tametsi futura prospicientibus (# 7), Nov. 1, 1900: “Christ is man’s ‘Way’; the Church also
is his ‘Way’… Hence all who would find
salvation apart from the Church, are led astray and strive in vain.”[xxxiv]
Pope St.
Pius X, Iucunda sane (# 9), March 12, 1904: “Yet at the same time We
cannot but remind all, great and small, as Pope St. Gregory did, of the
absolute necessity of having recourse to this Church in order to have eternal
salvation…”[xxxv]
Pope St. Pius X, Editae saepe (# 29), May 26, 1910: “The
Church alone possesses together with her magisterium the power of governing
and sanctifying human society. Through
her ministers and servants (each in his own station and office), she confers
on mankind suitable and necessary means of salvation.”[xxxvi]
Pope Pius
XI, Mortalium Animos (# 11), Jan. 6, 1928: “The
Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this is the house
of faith, this is the
5. The
Sacrament of Baptism is the only Way into the Church
The
Catholic Church has always taught that receiving the Sacrament of Baptism is the
only way into Christ’s Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
Pope Julius
III, Council of Trent, On the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance,
Sess. 14, Chap. 2, ex cathedra: “But in fact this sacrament
[Penance] is seen to differ in many respects from baptism. For, apart from the fact that the matter and
form, by which the essence of a sacrament is constituted, are totally distinct,
there is certainly no doubt that the minister of baptism need not be a judge, since
the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by
the gate of baptism. For what
have I to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the
Apostle. It is otherwise with those of
the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has
once made ‘members of his own body’ (1 Cor. 12:13).”[xxxviii]
This definition is particularly significant because it proves that only
through water baptism is one incorporated into the Body of the Church. The significance of this will become clearer
in the later sections where it is proven that Body membership is necessary for
salvation.
Pope Eugene
IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex
cathedra: “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 again 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.”[xxxix]
Pope Pius
XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be
numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration
[water baptism] and profess the true faith.”[xl]
Pope Pius
XII, Mystici Corporis (# 27), June 29, 1943: “He (Christ) also
determined that through Baptism (cf. Jn. 3:5) those who should believe would
be incorporated in the Body of the Church.”[xli]
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same
way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and
serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this
purifying stream and consequently are not members of Christ, the
sacrament of holy orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful
who have not received this consecration.”[xlii]
6. The
Pope
Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra:
“THERE IS INDEED
The first dogmatic definition from the Chair of Peter on Outside the
Church There is No Salvation (from Pope Innocent III) taught that the Catholic
Church is the one Church “of the faithful,” outside of which no one at all
is saved. But who are “the
faithful”? Can one who has not been
baptized be considered part of “the faithful”?
If we look to Catholic Tradition, the answer is a resounding “no.”
As many
of you know, the Catholic Mass is divided into two parts: the Mass of
the Catechumens (those preparing to be baptized) and the Mass of the Faithful
(those baptized).
In the
early Church, the unbaptized catechumens (i.e., those who had not received the
Sacrament of Baptism) 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.
Casimir
Kucharek, The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of
“In Canon 19 of the Synod of Laodicea (A.D.
343-381), for example, we read: ‘After the sermons of the bishops, the prayer
for the catechumens is to be said by itself first; when the catechumens have
gone out, the prayer for those who are doing penance; and after these…
there should then be offered the three prayers of the faithful…’”[xliv]
Here we
see the 4th century Synod of Laodicea affirming the tradition that
unbaptized catechumens were to depart from the Liturgy before the Mass of the
Faithful began. And this distinction between
the Mass of the Catechumens and the Mass of the Faithful was a staple in the
ancient rites of the Catholic Church.
Hence, Fr. Casimir Kucharek, in his large work on the Byzantine-Slav
Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, says that the Liturgy of the Catechumens is
“present in all Rites…”[xlv] In other words, all of the ancient
Catholic rites testified to the fact that no unbaptized person could be
considered part of the faithful because they all dismissed
unbaptized catechumens before the Mass of the Faithful began!
Hence
Fr. Casimir Kucharek further writes:
“[
The
Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges the same teaching of Tradition.
The
Catholic Encyclopedia, “Faithful,” Vol. 5, p. 769: “
In the
third century, the early Church father Tertullian criticized the custom of
certain heretics who disregarded this crucial distinction between the
unbaptized and the faithful.
The
Catholic Encyclopedia, “Catechumen,” Vol. 3, p. 430: “Tertullian reproaches the
heretics with disregarding it; among them, he says, ‘one does not know
which is the catechumen and which the faithful, all alike come
[to the mysteries], all hear the same discourses, and say the same prayers.”[xlviii]
Finally,
I will quote a prayer from the ancient Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of St. John
Chrysostom. The prayer was recited at
the dismissal of the catechumens before the Mass of the Faithful began.
Byzantine-Slav
Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Dismissal of the Catechumens: “Let
us, the faithful, pray for the catechumens, that the Lord have
mercy on them… Lord and God, Jesus Christ, as the salvation of mankind: look
down upon your servants, the catechumens, who bow their heads before you.
In due time make them worthy of the waters of regeneration, the
forgiveness of their sins, and the robe of immortality. Unite them to your holy, catholic, and apostolic
church, and number them among your chosen flock.”[xlix]
Here we
see that the ancient eastern rite liturgy of St. John Chrysostom makes a
forceful distinction between the unbaptized (the catechumens) and the
faithful. It confirms that because the catechumens are
not baptized into the faithful, they are not forgiven their sins or
united to the Catholic Church.
The unbaptized do not belong to the one Church of the faithful. This is part of the ancient Catholic
Faith. And obviously this fact is not
proven to be part of the ancient Catholic Faith simply because an early Church
father stated it – for a statement from a given early Church father doesn’t
prove this definitively; but rather it is proven because the testimonies of the
aforementioned saints are in perfect harmony with the clear teaching of
Catholic liturgical worship, which divides the Mass of Catechumens from the
Mass of the Faithful. It is, therefore,
the teaching and rule of Catholic worship that no unbaptized person is to be
considered part of the faithful. And this is why all who died without the
Sacrament of Baptism were refused Christian burial everywhere in the universal
Church since the beginning.
And
because this was the universal rule of worship in the Catholic Church, it was
the expression of the universal Faith and Tradition of the Catholic Church.
Pope Pius
XI, Quas Primas (# 12), Dec. 11, 1925: “The perfect harmony of the
Eastern liturgies with our own in this continual praise of Christ the King
shows once more the truth of the axiom: Legem credendi lex statuit
supplicandi. The rule of faith is
indicated by the law of our worship.”[l]
Therefore, it would be contrary to Tradition to assert that a person who
has not received the Sacrament of Baptism is part 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 [unbaptized], though we have ten thousand virtues, our
portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire
unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.”
St.
Ambrose, (4th Century) Bishop and Doctor of the Church:
“I shall now
begin to instruct you on the sacrament you have received; of whose nature it
was not fitting to speak to you before this; for in the Christian what comes
first is faith. And at
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.” This is why the Sacrament of
Baptism has been known since apostolic times as “the Sacrament of Faith.”
Catechism
of the Council of
“…
Baptism …. the Sacrament of faith….”[lii]
Catechism
of the Council of
Pope
Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351:
“… all
those who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith...”[liv]
Pope Paul
III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 7 on Justification, ex cathedra:
“… THE
SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM, WHICH IS
‘THE SACRAMENT OF FAITH… 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.
7. Subjection to the Church/Roman
Pontiff
The second
definition from the Chair of Peter on Outside the Church There is No Salvation
came from Pope Boniface VIII in the Bull Unam Sanctam.
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
absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”[lvi]
This means infallibly that every
human creature must be subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation. Obviously, this does not mean that one must
be subject to an antipope for salvation, which is what we have today. It means that everyone must be subject to the
true pope, if and when we have one.
But how are infants subject
to the Roman Pontiff? This is a good
question. Notice that Pope Boniface VIII
did not declare that every human creature must know the Roman Pontiff,
but that every human creature must be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Infants become subject to the Roman Pontiff
by their baptism into the one
Pope Leo XIII, Nobilissima (# 3), Feb. 8, 1884:
“The Church, guardian of the integrity of the Faith – which, in virtue of
its authority, deputed from God its Founder, has to call all nations to the
knowledge of Christian lore, and which is consequently bound to watch keenly
over the teaching and upbringing of the children placed under its authority
by baptism…”[lvii]
Children are placed under the
authority of the Church by baptism.
Thus, by their baptism they are made subject to the Roman
Pontiff, since the Roman Pontiff possesses supreme authority in the Church
(First Vatican Council, de fide).
This proves that baptism is actually the first component in
determining whether or not one is subject to the Roman Pontiff. If one
has not been baptized, then one cannot be subject to the Roman Pontiff,
because the Church exercises judgment (i.e., jurisdiction) over no one who has
not entered the Church through the Sacrament of Baptism (de fide).
Pope Julius
III, Council of Trent, On the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance,
Sess. 14, Chap. 2, ex cathedra: “… since the Church exercises
judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism. For what have I to do with those who are
without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle.
It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ
the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body’ (1
Cor. 12:13).”[lviii]
It is not possible, therefore, to be
subject to the Roman Pontiff without receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, since the Church (and the Roman Pontiff) cannot exercise judgment
(jurisdiction) over an unbaptized person (de
fide,
8. The Sacrament of Baptism is Necessary for
Salvation
To
further show that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, I will
quote numerous other infallible statements from the Chair of St. Peter.
Pope Paul
III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of
Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the
Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let
him be anathema.”[lix]
This infallible dogmatic definition from
the Chair of St. Peter condemns anyone who says that the Sacrament of Baptism
is not necessary for salvation. The
Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for all for salvation, first of all, because,
as the Council of Trent defines, all men (except the Blessed Virgin Mary) were
conceived in a state of original sin as a result of the sin of Adam, the
first man. The Sacrament of Baptism
is also necessary for all for salvation because it is the means by which one is
marked as a member of Jesus Christ and incorporated into His Mystical
Body. And in defining the truth that all
men were conceived in the state of Original Sin, the Council of Trent
specifically declared that the Blessed Virgin Mary was an exception to its
decree on Original Sin.[lx] But in defining the truth that the Sacrament
of Baptism is necessary for salvation, the Council of Trent made no exceptions
at all.
Pope Eugene
IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 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 again 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.”[lxi]
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.”[lxii]
Pope
Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “Likewise
(I profess) that baptism is necessary for salvation, and hence, if there is
imminent danger of death, it should be conferred at once and without delay, and
that it is valid if conferred with the right matter and form and intention by
anyone, and at any time.”[lxiii]
Pope Pius
XI, Quas Primas (# 15), Dec. 11, 1925 :
“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.”[lxiv]
We see here that one cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven without faith
and the external rite of baptism (i.e., the Sacrament of Baptism).
9. Water is
Necessary for Baptism and John 3:5 is literal
“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
The
Catholic Church is the guardian and interpreter of the Sacred Scriptures. She alone has been given the power and
authority to infallibly determine the true sense of the sacred texts.
Pope Pius
IX, First
“… We,
renewing the same decree, declare this to be its intention: that, in matters of
faith and morals pertaining to the instruction of Christian Doctrine, that
must be considered as the true sense of Sacred Scripture which Holy Mother
Church has held and holds, whose office it is to judge concerning the true
understanding and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures; and, for that
reason, no one is permitted to interpret Sacred Scripture itself contrary to
this sense, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.”[lxv]
But not
every scripture is understood by the Catholic Church in the literal sense. For example, in Matthew 5:29, Our Lord Jesus
Christ tells us that if our eye scandalizes us we should pluck it out, for it is
better that it should perish than our whole body in Hell.
Matt. 5:29- “And if thy right eye scandalize thee,
pluck it out and cast it from thee. For
it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than thy
whole body be cast into hell.”
But Our
Lord’s words here are not to be understood literally. His words are spoken figuratively to describe
an occasion of sin or something in life that may scandalize us and be a
hindrance to our salvation. We must
pluck it out and cut it off, says Our Lord, because it is better to be without
it than to perish altogether in the fires of Hell.
On the
other hand, other verses of scripture are understood by the Church in the
literal sense. For example:
Matt.
26:26-28 “And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and
broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and
gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.
For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed
for many unto remission of sins.”
When Our
Lord Jesus Christ says in Matthew 26:26: “This is My Body,” and in Matthew
26:28: “This is My Blood,” His words are understood by the Catholic Church
exactly as they are written, for we know that Our Lord Jesus Christ was indeed
referring to His actual Body and Blood, not a symbol or a figure.
So the
question is: How does the Catholic Church understand 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 into the kingdom of God? Does the Catholic Church understand these
words as they are written or in some other way?
Does the Catholic Church understand these words to mean that every
man must be born again of water and the Holy Ghost to be saved, as Our Lord
says? The answer is clear: every single
dogmatic definition that the Catholic Church has issued dealing with Our Lord’s
words in John 3:5 understands them literally, exactly as they are written.
Pope Eugene
IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex
cathedra: “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 again 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.”[lxvi]
This
means that Our Lord Jesus Christ’s declaration that no man can be saved without
being born again of water and the Holy Ghost is a literal dogma of the
Catholic Faith.
Pope Paul
III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7,
1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that real and natural
water is not necessary for baptism, and on 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.”[lxvii]
Pope Paul
III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism,
Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism
[the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn.
3:5): let him be anathema.”[lxviii]
Pope Paul
III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “By one man sin entered into the world, and
by sin death... so that in them there may be washed away by regeneration, what
they have contracted by generation, ‘For unless a man be born again of
water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God [John
3:5].”[lxix]
Pope St. Zosimus, The Council of Carthage XVI,
on Original Sin and Grace: “For when
the Lord says: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he
shall not enter into the kingdom of God’ [John 3:5], what Catholic will
doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a
coheir of Christ. For he who lacks the
right part will without doubt run into the left.”[lxx]
Pope Gregory IX, Cum, sicut ex, July 8,
1241, to Sigurd of Nidaros:
“Since as we have learned from your report, it
sometimes happens because of scarcity of water, that infants of your lands are
baptized in beer, we reply to you in the tenor of those present that, since
according to evangelical doctrine it is necessary ‘to be reborn from water and
the Holy Spirit’ (Jn. 3:5) they are not to be considered rightly baptized
who are baptized in beer.”[lxxi]
10. Infants
Cannot Be Saved Without Baptism
The
teaching of the Catholic Church already cited shows that no one can be saved
without the Sacrament of Baptism.
Obviously, therefore, this means that children and infants also cannot
get to Heaven without Baptism because they are conceived in a state of original
sin, which cannot be removed without the Sacrament of Baptism. But this truth of the Catholic Church is
denied by many people today. They look
at the horrible tragedy of abortion – the millions of slaughtered children –
and they conclude that these children must be headed to Heaven. But such a conclusion is heretical. The worst part of abortion is the fact that
these children are barred from entrance into Heaven, not that they don’t get to
live in this pagan world. Satan delights
in abortion because he knows that these souls can never get to Heaven without
the Sacrament of Baptism. If aborted
children went straight to Heaven without the Sacrament of Baptism, as many
today believe, then Satan wouldn’t be behind abortion.
The
Church teaches that aborted children and infants who die without baptism
descend immediately into Hell, but that they do not suffer the fires of
Hell. They go to a place in Hell called
the limbo of the children. The most
specific definition of the Church proving that there is no possible way for an
infant to be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism is the following one from
Pope Eugene IV.
Pope Eugene
IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “Regarding
children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when
no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of
baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the
Devil [original sin] and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that
holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time
according to the observance of certain people…”[lxxii]
Pope Eugene IV here defined from the
Chair of Peter that there is no other remedy for infants to
be snatched away from the dominion of the devil (i.e., original sin) other than
the Sacrament of Baptism. This means
that anyone who obstinately
teaches that infants can be saved without receiving the Sacrament of Baptism is
a heretic, for he is teaching that there is another remedy for
original sin in children other than the Sacrament of Baptism.
Pope Martin
V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 - Condemning the
articles of John Wyclif - Proposition 6:
“Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without
sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying
this.”[lxxiii]
- Condemned
This is a fascinating proposition from The Council of
Constance.
Unfortunately, this proposition is not found in Denzinger, which only
contains some of the Council’s decrees, but it is found in a full collection of
the Council of Constance. The arch-heretic
John Wyclif was proposing that those (such as ourselves) are stupid for
teaching that infants who die without water (i.e.,
sacramental) baptism cannot possibly be saved. He was anathematized for this assertion,
among many others. And here is what the Council of Constance had to say
about John Wyclif’s anathematized propositions, such as #6 above.
Pope Martin
V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415: “The books and
pamphlets of John Wyclif, of cursed memory, were carefully examined by
the doctors and masters of
So those who criticize Catholics for affirming the dogma that no infant
can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism are actually proposing the
anathematized heresy of John Wyclif.
Here are some other dogmatic definitions on the topic.
Pope St.
Zosimus, The Council of Carthage, Canon on Sin and Grace, 417 A.D.- “It
has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord
said: ‘In my Father’s house there are many mansions’ [John 14:2]:
that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some
middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed
from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the
kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema.”[lxxv]
Pope Paul
III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that recently born babies
should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or
says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no
trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of
rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence
that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the
remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.”[lxxvi]
This means that anyone who
asserts that infants don’t need the “laver of rebirth” (water baptism) to
attain eternal life is teaching heresy.
11. Those
who Die in Original Sin or Mortal Sin descend into Hell
As I have
proven above, there is no possible way for children to be freed from original
sin other than through the Sacrament of Baptism. This, of course, proves that there is no way
for infants to be saved other than through the Sacrament of Baptism. So the following definitions merely affirm
what has already been established: no child can possibly enter the kingdom of
Heaven without receiving water baptism, but will rather descend into Hell.
Pope Eugene
IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in
actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell,
but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”[lxxvii]
Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794:
“26. The doctrine which
rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the
faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of the children) in which
the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished
with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire,
just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire
introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between
the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the
Pelagians idly talk” – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic
schools.[lxxviii]
Here Pope Pius VI condemns
the idea of some theologians that infants who die in original sin suffer the
fires of Hell. At the same time, he
confirms that these infants do go to a part of the lower regions (i.e., Hell)
called the limbo of the children. They
do not go to Heaven, but to a place in Hell where there is no fire. This is perfectly in accord with all of the
other solemn definitions of the Church, which teach that infants who die
without water baptism descend into Hell, but suffer a punishment different from
those who die in mortal sin. Their
punishment is eternal separation from God.
Pope Pius XI, Mit brennender Sorge (# 25), March 14, 1937: “‘Original
sin’ is the hereditary but impersonal fault of Adam’s descendants, who have
sinned in him (
It is
defined Catholic dogma that there is only one baptism. This is why the dogmatic Nicene Creed,
historically professed every Sunday in the Roman Rite, reads: “I confess one
baptism for the remission of sins.”
And this dogma that there is one baptism for the remission of sins comes
from Our Lord and the Apostles. It is
affirmed by
Pope Pius
XI, Quas Primas (# 12), Dec. 11, 1925: “The perfect harmony of the
Eastern liturgies with our own in this continual praise of Christ the King
shows once more the truth of the axiom: Legem credendi lex statuit
supplicandi. The rule of faith is
indicated by the law of our worship.”[lxxx]
Throughout history many popes have expressly reaffirmed this rule of faith:
that there is only one baptism for the remission of sins.
The Nicene-Constantinople Creed, 381, ex
cathedra: “We confess one baptism for the remission of sins.”[lxxxi]
Pope St.
Celestine I, Council of Ephesus, 431: “Having read these holy phrases
and finding ourselves in agreement (for
‘there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism’ [Eph. 4:5]), we have
given glory to God who is the savior of all…”[lxxxii]
Pope St.
Leo IX, Congratulamur Vehementer,
April 13, 1053: “I believe that the one true Church is holy, Catholic and
apostolic, in which is given one baptism and the true remission of all sins.”[lxxxiii]
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex
cathedra: “One is my dove, my perfect one… which represents the one
mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5).”[lxxxiv]
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex
cathedra: “Since however there
is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and non-exempt,
one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for
all of whom there is one Lord, one
faith, and one baptism…”[lxxxv]
Pope Pius
VI, Inscrutabile (# 8), Dec. 25, 1775: “… We exhort and advise you to be
all of one mind and in harmony as you strive for the same object, just as
the Church has one faith,
one baptism, and one spirit.”[lxxxvi]
Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum (# 14), May 5, 1824: “By it we are
taught, and by divine faith we hold one
Lord, one faith, one baptism, and that no other name under heaven
is given to men except the name of Jesus Christ in which we must be saved. This is why we profess that there is no
salvation outside the Church.”[lxxxvii]
Pope Pius
VIII, Traditi Humilitati (# 4), May 24, 1829: “Against these experienced
sophists the people must be taught that the profession of the Catholic faith
is uniquely true, as the apostle proclaims: one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph. 4:5).”[lxxxviii]
Pope
Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of
the apostle that ‘there is one God, one
faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5) may those fear who contrive the notion
that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever.”[lxxxix]
Pope Leo
XIII, Graves de communi re (# 8), Jan. 18, 1901: “Hence the
doctrine of the Apostle, who warns us that ‘We are one body and spirit
called to the one hope in our vocation; one Lord, one faith and one baptism…”[xc]
To say
that there are “three baptisms,” as many unfortunately do, is heretical. There is only one baptism, which is celebrated
in water (de fide).
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.”[xci]
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 contradict defined Catholic dogma. Did those who believe that there are three
baptisms (water, blood and desire) ever wonder why countless popes have
professed that there is only one baptism, and not a single one of them bothered
to tell us about the so-called “other two”?
The Athanasian Creed is one of the most
important creeds of the Catholic Faith.
It contains a beautiful summary of a Catholic’s belief in the Trinity
and the Incarnation, which are the two fundamental dogmas of Christianity. Before the 1971 changes in the Liturgy, the
Athanasian Creed, consisting of 40 rhythmic statements, had been used in the
Sunday Office for over a thousand years.
The Athanasian Creed sets forth the necessity of believing the Catholic
Faith for salvation. It closes with the words: “This is the Catholic Faith, which, except a
man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.” The Athanasian Creed was composed by the
great St. Athanasius himself, as the Council of Florence confirms.
Pope Eugene
IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Sixthly, we offer to the envoys that compendious
rule of the faith composed by most blessed Athanasius, which is as follows:
“Whoever wishes to be
saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves
this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But
the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the
Trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance;
for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy
Spirit, their glory is equal, their majesty coeternal...and in this Trinity
there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons
are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has
already been said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be
worshipped. Therefore let him who
wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.
“But it is necessary for
eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our
Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully
and firmly, he cannot be saved.”[xcii]
The above definition of the Athanasian Creed at the ecumenical Council
of Florence means that this creed qualifies as a pronouncement from the Chair
of St. Peter (an ex cathedra pronouncement). To deny that which is professed in the
Athanasian Creed is to cease to be Catholic.
The Creed declares that whoever wishes to be saved needs to hold
the Catholic Faith and believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation. Notice the phrase, “whoever wishes
to be saved” (quicunque vult salvus esse).
This phrase is without question the product and inspiration of the Holy
Ghost. It tells us that everyone who can
“wish” must believe in the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation
in order to be saved. This does not
include infants and those below the age of reason, since they cannot wish! Infants are numbered among the Catholic
faithful, since they receive the habit of Catholic Faith at the Sacrament of
Baptism. But, being below the age of
reason, they cannot make any act of faith in the Catholic mysteries of the
Trinity and the Incarnation, an act which is absolutely necessary for the
salvation of all above the age of reason (for all who wish to be saved). Is it not
remarkable how God worded this infallible creed’s teaching on the necessity of
belief in the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation in a way that would
not include infants? The creed,
therefore, teaches that everyone above the age of reason must have a knowledge
and belief in the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation to be saved – no
exceptions. This creed, therefore, eliminates
the theory of invincible ignorance (that one above the age of reason
can be saved without knowing Christ or the true Faith) and further renders
those who preach it unable to profess this creed with honesty.
And the
fact that no one who wishes to be
saved can be saved without a knowledge and belief in the mysteries of the
Trinity and the Incarnation is the reason why the Holy Office under Pope
Clement XI responded that a missionary must, before baptism, explain these absolutely necessary mysteries to an
adult who is at the point of death.
Response of the Sacred Office to the Bishop of
“Q. Whether
a minister is bound, before baptism is conferred on an adult, to explain to him
all the mysteries of our faith, especially if he is at the point of death,
because this might disturb his mind. Or,
whether it is sufficient, if the one at the point of death will promise that
when he recovers from the illness, he will take care to be instructed, so that
he might put into practice what has been commanded him.
“A. A promise is not sufficient, but a
missionary is bound to explain to an adult, even a dying one who is not
entirely incapacitated, the mysteries of
faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, as are especially the
mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.”[xciii]
Another
question was posed at the same time and answered the same way.
Response of the Sacred Office to the Bishop of
“Q. Whether
it is possible for a crude and uneducated adult, as it might be with a
barbarian, to be baptized, if there were given him only an understanding of God
and some of His attributes… although he does not believe explicitly in Jesus
Christ.
“A. A missionary should not baptize one who
does not believe explicitly in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to instruct
him about all those matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means,
in accordance with the capacity of the one to be baptized.”[xciv]
The
dogma that belief in the Trinity and Incarnation is absolutely necessary
for salvation for all those above the
age of reason is also the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope Benedict XIV and
Pope St. Pius X.
St. Thomas
Aquinas, Summa Theologica: “After
grace had been revealed, both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit
faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are
observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the
articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above.”[xcv]
Saint
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica:
“And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound
to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity.”[xcvi]
Pope Benedict XIV, Cum Religiosi (# 1), June 26, 1754:
“We could not rejoice, however, when it was subsequently reported to Us
that in the course of religious instruction preparatory to Confession and Holy
Communion, it was very often found that these people were ignorant of the mysteries of the faith, even those matters which
must be known by necessity of means; consequently they were
ineligible to partake of the Sacraments.”[xcvii]
Pope Benedict XIV, Cum Religiosi (# 4):
“See to it that every minister performs carefully the measures laid down
by the holy Council of
Those above the age of reason who are ignorant of these absolutely
necessary mysteries of the Catholic Faith – these mysteries which are a “necessity of means” – cannot be numbered
among the elect, as Pope St. Pius X confirms.
Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905:
“And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those
who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because
of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and
believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’”[xcix]
So let
those who believe that salvation is possible for those who don’t believe in
Christ and the Trinity (which is “the Catholic Faith” if defined in terms of
its simplest mysteries) change their position and align it with Catholic
dogma. There is no other name under all of heaven whereby a man is saved other
than the Lord Jesus (Acts 4:12). Let
them cease contradicting the Athanasian Creed and let them confess that
knowledge of these mysteries is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all
who wish to be saved. They must firmly
hold this so they can themselves possess the Catholic Faith and profess this
creed with honesty and as our Catholic forefathers did.
These
essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith have been disseminated and taught to
most by means of the Apostles’ Creed (which is given in the Appendix). This vital creed includes the central truths
about God the Father, God the Son (Our Lord Jesus Christ – His conception,
crucifixion, ascension, etc.) and God the Holy Ghost. It also contains a profession of Faith in the
crucial truths of the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the
forgiveness of sins and the resurrection of the body.
So far we’ve seen that it’s an infallibly
defined dogma that all who die as non-Catholics, including all Jews, pagans,
heretics, schismatics, etc. cannot be saved.
They need to be converted to have salvation. Now we must take a brief look at more of what
the Church specifically says about some of the prominent non-Catholic
religions, such as Judaism, Islam, and the Protestant and Eastern schismatic
sects. This will illustrate, once again,
that those who hold that members of non-Catholic religions can be saved are not
only going against the solemn declarations that have already been quoted, but
also the specific teachings quoted below.
SPECIFIC
CATHOLIC TEACHING AGAINST JUDAISM
Jews practice the Old Law and reject the
Divinity of Christ and the Trinity. The
Church teaches the following about the cessation of the Old Law and about all
who continue to observe it:
Pope Eugene IV, Council
of Florence, 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy
Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining
to the law of the Old Testament, the Mosaic law, which are divided into
ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to
the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by
them, ceased, and the sacraments of
the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in
these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for
salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion
of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed
until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the
promulgation of the Gospel it asserts
that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All,
therefore, who after that time [the promulgation of the Gospel] observe
circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, the holy
Roman Church declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to
participate in eternal salvation.”[c]
Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum (# 61), March 1, 1756:
“The first
consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the
coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed without sin after
the promulgation of the Gospel.”[ci]
Pope Pius XII, Mystici
Corporis Christi (#’s 29-30), June 29, 1943: “And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been
abolished… on the gibbet of His death
Jesus made void the Law with its decrees [Eph. 2:15]… establishing the New Testament
in His blood shed for the whole human race.
‘To such an extent, then,’ says
St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, ‘was there effected a
transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from
many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil
which shut off the innermost part of the
temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.’ On the
Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of
death…”[cii]
SPECIFIC
TEACHING AGAINST ISLAM
Pope Eugene
IV, Council of Basel, Session 19,
Sept. 7, 1434:
“… there is
hope that very many from the
abominable sect of Mahomet will be converted to the Catholic faith.”[ciii]
Pope Callixtus III,
1455: “I vow to… exalt the true Faith, and to extirpate the diabolical sect of the reprobate and faithless Mahomet [Islam]
in the East.”[civ]
The Catholic Church considers Islam an “abominable” and “diabolical”
sect. [Note: the Council of Basel is
only considered ecumenical/approved in the first 25 sessions, as The Catholic Encyclopedia points out in
Vol. 4, “Councils,” pp. 425-426.] An
“abomination” is something that is abhorrent in God’s sight; it’s something
that He has no esteem for and no respect for.
Something “diabolical” is something of the Devil. Islam rejects, among many other dogmas, the
Divinity of Jesus Christ and the Trinity.
Its followers are outside the pale of salvation so long as they remain
Muslims.
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne,
1311-1312:
“It is an insult to the holy name
and a disgrace to the Christian faith that in certain parts of the world
subject to Christian princes where Saracens [i.e., the followers of Islam, also
called Muslims] live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians,
the Saracen priests, commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in
which the Saracens meet to adore the
infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours
from a high place… There is a place, moreover, where once was buried a certain
Saracen whom other Saracens venerate as a saint. This
brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful. These
practices cannot be tolerated without displeasing the divine majesty. We therefore, with the sacred council’s
approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands. We
enjoin on Catholic princes, one and all… They are to remove this
offense together from their territories and take care that their subjects
remove it, so that they may thereby attain the reward of eternal
happiness. They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the
sacrilegious name of Mahomet… Those who presume to act otherwise are to
be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be
deterred from such boldness.”[cv]
While the Church teaches that all who die
as non-Catholics are lost, it also teaches that no one should be forced to embrace
baptism, since belief is a free act of the will.
Pope Leo XIII,
Immortale Dei (#36), Nov. 1, 1885:
“And, in fact, the Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be
forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for, as St. Augustine
wisely reminds us, ‘Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own will.’”[cvi]
The teaching of the Council of Vienne that Christian princes should enforce their civil
authority to forbid the public expression of the false religion of Islam shows
again that Islam is a false religion which leads souls to Hell (not Heaven) and
displeases God.
SPECIFIC
CATHOLIC TEACHING AGAINST PROTESTANT AND SCHISMATIC SECTS
The Catholic Church also teaches that
those baptized persons who embrace heretical or schismatic sects will lose
their souls. Jesus founded His Church
upon St. Peter, as we saw already, and declared that whoever does not hear the
Church be considered as the heathen and publican (Matthew 18:17). He also commanded His followers to observe “all
things whatsoever” He has commanded (Matthew 28:20). The Eastern schismatic sects (such as the
“Orthodox”) and the Protestant sects are breakoff movements that have separated
from the Catholic Church. By separating
themselves from the one Church of Christ, they leave the path of salvation and
enter the path of perdition.
These sects obstinately and pertinaciously
reject one or more of the truths that Christ clearly instituted, such as the
Papacy (Matthew 16; John 21; etc.), Confession (John 20:23), the Eucharist
(John 6:54), and other dogmas of the Catholic Faith. In order to be saved one must assent to all
the things which the Catholic Church, based on Scripture and Tradition, has
infallibly defined as dogmas of the Faith.
Below are just a few of the infallible dogmas of the Catholic Faith which are
rejected by Protestants and (in the case of the Papacy) by the Eastern
“Orthodox.” The Church “anathematizes”
(a severe form of excommunication) all who obstinately assert the contrary to
its dogmatic definitions.
"To
understand the word anathema…we should first go back to the real meaning of herem
of which it is the equivalent. Herem
comes from the word haram, to cut off, to separate, to curse, and
indicates that which is cursed and condemned to be cut off or exterminated,
whether a person or a thing, and in consequence, that which man is forbidden to
make use of. This is the sense of
anathema in the following passage from Deut., vii, 26: ‘Neither shalt thou
bring anything of the idol into thy house, lest thou become an anathema like
it. Thou shalt detest it as dung, and shalt utterly abhor it as uncleanness and
filth, because it is an anathema.’”[cvii]
Thus, a Protestant or an “Eastern
Orthodox” who obstinately rejects these dogmatic teachings is anathematized and
severed from the Church, outside of which there is no salvation. It’s quite interesting that, in issuing these
dogmatic canons, the Church says: “If anyone shall say…. let him be anathema [anathema sit]” as opposed to “If anyone
shall say… he is anathema [anathema est].” This qualification of “let him be” allows
room for those Catholics who may be unaware of a particular dogma and would
conform to the teaching of the canon as soon as it were presented to him. The person who is obstinate, however, and
willfully contradicts the dogmatic teaching of the Church receives the full
force of the automatic condemnation.
The point here is that if one is able to
reject these dogmas and still be saved, then
these infallible definitions and their accompanying anathemas have no meaning,
value or force. But they do have
meaning, value and force – they are infallible teachings protected by Jesus
Christ. Thus, all who reject these
dogmas are anathematized and on the road to damnation.
Pope Pius XI, Rerum omnium perturbationem (#4), Jan.
26, 1923: “The saint was no less a person that Francis de Sales… he seemed to have been sent especially by
God to contend against the heresies begotten by the [Protestant] Reformation. It is in these heresies that we
discover the beginnings of that apostasy of mankind from the Church, the
sad and disastrous effects of which are deplored, even to the present hour, by
every fair mind.”[cviii]
Pope Julius
III, Council of Trent, Session 13,
Can. 1 on the Eucharist, ex cathedra:
"If anyone denies that in the
sacrament of the most holy Eucharist there are truly, really, and substantially
contained the Body and Blood together with the soul and divinity of our
Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, but shall say that He is in
it as by sign or figure, or force, let
him be anathema."[cix]
Pope Julius
III, Council of Trent, Session 14,
Canon 3 on the Sacrament of Penance: “If anyone says that the words of the Lord
Savior: ‘Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose sins you shall forgive, they are
forgiven them; and whose sins ye shall retain, they are retained’ [John 20:22
f.], are not to be understood of the
power remitting and retaining sins in the sacrament of penance… let him be anathema.”[cx]
Pope Julius
III, Council of Trent, Session 14, on
Extreme Unction and Penance: “These are the things which this sacred ecumenical
synod professes and teaches concerning the
sacraments of penance and extreme unction, and it sets them forth to be
believed and held by all the faithful of Christ. Moreover, the following canons, it says, must
be inviolately observed, and it
condemns and anathematizes forever those who assert the contrary.”[cxi]
Pope Paul III,
Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 16, ex
cathedra:
"After this Catholic doctrine of
justification - which, unless he faithfully and firmly accepts, no one
can be justified - it seemed good to the holy Synod to add these
canons, so that all may know, not only what they must hold and follow, but also
what they ought to shun and avoid."[cxii]
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I,
1870, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: "… all the faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and
the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world, and the Pontiff of
Rome himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles,
and is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church... Furthermore
We teach and declare that the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord,
holds the sovereignty of ordinary power over all others… This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate
and keep his faith and
salvation."[cxiii]
CONCERNING
THOSE BAPTIZED VALIDLY AS INFANTS BY MEMBERS OF NON-CATHOLIC SECTS
The Catholic Church has always
taught that anyone (including a layman or a non-Catholic) can validly baptize
if he adheres to proper matter and form and if he has the intention of doing
what the Church does.
Pope
Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” 1439: “In case of necessity,
however, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or woman, yes even a
pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church
and has the intention of doing what the Church does.”[cxiv]
The Church has always taught
that infants baptized in heretical and schismatic churches are made Catholics,
members of the Church and subjects of the Roman Pontiff, even if the people who
baptized them are heretics who are outside the Catholic Church. This is because the infant, being below the
age of reason, cannot be a heretic or schismatic. He cannot have an impediment which would
prevent Baptism from making him a member of the Church.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can.
13 on the Sacrament of Baptism:
“If anyone shall say that infants,
because they have not actual faith, after having received baptism are not to
be numbered among the faithful… let him be anathema.”[cxv]
This means that all baptized
infants wherever they are, even those baptized in heretical non-Catholic
churches by heretical ministers, are made members of the Catholic Church. They are also made subject to the Roman
Pontiff (if there is one), as we saw earlier in the teaching of Pope Leo
XIII. So, at what one point does this
baptized Catholic infant become a non-Catholic – severing his membership in the
Church and subjection to the Roman Pontiff?
After the baptized infant reaches the age of reason, he or she becomes a
heretic or a schismatic and severs his membership in the Church and severs
subjection to the Roman Pontiff when he
or she obstinately rejects any teaching of the Catholic Church or loses
Faith in the essential mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation.
Pope Clement
VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351:
“…We ask: In the first place whether you
and the Church of the Armenians which is obedient to you, believe that all
those who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith, and
afterwards have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the communion of
this same Roman Church, which one alone is Catholic, are schismatic and
heretical, if they remain obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman
Church. In the second place, we
ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers
outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of
Rome, can finally be saved.”[cxvi]
So, one must be clear on these
points: 1) The unbaptized (Jews, Muslims, pagans, etc.) must all join the
Catholic Church by receiving Baptism and the Catholic Faith or they will all be lost. 2)
Among those who are baptized as infants, they are made Catholics,
members of the Church and subjects of the Roman Pontiff by Baptism. They only sever that membership (which they already possess) when they
obstinately reject any Catholic dogma or believe something contrary to the
essential mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation. In the teaching of Pope Clement VI above, we
see this second point clearly taught: all who receive the Catholic Faith in
Baptism lose that Faith and become schismatic and heretical if they become
“obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church.”
The fact is that all
Protestants who reject the Catholic Church or its dogmas on the sacraments, the
Papacy, etc. have obstinately separated from the Faith of the Roman Church and
have therefore severed their membership in the Church of Christ. The same is true with the “Eastern Orthodox”
who obstinately reject dogmas on the Papacy and Papal Infallibility. They need to be converted to the Catholic
Faith for salvation.
14. Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire –
Erroneous Traditions of Man
In this
document, I have shown that the Catholic Church infallibly teaches that the Sacrament
of Baptism is necessary for salvation. I
have also shown that it is only through receiving the Sacrament of Baptism that
one is incorporated into the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no
salvation. I have also shown that the
Catholic Church infallibly teaches that the words of Jesus Christ in John 3:5 –
Amen, amen I say unto thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy
Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God – are to be understood
literally: as they are written. This
is the infallible teaching of the Church and it excludes any possibility of
salvation without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost. However, throughout the history of the
Church, many have believed in the theories called baptism of desire and baptism
of blood: that one’s desire for the Sacrament of Baptism or one’s martyrdom for
the faith supplies for the lack of being born again of water and the Holy
Ghost. Those who believe in baptism of
blood and baptism of desire raise certain objections to the absolute necessity
of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation. So, in order to be complete, I will respond
to all of the major objections made by baptism of desire and blood advocates;
and in the process, I will give an overview of the history of the errors of
baptism of desire and baptism of blood.
In doing this I will demonstrate that neither baptism of blood nor
baptism of desire is a teaching of the Catholic Church.
THE
FATHERS ARE UNANIMOUS FROM THE BEGINNING
In the
first millennium of the Church there lived hundreds of holy men and saints who
are called “Fathers of the Church.”
Tixeront, in his Handbook of Patrology, lists over five hundred
whose names and writings have come down to us.[cxvii] The Fathers (or prominent early Christian
Catholic writers) are unanimous from the beginning that no one enters heaven or
is freed from original sin without water baptism.
In the letter of Barnabas, dated as early as 70 A.D., we read:
“… we descend into the water
full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our heart…”[cxviii]
In 140 A.D., the early Church Father Hermas quotes Jesus in John
3:5, and writes:
“They had need to come up through the water, so that they might
be made alive; for they could not
otherwise enter into the
This statement is obviously a
paraphrase of John 3:5, and thus it demonstrates that from the very beginning
of the apostolic age it was held and taught by the fathers that no one enters
heaven without being born again of water
and the Spirit based specifically on Our Lord Jesus Christ’s declaration in
John 3:5.
In 155 A.D., St. Justin the Martyr writes:
“… they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they
are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn… in
the name of God… they receive the washing of water. For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall
not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’
The reason for doing this we have learned from the apostles.”[cxx]
Notice that St. Justin Martyr,
like Hermas, also quotes the words of Jesus in John 3:5, and based on Christ’s
words he teaches that it is from apostolic tradition that no one at all can
enter Heaven without being born again of water and the Spirit in the Sacrament
of Baptism.
In his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, also dated 155 A.D., St.
Justin Martyr further writes:
“… hasten to learn in what way forgiveness of sins and a hope of the
inheritance… may be yours. There is no other way than this: acknowledge
Christ, be washed in the washing announced by Isaias [Baptism]…”[cxxi]
In 180 A.D., St. Irenaeus
writes:
“… giving the disciples the power of regenerating in God, He said to
them: ‘Go teach all nations, and baptize…
Just as dry wheat without moisture cannot become one dough or one loaf, so
also, we who are many cannot be made one
in Christ Jesus, without the
water from heaven…Our bodies achieve unity through the washing… our
souls, however, through the Spirit. Both, then, are necessary.”[cxxii]
Here we see again a clear
enunciation of the constant and apostolic Tradition that no one is saved
without the Sacrament of Baptism, from no less than the great
In 181 A.D., St. Theophilus continues the Tradition:
“… those things which were created from the waters were blessed by God,
so that this might also be a sign that men
would at a future time receive repentance and remission of sins through water
and the bath of regeneration…”[cxxiii]
In 203 A.D., Tertullian writes:
“… it is in fact
prescribed that no one can attain to salvation without Baptism, especially in
view of that declaration of the Lord, who says: ‘Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life [John
3:5]…”[cxxiv]
Notice how Tertullian affirms
the same apostolic Tradition that no one is saved without water baptism based
on the words of Jesus Himself.
Tertullian further writes in 203 A.D.:
“A treatise on our sacrament of water, by which the sins of our earlier
blindness are washed away … nor can
we otherwise be saved, except by permanently abiding in the water.”[cxxv]
Baptism has also been called
since apostolic times the Seal, the Sign and the Illumination; for without this
Seal, Sign or Illumination no one is forgiven of original sin or sealed as a
member of Jesus Christ.
“… he that confirmeth us
with you in Christ, and that hath anointed us, is God: Who also hath sealed us, and given the pledge
of the Spirit in our hearts.” (2 Cor.
1:21-22)
As early as 140 A.D., Hermas had
already taught this truth – that Baptism is the Seal – which was delivered by
the Apostles from Jesus Christ.
Hermas, 140 A.D.: “… before
a man bears the name of the Son of God, he is dead. But
when he receives the seal, he puts mortality aside and again receives
life. The seal, therefore, is the
water. They go down into the water
dead, and come out of it alive.”[cxxvi]
In the famous work entitled
The Second Epistle of Clement to the
Corinthians, 120-170 A.D., we read:
“For of those who have not kept the seal of baptism he says: ‘Their worm
shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched.’”[cxxvii]
St. Ephraim, c. 350 A.D.:
“… we are anointed in Baptism, whereby
we bear His seal.”[cxxviii]
St. Gregory Nyssa, c. 380
A.D.: “Make haste, O sheep, towards the
sign of the cross and the Seal [Baptism] which will save you from your misery!”[cxxix]
St. Clement of
“When we are baptized, we are enlightened. Being enlightened, we are adopted as sons…
This work is variously called grace, illumination, perfection, washing. It is a washing by which we are cleansed of
sins…”[cxxx]
Origen, 244 A.D.:
“The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism
even to infants… there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water
and the Spirit.”[cxxxi]
St. Aphraates, the oldest of the Syrian fathers, writes in 336 A.D.:
“This, then, is faith: that a man believe in God … His Spirit …His
Christ… Also, that a man believe in the resurrection of the dead; and moreover, that he believe in the
Sacrament of Baptism. This is the
belief of the Church of God.”[cxxxii]
The same Syrian father further writes:
“For from baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ… For the Spirit is absent from all those who are born of the flesh, until they come to the water of re-birth.”[cxxxiii]
Here we see in the writings of
St. Aphraates the same teaching of Tradition on the absolute necessity of water
baptism for salvation based on the words of Christ in John 3:5.
St. Cyril of
“He says, ‘Unless a man be born
again’ – and He adds the words ‘of water
and the Spirit’ – he cannot enter
into the Kingdom of God…..if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but does not
receive the seal by means of the water, shall he enter into the kingdom
of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine; for
it is Jesus who has declared it.”[cxxxiv]
We see that St. Cyril
continues the apostolic Tradition that no one enters heaven without being born
again of water and the Spirit, based again on an absolute understanding Our
Lord’s own words in John 3:5.
St. Basil the Great, c. 355 A.D.:
“Whence is it that we are Christians?
Through faith, all will answer. How are we saved? By being born again in the grace of
baptism… For it is the same loss for anyone to depart this life unbaptized,
as to receive that baptism from which one thing of what has been handed down
has been omitted.”[cxxxv]
St. Gregory of Elvira, 360 A.D.:
“Christ is called Net, because through Him and in Him the diverse multitudes of peoples are
gathered from the sea of the world, through
the water of Baptism and into the
Church, where a distinction is made between the good and the wicked.”[cxxxvi]
St. Ephraim, 366 A.D.:
“This the Most Holy Catholic Church professes. In
this same Holy Trinity She baptizes unto eternal life.”[cxxxvii]
Pope St. Damasus, 382 A.D.:
“This, then, is the salvation of
Christians: that believing in the Trinity, that is, in the Father, and in
the Son and in the Holy Spirit, and
baptized in it…”[cxxxviii]
St. Ambrose, 387 A.D.:
“… no one
ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.”[cxxxix]
St. Ambrose, 387 A.D.:
“‘Unless a
man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the
St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391 A.D.:
“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
“Weep for the unbelievers; weep for those who
differ not a whit from them, those who
go hence without illumination, without the seal! … They
are outside the royal city…. with the condemned. ‘Amen, I tell you, if anyone is not born of water and the Spirit, he
shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”[cxlii]
“… God does not forgive sins
except to the baptized.”[cxliii]
Pope St. Innocent, 414 A.D.:
“But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants
are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic.”[cxliv]
Pope St. Gregory the Great, c. 590 A.D.:
“Forgiveness of sin is bestowed
on us only by the baptism of Christ.”[cxlv]
Theophylactus, Patriarch of
“He that believeth and is
baptized, shall be saved. It does not suffice to believe; he who
believes, and is not yet baptized, but
is only a catechumen, has not yet fully acquired salvation.”[cxlvi]
Many other passages could be
quoted from the fathers, but it is a fact that the fathers of the Church are
unanimous from the beginning of the apostolic age that no one at all can be
saved without receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, based on the words of Jesus
Christ in John 3:5. The eminent
Patristic Scholar Fr. William Jurgens, who has literally read thousands of
texts from the fathers, was forced
to admit the following (even though he believes in baptism of desire) in his
three volume set on the fathers of the Church.
Fr. William Jurgens: “If there
were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of
‘Unless a man be born again of water and
the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken
absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit
to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical
impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to
be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”[cxlvii]
The eminent scholar Fr. Jurgens is admitting here three important
things:
1)
The fathers are constant in their teaching
that John 3:5 is absolute with no exceptions; that is, no one at all enters
heaven without being born again of water and the Spirit;
2)
The fathers are so constant on this point that it
likely constitutes divine revelation, without even considering the infallible
teaching of the popes;
3)
The constant teaching of the fathers that all must
receive water baptism for salvation in light of John 3:5 excludes exceptions
for the “invincibly ignorant” or “physically impossible” cases.
And
based on this truth, declared by Jesus in the Gospel (John 3:5), handed down by
the Apostles and taught by the fathers, the Catholic Church has infallibly
defined as a dogma (as we have seen already) that no one at all enters heaven
without the Sacrament of Baptism.
Pope Paul
III, The Council of Trent, Canon 5 on
the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for
salvation (John. 3:5): let him be anathema.”[cxlviii]
But, as is the case with many
other matters, not all of the fathers remained consistent with their own
affirmation of the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation.
NOT
ALL OF THE FATHERS REMAINED CONSISTENT WITH THEIR OWN AFFIRMATION
Despite the fact that there is a
constant tradition from the beginning that no one at all is saved without water
baptism, not all of the fathers always remained consistent with their own
affirmation on this point. And that is where we come across the
theories of “baptism of blood” and “baptism of desire,” each of which will
be discussed in turn. But it must be
understood that the fathers of the Church were mistaken and inconsistent with
their own teaching and the apostolic Tradition on many points – since
they were fallible men who made many errors.
Fr. William
Jurgens: “… we must stress that a
particular patristic text [a particular statement from a father] is in no instance
to be regarded as a ‘proof’ of a particular doctrine. Dogmas
are not ‘proved’ by patristic statements, but by the infallible teaching
instruments of the Church. The value of the Fathers and writers is this:
that in the aggregate [that is, in totality], they demonstrate what the Church
believes and teaches; and again, in the aggregate [that is, in totality],
they provide a witness to the content of Tradition, that Tradition which is
itself a vehicle of revelation.”[cxlix]
The fathers of the Church are only a
definite witness to Tradition when expressing a point held universally
and constantly or when expressing something that is in line with defined
dogma. Taken individually or even in
multiplicity, they can be dead wrong and even dangerous. St. Basil the Great said that the Holy Ghost
is second to the Son of God in order and dignity, in a horrible and even
heretical attempt to explain the Holy Trinity.
St. Basil
(363): “The Son is not, however, second to the Father in nature, because the
Godhead is one in each of them, and plainly, too, in the Holy Spirit, even
if in order and dignity He is second to the Son (yes, this we do concede!),
though not in such a way, it is clear, that He were of another nature.” [cl]
When St. Basil says above that the Godhead
is one in Father, Son and Holy Spirit, he is correctly affirming the universal,
apostolic Tradition. But when he says
that the Holy Spirit is second in dignity
to the Son he ceases to remain consistent with this Tradition and falls into
error (material heresy, in fact). And
the fathers made countless errors in attempting to defend or articulate the
Faith.
St. Augustine wrote an entire book of
corrections. St. Fulgentius and a
host of others, including St. Augustine, held that it was certain that infants
who die without baptism descend into the
fires of Hell, a position that was later condemned by Pope Pius VI. As Pope Pius VI confirmed, unbaptized infants
go to Hell, but to a place in Hell where there is no fire.[cli]
But
The
Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 9, “Limbo,” p. 257: “On the special question, however, of the punishment of original sin
after death, St. Anselm was at one with
This is why Catholics don’t form definite
doctrinal conclusions from the teaching of a father of the Church or a handful
of fathers; a Catholic goes by the infallible teaching of the Church proclaimed
by the popes; and a Catholic assents to the teaching of the fathers of the
Church when they are in universal and constant agreement from the
beginning and in line with Catholic dogmatic teaching.
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.”[cliii]
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[cliv]
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.’”[clv]
The
Catholic Church recognizes infallibility in no saint, theologian or early
Church father. It is only a pope
operating with the authority of the Magisterium who is protected by the Holy
Ghost from teaching error on faith or morals.
So, when we examine and show how Churchmen have erred on the topics of
baptism of desire and blood this is 100% consistent with the teaching of the
Church, which has always acknowledged that any Churchman, no matter how great,
can make errors, even significant ones. Finally,
after dealing with baptism of desire and blood, I will quote a Pope, who is
also an early Church father, whose teaching ends all debate on the subject. I will now proceed to discuss baptism of
blood and baptism of desire.
THE THEORY OF BAPTISM OF BLOOD - A TRADITION OF MAN
A small
number of the fathers – approximately 8
out of a total of hundreds – are quoted in favor of what is called “baptism
of blood,” the idea that a catechumen (that is, one preparing to receive
Catholic Baptism) who shed his blood for Christ could be saved without having
received Baptism. It is crucial to note
at the beginning that none of the
fathers considered anyone but a catechumen as a possible exception to receiving
the Sacrament of Baptism; they would all condemn and reject as heretical and
foreign to the teaching of Christ the modern heresy of “invincible ignorance”
saving those who die as non-Catholics.
So, out of the fathers, approximately 8 are quoted in favor of baptism
of blood for catechumens. And, only 1 father out of hundreds,
St. Cyril
of
Here we see that St. Cyril of
St. Fulgence, 523: “From that time at which Our Savior said: “If anyone is not reborn of water and the
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven,’ no one can, without
the sacrament of baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church, without
Baptism pour out their blood for Christ…”[clvii]
Here we see that St. Fulgence
believed in baptism of blood but rejected the idea of baptism of desire. And what’s ironic and particularly dishonest is
that the baptism of desire apologists (such as the priests of the Society of
St. Pius X) will quote these patristic texts (such as the two above) in books
written to prove baptism of desire,
without pointing out to their readers that these passages actually deny baptism
of desire; for we can see that St. Fulgence, while expressing belief in baptism
of blood, rejects baptism of desire, only allowing martyrs as a possible
exception to receiving baptism. (What
would St. Fulgence say about the modern version of the heresy of baptism of
desire, also taught by such priests of the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, etc. whereby Jews,
Muslims, Hindus and pagans can be saved without Baptism?)
St. Fulgence, On the Forgiveness
of Sins, 512 A.D.: “Anyone who is
outside this Church, which received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, is walking a path not to heaven but to hell. He is not approaching the home of eternal
life; rather, he is hastening to the torment of eternal death.”[clviii]
St. Fulgence, The Rule of Faith,
526 A.D.: “Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that not only all the pagans but also all the Jews and
all the heretics and schismatics who end this present life outside the Catholic
Church are about to go into the eternal fire that was prepared for the devil
and his angels.”[clix]
We can see that St. Fulgence
would have – like all of the other fathers – sternly condemned the modern
heretics who hold that those who die as non-Catholics can be saved.
But what is most interesting
about this is that in the same
document in which St. Fulgence expresses his error on baptism of blood
(quoted already), he makes a different and significant error.
St. Fulgence, 523: “Hold most
firmly and never doubt in the least that not only men having the use of
reason but even infants who… pass from
this world without the Sacrament of holy Baptism… are to be punished in the everlasting torment of eternal fire.”[clx]
St. Fulgence says “Hold most firmly and never doubt” that
infants who die without baptism are “to
be punished in the everlasting torment of eternal fire.” This is wrong. Infants who die without baptism descend into
Hell, but to a place in Hell where there is no fire (Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei).[clxi] St. Fulgence shows, therefore, that his
opinion in favor of baptism of blood is quite fallible by making a
different error in the same document.
It is quite remarkable, in fact, that
in almost every instance when a father of the Church or someone else expresses
his error on baptism of blood or baptism of desire that same person makes
another significant error in the same work, as we will see.
It is also important to point
out that some of the fathers use the term “baptism of blood” to describe the
Catholic martyrdom of one already baptized, not as a possible replacement for water baptism. This is the only legitimate use of the term.
“Do not be
surprised that I call martyrdom a Baptism; for here too the Spirit comes in great
haste and there is a taking away of sins and a wonderful and marvelous
cleansing of the soul; and just as those being baptized are washed in water, so
too those being martyred are washed in their own blood.”[clxii]
“These
things were well understood by our holy and inspired fathers --- thus they
strove, after Holy Baptism,
to keep... spotless and undefiled.
Whence some of them also thought fit to receive another Baptism: I
mean that which is by blood and martyrdom.”[clxiii]
This is important because
many dishonest scholars today (such as the priests of the Society of St. Pius
X) will distort the teaching on this point; they will quote a passage on
baptism of blood where St. John is simply speaking of baptism of blood as a
Catholic martyrdom for one already baptized, and they will present it as if the
person were teaching that martyrdom can replace baptism – when such is not
stated anywhere.
Some may
wonder why the term baptism of blood was used at all. I believe that the reason the term “baptism
of blood” was used by some of the fathers was because Our Lord described His
coming passion as a baptism in Mark 10:38-39.
[Mark
10:38-39]: “And Jesus said to them: You know not what you ask. Can you drink the chalice that I drink of: or
be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized? But they said to him: We can. And Jesus saith to them: You shall indeed
drink of the chalice that I drink of: and with the baptism wherewith I am
baptized, you shall be baptized.”
We see in the aforementioned passage that Our Lord, although already
baptized by
The term
baptism is used in a variety of ways in the scriptures and by the Church
fathers. The baptisms: of water, of
blood, of the spirit, of Moses, and of fire are all terms that have been
implemented by Church Fathers to characterize certain things, but not
necessarily to describe that an unbaptized martyr can attain salvation. Read the verse of scripture in which the term
baptism is used for the Old Testament forefathers:
[1Cor.
10:2-4]: “And all in Moses were
BAPTIZED, in the cloud, and in the sea: And did all eat the same spiritual
food, And all drank the same spiritual drink: (and they drank of the spiritual
rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.)”
I believe this explains why a number of fathers erred in
believing that baptism of blood supplies the place of baptism of water. They recognized that Our Lord referred to His
own martyrdom as a baptism, and they erroneously concluded that martyrdom for
the true faith can serve as a substitute for being born again of water and the
Holy Ghost. But the reality is that
there are no exceptions to Our Lord’s words in John 3:5, as the infallible
teaching of the Catholic Church confirms.
Anyone of good will who is
willing to shed his blood for the true faith will not be left without these
saving waters. It is not our blood,
but Christ’s blood on the Cross, communicated to us in the Sacrament of
Baptism, which frees us from the state of sin and allows us entrance into the
kingdom of Heaven (more on this later).
Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino,” Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “No
one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the
name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom
and unity of the Catholic Church.”[clxiv]
TWO
OF THE EARLIEST STATEMENTS ON BAPTISM OF BLOOD
Out of the few fathers that can be quoted in
favor of baptism of blood being a possible replacement to actual Baptism, two
of the very earliest statements supporting the idea come from St. Cyprian and
Tertullian.
St. Cyprian, To Jubaianus (254):
“Catechumens who suffer martyrdom before
they have received Baptism with water are not deprived of the Sacrament of
Baptism. Rather, they are baptized
with the most glorious and greatest Baptism of Blood…”[clxv]
Let’s examine this
passage. While teaching baptism of
blood, notice that St. Cyprian makes a significant error in the same
sentence. He says:
“catechumens who suffer martyrdom before they have received Baptism are
not deprived of the Sacrament of Baptism.”
This is completely wrong,
even from the point of view of the baptism of blood/desire advocates. All baptism of desire and blood advocates
readily admit that neither is a sacrament, because neither confers the
indelible character of the Sacrament of Baptism. Hence, even the staunchest advocates of
baptism of blood would admit that St. Cyprian’s statement here is wrong. Therefore, in the very SENTENCE in which St.
Cyprian teaches the error of baptism of blood, he makes a significant error in
explaining it – he calls it “the Sacrament of Baptism.” What more proof is necessary to demonstrate
to the liberals that the teaching of individual fathers is not infallible and
does not represent the universal Tradition and can even be dangerous, if held
obstinately? Why do they quote such
erroneous passages to attempt to “teach” the faithful when they do not even
agree with them?
Furthermore, St. Cyprian’s
errors in this very document (To
Jubaianus) don’t end here! In the
same document, St. Cyprian teaches that heretics cannot administer valid
baptism.
St. Cyprian, To Jubaianus (254):
“… in regard to what I might think in the
matter of the baptism of heretics… This baptism we cannot reckon as valid…”[clxvi]
This is also completely
wrong, as the Council of Trent defined that heretics, provided they observe the
correct matter and form, confer valid baptism.
But St. Cyprian actually held that it was from apostolic Tradition
that heretics could not confer a valid baptism!
And this false idea was opposed by the then Pope St. Stephen and later
condemned by the Catholic Church. So
much for the claim that St. Cyprian’s Letter To Jubaianus is a sure representation of apostolic Tradition! In fact, St. Cyprian and 30 other bishops
declared in a regional council in 254 A.D.:
“We… judging and holding it as
certain that no one beyond the pale [that is, outside the Church] is able to be
baptized…”[clxvii]
This again proves the point:
Jesus Christ only gave infallibility to St. Peter and his successors (the
popes).
“And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired
to have all of you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and
thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” (Luke 22:31-32)
Jesus Christ did not give
unfailing faith to bishops, theologians or fathers of the Church; He only gave
it to Peter and his successors when speaking from the Chair of Peter or when
proposing a doctrine for the faithful to be believed as divinely revealed.
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, ex cathedra:
“So, this gift of truth AND A NEVER
FAILING FAITH WAS DIVINELY CONFERRED
UPON PETER AND HIS SUCCESSORS IN THIS CHAIR…”[clxviii]
Another early father who is
frequently quoted in favor of baptism of blood is Tertullian. His statement is the earliest recorded statement
teaching baptism of blood.
Tertullian, On Baptism, 203
A.D.: “If they might be washed in water, they must necessarily be so by
blood. This is the Baptism which
replaces that of the fountain, when it has not been received, and restores it
when it has been lost.”[clxix]
But guess what? In the same work in which Tertullian
expresses his opinion in favor of baptism of blood, he also makes a
different and significant error. He
says that infants should not be baptized until they are grown up!
Tertullian, On Baptism, 203
A.D.: “According to circumstance and disposition and even age of the
individual person, it may be
better to delay baptism; and especially
so in the case of little children…Let
them come, then, while they grow up…”[clxx]
This contradicts the
universal Catholic Tradition, received from the Apostles, and the later
infallible teaching of the popes, that infants should be baptized as soon as
possible.
Pope Eugene
IV, Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “Regarding children… holy baptism ought not be deferred…”[clxxi]
But in addition to this, in
the same work On Baptism, Tertullian
actually affirms the universal teaching of Tradition on the absolute necessity
of water baptism, contrary to the idea of baptism of blood.
Tertullian, On Baptism, 203: “… it is in fact prescribed that no one can
attain to salvation without Baptism, especially in view of that declaration of
the Lord, who says: ‘Unless a man shall
be born of water, he shall not have life [John 3:5]…”[clxxii]
Thus,
those who think that baptism of blood is a teaching of the Catholic Church
simply because this error was expressed by a number of fathers are simply
mistaken. As many or more fathers held
that unbaptized infants suffer the fires of Hell and that heretics cannot validly
baptize. The theory of baptism of blood
was not held universally or constantly in Catholic Tradition and it has
never been taught or mentioned by any pope, any council or in any Papal
Encyclical.
One of the
biggest objections from baptism of desire/blood advocates is the claim that the
Catholic Church recognizes saints who never received the Sacrament of
Baptism. The answer to this is that the Catholic Church has never recognized
that there are saints in heaven who were not baptized. Some historians have written accounts
of the lives of certain saints in which these saints died without baptism of
water – by “baptism of blood”; but the assertions of these historians prove
nothing.
Not all of the information surrounding the deaths of martyrs is
accurate. For instance, “According to St. Ambrose, Prudentius and
Father Butler, Saint Agnes was beheaded.
Others had said she [St. Agnes] was burned to death. Our point is that not all of the information
given in the martyrdom narrative is necessarily accurate, consistent, or
complete.”[clxxiii]
Pope St.
Gelasius, Decretal, 495: “Likewise the deeds of the holy martyrs…
[which] with remarkable caution are not read in the holy Roman Church… because
the names of those who wrote them are entirely unknown… lest an occasion of
mockery might arise.”[clxxiv]
Pope St.
Gelasius is saying here that the acts and deeds recorded of the martyrs are
uncertain. Their authors are unknown,
the accounts may contain error and they were not even read out in the holy
Roman Church to avoid possible scandal or mockery which might arise from any
false statements contained therein. In
fact, in his work The Age of Martyrs,
the renowned Church historian Abbot Giuseppe Ricciotti says: “For
guides we have appropriate documents.
These, however, as we have already seen, are often uncertain and would lead us completely astray. Especially
unreliable are the Acts or Passions of martyrs.”[clxxv] The infallible teaching of the Catholic
Church, on the other hand, is absolutely reliable, and it has never taught that
souls can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism by “baptism of blood.” Thus, in short, there is no proof that any
saint martyred for the Catholic Faith never received the Sacrament of
Baptism.
THE FORTY
MARTYRS OF SEBASTE
An
example of how the baptism of blood advocates err in this matter is their
assertion that the fortieth martyr of Sebaste was unbaptized. They say that he was
unbaptized, but that he joined himself with the other thirty-nine martyrs and
froze to death for Christ on the lake. The fact is that there is no proof that the
fortieth martyr of Sebaste was unbaptized, whose identity is unknown. The accounts of the story reveal that he
“cried out with a loud voice that he was a Christian,” probably because he was
already a baptized Catholic who was spurred on to martyrdom by the example of
the other thirty-nine. Further, in the
Roman Martyrology under the date of September 9, we read:
“At Sebaste in Armenia, St. Severian, a
soldier of Emperor Licinius. For
frequently visiting the Forty Martyrs in prison, he was suspended in the
air with a stone tied to his feet by order of the governor Lysias…”[clxxvi]
It is certain that Severian was not the
fortieth martyr (from the date and circumstances of his death), but we see from
this account that other people and soldiers were able to visit the forty in
prison. Thus, the forty martyrs easily
could have baptized any soldiers who showed interest and sympathy with their
cause, including the one who joined
himself to them eventually (if he wasn’t already baptized). Thus, there is nothing that proves that the
fortieth martyr was unbaptized, and we
know that he was from the truth of our Faith. The same can be said about all of the
approximately 20 cases which are brought forward by the baptism of blood
advocates.
Pope Eugene
IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex
cathedra: “And since
death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again 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.”[clxxvii]
I will
quote verbatim from Brother Robert Mary, in Father Feeney and The Truth
About Salvation (pp. 173-175), who clears up some of the confusion which
swirls around this topic:
“We will
now examine the historical evidence put forth by those who claim that ‘baptism
of blood’ is a substitute for, even superior to, the sacrament of baptism. This evidence is found in the many writings
that have been handed down to us over the centuries as recorded in various
martyrologies, acts of the martyrs, lives of the saints and similar
sources. The most concise information on
martyrs is found in martyrologies.
“The present Roman Martyrology is a
catalogue of saints honored by the Church, not only those martyred for the
Faith. It first appeared in 1584, and
was derived from ancient martyrologies that existed in the fourth century, plus
official and non-official records taken from acts of the martyrs that date back
to the second century. It has been
revised several times since its first compilation. When he was assigned to revise the ancient
accounts, Saint Robert Bellarmine himself had to be restrained from overly
skeptical editorial deletions.
“First, it was not the intent of those
who first reported the circumstances of the deaths of the martyrs to provide
information from which ‘baptismal registers’ could later be compiled. If the chronicler makes no mention of the
martyr’s Baptism, it does not necessarily mean that he was never baptized. A case in point is Saint Patrick. He was not a martyr, but his Baptism was
never recorded. Yet, we know positively
that he received the sacrament since he was a bishop.
“Next, even if a chronicler states
positively that a martyr had not been baptized, it should be understood to mean
that he was ‘not recorded’ as having been baptized. In those times especially, no person could
hope to know with certainty that another had not been baptized.
“Third, if a chronicler says that a martyr
was ‘baptized in his own blood’, this does not automatically preclude (rule
out) prior reception of the sacrament by water.
When Christ referred to His coming Passion as a ‘Baptism’, He had
already been baptized by
“Fourth, ‘baptism of blood’ should be
understood as the greatest act of love of God that a man can make. God rewards it with direct entrance into
heaven for those who are already baptized and in the Church: no purgatory ---
it is a perfect confession. If it
were capable of substituting for any sacrament, it would be the sacrament of
Penance, because Penance does not oblige with a necessity of means, but precept
only.
“In his book Church History, Father
John Laux, M. A., writes:
‘If he [the
Christian] was destined to lose his life, he had been taught that martyrdom was
a second Baptism, which washed away every stain, and that the soul of
the martyr was secure in immediate admission to the perfect happiness of
heaven.’
“Fifth, when a martyr is referred to as a
‘catechumen,’ it does not always mean he was not yet baptized. A catechumen was a person learning the Faith,
as a student in a class called a catechumenate, under a teacher called a
catechist. That students continued in
their class even after they were baptized is confirmed conclusively by these
words of Saint Ambrose to his catechumens:
“I know very well that many things still have to be explained. It may strike you as strange that you were
not given a complete teaching on the sacraments before you were baptized. However, the ancient discipline of the Church
forbids us to reveal the Christian mysteries to the uninitiated. For the full meaning of the sacraments cannot
be grasped without the light which they themselves shed in your hearts.” (On
the Mysteries and On the Sacraments, Saint Ambrose)
Whereas
the unbaptized were never considered part of the faithful until they
were baptized (they were always required to leave before the Mass of the
Faithful), Bro. Robert Mary is pointing out that some recently baptized persons,
who were still undergoing instruction, were occasionally referred to as
“catechumens.”
Pope St.
Sylvester I, First Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D., Can. 2: “For a
catechumen needs time and further probation after baptism...”[clxxviii]
In Tradition, the Church did not reveal certain things except to the
initiated (the baptized). So, after a
person was baptized he or she frequently continued catechetical instruction,
and was therefore sometimes referred to as a “catechumen.” The fact that there is a distinction between unbaptized catechumens and baptized catechumens is implicit in the
following quotation from the Council of Braga in 572.
Council of
If those described as “catechumens” were
always unbaptized, then there would be no need for the council to say that no
chanting or sacrifice is to be employed for catechumens “who have died without
baptism.” Therefore, the fact that
the Roman Martyrology describes a few saints as “catechumens,” such as St.
Emerentiana, does not prove that they were unbaptized, even though the term
“catechumen” usually means unbaptized. Besides,
the Roman Martyrology is not infallible and contains historical errors.
Donald Attwater, A Catholic Dictionary, p. 310: “An
historical statement in the ‘Martyrology’ as such has no authority… A number of
entries in the Roman Martyrology are found to be unsatisfactory when so
tested.”[clxxx]
Concerning the Roman Breviary, Dom Prosper
Guéranger, one of the most celebrated liturgists in Church history, seems to
correct certain errors in the Roman Breviary:
Dom Prosper Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, Vol. 8 (Sts.
Tiburtius, etc.), p. 315: “The solemnity of November 22, formerly preceded by a
vigil, is marked in the Roman breviary
as the day of her [St. Cecilia’s] martyrdom; it is, in reality, the anniversary of her magnificent basilica in
Further,
we will see in the section on St. Gregory Nazianz (pp. 76-77) that if one
applies the teaching of the Breviary on theological matters as infallible, then
he must reject baptism of desire. I
continue with the quotation from Bro. Robert Mary:
“Sixth, in those days, a formal Baptism
was a very impressive ceremony conducted by the bishop. However, the Church has always taught that,
in case of necessity, any person of either sex who has reached the use of
reason, Catholic or non-Catholic, may baptize by using the correct words and
intending to do what the Church intends to be done by the sacrament. Therefore, in the early Church, baptized
Christians and unbaptized catechumens were instructed to administer the
sacrament to each other, if and as needed, whenever persecutions broke out.
“Seventh, salvation was made possible for
us when, on the Cross on
“Let us put it another way: In our opinion, the absolutely certain
remission of original sin and incorporation into Christ and His Church are
accomplished only by the water to which, alone, Christ has given that
power. A man’s blood has no such
power. Martyrdom is the greatest act
of love of God a man can make, but it cannot substitute for the sacrament of
baptism.” - end of quotation
There is no need to examine in detail all of
the fewer than 20 individual cases of saints’ martyrdoms (out of
thousands) which some have said occurred without baptism. For instance, in the case of St. Emerentiana – who was martyred
while praying publicly at the tomb of St. Agnes during the persecution of
Diocletian – one could point out that the account of her martyrdom provides a
situation that, in itself, suggests she was already baptized; for she wouldn’t
have endangered herself in that fashion during the persecution had she not been
baptized. Or even if she wasn’t baptized
before she was attacked (which is highly unlikely), she certainly could have
been baptized after the attack by her mother who accompanied her (according to
accounts) to the tomb to pray.
There are so many stories which give a
drastically different impression and hold a different meaning if just one small
detail is omitted. Take, for instance,
the case of St. Venantius. At 15 years
of age, St. Venantius was taken before the governor during the persecution of
the Emperor Decius:
“One of the officials, Anastasius by name,
having noticed the courage wherewith he [St. Venantius] suffered his torments, and
having also seen an angel in a white robe walking above the smoke, and again
liberating Venantius, believed in Christ,
and together with his family was
baptized by the priest Porphyrius, with
whom he afterwards merited to receive the palm of martyrdom.”[clxxxii]
This
interesting story shows us, once again, how God gets baptism to all His elect,
but notice how easily it could have been misunderstood if one simple detail had
been omitted. If the single point about
how Anastasius and his family were baptized by Porphyrius had been omitted, the
reader would almost certainly get the impression that Anastasius was a martyr
for Christ who never received baptism – receiving instead “baptism of
blood.”
The fact is that there is no need to go
through all of these few cases and show that: 1) there is no proof that the
saint (whom they claim was unbaptized) wasn’t baptized; and 2) there are many
explanations for how the saint could have been and was baptized. All that is necessary to disprove the claim
that there are unbaptized saints is to show that the Church has infallibly
taught that no one can get to heaven
without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost in the Sacrament of
Baptism.
Pope Paul
III, The Council of Trent, Canon 5 on
the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not
necessary for salvation (John. 3:5): let him be anathema.”[clxxxiii]
However,
one alleged case of “baptism of blood” is particularly interesting.
ST. ALBAN AND HIS CONVERTED GUARD
St. Alban
was the protomartyr of
St. Bede: “As he reached the
summit, holy Alban asked God to give him (Alban) water, and at once a
perennial spring bubbled up at his feet…”
The reader may be confused at
this point, and rightly so, so let me explain.
We have two (fallible) accounts of the martyrdom of St. Alban and his
guard, from St. Bede and Butler’s Lives
of the Saints. They both record that just
before the martyrdom of St. Alban and his guard, St. Alban prayed for “water”
which he miraculously received! St.
Bede then goes on to say that the guard died unbaptized!
SUMMARIZING
THE FACTS ON BAPTISM OF BLOOD
As
stated already, the theory of baptism of blood has never been taught by one
pope, one council or in any Papal Encyclical. At least 5 dogmatic councils of the Catholic
Church issued detailed definitions on Baptism, and not one ever mentioned the
concept or the term baptism of blood.
The Council of Trent had 14 canons on Baptism, and baptism of blood is
mentioned nowhere. And, in fact, various
infallible statements from the popes and councils exclude the idea.
Pope Eugene
IV, “Cantate Domino,” Council of Florence,
ex cathedra: “No
one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the
name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and
unity of the Catholic Church.”[clxxxv]
Pope Eugene IV explicitly excludes from salvation even those who “shed
blood for the name of Christ” unless they are living within the bosom and unity
of the Church! And, as proven already,
the unbaptized are not living within the bosom and unity of the Church (de fide)! The unbaptized are not subjects of the
Catholic Church (de fide, Council of
Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 2);[clxxxvi]
the unbaptized are not members of the Catholic Church (de fide, Pius XII, Mystici Corporis # 22);[clxxxvii]
and the unbaptized do not have the mark of Christians (de fide, Pius XII, Mediator Dei # 43).[clxxxviii]
If
“baptism of blood” truly served as a substitute for the Sacrament of Baptism,
God would never have allowed the Catholic Church to understand John 3:5 as it is written in its infallible
decrees, as He has (Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate
Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, etc.). This is
certain, because the Church’s official understanding of the scriptures cannot
err.
Furthermore, God would never have allowed the infallible Council of
Trent to completely pass over any mention of this “exception” in its canons on
baptism and its chapters on justification as an alternative way of achieving
the state of grace. He would never have
allowed all of the infallible definitions from popes on only one baptism
to avoid any mention of “the baptism of blood.”
And God
would not have allowed Pope Eugene IV to define that nobody, even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ,
can be saved unless he is in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church,
without mentioning the exception of “baptism of blood.” God has never allowed the theory of
baptism of blood to be taught in one council, by one pope, or in one infallible
decree, but only by fallible theologians and fallible early Church fathers. All of this is because baptism of blood is
not a teaching of the Catholic Church, but the erroneous speculation of certain
fathers who also erred frequently in the same documents.
There would be no need for God to save anyone by baptism of blood (or
“baptism of desire”), since He can keep any sincere souls alive until they are
baptized, as we saw with the case of St. Alban and the converted guard. St.
Martin of
History
also records that St. Patrick – who himself raised over 40 people from the dead
– raised a number of people from the dead specifically in order to baptize
them, something which was totally unnecessary if one can be saved without
baptism. As one scholar notes,
“In all, St. Patrick brought to life some forty
infidels in
The same scholar further notes:
“Many such saints have been recorded as resurrecting grown-ups
specifically and exclusively for the Sacrament of Baptism, including St. Peter
Claver, St. Winifred of
One
of the more interesting cases is the story of Augustina, the slave girl, which
is related in the life of St. Peter Claver, a Jesuit missionary in 17th
century
“When Father Claver arrived at her deathbed,
Augustina lay cold to the touch, her body already being prepared for
burial. He prayed at her bedside for one
hour, when suddenly the woman sat up, vomited a pool of blood, and declared upon
being questioned by those in attendance: ‘I have come from journeying along a long road. After I had gone a long way down it, I met a
white man of great beauty who stood before me and said: Stop! You can go no further.’… On hearing this,
Father Claver cleared the room and prepared to hear her Confession, thinking
she was in need of absolution for some sin she may have forgotten. But in the course of the ritual, St. Peter
Claver was inspired to realize that she had never been baptized. He cut short her confession and declined to
give her absolution, calling instead for water with which to baptize her. Augustina’s master insisted that she could
not possibly need baptism since she had been in his employ for twenty years and
had never failed to go to Mass, Confession, and Communion all that time. Nevertheless, Father Claver insisted on baptizing her, after which Augustina died
again joyfully and peacefully in the presence of the whole family.”[cxciii]
The
great “Apostle of the
Fr. De
Smet, Dec. 18, 1839: “I have often remarked that many of the children seem to
await baptism before winging their flight to heaven, for they die almost immediately after receiving the sacrament.” [cxciv]
Fr. De
Smet, Dec. 9, 1845: “… over a hundred children and eleven old people were baptized. Many of the latter [the old people], who were
carried on buffalo hides, seemed only to
await this grace before going to rest in the bosom of God.”[cxcv]
On this
point the reader will also want to look at the section on St. Isaac Jogues and
St. Francis Xavier later in this document.
In the
life of the extraordinary Irish missionary St. Columbanus (+ 543-615 A.D.), we
read of a similar story of God’s providence getting all good willed souls to
baptism.
“[Columbanus
said]: ‘My sons, today you will see an
ancient Pictish chief, who has faithfully kept the precepts of the Natural Law
all his life, arrive on this island; he comes to be baptized and to die.’ Immediately, a boat was seen to approach with
a feeble old man seated in the prow who was recognized as chief of one of the
neighboring tribes. Two of his
companions brought him before the missionary, to whose words he listened
attentively. The old man asked to be baptized, and immediately thereafter
breathed out his last breath and was buried on the very spot.”[cxcvi]
Father
Point, S.J. was a fellow Jesuit Missionary to the Indians with Fr. De Smet in
the 19th century. He tells a
very interesting story about the miraculous resuscitation for Baptism of a
person who had been instructed in the Faith but apparently died without
receiving the sacrament.
Father
Point, S.J., quoted in The Life of Fr. De
Smet, pp. 165-166: “One morning, upon leaving the church I met an Indian
woman, who said: ‘So-and-so is not well.’
She [the person who was not
well] was not yet a catechumen and I said I would go to see her. An hour later the same person [who came and
told him the person is not well], who was her sister, came to me saying she was dead.
I ran to the tent, hoping she
might be mistaken, and found a crowd of relatives around the bed, repeating,
‘She is dead – she has not breathed for some time.’ To assure myself, I leaned over the body;
there was no sign of life. I
reproved these excellent people for not telling me at once of the gravity of
the situation, adding, ‘May God forgive me!’
Then, rather impatiently, I said, ‘Pray!’ and all fell on their knees
and prayed devoutly.
“I again leaned over the supposed corpse
and said, ‘The Black Robe is here: do you wish him to baptize you?’ At
the word baptism I saw a slight tremor of the lower lip; then both lips
moved, making me certain that she understood.
She had already been instructed, so I at once baptized her, and
she rose from her bier, making the sign of the cross. Today she is out hunting and is fully
persuaded that she died at the time I have recounted.”[cxcvii]
This is
another example of a person who had already been instructed in the Faith but
had to be miraculously resuscitated specifically for the Sacrament of Baptism,
and the miraculous resuscitation occurred at the moment that the priest
pronounced the word “Baptism.”
In the
life of St. Francis De Sales we also find a child miraculously raised from the
dead specifically for the Sacrament of Baptism.
“A baby, the child of a Protestant mother,
had died without Baptism. St.
Francis had gone to speak to the mother about Catholic doctrine, and prayed that the child would be restored
to life long enough to receive Baptism.
His prayer was granted, and the whole family became Catholic.”[cxcviii]
St.
Francis De Sales himself summed up the beautifully simple truth on this issue
in the following manner, when he was discoursing against the Protestant
heretics.
St. Francis De Sales (Doctor of the Church), The Catholic Controversy, c. 1602, pp.
156-157: “The way in which one deduces an article of faith is this: the Word of God is infallible; the Word of
God declares that Baptism is necessary for salvation; therefore Baptism is
necessary for salvation.”[cxcix]
Here is another
description of an infant child who died without the Sacrament of Baptism and
was raised from the dead through the intercession of St. Stephen.
“At Uzale, a woman had an infant son… Unfortunately, he died before they had time
to baptize him. His mother was
overwhelmed with grief, more for his
being deprived of Life Eternal than because he was dead to her. Full of confidence, she took the dead child
and publicly carried him to the
In the
Acts of the Apostles alone we find three miraculous interventions involving
Baptism – Cornelius the Centurion, the Eunuch of Candace, and Saul of
Tarsus. And in each case not only is
God’s
The fact
is that God will keep any sincere soul alive until Baptism; He is Almighty
and He has decreed that no one enters heaven without Baptism.
Pope Pius IX, Vatican I, ex cathedra: “God protects and governs by His providence all things which He has
created, ‘reaching from end to end mightily and ordering all things sweetly’...”[cci]
In fact, the first infallible
definition stating that the elect see the Beatific Vision immediately after
death was from Pope Benedict XII in Benedictus
Deus. It is interesting to examine
what he infallibly declares about the saints and martyrs who went to
Heaven.
Pope Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus,
1336, ex cathedra, on the souls of the just receiving the Beatific
Vision: “By this edict which will prevail forever, with apostolic authority we
declare… the holy apostles, the martyrs, the confessors, virgins, and
the other faithful who died after the
holy baptism of Christ had been received by them, in whom there was
nothing to be purged… and the souls of children departing before the use of
free will, reborn and baptized in the
same baptism of Christ, when
all have been baptized… have been, are, and will be in heaven…”[ccii]
In defining
that the elect (including the martyrs) in whom nothing is to be purged are in
heaven, Pope Benedict XII mentions three times that they have been
baptized. Obviously, no apostle, martyr,
confessor or virgin could receive the Beatific Vision without having received
Baptism according to this infallible dogmatic definition.
THE THEORY OF BAPTISM
OF DESIRE – A TRADITION OF MAN
Those who
have been brainwashed by apologists for the theory of baptism of desire may be
surprised to learn that of all the fathers of the Church, only 1 can even be
brought forward by baptism of desire advocates as having taught the
concept. That’s correct, only one,
Fr.
Jean-Marc Rulleau (SSPX), Baptism of
Desire, p. 63: “This baptism of desire makes up for the want of sacramental
baptism… The existence of this mode of salvation is a truth taught by the
Magisterium of the Church and held from the first centuries by all the Fathers. No
Catholic theologian has contested it.”[cciii]
Fr. Francois Laisney (SSPX), Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 79, on Baptism
of desire: “It is not only the common
teaching, but unanimous
teaching; it is not only since the early part of this millennium, but
rather from the beginning of the Church…”[cciv]
These statements are totally
false and grievous lies which completely misrepresent the teaching of
Tradition and corrupt people’s faith, as we will see. The
fathers are unanimously against the
concept that anyone (including a catechumen) could be saved without water
baptism, as I have shown. But let us
examine the teaching of the one
father,
St. Augustine, 400: “That the place of Baptism is sometimes supplied by
suffering is supported by a substantial argument which the same Blessed Cyprian
draws…Considering this over and over
again, I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can
supply for that which is lacking by way of Baptism, but even faith and
conversion of heart, if… recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the
Mystery of Baptism.”[ccv]
There are two interesting
points about this passage. The first
relates to baptism of blood: notice that Augustine says that his belief in
baptism of blood is supported by an inference or an argument that St. Cyprian
made, not anything rooted in the Tradition of the Apostles or the Roman
Pontiffs. As we saw already, many of the
inferences of St. Cyprian showed themselves to be quite wrong, to put it
nicely, such as his “inference” that it was from “apostolic Tradition” that
heretics cannot confer baptism. Thus,
Secondly, when Augustine
concludes that he also believes that faith (that is, faith in Catholicism) and
a desire for baptism could have the same effect as martyrdom, he says: “Considering this over and over again…” By saying that he considered this over and
over again, St. Augustine is admitting that his opinion on baptism of desire is also something that he has come to from his
own consideration, not through infallible Tradition or teaching. It is something that he admittedly struggled
with and contradicted himself on, as will be shown. All of this serves to prove again that
baptism of desire, like baptism of blood, is a tradition of man, born in
erroneous and fallible human speculation (albeit from some great men), and not
rooted in or derived from any Tradition of the Apostles or of the popes.
Interestingly, in the same
set of works on Baptism quoted already,
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism
made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are
unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave 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.”[ccvii]
In fact, when Our Lord said to
the Good Thief, “This day you will be
with Me in paradise,” Jesus was not referring to heaven, but actually to
Hell. As Catholics know, no one entered
Heaven until after Our Lord did, after His Resurrection. On the day of the Crucifixion, Christ
descended into Hell, as the Apostles’ Creed says. He did not descend to the Hell of the damned,
but to the place in Hell called the Limbo
of the Fathers, the waiting place of the just of the Old Testament, who
could not enter Heaven until after the Savior came.
1 Peter 3:18-19- “Christ also died once for our sins… In which also coming he preached to
those spirits that were in prison…”
To further prove the point
that the Good Thief did not go to Heaven on the Day of the Crucifixion, there
is the fact that on Easter Sunday, when Mary Magdalene met the Risen Lord, He
told her, “Do not touch Me, for I have
not yet ascended to My Father.”
John 20:17- “[On the Day of the
Resurrection] Jesus saith to her; Mary.
She turning, saith to him; Rabboni, (that is to say, Master). Jesus saith to her; Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father…”
Our Lord hadn’t even yet
ascended to Heaven on the Sunday of the Resurrection. It is therefore a fact that Our Lord and the
Good Thief were not in Heaven together on Good Friday; they were in the Limbo
of the Fathers, the prison described in 1 Peter 3:18-19. Jesus called this place “paradise” because He
would be there with the just of the Old Testament. So, as
Here we see
Here we see St. Augustine
again affirming the apostolic truth that no one enters Heaven without water
baptism and again explicitly denying the concept of baptism of desire,
by denying that any catechumen can be freed from sin without baptism. All of this shows that baptism of desire is
not the universal Tradition of the Apostles; rather, the exact opposite is the universal Tradition of the Apostles and
Fathers – that no catechumen can be saved without water baptism.
Out of the hundreds of
fathers of the Church, the only other one that the baptism of desire advocates even try to quote is St. Ambrose. They think that in his funeral speech for his
friend (the Emperor Valentinian) he taught that the emperor (who was only a
catechumen) was saved by his desire for baptism. But St. Ambrose’s funeral speech for
Valentinian is extremely ambiguous and could be interpreted in a variety of
ways. It is thus gratuitous for them to
assert that it clearly teaches the idea of “baptism of desire.”
St.
Ambrose, Funeral Oration of Valentinian,
4th century: “But I hear that you
grieve because he did not receive the sacraments of
baptism. Tell me: What else is in your
power other than the desire, the request?
But he even had this desire for a long time, that, when he should come
to
Let us reflect for a moment on what he just
said. All of the faithful assembled for
the memorial service are grieving and mourning.
Why are they grieving? They are
grieving because there is no evidence that Valentinian, a known catechumen, had
been baptized. But if “baptism of
desire” were something contained in the Deposit of Faith and part of apostolic
Tradition, why should they grieve? Did
not Valentinian earnestly desire baptism?
Yet, these faithful were grief stricken because they had all been taught,
and therefore believed, that “unless a
man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom
of God” (John 3:5). They had all
been taught that no one is saved without the Sacrament of Baptism. Their teacher was their bishop, St. Ambrose.[ccxiii]
Furthermore, St. Ambrose’s funeral speech for Valentinian is extremely
ambiguous, as is obvious to anyone who reads the above. In the speech, St. Ambrose clearly says that
“martyrs are not crowned [that is, not
saved] if they are catechumens,” a statement which directly denies the idea
of baptism of blood and is perfectly consistent with his other statements on
the issue, which will be quoted. Ambrose
then emphasizes the same point, by
stating again that catechumens “are not crowned if they are not initiated.” “Initiation” is a term for baptism. Thus, St. Ambrose is repeating the apostolic
truth that catechumens who shed their blood for Christ cannot be saved if they
are not baptized. He then proceeds to
say that if they are washed in their own blood, his (Valentinian’s) piety and
desire have washed him also, which seems to directly contradict what he just
said and seems to teach baptism of desire and blood, although it is not clear,
since he did not say that Valentinian was saved without baptism. But if that is what St. Ambrose means, then
his funeral speech is nonsensical, since he just clearly denied two times that
martyrs can be crowned if they are catechumens.
And this is the oldest “text”
quoted in favor of the idea of baptism of desire! It is, first of all, contradictory; secondly,
it is ambiguous; and thirdly, if interpreted to mean that a catechumen is saved
without water baptism, is opposed to every other statement St. Ambrose
formally made on the issue.
But
perhaps there is another explanation.
St. Ambrose states that the faithful were grieving because Valentinian
did not receive the sacraments of baptism. Why did he use the term “sacraments”
instead of “sacrament”? Was he lamenting
the fact that Valentinian was not able to receive Confirmation and the
Eucharist, which were commonly administered together with Baptism in the early
Church? This would correspond to his
statement about the crowd being disturbed because the mysteries were not
“solemnly” celebrated, in other words, with all of the formal ceremonies which
precede the solemn celebration of Baptism.
Exactly what St. Ambrose meant in this speech, we may never know in this
world, but we are permitted to assume that it was not his intention to
contradict in an emotionally charged eulogy what he had written with much
thought and precision in De Mysteriis
and elsewhere.[ccxiv]
Interestingly, the famous 12th century theologian Peter
Abelard, whose orthodoxy was nevertheless suspect on other points, points out
that if St. Ambrose taught baptism of
desire at any time he “contradicts tradition in this matter,”[ccxv]
not to mention Ambrose’s own repeated teaching on the necessity of the
Sacrament of Baptism, as we will see below.
And here
is what St. Ambrose wrote with much thought and precision, which eliminates
the very concept of baptism of desire and affirms the universal Tradition
of all the fathers that no one (including catechumens) is saved without water
baptism.
St.
Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391 A.D.:
“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
Here we see St. Ambrose clearly denying the
concept of baptism of desire. Nothing
could be more clear!
St.
Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:
“The Church
was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood.
Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed he must
circumcise himself from his sins so that he can be saved;...for no one
ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.”[ccxvii]
St.
Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:
“Unless
a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom
of God.’ No one is excepted: not the infant, not
the one prevented by some necessity.”[ccxviii]
As
opposed to St. Cyril of
And with that we come to the extent of the
fathers’ teaching on the so-called “baptism of desire”! That’s right, one or at the most two fathers
out of hundreds,
And when these facts are
known, one can see how deceived and misled are many so-called Catholics
and Traditional Catholics today who are listening to those lying teachers,
many of whom claim to be “traditional” priests, who search land and sea to
attempt to pervert the teaching of Tradition and get people into Heaven without
baptism. These lying teachers are
convincing many of the ridiculous lie that “the fathers were unanimous in favor
of baptism of desire.” Such a claim is
pure nonsense and a mortally sinful perversion of Catholic Tradition. As one author correctly put it:
“The
Fathers of the Church, therefore, taken as a whole, can only be said to have
verified definitively the official and authentic teaching of the one true
Church that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human
creature to be baptized in the water of the actual sacrament instituted by Our
Lord Jesus Christ. On the other
hand, it is intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise. And to
exalt the personal theological opinions of a handful – even an impressive and
well-known handful – to the rank of ecclesiastical Tradition or even
magisterial infallibility is not only an exercise in sophomoric legerdemain
[verbal sleight of hand], but also a brand of facile short-sightedness
unconscionable in any serious study of Patristic Theology.”[ccxix]
The universal Tradition of the apostles on
the absolute necessity of water baptism for regeneration and salvation, affirmed
by Hermas as early as the 1st century, and repeated by all the rest,
including St. Justin Martyr, St. Theophilus, Origen, Tertullian, St. Basil, St.
Cyril, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, etc., etc., etc. is summed up by the
statement quoted already from Ambrose.
St.
Ambrose: “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
This is the unanimous
teaching of the fathers of the Church on this issue.
Fr. William Jurgens: “If there were not a constant tradition
in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless
a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that
Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of
invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But
the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so
constant as to constitute revelation.”[ccxxi]
ST. GREGORY NAZIANZ (329-389)
It is fitting also to look at
the teaching of some of the other fathers.
St. Gregory Nazianz is one of the four great Eastern Doctors of the
Catholic Church. He explicitly rejected
the concept of baptism of desire.
St. Gregory
Nazianz, 381 AD: “Of those who fail to be baptized some are utterly animal and
bestial, according to whether they are foolish or wicked. This, I think, they must add to their other sins,
that they have no reverence for this gift, but regard it as any other gift, to
be accepted if given them, or neglected if not given them. Others know and honor the gift; but they
delay, some out of carelessness, some because of insatiable desire. Still others are not able to receive it,
perhaps because of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circumstance which
prevents them from receiving the gift, even if they desire it…
“If you were able to judge a man
who intends to commit murder, solely by his intention and without any act of
murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one who desired Baptism,
without having received Baptism.
But, since you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter? I cannot see it. If you prefer, we will put it like this: if
in your opinion desire has equal power with actual Baptism, then make the
same judgment in regard to glory. You
will then be satisfied to long for glory, as if that longing itself were
glory. Do you suffer any damage by not
attaining the actual glory, as long as you have a desire for it?”[ccxxii]
So much
for the claim that “the fathers are unanimous” in favor of baptism of
desire! When the priests of the SSPX
publicly assert such they are stating exactly the opposite of the truth and are
lying through their teeth. And what
makes this lie all the more incredible is the fact that the SSPX quotes the
above statement from St. Gregory on pages 64-65 of their book, Is Feeneyism Catholic?!
Here is
what the liturgy has to say about the teaching of the great St. Gregory
Nazianz, who clearly rejected baptism of desire. A reading for the feast of
The Roman
Breviary, May 9: “He [St. Gregory] wrote much, both in prose and verse, of
an admirable piety and eloquence. In
the opinion of learned and holy men, there is nothing to be found in his
writings which is not conformable to true piety and Catholic faith, or
which anyone could reasonably call in question.”[ccxxiii]
This
rather significant fact totally refutes baptism of desire/blood advocates who
argue that the teaching of the Breviary proves that men can be saved without
Baptism (which we already saw is not true).
St. Gregory Nazianz clearly rejected baptism of desire (see above), and
the Breviary says here that there is nothing in his writings which is not
conformable to the Catholic religion or which one could call into
question! Therefore, if we hold the
teaching of the Breviary to be infallible on theological matters, then we would
have to reject baptism of desire. As
baptism of desire advocate John Daly put it: “And of course theologians consider that it is impossible that there
should be theological error in the Breviary…” (Sept 2, 2006) It looks like this baptism of
desire advocate will have to reject baptism of desire or revise his arguments
(hopefully the former). St. Gregory was
actually the only doctor in the entire history of the Church who was surnamed “the
theologian.”
The famous
Benedictine Dom Prosper Guéranger: “It is Gregory of [Nazianz]… the one of all the Gregories who has
merited and received the glorious name of Theologian, on account of the
soundness of his teachings, the sublimity of his ideas, and the magnificence of
his diction.”[ccxxiv]
So much for the lie that “the theologians”
are unanimous in favor of baptism of desire.
The only doctor in Church history who is surnamed “the theologian”
explicitly rejected it!
Besides St.
Gregory and the others, St. John Chrysostom provides us with a plethora
of quotations explicitly against the idea of salvation for unbaptized
catechumens (those preparing to be baptized) by baptism of desire. That anyone else besides unbaptized
catechumens could qualify for salvation without first receiving the Sacrament
of Baptism was not even considered a possibility worth refuting in this context.
(How horrified would these fathers be by the modern version of the theory of
baptism of desire, which saves pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics?)
St. John
Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And well should the pagan lament, who not knowing
God, dying goes straight to punishment.
Well should the Jew mourn, who not believing in Christ, has assigned his
soul to perdition.”[ccxxv]
It should be noted that since
the term “baptism of desire” was not
in use at the time, one won’t find St. John Chrysostom or any other father
explicitly rejecting that term. They reject baptism of desire when they
reject the concept that unbaptized
catechumens can be saved without Baptism, as St. John Chrysostom repeatedly
does.
St. John
Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And plainly must we
grieve for our own catechumens, should they, either through their own
unbelief or through their own neglect, depart this life without the saving
grace of baptism.”[ccxxvi]
This statement clearly rejects the concept of
baptism of desire.
This
statement totally rejects the concept of baptism of desire.
The “seal” is
the fathers’ term for the mark of the Sacrament of Baptism, as we saw
already. And here we see
LITURGICAL
TRADITION AND APOSTOLIC BURIAL TRADITION
Besides these clear testimonies of the fathers against the theory of
baptism of desire, perhaps most striking is the fact that in the history of the
Catholic Church there is not a single tradition that can be cited for
praying for – or giving ecclesiastical burial to – catechumens who died without
baptism. The Catholic
Encyclopedia (1907) had the following to say about the actual Tradition of
the Church in this regard:
“A certain
statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II
has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and
prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to
be found anywhere… The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in
the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of
There you have the teaching of Catholic Tradition! No catechumen who died without the Sacrament
of Baptism received prayer, sacrifice or Christian burial! The Council of Braga, in 572 A.D., forbade
prayer for catechumens who died without Baptism. Pope St. Leo the Great and Pope
The true teaching of apostolic and Catholic
tradition on this topic is also seen from the teaching of the Catholic Liturgy,
which all worshipping Catholics in the
early Church acknowledged and believed: namely, that no unbaptized
catechumen or unbaptized person was considered part of the faithful (see
Section on “The One Church of the Faithful.”).
That unbaptized catechumens are not part of the faithful was held by all
of the fathers because it was taught to all Catholics in the liturgy.
Dr. Ludwig
Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,
Membership in the Church, p. 309: “3. The Fathers draw a sharp line of
separation between Catechumens and ‘the faithful.’”[ccxxxi]
This
means that no unbaptized person can be saved, because Catholic dogma has defined
that no one is saved outside the one Church of the faithful.
Pope
Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832, on no salvation outside
the Church: “Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent
III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There
is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is
saved.’”[ccxxxii]
In his letter
to the Bishop of Tarragona in the year 385, Pope St. Siricius also shows how
the belief in the early Church rejected any concept of baptism of desire.
Pope St.
Siricius, Letter to Himerius, 385:
“As we
maintain that the observance of the holy Paschal time should in no way be
relaxed, in the same way we desire that infants who, on account of their age,
cannot yet speak, or those who, in any necessity, are in want of the water of holy baptism, be
succored with all possible speed, for fear that, if those who leave this
world should be deprived of the life of the Kingdom for having been refused
the source of salvation which they desired, this may lead to the ruin
of our souls. If those threatened with shipwreck, or the attack
of enemies, or the uncertainties of a siege, or those put in a hopeless
condition due to some bodily sickness, ask for what in their faith is their
only help, let them receive at the very moment of their request the
reward of regeneration they beg for.
Enough of past mistakes! From now
on, let all the priests observe the aforesaid rule if they do not want to be
separated from the solid apostolic rock on which Christ has built his universal
Church.”[ccxxxiii]
This quotation from Pope St. Siricius is striking in that it again
clearly shows how the early Church rejected belief in the concept of baptism of
desire. He begins by affirming that the
observance of Paschal time should not be relaxed. (He is referring to the fact that Baptisms
were historically performed during Paschal time.) After affirming that this tradition should be
maintained, he warns that infants and those in any necessity or danger should
be baptized immediately, lest they are “deprived of the life of the Kingdom for
having been refused the source of salvation which they desired.” The Latin of the critical passage is: “…ne ad nostrarum perniciem tendat animaram, si
negato desiderantibus fonte salutari
exiens unusquisque de saeculo et regnum perdat et vitam.”[ccxxxiv]
In other
words, the man who desires water baptism
and begs for regeneration will still be denied heaven if he does not receive
it! Nothing could more clearly
reject the concept of baptism of desire!
(This also proves that the delay in baptizing adults is for the
instruction and the testing of the catechumens, not because it was held that
these catechumens could be saved without baptism.)
This
point is made again by the pope in the second half of the quotation, where he
says that when those unbaptized persons “ask for what in their faith is
their only help, let them receive at the very moment of their
request the reward of regeneration they beg for.” This means that receiving water baptism
is the only help to salvation for such persons who earnestly desire to receive
Baptism! There is no help to salvation
for such persons in their desire or martyrdom, but only in receiving the
Sacrament of Baptism!
THE MIDDLE AGES
Now that we have shown that the teaching of Tradition is definitely not
in favor of baptism of desire, where did this baptism of desire furor that we
now see come from? Why did it become
such a widespread belief later on? It
has never been taught by any council, dogmatic definition or Papal Encyclical
to the whole Church. But most people today
think that it is a teaching of the Catholic Church. As stated already, the theory comes from the
erroneous teaching of
ST. BERNARD
St.
Bernard, Tractatus de baptismo, II,
8, c. 1130: “So, believe me, it would be difficult
to turn me aside from these two pillars – I mean Augustine and Ambrose. I confess that, whether in error or knowledge, I am with them; for I believe that a man can be saved by
faith alone, provided he desires to receive the sacrament, in a case where
death overtakes the fulfillment of his religious desire, or some other invincible
power stands in his way.”[ccxxxv]
There
are a number of very important points in this passage: First, we see St.
Bernard explicitly admitting that his belief in baptism of desire is based solely
on what he thinks
Second,
and perhaps most importantly, in expressing his belief in baptism of desire,
St. Bernard explicitly admits that he may be wrong!
St.
Bernard: “I mean Augustine and Ambrose.
I confess that, whether in
error or knowledge, I am with them; for I believe that a man can be saved by faith alone, provided he
desires to receive the sacrament…”
But when
Fr. Francois Laisney of the Society of St. Pius X quotes this passage of St.
Bernard in his book Is Feeneyism Catholic
(p. 67) he deliberately omits St. Bernard’s statement, “whether in error
or in knowledge…” Here is how the
passage reads in Is Feeneyism Catholic (the
book of the Society of St. Pius X):
“Believe
me, it will be difficult to separate me from these two columns, by which I
refer to Augustine and Ambrose… believing
with them that people can be saved by faith alone and the desire to receive the
sacrament…”
The
words “whether in error or in knowledge”
are removed by Fr. Laisney and replaced with ellipses (…). Now, of course, it is perfectly justifiable
to use ellipses (…) when quoting texts, in order to pass over parts of the
quotation that are not crucial or necessary in the discussion. But, in this case, the readers of Fr.
Laisney’s book would have been well served to see this short, crucial
admission by St. Bernard that he could have been right or wrong about
baptism of desire. Fr. Laisney
deliberately removed it because he knows that it is devastating to his contention that baptism of desire is a
teaching of the Church based on the opinions of saints. This admission of St. Bernard, in fact, blows
away the thesis of Fr. Laisney’s book; so it had to go. But despite the attempt of Fr. Laisney of the
SSPX to hide this from his readers, the fact is out: St. Bernard admits that he
wasn’t even sure about baptism of desire since the idea is not rooted in any
teaching of the Church or infallible tradition, but only in the opinion of man.
Third,
as I have pointed out, it is an incredible fact that in almost every instance
in which a saint or theologian expresses his opinion on baptism of desire or
blood, he almost always makes a different error in the same document (thus
proving his fallibility). In the
document quoted above, St. Bernard uses
the phrase “faith alone” three times (which was condemned approximately 13
times by the Council of Trent in the 16th century).
St.
Bernard, Tractatus de baptismo, II,
8, c. 1130: “So, believe me, it would be difficult to turn me aside from these
two pillars – I mean Augustine and Ambrose.
I confess that, whether in
error or knowledge, I am with them; for I believe that a man can be saved by faith alone, provided
he desires to receive the sacrament,
in a case where death overtakes the fulfillment of his religious desire, or
some other invincible power stands in his way… This intimated that
sometimes faith alone would suffice for salvation… In the same way, faith
alone and turning the mind to God, without the spilling of blood or the
pouring of water, doubtlessly brings salvation to one who has the will but not
the way… to be baptized.”[ccxxxvii]
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Can. 9: "If
anyone shall say that by faith alone the sinner is justified, so as
to understand that nothing else is required to cooperate in the attainment of the
grace of justification, and that it is in no way necessary that he be prepared
and disposed by the action of his will: let him be anathema."
Pope Paul
III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Can. 8: "If anyone shall say that
by the said sacraments of the New Law, grace is not conferred from the work
which has been worked [ex opere operato], but that faith alone
in the divine promise suffices to obtain grace: let him be anathema."
Pope Paul
III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Can. 19: "If anyone shall say
that nothing except faith is commanded in the Gospel... let him be anathema."
Pope Paul
III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 11: "And so no one
should flatter himself because of faith alone, thinking that by faith alone
he is made an heir and will obtain the inheritance, even though he suffer
not with Christ 'that he may be also glorified' (Rom. 8:17)."
Pope Paul
III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 10: "'You see, that by
works a man is justified and not by faith alone' (Jas. 2:24)."
I’m sure that St. Bernard did
not really believe that faith alone justifies and saves (Luther’s heretical
doctrine); but this is the phrase he uses above three times! This brings home the point with crystal
clarity: that if one is going to dogmatize the teachings of saints (as many
baptism of desire advocates like to do) and quote them as proof texts, then one
is going to wind up with a lot of error and even heresy. And it proves again that St. Bernard’s
utterances are not teachings of the Catholic Church, but fallible opinions
about which he could be wrong (as he himself admits) and, in this case, about
which he is definitely wrong.
Fourth, in expressing
his opinion on baptism of desire, St. Bernard says that one can be prevented
from receiving baptism through some “invincible power.” This is also theologically incorrect. God is Almighty; He alone is the “invincible
power”! Nothing can prevent Him from
getting a good willed soul to Baptism.
Pope Pius IX, Vatican I, ex
cathedra: “God protects and governs by His
providence all things which He has created, ‘reaching from end to end mightily
and ordering all things sweetly’...”[ccxxxviii]
And ironically, by making the
aforementioned statement on a catechumen being prevented from receiving baptism
by some “invincible power,” St. Bernard is also directly contradicting
All of this proves that St.
Bernard’s endorsement of baptism of desire was very flawed, contradictory, admittedly
fallible, and based solely on what he deemed to be the opinions of
men. It holds no weight even for a
moment against the flawless, perfectly consistent, infallible dogma, which
proclaims that no man can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism.
Pope Eugene
IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex
cathedra: “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 again
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.”[ccxl]
And this tradition of man (baptism of desire) gained
more momentum after St. Bernard, when St. Thomas Aquinas unfortunately made it
his own, based again on the few passages in St. Augustine, the one in St.
Ambrose, and his own speculative theological reasoning.
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS
St.
Thomas Aquinas, despite all of his fabulous writing and learning about the
Catholic Faith, being a fallible human being, was wrong on many points,
including his explicit statement in the Summa
Theologica that “The flesh of the
Virgin was conceived in Original Sin.”[ccxli] One scholar noted that the book
Pope Pius IX, Vatican
Council I, ex cathedra:
“So, this gift of truth AND A NEVER
FAILING FAITH WAS DIVINELY CONFERRED UPON PETER AND HIS SUCCESSORS IN THIS
CHAIR…”[ccxliv]
In Summa Theologica III, Q. 66, Art. 11,
“The other two Baptisms are included in
the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ’s
Passion and of the Holy Ghost.”[ccxlv]
With all
due respect to St. Thomas, this is a feeble attempt to answer the objection as
to how there can be “three baptisms” when God reveals that there is only
one. It is feeble because St. Thomas
says that the other two baptisms, desire and blood, are included in the baptism of water; but this is false. One who receives baptism of water doesn’t receive
baptism of desire and baptism of blood, even according to the baptism of desire
advocates. Therefore, it is false to
say, as
Furthermore,
in teaching the theory of baptism of desire, St. Thomas repeatedly admitted
that neither is a sacrament.
St. Thomas
Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, Q. 66,
A. 11, Answer 2: “As stated above, a sacrament is a kind of sign. The other two [baptism of desire and blood],
however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but
in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not sacraments.”[ccxlvi]
The
fierce baptism of desire advocate, Fr. Laisney, admits the same in his book, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 9:
Fr.
Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p.
9: “Baptism of Desire is not a sacrament; it does not have the exterior
sign required in the sacraments. The
theologians, following St. Thomas… call it ‘baptism’ only because it produces the
grace of baptism… yet it does not produce the sacramental character.”[ccxlvii]
But the Council of Trent (a few centuries after
Pope Paul
III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is
optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be
anathema.”[ccxlviii]
So, whom
does one follow,
St. Thomas
Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, Q. 68,
Art. 2: “… it seems that a man can
obtain salvation without the
sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification…”
Pope Paul
III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex
cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional,
that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”[ccxlix]
There
is an obvious contradiction here. The
fallible St. Thomas Aquinas says that it is possible to obtain salvation without
the Sacrament of Baptism, while the infallible Council of Trent defines
that the sacrament is necessary for salvation. And what does “necessary” mean? According to Part III, Q. 68, A. 2, Obj. 3 in
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.”[ccli]
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.’”[cclii]
Pope St.
Pius X, Pascendi dominic gregis
(#45), Sept. 8, 1907: “It goes without saying that if anything is met with among the scholastic doctors which may be
regarded as an excess of subtlety, or which is altogether destitute of
probability, We have no desire whatever
to propose it for the imitation of present generations.”[ccliii]
And just in case anyone argues that one can receive the Sacrament of
Baptism without water, I will quote the Council of Trent’s definition in
Can. 2.
Pope Paul
III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism,
Session 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that real and natural
water is not necessary for baptism, and on 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.”[ccliv]
THE
DOGMATIC COUNCIL OF
It would
have been interesting to see, however, what
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.”[cclv]
This
definition is crucial to this discussion, because one cannot affirm one baptism
of water and at the same time obstinately cling to the belief that there are
“three baptisms,” two of which are not of water. That is a clear contradiction. Those who understand and comprehend this
dogma must repudiate the so-called “three baptisms.”
ST. THOMAS REJECTED “INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE”
It is
also very important to point out that while St. Thomas Aquinas was wrong on
baptism of desire, he held the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation
and rejected the modern day heresy that people can be saved who are “invincibly
ignorant” of Jesus Christ. In numerous
places St. Thomas directly addressed the question of persons in so-called
invincible ignorance.
St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate,
14, A. 11, ad 1: Objection- “It is possible that someone may be brought up
in the forest, or among wolves; such a man cannot explicitly know anything
about the faith.
St. Thomas
Aquinas, Sent. II, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4:
“If a man born among barbarian nations, does what he can, God Himself will show
him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or sending a teacher
to him.”[cclvii]
St. Thomas
Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to
instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he
is.”[cclviii]
In the Summa Theologica,
Therefore,
We have seen how Tradition doesn’t teach
baptism of desire and how the infallible teaching of the Church on the
Sacrament of Baptism and John 3:5 excludes it.
And we have seen how this error was perpetuated in the middle ages
through flawed passages in the fallible texts of Churchmen. I will now discuss perhaps the most
interesting pronouncement on this issue, the dogmatic letter of Pope St. Leo
the Great to Flavian, which excludes the exact concept of baptism of desire and
baptism of blood.
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.”[cclxi]
Before I
get into the tremendous significance of this pronouncement, I 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, pp. 77-82). 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 600) 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 and dogmatic, consider the fact that it was also approved by Pope
Vigilius at the Second Council of Constantinople (553)[cclxii]
and by the dogmatic Third Council of Constantinople (680-681).[cclxiii] It was also confirmed infallibly by a number
of other popes, including: Pope St. Gelasius, 495,[cclxiv]
Pope Pelagius II, 553,[cclxv]
and Pope Benedict XIV, nuper ad nos, 1743.[cclxvi]
Because
of the tremendous significance of Pope Leo’s letter to the topic at hand, I
will quote an extract from Pope St. Gelasius which shows how no one can
contradict, in the slightest way, this dogmatic epistle of Pope St. 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.”[cclxvii]
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
Sanctification by the Spirit.
“Sanctification by the Spirit” is the term for Justification from
the state of sin. Justification is the
state of grace. No one can get to
heaven without Sanctification by the Spirit [Justification], 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.”[cclxviii]
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.”[cclxix]
It is a
divinely revealed truth that no one can be freed from the state of sin and sanctified
without the application of the Blood of Redemption to him. Of this no Catholic can doubt.
Baptism of desire/blood advocates – and this
would also include the St. Benedict Center, since they also believe in
justification by desire – argue 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. Remember that: baptism of desire/blood advocates argue
that the Blood of Redemption, which effects Sanctification by the
Spirit, is applied to the soul without water baptism. But this is exactly the
opposite of what Pope Leo the Great defines dogmatically! I will 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.”[cclxx]
Pope
This
infallibly excludes the very concept of baptism of desire and baptism of blood, which is that sanctification by the
Spirit and the Blood without
water is possible.
In
light of this dogmatic letter, as well as the other facts already brought
forward, 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).
To
further prove the point that this dogmatic pronouncement specifically eliminates
the entire theory of baptism of desire, notice how St. Thomas Aquinas (in
teaching baptism of desire) says exactly the opposite of what Pope St. Leo the
Great defined.
St. Thomas
Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, Q. 68,
Art. 2: “…a man can obtain salvation without
the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification…”
Pope St.
Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon,
451:
“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.”[cclxxi]
The significance
of Pope St. Leo’s pronouncement is extraordinary. It naturally crushes any idea of salvation
for 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
all of good will.
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.”[cclxxii]
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.
Pope Eugene
IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex
cathedra: “And since
death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again 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.”[cclxxiii]
Pope Paul
III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V: “By one man sin entered into the world, and
by sin death... so that in them there may be washed away by regeneration, what
they have contracted by generation, ‘For unless a man be born again of
water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God [John 3:5].”[cclxxiv]
Pope Paul
III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, Session
7, canon 2, ex cathedra: “If
anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on
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.”[cclxxv]
Pope Paul
III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism,
canon 5, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism is
optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be
anathema.”[cclxxvi]
One can
see the harmony of Pope St. Leo the Great’s dogmatic pronouncement with all of
these others: there is no salvation without water and the Spirit because
the Blood of Christ – without which no one is justified – is itself inseparable
from the water and the Spirit.
Those
who comprehend this pronouncement from Pope St. Leo must reject any belief in
the theories of baptism of desire and blood.
They must admit that the theologians who believed in baptism of desire
and blood were mistaken. They must cease
believing and teaching that Sanctification by the Spirit comes without the water of baptism. 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
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 this 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. St.
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.
16. Major Objections
SESS. 6, CHAP. 4 OF THE COUNCIL OF
OBJECTION- In Session
6, Chapter 4 of its decree on Justification, the Council of Trent teaches that
justification can take place by the water of baptism or the desire for it! So there!
ANSWER- [Preliminary Note: If Sess.
6, Chap. 4 of
That being noted, this
passage of the Council of Trent does not teach that Justification can
take place by the water of baptism or the desire for it. It says that justification in the impious CANNOT
TAKE PLACE WITHOUT the water of baptism or the desire for it. This is totally different from the idea that
justification can take place by the water of baptism or the desire for
it.
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 is born again of water and the Holy Spirit,
he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”[cclxxvii]
First off, the reader should note that this crucial passage from Trent
has been horribly mistranslated in the popular English version of Denzinger,
the Sources of Catholic Dogma, which is cited above.
The
critical phrase, “this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take
place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it” has
been mistranslated to read: “this transition, once the gospel has been
promulgated, cannot take place except through the laver of
regeneration or a desire for it…” This
mistranslation of the Latin word “sine” (without) – which is found in
the original Latin[cclxxviii]
– to “except through” completely alters the meaning of the passage to favor the
error of baptism of desire. This is
important to keep in mind because this mistranslation is still being used all
the time by baptism of desire apologists (often deliberately), including in
recent publications of the SSPX and CMRI.
That being mentioned, I will proceed to discuss what the council
actually says here.
Looking
at a correct translation, which is found in many books, the reader also should
notice that, in this passage, the Council of Trent teaches that John 3:5 is to
be taken as it is written (Latin: sicut
scriptum est), which excludes any possibility of salvation without being
born again of water in the Sacrament of Baptism. There is no way that baptism of desire can be
true if John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written, because John 3:5 says that
every man must be born again of water and the Spirit to be saved, which
is what the theory of baptism of desire denies.
The theory of baptism of desire and an interpretation of John 3:5 as it
is written are mutually exclusive (they cannot both be true at the same time) –
and every baptism of desire proponent will admit this. That is why all of them must – and do – opt
for a non-literal interpretation of John 3:5.
Fr. Francois Laisney (Believer in
Baptism of Desire), Is Feeneyism Catholic,
p. 33: “Fr. Feeney’s greatest argument was that Our Lord’s words, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the
Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5) mean the
absolute necessity of baptism of water with no exception whatsoever… The great
question is, then, how did the Church explain these words of Our Lord?”
Fr. Laisney, a fierce baptism of desire
advocate, is admitting here that John 3:5 cannot be understood as it is written if baptism of desire is
true. He therefore holds that the true
understanding of John 3:5 is that it does not apply literally to all men; that
is, John 3:5 is not to be taken as it is
written. But how does the Catholic
Church understand these words? What does
the passage in
But what
about the claim of the baptism of desire people: 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. A careful look at the correct translation of
this passage shows this claim to be false.
Suppose I said, “This shower cannot take place without water
or the desire to take one.” Does
this mean that a shower can take place by the desire to take a shower? No it doesn’t. It means that both (water and desire) are
necessary.
Or
suppose I said, “There cannot be a
wedding without a bride or a groom.”
Does this mean that you can have a wedding with a groom and not a
bride? Of course not. It means that both are necessary for the
wedding. One could give hundreds of
other examples. Likewise, the passage
above in
AUT (OR) USED TO MEAN “AND” IN THE CONTEXT OF COUNCILS
In fact,
the Latin word aut (“or”) is used in a similar way in other passages in
the Council of Trent and other councils.
In the famous Bull Cantate Domino
from the Council of Florence, we find the Latin word aut (“or”) used in a context which definitely renders it meaning
“and.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman
Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside
the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews [aut] or
heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the
everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they
are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that
only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation
and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the
Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he
has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ,
unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”[cclxxix]
Here we
see the Council of Florence using the word “or” (aut) to have a meaning that is equivalent to “and.” The council declares that not only pagans,
but also Jews or (aut)
heretics and schismatics cannot be saved.
Does this mean that either Jews or heretics will be saved? Of course not. It clearly means that none of the Jews and
none of the heretics can be saved. Thus,
this is an example of a context in which the Latin word aut (or) does have a meaning that is clearly “and.” This example absolutely proves that the Latin
word aut can be, and has been, used
in solemn magisterial pronouncements in the fashion we are saying it has been
used in Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent.
In the
introduction to the decree on Justification, the Council of Trent 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, Sess. 6, Introduction: “… strictly forbidding
that anyone henceforth may presume to believe, preach or teach,
otherwise than is defined and declared by this present decree.”[cclxxx]
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 decreed that it be considered as a law, which may not be repudiated or
be changed at will without the authority of the Church.”[cclxxxi]
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 example of how the Latin word
aut can be used in contexts which render its meaning “and” or “both.” And
these examples, when we consider the wording of the passage, refute 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 Trent, On Baptism -
Dispositions for Baptism, p. 180: “INTENTION - ... In the first place they
must desire and intend to receive it…”[cclxxxiii]
AN INTERESTING
E-MAIL REGARDING THIS PASSAGE OF
Interestingly,
I happened to e-mail a question about this passage from the Council of Trent
and its use of the word “or” (aut) to
a Latin scholar from England, just to get the person’s thoughts. I do not even know this person whom I
e-mailed, and I don’t think she is even a Catholic. She is a Latin scholar from Oxford Latin and
I believe she answered honestly and impartially. Her response is very interesting and very
important, especially for those people who are convinced that the Council of
Trent taught “baptism of desire.” I
wrote to her as follows:
“The passage in Latin is this: ‘quae
quidem translatio ... sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non
potest...’
“It is translated: ‘This transition... cannot take place without the
laver of regeneration or a desire for it.’
”This literally says that the transition cannot happen without the laver of
regeneration or a desire for it (meaning you must have both). It does not
say that it can take place with either one, don't you agree? Is it not equivalent to my saying: This
shower cannot take place without water or the desire to take one (meaning both
are necessary); and is it not equivalent to saying: this article cannot be
written without pen or pad (meaning both are necessary)? You can use aut in this way in Latin, can you not?
”Any thoughts you have I would be very interested in. Thank you.”
And she
responded on Dec. 1, 2003 as follows:
“This is not easy! It is possible
to make sense of it in both ways, with aut as 'or' and as 'and'.
“Aut as 'or' is more common, but here
the interpretation depends on whether you think that the desire for baptism is
enough on its own or whether the phrase signifies that you need the desire as
well as the sacrament itself.
I'll leave it to you to decide!
Best wishes,
Carolinne White
OXFORD LATIN”
Ms. White’s statement is very important
and very interesting in that it shows that in her professional opinion as a
Latin scholar, the passage using “or” (aut)
can definitely be read as “and,” something
many baptism of desire advocates absolutely reject as impossible! She
further admits that the interpretation depends upon whether one believes that
the desire for baptism is enough – I believe a very honest statement on her
part! And she said this without my
giving her the rest of the context; namely, where the Council of Trent
declares, immediately after using the words “or the desire for it,” that
John 3:5 is to be understood as it is written.
Pope Paul
III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “[Justification]… cannot
take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, AS
IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man is born again of water and the
Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the
The point is, therefore, that, at the
very least, all baptism of desire advocates must admit that this passage
can be read both ways, and therefore that the
understanding depends upon whether one believes that the desire for baptism is
enough or not. But if a baptism of desire advocate admits (as he must in honesty) that
this passage may not teach baptism of
desire, then he is admitting that the understanding of it must be garnered not
only from the immediate context (which affirms John 3:5 as it is written and therefore excludes baptism of desire),
but also from all of the other statements on Baptism and Justification in Trent. And what do all of the other passages in
Pope Paul
III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism,
canon 5, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament]
is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be
anathema.”[cclxxxv]
Pope Paul
III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “By one man sin entered into the world, and
by sin death... so that in them there may be washed away by regeneration, what
they have contracted by generation, ‘For unless a man be born again of
water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God [John 3:5].”[cclxxxvi]
Pope Paul
III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, Session
7, canon 2, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that real and natural
water is not necessary for baptism, and on 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.”[cclxxxvii]
The
interpretation of “or” in Sess. 6., Chap. 4 as “and” is not only possible (as
Ms. White admits), but it is perfectly compatible with all of these
infallible definitions, while the interpretation of “or” as meaning baptism of desire is incompatible with all of
these definitions, not to mention (most importantly) the words “as it
is written, unless a man is born again of water and the Spirit he
cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” which
come immediately after “or a desire for it” and in the same sentence.
The
interpretation of “or” as meaning baptism of desire is also incompatible with
the teaching of the Council of Florence on John 3:5, and there cannot exist disharmony
between dogmatic councils.
Pope Eugene
IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 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 again 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.”[cclxxxviii]
The interpretation of “or” as meaning
baptism of desire is also incompatible with the Council of Trent’s extensive
definition just three chapters later on the causes of Justification. Just three chapters later, the council lists
four causes for Justification in the impious.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 7, the Causes of
Justification: “The causes of this Justification are: the final cause is
the glory of God and of Christ… the efficient cause is truly a merciful
God… the meritorious cause is His most beloved and only-begotten Son… the instrumental cause 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…”[cclxxxix]
In
listing all of the causes of Justification, why didn’t the Council mention the
possibility of “baptism of desire”? It
had ample opportunity to do so, just as it clearly taught no less than
three times that the graces of the Sacrament of Penance can be attained by the
desire for that sacrament (Sess. 14, Chap. 4; and twice in Sess. 6, Chap.
14). But “baptism of desire” is mentioned
nowhere, simply because it is not true.
And it is further interesting to consider that the word “desire” shows up not in Chapter 7 on the Causes of
Justification, but in Chapter 4 where the council is talking about what
cannot be missing in the Justification of the impious (namely,
neither water nor desire can be missing in the justification of the impious).
But some will say: “I see your point and I cannot deny it, but why didn’t the passage use the word
‘and’ instead of ‘or’; it would have been clearer then?” This question is best answered by considering
a number of things:
First, it must be remembered that
the passage describes what Justification CANNOT
TAKE PLACE WITHOUT (i.e., what cannot be missing in Justification); it does
not say that Justification does take
place by either water or desire.
Second, the council didn’t have to
use “and” because “or” can mean “and” in the context of words given in the
passage, as shown already.
Third, those who ask this question
should consider another, namely: why in
the world, if baptism of desire is true and was the teaching of Trent, didn’t
the Council say anywhere (when it had so many opportunities to do so)
that one can be justified without the sacrament or before the sacrament
is received just as it clearly and repeatedly did in regard to the
Sacrament of Penance? This amazing omission (obviously because the Holy
Ghost didn’t allow the Council to teach baptism of desire in its many
statements on the absolute necessity of baptism) simply confirms the points
that I’ve made above, because if the passage meant baptism of desire it would
have said so.
Fourth, the above question is best
answered by a parallel example: In 381 the Council of Constantinople defined
that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.
The Council did not say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and
the Son. The omission of the words “and the Son” (filioque in Latin) caused countless millions to erroneously
conclude that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son, a heresy that was
later condemned by the Church. If the Council of
So, did the Council of Constantinople
err? Of course not. But could
1 Cor.
11:19: “For there must be also heresies:
that they also, who are approved, may be manifest among you.”
God allows heresies to arise in order to
see who will believe the truth and who will not, to see who will look at the
truth sincerely and who will pervert things to suit his own heretical desires. God never allows His councils, such as
Constantinople and Trent, to teach any error, but He can allow the truth to be
stated in ways that give people the opportunity to twist and pervert the
meaning of the words used if they so desire (no pun intended), as the Eastern
Schismatics did in regard to Constantinople’s omission of the phrase: and the Son.
In fact, it doesn’t even matter if
some of the council fathers at Constantinople believed that the Holy Ghost does
not proceed from the Son; and there were probably some who didn’t believe
that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.
All that matters is what the Council of Constantinople actually
declared, a declaration which says nothing contrary
to the fact that the Holy Ghost does proceed from the Son. The intentions of the Council Fathers
at
Pope Pius
IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex
cathedra: “Hence, also, that
understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which
Interesting in this regard is the fact
that numerous popes point out that in the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon, the fathers at
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896: “The 28th Canon of
the Council of Chalcedon, by the very fact that it lacks the assent and
approval of the Apostolic See, is admitted by all to be worthless.”[ccxci]
This
shows that the intention or thoughts of the fathers at a general council mean
nothing – they are worthless. All that
matters is what the Church actually declares. Therefore, the fact that some of the council
fathers at Trent – and even eminent and sainted theologians after Trent –
thought the aforementioned passage of Trent taught baptism of desire means
nothing; for the fathers at Chalcedon
also thought the council was elevating the status of Constantinople, when it
didn’t; and some of the fathers at Constantinople probably thought that the
council was denying that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, when it
didn’t. The bottom-line is that only
those things that are actually declared by the councils and finally approved
matter – nothing else. And the
aforementioned passage of
The fact is that God made sure that the
words “as it is written” were included in that very sentence to ensure that
the council was not teaching baptism of desire by its wording in that
passage. The passage thus teaches – as it is written – unless a man is born again
of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the
THE DOGMA, POPE PIUS IX AND INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE
OBJECTION-
What about Invincible Ignorance?
ANSWER-
2
Corinthians 4:3: “And if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that
are lost, in whom the god of this world [Satan] hath blinded the
minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who
is the image of God, should not shine unto them.”
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6 on Justification, Chap. 15: “…it must be
maintained that the grace of justification, although received, is lost not only
by infidelity, whereby even faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal
sin, although faith be not lost, thereby
defending the doctrine of the divine law which excludes from the kingdom of
God not only the unbelievers, but also the faithful who are
‘fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, liers with mankind, thieves, covetous,
drunkards, railers, extortioners’ [1 Cor. 6:9], and all others who commit
deadly sins…”[ccxcii]
The dogma
Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation has been solemnly defined at
least seven times by popes speaking from the Chair of St. Peter. Never once were any exceptions mentioned
about “invincible ignorance.” In fact,
it is just the opposite: all exceptions were always excluded.
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.”[ccxciii]
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 absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman
Pontiff.”[ccxciv]
Pope
Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:” Since however there
is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and
non-exempt, one universal Church,
outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there
is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”[ccxcv]
Pope Eugene
IV, Council of
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all
to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and
inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”[ccxcvi]
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman
Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are
outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics
and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting
fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to
the Church before the end of their lives; that the
unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those
who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do
fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian
militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved,
no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in
the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the
Catholic Church.”[ccxcvii]
Pope Leo X,
Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra: “For, regulars and
seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no
one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.”[ccxcviii]
Pope Pius
IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no
one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”[ccxcix]
Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16,
1743, Profession of Faith: “This
faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved,
and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”[ccc]
Pope Pius
IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none
can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”[ccci]
The
Catholic Church is infallible; Her dogmatic definitions are infallible; popes
speaking from the Chair of Peter are infallible. Thus, it is very simple: If it were true that
so-called “invincibly ignorant” non-Catholics could be saved, then GOD WOULD
NEVER HAVE ALLOWED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO DEFINE THE DOGMA THAT NO ONE
AT ALL CAN BE SAVED OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH! But God did allow His infallible Church to
define this truth, WHICH SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES FROM SALVATION EVERYONE
WHO DOES NOT DIE A CATHOLIC.
Thus, the idea that a
non-Catholic who is ignorant of the Faith can be saved is heretical; it
is contrary to the dogma that “no one,” (Pope Pius IV; Benedict
XIV; Pius IX) “nobody at all,” (Innocent III) “nobody, even if he shed
his blood in the name of Christ” (Eugene IV) can be saved as a
non-Catholic. It is a denial of the
dogma that “every human creature”
(Boniface VIII) must be a Catholic, and that “only those” (Eugene IV)
inside the bosom and unity of the Church can achieve salvation.
Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (#
2), May 27, 1832:
“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.”[cccii]
Those who insist that
“invincible ignorance” can possibly save a person who dies as a non-Catholic
simply depart from and deny the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church.
POPE
PIUS IX AND INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE
What about Pope Pius IX? Isn’t it true that he taught that the
invincibly ignorant could be saved in two documents? What about Singulari Quadem and Quanto Conficiamur Moerore?
Confusion on this topic has increased as a result of a few misunderstood
statements from Pope Pius IX. As we
analyze these statements, it is
imperative to keep in mind that, even if Pope Pius IX had taught that the
invincibly ignorant could be saved on these two occasions, it wouldn’t mean
that such a position is true, because they were fallible documents which
could have contained error. No pope
can change or contradict dogma. Pope
Honorius, who reigned in the 7th century, was, in fact, later
condemned for propagating heresy, though not in his solemn capacity teaching to
the universal Church. Thus, no one, not
even a pope, can change the dogma that no one who dies outside the Catholic
Church, ignorant or not, can be saved.
Here are some more quotes on ignorance.
Pope Benedict XV, Humani Generis Redemptionem (# 14), June 15,
1917: “…‘Ignorance is the mother of all errors,’ as the Fourth Lateran
Council so truthfully observes.”[ccciii]
The Errors of Peter Abelard,
Condemned by Innocent II, July 16, 1140, #10: “That they have not sinned who
being ignorant have crucified Christ, and that whatever is done through
ignorance must not be considered sin.” - Condemned[ccciv]
SINGULARI QUADEM, AN ALLOCUTION (A SPEECH TO THE CARDINALS)
The
first of the documents from Pope Pius IX, frequently quoted by those who
believe in salvation outside the Church, is Singulari Quadem, an
allocution (a speech to the cardinals) given December 9, 1854:
“....those
who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible
ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the
Lord.”[cccv]
First of all, this is a speech of Pope
Pius IX to the cardinals. It is not a
dogmatic pronouncement, not even an encyclical, nor even an encyclical
addressed to the entire Church.
But is Pope Pius
IX saying that the invincibly ignorant can be justified and saved in their
condition? No. Rather, he is stating that the “invincibly
ignorant” will not be held accountable for the sin of infidelity, but they will
still go to Hell. Read carefully the
last part of the sentence, “are not subject to any guilt IN THIS MATTER,”
that is, in the matter of infidelity.
St. Thomas Aquinas explains that unbelievers
who have never heard of the Gospel are damned for their other sins, which
cannot be remitted without Faith, not because of the sin of infidelity (or
disbelief in the Gospel).[cccvi] These other sins of the unbelievers serve as
the reason why God does not reveal the Gospel to them and which ultimately
excludes them from salvation. If one
among them, however, were truly sincere and of good will, and cooperating with
the natural law, then God would send a preacher (even miraculously, if
necessary) to bring the Catholic Faith and baptism to him. Pope Pius IX goes on to say in the same
allocution concerning a person of good will who is invincibly ignorant:
“the
gifts of heavenly grace will assuredly not be denied to those who sincerely
want and pray for refreshment by the divine light…
St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate,
14, A. 11, ad 1: Objection- “It is
possible that someone may be brought up in the forest, or among wolves; such a
man cannot explicitly know anything about the faith.
St. Thomas
Aquinas, Sent. II, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4:
“If a man born among barbarian nations, does what he can, God Himself will show
him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or sending a teacher
to him.”[cccviii]
St. Thomas
Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless
he culpably wishes to remain where he is.”[cccix]
Thus,
Pope Pius IX was not teaching that people who are ignorant of the Catholic
Faith can be saved; he was, rather, stating that such unbelievers are not
damned for the matter of infidelity. The
fact that all who die as ignorant non-Catholics are not saved is the
affirmation of all of Catholic Tradition and all the saints, besides being the
dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church.
St.
Alphonsus Liguori, Sermons (c. +1760): “How many are born among the pagans,
among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.”[cccx]
St.
Alphonsus: “If you are ignorant of the truths of the faith, you are obliged to
learn them. Every Christian is
bound to learn the Creed, the Our Father, and the Hail Mary under pain of
mortal sin. Many have no idea of the
Most Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, mortal sin, Judgment,
St.
Alphonsus, Preparation For Death, (c. +1760): “How thankful we ought to be to
Jesus Christ for the gift of faith! What would have become of us if we had been
born in Asia, Africa,
Though Singulari Quadem of Pius IX did not
teach the HERESY that one can be saved without the Catholic Faith by invincible
ignorance, it is weakly worded. Pope
Pius IX should not have concerned himself with trying to satisfy the heretical
minds of liberals and apostates who refuse to accept Church dogma. He should have simply repeated the many times
defined dogma that everyone who dies without the Catholic Faith is lost, and
clearly explained that no one who is of good will will be left in ignorance of
the true religion. But because of his
weakly worded statement, and the following one we will examine, a veritable disaster has resulted. Almost every single person who wants to
advance his heretical belief that one can be saved outside the Catholic Church quotes
this fallible statement from Pope Pius IX and the other one we will
examine.
What’s
interesting, however, and further confirms the point above, is that in Singulari
Quadem, after explaining how the invincibly ignorant are not held guilty in
this matter, Pope Pius IX declares that a Catholic must hold one Lord,
one Faith and one Baptism, and that it is unlawful to proceed further in
inquiry! – probably in an attempt to stem the tide of belief that one could be
saved outside the Church by “baptism of desire.” The people who believe in salvation outside
the Church almost never quote this part of the allocution.
Pope Pius
IX, Singulari Quadem: “For,
in truth, when released 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 mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth,
weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most
firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is ‘one God, one
faith, one baptism’ [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in
inquiry.”[cccxiii]
Therefore, even Pope Pius IX,
in the very statement wrongly quoted by the liberals against the dogma Outside
the Church There is No Salvation, admonishes
that such theorizing about salvation by other baptisms and other faiths
is unlawful.
Pope
Pius IX proceeded to speak about the invincibly ignorant again seven years
later in his encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, August 10, 1863. Quanto
Conficiamur Moerore does not meet
the requirements for infallibility; it is addressed only to the cardinals and
bishops of Italy.[cccxiv]
Pope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore: “And here, beloved Sons and
Venerable Brothers, We should mention again and censure a very grave error
in which some Catholics are unhappily engaged, who believe that men living in
error, and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain
eternal life. Indeed, this is
certainly quite contrary to Catholic teaching.
It is known to us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance
of our most holy religion AND WHO ZEALOUSLY KEEPING THE NATURAL LAW AND ITS PRECEPTS
ENGRAVED IN THE HEARTS OF ALL BY GOD, AND BEING READY TO OBEY GOD, LIVE AN
HONEST AND UPRIGHT LIFE, can, by the OPERATING POWER OF DIVINE LIGHT AND GRACE,
attain eternal life since God...will by no means suffer anyone to be punished
with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin.”[cccxv]
First, notice that Pope Pius IX specifically condemns the idea that a man
“living in error and separated from the true Faith” can be saved. What, may I ask, is the idea of salvation for
the “invincibly ignorant”? Why, of
course, it is the idea that a man living in error and separated from the true
Faith can be saved. So, the very concept
of salvation for the “invincibly ignorant” is condemned as QUITE CONTRARY TO
CATHOLIC TEACHING in this very document of Pope Pius IX.
Second, notice again that Pope Pius IX does not say anywhere that the invincibly
ignorant can be saved where they are.
Rather, he is reiterating that the ignorant, if they cooperate with
God’s grace, keep the natural law and respond to God’s call, they can by God’s
“operating power of divine light and grace” [being enlightened by the
truth of the Gospel] attain eternal life, since God will certainly bring
all of his elect to the knowledge of the truth and into the Church by
baptism. According to the specific definition of Sacred Scripture, “divine light” is the Gospel truth of
Jesus Christ (the Catholic Faith) which removes the ignorant from
darkness.
Ephesians
5:8 “For you were heretofore darkness, but
now light in the Lord. Walk then
as children of the light.”
1 Thess.
5:4-5 “But you, brethren [believers],
are not in darkness… For all you are
the children of the light.”
Colossians 1:12-13:
“Giving thanks to God the
Father, who hath made us worthy to be
partakers of the lot of the saints in
light: Who hath delivered us
from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His love.”
1 Peter 2:9: “But you are a chosen generation… a
purchased people: that you may declare his virtues, who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.”
2
Corinthians 4:3-4: “And
if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world [Satan] hath
blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the
light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God,
should not shine unto them.”
2 Timothy
1:10: “But is now made manifest by the illumination of our Savior Jesus Christ,
who hath destroyed death, and hath brought
to light life and incorruption by the Gospel.”
Pope Pius
IX,
So, we
must not interpret Pius IX’s words in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore about
the good-willed ignorant being saved by receiving “divine light and grace”
contrary to their clear scriptural and Traditional meaning, which is that
divine light and grace is received by hearing of the Gospel, believing it and
being baptized. Thus, in Quanto
Conficiamur Moerore, Pius IX is saying that the good-willed, sincere person
who is ignorant of the Faith will be “illuminated” by receiving the “divine
light” (hearing the Gospel) and will enter the Catholic Church so that he can
be saved.
I
realize that Pope Pius IX was not nearly as clear as he could have been in the
second half of Quanto Conficiamur Moerore. The heretics have had a field day with it,
because they think that they can exploit its wording to favor their heresy that
there is salvation outside the Church.
If Pope Pius IX had repeated in a strong way the previous definitions of
the popes, without any ambiguous language, he would have avoided the danger of
modernists misinterpreting his
words. This is a shame because almost
all of his statements on this topic do very clearly affirm Church dogma without
any ambiguity that heretics can jump on.
Pope Pius IX, Nostis et Nobiscum (# 10), Dec. 8, 1849: “In
particular, ensure that the faithful are deeply and thoroughly convinced of
the truth of the doctrine that the Catholic faith is necessary for attaining
salvation. (This doctrine, received from Christ and emphasized by the
Fathers and Councils, is also contained in the formulae of the profession of
faith used by Latin, Greek and Oriental Catholics).”[cccxvii]
Pope Pius IX, Ubi primum (# 10), June 17, 1847: “For ‘there is
one universal Church outside of which no one at all is saved; it
contains regular and secular prelates along with those under their
jurisdiction, who all profess one Lord, one faith and one baptism.”[cccxviii]
Pope Pius
IX- Syllabus of Modern Errors- Proposition 16, Dec. 8, 1854: “Man may,
in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal
salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.” [cccxix]
– Condemned
Notice again that the concept of salvation
for the “invincibly ignorant” is condemned here. The concept of salvation for the “invincibly
ignorant,” as it is held by almost everyone who holds it today, is that some
men – including those who observe non-Catholic religions – can find and
arrive at salvation in these religions because they are “without fault of
their own.” But this is heretical and
condemned by Pius IX’s own Syllabus of Errors above.
Fr.
Michael Muller, C.SS.R. was a Catholic priest who lived during the time of Pope
Pius IX. He wrote a famous book entitled
The Catholic Dogma in which he defended the Church’s teaching that a
person who is “invincibly ignorant” of the Faith cannot be saved. He also defended the true meaning of Pope
Pius IX’s teaching on this topic.
Fr. Michael
Muller, C.SS.R., The Catholic Dogma, pp. 217-218, 1888: “Inculpable
or invincible ignorance has never been and will never be a means of salvation. To be saved, it is necessary to be justified,
or to be in the state of grace. In order
to obtain sanctifying grace, it is necessary to have the proper dispositions
for justification; that is, true divine faith in at least the necessary truths of salvation, confident hope in
the divine Savior, sincere sorrow for sin, together with the firm purpose of
doing all that God has commanded, etc. Now,
these supernatural acts of faith, hope, charity, contrition, etc., which
prepare the soul for receiving sanctifying grace, can never be supplied
by invincible ignorance; and if invincible ignorance cannot supply the
preparation for receiving sanctifying grace, much less can it bestow
sanctifying grace itself. ‘Invincible
ignorance,’ says
“It is, then, a curse, but not a blessing
or a means of salvation… Hence Pius IX said ‘that, were
a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, such invincible ignorance
would not be sinful before God; that, if such a person should observe the
precepts of the Natural Law and do the will of God to the best of his
knowledge, God, in his infinite mercy, may enlighten him so as to obtain
eternal life; for, the Lord, who knows the heart and the thoughts of man
will, in his infinite goodness, not suffer anyone to be lost forever without
his own fault.’ Almighty God, who
is just condemns no one without his fault, puts, therefore, such souls as are
in invincible ignorance of the truths of salvation, in the way of salvation,
either by natural or supernatural means.”[cccxx]
In these well-written lines we see Catholic dogma affirmed. Invincible ignorance can never save a man;
those who are invincibly ignorant, if they strive to do their best and are of
good will, will be enlightened by God of the Catholic Faith “either by natural
or supernatural means”; Fr. Muller confirms that Pope Pius IX was not
teaching the heresy that invincible ignorance justifies and saves, but that
a soul in such a state – who is of good will and follows the natural law – will
be enlightened by God about the Catholic Faith so that he can be saved. In fact, Fr. Muller’s rendering of Pius IX’s
words in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore show more clearly the pope’s actual
meaning.
Though
it’s clear that these documents of Pope Pius IX did not teach that “invincible
ignorance” could save someone, as Fr. Muller confirms, this is not the main
issue in regard to this extremely important topic of the necessity of the
Catholic Church for salvation. The main
issue concerns what the Church has infallibly
taught, not what Pope Pius IX fallibly taught. Both of these documents were fallible, not
dogmatic, and could have contained error!
The heretics who believe in salvation outside the Church love to dump all
of the dogmatic teaching of the Church on this issue and focus ad nauseam on what they think Pope Pius
IX fallibly taught. They ignore all
of the dogmatic definitions (quoted already in this document), while intent
on trying to exploit two fallible documents from Pope Pius IX. They pit their own misinterpretation of a few
lines in a speech of Pius IX to the cardinals and in a letter to the clergy of
Italy against the dogmatic definitions of the Fourth Lateran Council, Pope
Boniface VIII and the Council of Florence!
This is absolutely absurd and totally dishonest. One priest expressed it well:
“Just imagine, my dear listeners, the whole
secret of salvation being missed in the Gospels, in the teachings of the
Apostles, in the protestations of the Saints, in the defined teachings of the
Popes, in all the prayers and the liturgies of the Church – and imagine it
suddenly coming clear in one or two carelessly worded sentences in an
encyclical of Pope Pius IX, on which the Liberals base their teaching that there
is salvation outside the Church.”[cccxxi]
The
truth is that the liberals recognize what is being said here; they realize that
even if Pope Pius IX did teach what they claim (which he didn’t), his statements
were not infallible and would carry no weight when compared with the dogmatic
definitions on the topic. But they don’t
care about that, because, as one priest who believes in salvation outside the
Church told me: “I like what Pius IX said.” Yes, he likes what he thinks Pius IX said, and he doesn’t like what God has said via the
Church’s infallible statements.
That
pretty much sums it up: those who obstinately insist on salvation for the
“invincibly ignorant” while ignoring these facts, and obstinately quote Pius IX
to attempt to prove it, simply reject dogma, in favor of their own contrived
interpretations of fallible statements, interpretations which lead them to
conclusions which were explicitly condemned by Pope Pius IX himself. Thus, these people “choose” their heretical
ideas over Catholic dogma – heresy, in the Greek, means “choice” – and in so
doing they demonstrate bad will and actually mock God. Such persons are devoid of the true Faith; they
don’t possess the gift of acceptance of the supernatural revelation of God;
they assert that Jesus Christ is not important enough that everyone above
reason must know Him to be saved; and they want the truth their own way.
St. John Chrysostom (+390): “So the
Machabees are honored in that they preferred to die rather than betray the Law… Then [in the Old Law] it sufficed to
salvation to know God alone. Now it is
no longer so; the knowledge of Christ is necessary to salvation…”[cccxxii]
The
heresy that non-Catholics can be saved by “invincible ignorance” wasn’t really
a problem before the year 1800, since the teaching of Catholic Tradition that
no one can be saved who is ignorant of the Gospel was quite clear and
maintained by most. But thanks to the
growing modernism in the 1850’s, combined with the liberals’ hijacking of Pope
Pius IX’s weak statements, the heretical theory of salvation for the invincibly
ignorant exploded and became the belief of many priests in the latter half of
the 19th century and the first half of the 20th
century. This has culminated in our
situation today, in which almost 100% of people who claim to be “Catholics”
(and even “traditional Catholics”) believe that Jews, Buddhists, Muslims,
Hindus, Protestants, etc. can be saved.
We can thank the heretical idea of salvation for the “invincibly
ignorant” for this, but there will be much more on this later in the
document. Heresy and modernism were so
widespread even at the time of the First
Vatican Council in 1870, that St. Anthony Mary Claret, the only
canonized saint at the Council, had a stroke because of the heresies that were
being promoted. None of these
heresies, of course, did God permit to be included in the decrees of
The fact
is that all cultures are demonic and under the dominion of the Devil until they
are evangelized. This is the
incontrovertible teaching of Tradition and Scripture.
Fr.
Francisco de Vitoria, O.P., a famous 16th century Dominican
theologian, summed up the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on this
topic very well. Here is how he put it:
“When we postulate invincible ignorance on the
subject of baptism or of the Christian faith, it does not follow that a person can be saved without baptism or the
Christian faith. For the aborigines
to whom no preaching of the faith or Christian religion has come will be damned
for mortal sins or for idolatry, but not for the sin of unbelief. As St. Thomas says, however, if they do what
in them lies [in their power], accompanied by a good life according to the law
of nature, it is consistent with God’s providence that he will illuminate them
regarding the name of Christ.”[cccxxiii]
All the
people who die in cultures which have never been penetrated by the Gospel go to
Hell for sins against the natural law and the other grave sins which they
commit – which bad will and failure to cooperate with God’s grace is the reason
He does not reveal the Gospel to them.
The First Vatican Council defined infallibly, based on Romans 1, that
the one true God can be known with certitude by the things which have been
made, and by the natural light of human reason.[cccxxiv]
Everyone can know with certainty that there is
a supreme spiritual being, Who is the One True God and the Creator of the world
and all that it contains. Everyone
knows that God is not something that they have carved out of wood or jade or
stone. They know that God is not the
tree that they worship or the river they worship or the rock or the snake or
the sacred tree frog. They know that
these things aren’t the Creator of the universe. Every such person knows that he is
worshipping a creature rather than the Creator.
They are, as
And if
somebody accepted the truth, if he were intellectually honest enough to say,
“God, this piece of wood can’t be You, reveal Yourself to me,” then God would
send an angel, if necessary, as He sent an angel to Cornelius in Acts chapter
10; and He would follow it up with a missionary who would bring the good news
and the Sacrament of Baptism.
John 18:37:
“For this was I born, and for this came I into the world, that I should give
testimony to the truth: every one who
is of the truth, heareth my voice.”
Pope Pius
XI, Quas Primas (# 15), Dec. 11, 1925 :
“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.”[cccxxvi]
St. Augustine (+426): “Consequently both those who have not heard the gospel
and those who, having heard it, and having been changed for the better, did not receive perseverance… none of these are separated from that
lump which is known to be damned, as all are going… into condemnation.”[cccxxvii]
St. Prosper of Aquitane (+450):
“Certainly God’s manifold and indescribable goodness, as we have abundantly
proved, always provided and does yet provide for the totality of mankind, so
that none of those perishing can plead
the excuse that he was excluded from the light of truth…”[cccxxviii]
Romans 8:29-30- “For whom He foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable
to the image of his Son: that he might be the first-born amongst many
brethren. And whom he predestinated, them he also called: and whom he called,
them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”
Acts 13:48- “And the Gentiles hearing
it, were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were preordained to life everlasting, believed.”
As Catholics, of course, we don’t believe as the heretic John Calvin,
who held a predestination according to which no matter what one does he is
either predestined for heaven or hell.
That is a wicked heresy.
Rather, as Catholics we believe in the true understanding of
predestination, which is expressed by Romans 8, Acts 13 and the fathers and
saints quoted already. This true
understanding of predestination simply means that God’s foreknowledge from all
eternity makes sure that those who are of good will and are sincere will be
brought to the Catholic Faith and come to know what they must – and that all
those who are not brought to the Catholic Faith and don’t know what they must
simply were not among the elect.
OTHER POPES AND SAINTS AGAINST INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE
Defenders
of salvation for the “invincibly ignorant” might be disquieted to hear that two other popes, Pope Benedict XIV and Pope
St. Pius X, explicitly reiterated the Church’s dogma that there are certain
mysteries of faith about which no one who wishes to be saved can be ignorant. These mysteries are the mysteries of the
Trinity and the Incarnation, as it was defined by the Athanasian Creed.
Pope Benedict XIV, Cum Religiosi (# 4), June 26, 1754:
“See to it that every minister performs carefully the measures laid down
by the holy Council of
Pope
St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905:
“And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We
declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment
suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance
of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be
numbered among the elect.’”[cccxxx]
Every
person above the age of reason must have a positive knowledge of these
mysteries of Faith to be saved. There
are no exceptions. And this truth
of the Catholic Faith is why scores of popes and saints have taught that every
single member of that mass of humanity who lives in ignorance of Christ is
under the Devil’s dominion and will not be saved, unless he is incorporated
into Christ’s marvelous light by faith and baptism.
Pope Gregory XVI, Probe Nostis (#6), Sept. 18, 1840: “We are thankful for the success of apostolic missions in America, the
Indies, and other faithless lands…They search out those who sit in darkness
and the shadow of death to summon them to the light and life of the
Catholic religion… At length they snatch
them from the devil’s rule, by the bath of regeneration and promote them to
the freedom of God’s adopted sons.”[cccxxxi]
In his Bull Sublimus Dei, Pope Paul III addresses the question of the Indians
in the “recently discovered” New World.
Speaking in the context of those above the age of reason, Pope Paul III
declares that they are capable of receiving the Faith, and he reiterates the
teaching of tradition that not one of them can be saved without faith in Jesus
Christ.
Pope
Paul III, Sublimus Dei, May 29, 1537:
“The sublime God so loved the human race that He created man in such wise that
he might participate, not only in the good that other creatures enjoy, but
endowed him with capacity to attain to the inaccessible and invisible Supreme
Good and behold it face to face; and since man,
according to the testimony of the sacred scriptures, has been created to enjoy
eternal life and happiness, which none may obtain save through faith in our
Lord Jesus Christ, it is necessary that he should possess the nature
and faculties enabling him to receive that faith; and that whoever is thus
endowed should be capable of receiving that same faith. Nor is it credible that
any one should possess so little understanding as to desire the faith and yet
be destitute of the most necessary faculty to enable him to receive it. Hence
Christ, who is the Truth itself, that has never failed and can never fail, said
to the preachers of the faith whom He chose for that office 'Go ye and teach
all nations.' He said all, without
exception, for all are capable of receiving the doctrines of the faith…By
virtue of Our apostolic authority We define and declare by these present
letters… that the said Indians and other peoples should be converted to the
faith of Jesus Christ by preaching the word of God and by the example of good
and holy living.”[cccxxxii]
This shows us, once again, that it is
contrary to the Catholic Faith to assert that souls ignorant of the essential
mysteries of the Catholic Faith can be saved.
That great “Apostle of the Rocky
Mountains,” Fr. Pierre De Smet, who was the extraordinary missionary to the
American Indians in the 19th century, was also convinced – with all the
great Catholic missionaries before him – that all the Indians whom he did
not reach would be eternally lost.
(See also the section later on St. Isaac Jogues and St. Francis Xavier)
Fr. De
Smet, S.J., Jan. 26, 1838: “New priests are to be added to the Potawatomi
Mission, and my
Fr. De
Smet, S.J., Dec. 8, 1841: “My heart aches at the thought of so many souls left
to perish for lack of priests to instruct them.”[cccxxxiv]
Fr. De
Smet, S.J., Oct. 9, 1844: “What emotion
at the sight of this vast country, where, for lack of missionaries, thousands
of men are born, grow to manhood, and die in the darkness of infidelity! But now through our efforts, the greater
number, if not all, shall know the truth.”[cccxxxv]
This truth
on salvation is why St. Louis De Montfort says the following in his masterpiece
True Devotion to Mary (which we
strongly recommend for everyone):
St. Louis
De Montfort, True Devotion to Mary #
61: "There has been no name given under heaven, except the name of Jesus,
by which we can be saved.... Every one of the faithful who is not united to Him
as a branch to the stock of the vine, shall fall, shall wither and shall be fit
only to be cast into the fire. Outside of Him there exists nothing but
error, falsehood, iniquity, futility, death and damnation."[cccxxxvi]
This
truth on salvation is why Pope Gregory the Great responded in the following
manner after seeing some youths from unevangelized Britain in a slave market:
(+6th
century): “The Britain Gregory knew had
nothing to do with Christ. One day…
Gregory had seen in a slave market a group of handsome flaxen-haired youths
from the north, and inquired who they might be.
‘Angles,’ he was told, from Britain.
‘Not Angles, but angels,’ replied Gregory, exclaiming how sad it was ‘that beings with such bright faces should
be slaves of the prince of darkness’ when they ‘should be co-heirs with the
angels of heaven.’ And he resolved:
‘They shall be saved from God’s ire, and called to the mercy of Christ.’”[cccxxxvii]
Pope
Gregory the Great clearly held that the Angles were not in a position to be
saved, even though they were ignorant of the Gospel. They were, as he said, enslaved to the prince
of darkness since they were outside the supernatural kingdom of Christ (the
Catholic Church) and under the dominion of the Devil by reason of original
sin. Hence, he resolved to send St.
Augustine of Canterbury to evangelize them and save them.
This
truth on salvation is why St. Francis De Sales stated the following in The Catholic Controversy:
St. Francis
De Sales, The Catholic Controversy
(+1672): "Yes, truly; for outside the Church there is no salvation, out of this
St. Francis
De Sales, The Catholic Controversy
(+1672): "…[that] men can be saved outside the true Church, which is impossible."[cccxxxix]
St. Francis
De Sales, The Catholic Controversy (+1672):
“Who should ever detract from the glory of so
many religious of all orders, and of so many secular priests, who leaving
their country, have exposed themselves
to the mercy of wind and tide, to get to the nations of the New World, in order
to lead them to the true faith, and to enlighten them with the light of the
Gospel… amongst the Cannibals, Canarians… Brazilians, Malays, Japanese, and
other foreign nations, and made themselves prisoners there, banishing
themselves from their own earthly country in
order that these poor people might not be banished from the heavenly paradise."[cccxl]
This truth
on salvation is why Pope Leo XIII says that Christopher Columbus’s discovery of
America led to the salvation of hundreds of thousands of mortals who would otherwise
have been lost for dying in a state of ignorance of the true faith.
Pope Leo XIII, Quarto Abeunte
Saeculo #1 (+1902): “By his
(Christopher Columbus’) toil another world emerged from the unsearched bosom of
the ocean: hundreds of thousands of mortals have, from a state of blindness
been raised to the common level of the human race, reclaimed from savagery to
gentleness and humanity; and, greatest
of all, by the acquisition of those blessings of which Jesus Christ is the
author, they have been recalled from destruction to eternal life.”[cccxli]
This
truth on salvation is why Pope Pelagius I, representing the mind and Tradition
of the entire early Catholic Church, declared that those who “did not know the
way of the Lord” were lost.
Pope
Pelagius I, Fide Pelagii to
Childebert, April, 557: “For I confess that all men from Adam… will then rise
again and stand before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive
the proper things of the body, according as he has done, whether it be good or
bad [Rom. 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:10]… the
wicked, however, remaining by choice of their own with vessels of wrath fit for
destruction [Rom. 9:22], who either did not know the way of the Lord,
or knowing it left it when seized by various transgressions, He will give over by a very just judgment
to the punishment of eternal and inextinguishable fire, that they may burn
without end.”[cccxlii]
SACRED SCRIPTURE AGAINST INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE –
AND THE EVIDENCE OF THE IMMEDIATE DISSEMINATION OF
THE GOSPEL THROUGHOUT THE WORLD
St. Justin
Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew
(+155 A.D.): “There is not a single race
of men – whether barbarians or
Greeks, or of whatever name they may be called, either wagon-dwellers or those
who are called homeless or herdless who dwell in tents – among whom prayers and thanksgivings are not offered to God the Creator
of all things, in the name of the crucified Jesus.”[cccxliii]
The fact
remains that God has revealed that all who wish to be saved must believe in the
Catholic Faith (the Trinity and the Incarnation being “the Catholic Faith” in
its simplest mysteries – see the Athanasian Creed). The fact that God will make sure that souls
of good will hear His voice and receive the Catholic Faith should not be hard for a Catholic to accept. After
all, in the Apostles’ Creed alone, Catholics are required to profess belief in
numerous supernatural events: the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection and the
Ascension. A Catholic is also required to believe in Sacred Scripture, which is
filled with miracles and supernatural phenomena. Transubstantiation (the Real Presence of
Christ in the Eucharist) is also an everyday miracle which Traditional
Catholics believe. So why is it hard
to believe that God removes ignorance from souls of good will no matter where
they are, even miraculously, if necessary?
The name of Jesus is the only name under all of heaven (Acts.
4:12) by which one can be saved; and those who enter in not by Jesus are
thieves and robbers (John 10).
John
10:1,9: “[Jesus saith] Amen, Amen, I say to you: he that entereth not by the
door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief
and a robber… I am the door.”
In a
famous case, Ven. Mary of Agreda is
said to have bilocated from her convent in
It is also taught in numerous places in the New Testament that the
Gospel was, even in the time of the Apostles, preached throughout the entire
world.
Acts 1:8:
“[Jesus saith]… you shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you,
and you shall be witnesses unto me in
Colossians
1:23- “If so ye continue in the faith, grounded and settled, and immoveable
from the hope of the gospel which you
have heard, which is preached in all the creation that is under heaven,
whereof I Paul am made a minister.”
Colossians
1:4-6: “Hearing your faith in Christ Jesus… the truth of the gospel: Which is come to you, as also it is in the
whole world…”
1
Thessalonians 1:9- “For from you was spread abroad the word of the Lord, not
only in
Romans
10:13-18: “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be
saved. How then shall they call on him,
in whom they have not believed? Or how
shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher…
Faith then cometh by hearing: and by hearing the word of Christ. But I say: Have they not heard? Yes,
verily, their sound went forth over all the earth, and their words unto the
ends of the whole earth.”
The New Testament is clear that the Gospel reached “the uttermost part
of the earth” (Acts 1), “all the creation which is under heaven” (Colossians 1)
and “unto the ends of the whole earth” (Romans 10). It is quite possible that the Apostles were
transported to the “uttermost part of the earth” to preach the Gospel and
baptize in the same vessel by which the prophet Elias was miraculously taken
from the earth – a fiery chariot.
2 Kings
2:11- “And as they went on, walking and talking together, behold a fiery chariot, and fiery horses parted them both asunder: and
Elias went up by a whirlwind into heaven.”
In
fact, we know that St. Philip the Apostle was transported in a manner similar
to Elias, after Philip baptized the Eunuch of Candace.
Acts
8:38-39: “And Philip commanded the chariot to stand still; and they went down
into the water, both Philip and the eunuch: and he baptized him. And when
they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord took away Philip;
and the eunuch saw him no more.
And he went on his way rejoicing.”
Acts 2
also tells us that on the day of Pentecost, Jews from “every nation under
heaven” (who had come to Jerusalem for the day of Pentecost) were converted and
baptized.
Acts
2:1-41: “And when the days of the Pentecost were accomplished, they were
together in one place… Now there were
dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. And when this was noised abroad, the
multitude came together, and were confounded in mind, because every man heard
them speak in his own tongue. And they
were all amazed, and wondered, saying: Behold, are not all these, that speak,
Galileans? And now have we heard, every
man our own tongue wherein we were born?
Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and inhabitants of Mesopotamia,
Judea, and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,
Phrygia, and Pamphylia, Egypt, and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews also, and
proselytes, Cretes, and Arabians… They therefore that received his word, were
baptized; and there were added in that
day about three thousand souls.”
Once
these souls from “every nation under heaven” had been converted and baptized,
they traveled back to their respective lands and spread the Gospel –
facilitating the immediate dissemination of the Gospel to distant lands
throughout the world. That is why, for
example, there is evidence of Christianity in Parthia that is contemporaneous
with the earliest Western contacts in that realm after Christ.
Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 1, p.
429: “The importance of this conversion of substantial
numbers of pilgrims [on Pentecost] who would soon be returning to their own
homes in distant lands and could spread the Faith has often been missed…
But this fact probably explains why, for instance, there are indications of Christianity in the Parthian realms as far
back as we can trace Western contacts with it, after Christ.”[cccxlv]
Since
these souls had been converted in a powerful manner, “astonished” (Acts. 2:12)
– fear having “come upon every soul: many
wonders also and signs were done by the apostles in
Andrew –
preached in Scythia (barbarian Ukraine) and perhaps Greece
Bartholomew
– preached in south Arabia (and perhaps India)
Jude Thaddeus
– preached in Mesopotamia (and perhaps Armenia and Iran)
Matthew –
Media or Ethopia
Matthias –
entirely unknown
Philip –
Asia Minor (Phrygia)
Simon the
Zealous – Iran
Thomas –
Parthia and India[cccxlvii]
“The most
striking fact about this list is that, with the single exception of Philip, every one of these Apostles about whose
missionary work even the scantiest memory was preserved, went beyond the boundaries of the Roman Empire…
The truth therefore seems to be (as we should have expected, though in our narrow
vision may find hard to believe) that Christ
really meant exactly what He said when He spoke to the disciples after His
Resurrection of carrying His message to the ends of the earth, and had no
intention of waiting for the development of aircraft and television so that it
might be done more easily.”[cccxlviii]
This is
why the celebrated Church fathers St. Justin Martyr (quoted above), St.
Irenaeus, St. Clement and many others write:
St.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, +180
A.D.: “For the Church, although dispersed
throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received
from the Apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, Father
Almighty… Jesus Christ, the Son of God…and in the Holy Spirit… and the birth
from a Virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection…Neither do the Churches
among the Germans believe otherwise or have another tradition, nor do those
among the Iberians, nor among the Celts, nor away in the East, nor in Egypt,
nor in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of
the world. But just as the sun… is one
and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere and enlightens all men who
desire to come to a knowledge of truth.”[cccxlix]
St. Clement
of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks,
c. +190 A.D.: “The Divine Power, moreover, radiating
with an unsurpassable speed and with a readily obtainable benevolence, has
filled the whole Earth with the seed of salvation… He showed Himself as the
herald of truth, our Mediator and Savior…”[cccl]
We also
know that the Holy Ghost specifically forbade the Apostles to preach the Gospel
in certain places, most probably because of the bad will that they would
encounter.
Acts 16:6-
“And when they had passed through Phrygia, and the country of
Acts 16:7-
“And when they were come into Mysia,
they attempted to go into
On the
other hand, we know that the Holy Ghost specifically directed the Apostles – by
way of supernatural inspiration – to preach the Gospel in places where there
were sincere souls in need of it, such as in
Acts
16:9-10: “And a vision was shewed to
Paul in the night, which was a man of
Acts 8:26-
“Now an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying: Arise, go towards the south
… And the Spirit said to Philip: Go
near, and join thyself to his chariot.”
None of
this is to suggest, of course, that one should not preach the Gospel to a
person without supernatural inspiration.
It is merely to illustrate that God is fully aware of the souls of good
will and the souls of bad will; He is fully aware of who is truly desirous of
the truth of the Gospel and who is not, and there is nothing stopping Him from
getting His truth to those who are sincere.
The Lord will add daily to the Church those who are to be saved!
Acts 2:47:
“And the Lord added daily to their
society such as should be saved.” – Haydock Catholic Commentary on this
verse: “More and more he added daily to
the Church [such as should be saved], as is clearly expressed in the Greek.”
Pope Pius
IX, Vatican I, Sess. 3, Chap. 3,
1870, on Faith: “But, since ‘without faith
it is impossible to please God’ [Heb. 11:6] and to attain to the fellowship of
His sons, hence, no one is justified
without it…”[cccli]
Pope Pius
IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra:
“This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved…
I now profess and truly hold…”[ccclii]
The fact
that no one can be saved without the Catholic Faith is surely why there is
evidence of Christianity’s arrival in the
The
fifteenth and sixteenth century Catholic conquistadors of North and South
America, who also overthrew the satanic Aztec Empire, found an abundance of
evidence of the ancient presence of Christianity in the New World.
“The Indies
represented a third of mankind; it was, therefore, theologically impossible
that they would not have been evangelized by an apostle of Christ… St. Thomas
(who preached supra Gangem, beyond
the Ganges)… Since the evangelization of St. Thomas was an integral part of
revelation, what material signs do we have of his passage into the New
World? These are the indelible marks of
his [or some other apostle’s] presence: the miraculous fountains and the
amazing crosses found here and there, from Bahia in Brazil up to Gautulco, the
assortment of native rites that vaguely evoked Christianity – confession,
fasting… the belief in one God and creator, in a Virgin who wonderfully
conceived, in the universal flood; the bold interpretation of symbols in the
shape of a cross in the temples and manuscripts… Everything seems to attest to
the remnants of a Christianity corrupted by time. The omnipresent figure of one called Zume in
Paraguay and Brazil, Viracocha in Peru, Bochica in Colombia, Quetzalcoatl in
Mexico, Cuculcan among the Mayans, is surrounded by a great number of Christian
analogies.”[cccliv]
Evidence has now been uncovered that Christianity
reached China as early as the 1st or 2nd century. “A
Chinese theology professor says the first Christmas is depicted in the stone
relief from the Eastern Han Dynasty (AD
25-220). In the picture… a woman and
a man are sitting around what looks like a manger, with allegedly ‘the three
wise men’ approaching from the left side, holding gifts, ‘the shepherd’
following them, and ‘the assassins’ queued up, kneeling, on the right.”[ccclv] In fact, both St. Francis Xavier (1506-52)
and Fr. Matteo Ricci (1552-1610), two of the most influential missionaries from
the Society of Jesus, “claimed in their writings that they found evidence
supporting that Thomas had made his way to China successfully.”[ccclvi]
Thus, by
these four means was the Gospel transmitted even to the ends of the earth
during the period of Jesus Christ’s revelation – i.e. the period whose end is officially
marked with the death of the last apostle: 1) the preaching of the Apostles
which covered the entire Roman Empire and vast areas outside of it, and the
preaching of the multitudes converted by them; 2) the preaching of all those
converted on Pentecost, who carried the Gospel back to their distant lands; 3)
the possible miraculous transportation of Apostles to distant lands where good
willed souls were to be found, just as Philip was transported away from the
eunuch (Acts 8); 4) the direct supernatural intervention of God telling people
what they need to believe and do to be converted to the Christian Faith to be
saved. We see this direct supernatural
intervention of God to instruct souls of good will in the case of Cornelius and
St. Paul:
Acts
10:1-5: “Now there was a certain man in Caesarea, named Cornelius… A religious
man, and one that feared God…He saw in a
vision manifestly… an angel of
God coming in to him, saying to him: Cornelius… send men to Joppe,
and call hither one Simon, who is surnamed Peter.”
Acts 9:3-7:
“And as he [Saul] went on his journey, it came to pass that he drew near to
Damascus: and suddenly a light from
heaven shined round about him…And he, trembling and astonished, said: Lord,
what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said to him: Arise, and go into the city, and there
it shall be told thee what thou must do.”
We must
also keep in mind a fifth very important factor, which sheds further light on
this issue: the teaching of Christ is that the overwhelming majority of mankind
is of bad will and therefore damned.
Jesus revealed that few find the path to salvation in Matthew
7:13, and the great spiritual teachers of the Catholic Church have taught that
not only is most of humanity lost (i.e., all who die as non-Catholics), but
even most of those who profess to be Catholic.
Since
the sad fact of human history is that few are of the truth – something that is
also discovered by reading the Old Testament and the stories about how few were
found worthy to enter the promised land, and how few remained faithful to God’s
law in proportion to the super-majority of even
God’s people who repeatedly fell into idolatry – this helps explain why God
leaves segments of Earth’s population in ignorance. It’s because there is not a good-willed soul
to be found there. Thus, those parts of
the New World which were not reached by the Gospel were not reached because the
elect were not to be found there.
The
words of the New Testament about the Gospel being preached in all creation
under heaven, and Our Lord’s words that the Apostles would witness to Him in
“the uttermost part of the earth” in His very last discourse before His
Ascension, suggest that perhaps some of the Apostles themselves were
miraculously transported to areas in the world where souls of good will were to
be found. But regardless of what one
takes from the scriptural passages above, the fact is that the Gospel is
preached where good willed souls are to be found, and where it is not preached
there is no salvation.
Tertullian,
Against the Jews (+200 A.D.): “In
whom else have all nations believed, if not in the Christ, who has already
come? The Parthians and the Medes and
the Elamites; and they who inhabit Mesopotamia, Armenia, and Cappodocia; and
they who dwell in Pontus and Asia, in Phrygia and Pamphylia; sojourners in
Egypt and inhabitants of the parts of Africa beyond Cyrene, Romans and foreign
residents; yes, and Jews in Jerusalem, and other peoples: by this time even the
various tribes of Gutlians, and the many boundaries of the Moors, and all the
confines of Spain, and the various nations of Gaul; and the places of the
Britons, inaccessible to the Romans, but already subjugated to Christ; and of
the Sarmatians and Dacians and Germans and Scythians, and of the many remote tribes and provinces and islands unknown to us
and which we are scarcely able to enumerate…”[ccclvii]
St. Louis
De Montfort, The Secret of the Rosary,
c. +1710: “… no one can possibly be
saved without the knowledge of Jesus Christ.”[ccclviii]
Luke 24:47:
“And that penance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, unto
all nations, beginning at
“… the name
of Our Lord Jesus Christ… Nor is there
salvation in any other. For there is
no other name, under heaven, given to men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts
4:12).
SALVATION FOR THE “INVINCIBLY IGNORANT” REDUCED TO ITS ABSURD PRINCIPLE
The theory that “invincible ignorance”
saves can also be refuted by reducing it to its absurd principle, which is
this: If being ignorant of the Savior could render one worthy of salvation,
then Catholics are actually doing non-Christians a disservice in preaching Jesus
Christ to them.
But, in
fact, the heresy has gotten so bad today in the time of the Great Apostasy in
which we live (See Section 34) that most “Catholics” today readily profess that
pagans, Jews, Buddhists, etc. who know of the Gospel and reject it can also be saved by “invincible ignorance.” But this is only the necessary result of the
invincible ignorance heresy; for if pagans who’ve never heard of Christ can be
saved “in good faith,” then pagans who reject Christ could also be in good
faith too, for how much does one have to hear to lose his “invincible
ignorance”? Once one strays from the
principle – that is to say, once one rejects the divinely revealed truth – that
all who die as pagans are
definitely lost without exception
(Pope Eugene IV, de fide), the clear
cut lines of demarcation are rejected, and a gray area necessarily takes over,
a gray area according to which one cannot
possibly know or set limits on who is possibly in good faith and who is not.
1
Corinthians 15:1-2: “Now I make known unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received,
and wherein you stand. By which also you are saved…”
The other heretical consequence of the invincible ignorance heresy is
that it would mean that infants could also be saved without baptism, because
infants are the most “invincibly ignorant” persons on earth. Hence, the argument would go, if “invincible
ignorance” saves non-Catholics, then it can save the “invincibly ignorant”
infants also. But such an idea has been
repeatedly condemned by the Catholic Church; it is a divinely revealed truth
that not one infant can enter heaven without water baptism (See “Infants Cannot
Be Saved Without Baptism” section).
JESUS CHRIST AGAINST INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE
Perhaps
nothing in the New Testament is as clear as the fact that Our Lord Jesus Christ
is the Son of God, and that you must believe in Him to have eternal life.
John 3:16:
“For God so loved the world, as to give His only begotten Son: that
whosoever believeth in Him, may not perish, but may have life
everlasting.”
John 3:36:
“He that believeth in the Son hath life
everlasting: but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the
wrath of God abideth on him.”
John 17:3:
“Now this is life everlasting, that
they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast
sent.”
John 8:23-24:
“And he said to them [the Jews]: You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this
world. Therefore, I said to you, that
you shall die in your sins: for if
you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin.”
John 14:6:
“Jesus saith to them: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No
man cometh to the Father, but by me.”
And Our
Lord is clear that those who don’t know Him are not saved.
John 10:14:
“I am the good shepherd, and I know mine, and mine know me.”
There
aren’t many passages in the New Testament that are as destructive to the modern
heresy of “invincible ignorance” as John 10:14.
Our Lord clearly and definitively tells us that He knows His sheep and
that His sheep “know Him.” And if Our Lord’s words weren’t clear enough,
He goes on to say, as recorded just two verses later in
John 10:16:
“And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and
they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one
shepherd.”
Could
anything be more clear? Almost all
theologians understand Our Lord’s words here about the “other sheep” to be
referring to the Gentiles. Our Lord is
telling the Jews that He has sheep among the Gentiles, who are of the truth,
and that He will bring them into the Church and they shall hear His Voice.
John 18:37:
“For this was I born, and for this came I into the world, that I should give
testimony to the truth: every one who
is of the truth, heareth my voice.”
THE “PRIVATE
INTERPRETATION” OBJECTION
OBJECTION- You are acting like a Protestant.
The Protestant privately interprets Sacred Scripture, while you
privately interpret dogmatic statements.
ANSWER- This objection was refuted in Section 2 of this
document, “Believe Dogma As It Was Once
Declared.”
But
there are a few additional points in refuting and breaking down the utter
nonsense and heretical mentality that lies at the heart of this
objection. The people who
make this assertion don’t understand Catholic teaching or what constitutes
fidelity to the Magisterium. In its Decree on the Sacrament of Order, the
Council of Trent solemnly declared that the dogmatic canons are for the use of all
the faithful!
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 13, Chap. 4: “These are the matters which
in general it seemed well to the sacred Council to teach to the faithful of
Christ regarding the sacrament of order.
It has, however, resolved to
condemn the contrary in definite and appropriate canons in
the following manner, so that all,
making use of the rule of faith,
with the assistance of Christ, may be able to recognize more easily the
Catholic truth in the midst of the darkness of so many errors.”[ccclx]
The word “canon" (in Greek: kanon)
means a reed; a straight rod or bar; a measuring stick; something serving to
determine, rule, or measure. The Council
of Trent is infallibly declaring that its canons are measuring rods for “all” so that they, making
use of these rules of Faith, may be able to recognize and defend the
truth in the midst of darkness! This
very important statement blows away the claim of those who say that
using dogmas to prove points is “private interpretation.”
Further, if a Catholic who is
going exactly by what the Chair of Peter (the dogmatic text) has declared
is not finding the truth, but is engaging in “private interpretation,” as they
claim, then what does he go by? Who
interprets the dogmatic statement? And
who interprets the interpretation of the dogmatic statement? And who interprets the interpretation of the
interpretation of the dogmatic statement?
And who interprets the interpretation of the interpretation of the
interpretation of the dogmatic statement?
The answer is that it would never end, and no one could ever
arrive at the truth on anything. In that
system, the deposit of faith – and the dogmatic teachings of the Church – would
then be nothing more than private opinions, which is SHEER PROTESTANTISM.
St. Francis De Sales
explained it well against the Protestants.
St. Francis
De Sales (Doctor of the Church), The
Catholic Controversy, c. 1602, p. 228: “The Councils… decide and define some article. If after all this another test has to be tried before their [the Council’s]
determination is received, will not another
also be wanted? Who will not want to
apply his test, and whenever will the matter be settled?... And why not
a third to know if the second is faithful? – and then a fourth, to test the
third? Everything must be done over
again, and posterity will never trust antiquity but will go ever turning upside
down the holiest articles of faith in the wheel of their understandings…
what we say is that when a Council has
applied this test, our brains have not
now to revise but to believe.”[ccclxi]
The
“interpretation” ends with the words of the dogma itself! If it doesn’t, then it never ends, as
we saw above – you just have fallible
interpretation after fallible interpretation after fallible interpretation
after fallible interpretation. If
the buck doesn’t stop with the infallible definition (the Chair of Peter), then
it never stops. I pointed this fact out
to a somewhat well-known “apologist” for the Vatican II sect in a telephone
conversation. He was arguing that our
usage of Catholic dogmatic teaching (the teaching of the Chair of Peter) is
like Protestant “private interpretation.”
He was saying this in an attempt to defend some of his heretical beliefs
which contradict dogma, such as his belief that non-Catholics can be
saved. I said to him, “then who
interprets the dogma? And who interprets
the interpretation of the dogma?” After I said “who interprets the interpretation
of the dogma… and who interprets the interpretation of the interpretation… and
who interprets the interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation…”
he remained deadly silent for the first time in the conversation. He obviously had no response to the factual
point that was made, simply because there is no response. In the heretical view of dogmatic teaching
that he espoused, the Catholic Faith is nothing more than Protestantism –
fallible, private, human interpretation with no Chair of Peter to give one the
final word. The following quotation also illustrates this point very well.
“Why did Athanasius know he was
right? Because he clung to the
infallible definition, no matter what everyone else said. Not
all the learning in the world, nor all the rank of office, can substitute for
the truth of one infallibly defined Catholic teaching. Even the simplest member of the faithful,
clinging to an infallible definition, will know more than the most ‘learned’
theologian who denies or undermines the definition. That is the whole purpose of
the Church’s infallibly defined teaching – to make us independent of the
mere opinions of men, however learned, however high their rank.”[ccclxii]
BUT CAN’T MEN MISUNDERSTAND A DOGMATIC DEFINITION?
Of course they can. Men can
misunderstand anything. If Jesus Christ
(the Truth Himself) were here speaking to us, many people would without doubt
misunderstand what He said, just as many did when He came the first time. Likewise, just because some can and do
misunderstand what the Chair of Peter is declaring, it does not mean that those
who faithfully adhere to its definition are engaging in Protestant
“private interpretation.” That is
utterly blasphemous against the entire institution of the Papacy and the whole
point of dogmatic definitions and the Chair of St. Peter. The
dogmatic statements of the Catholic Church constitute the truth of heaven being
declared to us directly by the popes.
Pope Pius
X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22:
“The dogmas
which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but
they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind
by a laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned[ccclxiii]
Pope Pius
X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #54:
“The
dogmas, the sacraments, the hierarchy, as far as pertains both to the
notion and to the reality, are nothing but interpretations and the
evolution of Christian intelligence, which have increased and perfected the
little germ latent in the Gospel.”- Condemned[ccclxiv]
Pope
Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (#7), Aug.
15, 1832: “… nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing
changed; nothing added; but they must be
preserved both as regards expression and meaning.”[ccclxv]
There are a
number of other objections that are raised against the true meaning of the
dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation and the necessity of receiving
the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation.
In this section, I will respond to them.
These objections, of course, are all proven to be wrong by the
infallible teaching of the Church examined thus far; but, once again, for the
sake of completeness, each one will be addressed individually.
What the modern proponents of the false
doctrine of baptism of desire try to do is to throw together a combination of
things which appear to favor their position, but which actually don’t. They throw together a combination of fallible
statements (which don’t prove their point), misinterpreted texts and/or
mistranslated texts (which don’t say what they claim), as well as some other
things which don’t prove their point.
The average layperson, however, not having the facts at his or her
disposal or not willing to make the effort to see through all of the fallacious
arguments, misrepresented points and invalid reasoning, comes away with the
impression that “baptism of desire” must be a teaching of the Church. But when each of the things that the baptism
of desire advocates claim is examined individually, one can see that not one
of them proves the false doctrine of baptism of desire in any way; they all
crumble when scrutinized. And while
these people misunderstand and misrepresent the teaching of the Church, they
dishonestly don’t even attempt to address the many arguments from the highest
teaching authority of the Catholic Church (the Chair of Peter) which show that
there is no such thing as “baptism of desire” or salvation for those who die as
non-Catholics (see Section 33). They
don’t address these arguments simply because they can’t answer them.
Since some of the following sections are
more involved and technical, those who are not necessarily looking for or
interested in the answers to these objections may as well skip over this
section to the next section.
THE CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF
OBJECTION- The Catechism of the Council of Trent taught that one’s determination to
receive baptism could avail him to grace and righteousness if it is impossible
for him to receive baptism.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Ordinarily They Are Not Baptized
At Once, p. 179: “On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to
confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred
for a certain time. The delay is not
attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already
mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be
washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive
Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and
righteousness.”[ccclxvi]
ANSWER- The Catechism of the Council of Trent is not infallible. Fathers John A. McHugh, O.P. and Charles J.
Callan, O.P. wrote the introduction for a common English translation of the
Catechism of the Council of Trent. Their
introduction contains the following interesting quote from Dr. John Hagan,
Rector of the Irish College in Rome, about the Catechism’s authority.
Catechism of the Council of Trent- Fifteenth printing, TAN Books,
Introduction XXXVI: “Official documents
have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic
teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the
Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine,
and is addressed to the whole Church. Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de
fide.”[ccclxvii]
The fact
that the Catechism of Trent is not infallible is proven by the fact that small
errors can be detected within its text.
For example:
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Tan Books, p. 243: “For the
Eucharist is the end of all the Sacraments, and the symbol of unity and
brotherhood in the Church, outside of which none can attain grace.”[ccclxviii]
Here the Catechism teaches
that outside the Church none can attain grace.
This is not true. Predisposing
or prevenient graces are given to those outside the Church so that they can
turn to God, change their lives and enter the Church. Without these graces no one would ever
convert. Pope Clement XI in the dogmatic
constitution Unigenitus (Sept. 8, 1713) condemned the proposition that,
“Outside the Church, no grace is granted.”[ccclxix] Thus, what we have here is an error
in the Catechism of Trent. The Catechism
probably intended to teach that outside the Church no sinner can attain sanctifying
grace, which is true, since outside the Catholic Church there is no remission
of sins (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 1302, ex cathedra).[ccclxx] Nevertheless, God allowed the Catechism to
err in this manner because it is not infallible in everything it teaches.
Furthermore, in the entire Catechism of the
Council of Trent there is no mention at all of the
so-called “three baptisms,” nor is there any mention of “baptism of desire” or
“baptism of blood,” nor is there any clear statement that one can be saved
without the Sacrament of Baptism. What
we find, rather, is one ambiguous paragraph which seems to teach that one can
achieve grace and righteousness without baptism. But even in this paragraph we find
errors. For instance, the passage says
that “should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for an adult to receive
baptism, his intention and determination to receive baptism will avail him
to grace and righteousness.”
There is no such thing as an
“unforeseen accident” which could make it “impossible” to receive baptism. This is clearly erroneous.
Pope Pius
IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 3, Chap. 1, On God the creator of all
things: “EVERYTHING THAT GOD HAS BROUGHT INTO BEING HE PROTECTS AND GOVERNS BY
HIS PROVIDENCE, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and
orders all things well. All
things are open and laid bare before His eyes, even those which will be
brought about by the free activity of creatures.”[ccclxxi]
God has
commanded all men to receive baptism, and He does not command impossibilities.
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…”[ccclxxii]
Therefore, the reference to the
unforeseen and impossible to avoid accident in the Catechism demonstrates, once
again, that not everything it says is infallible. An infallible document could not assert that
accidents are unforeseen or impossible to avoid.
Even though the Catechism of
Trent is not infallible in every sentence, as just proven, taken as a whole it
is an excellent catechism which expresses the Catholic Faith accurately and
effectively. But most importantly, the Catechism of Trent makes statement
after statement clearly and unambiguously teaching that the Sacrament of
Baptism is absolutely necessary for all for salvation with no exceptions, thereby
repeatedly excluding any idea of salvation without water baptism.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Comparisons among the Sacraments,
p. 154: “Though all the Sacraments possess a divine and admirable efficacy, it
is well worthy of special remark that all are not of equal necessity or of
equal dignity, nor is the signification of all the same.
“Among them three are said to
be necessary beyond the rest, although in all three this necessity is not of
the same kind. The universal and
absolute necessity of Baptism our Savior has declared in these words: Unless
a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the
This means that the Sacrament of Baptism
is absolutely and universally necessary for salvation with no exceptions! It excludes any idea of salvation without
water baptism. It also means that John
3:5 is understood literally.
Catechism
of the Council of Trent, On Baptism – Necessity of Baptism, pp. 176-177:
“If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest
importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that THE
LAW OF BAPTISM, AS ESTABLISHED BY OUR LORD, EXTENDS TO ALL, so
that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their
parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain
these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy
Ghost, he cannot enter into the
This clearly means that no
one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism and that John 3:5 is literal
with no exceptions!
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Definition of Baptism, p. 163:
“Unless, says our Lord, a man be born again of water and the Holy
Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5); and, speaking
of the Church, the Apostle says, cleansing it by the laver of water in the
word of life (Eph. 5:26). Thus it
follows that Baptism may be rightly and accurately defined: The Sacrament of
regeneration by water in the word.”[ccclxxv]
The Catechism of Trent also teaches
that if there is danger of death for an adult, Baptism must not be
deferred.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, In Case of Necessity Adults May Be
Baptized At Once, p. 180: “Sometimes, however, when there exists a just
and necessary cause, as in the case of imminent danger of death, Baptism is not
to be deferred, particularly if the person to be baptized is well
instructed in the mysteries of faith.”[ccclxxvi]
The customary delay in
baptizing adults that we see in history was for the instruction and the testing
of the catechumens. This delay was not
because it was believed that adults could be saved without baptism, as proven
already in the section on Pope St. Siricius.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after
Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy
writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our
Lord, when He gave 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.”[ccclxxvii]
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Matter of Baptism - Fitness,
p. 165: “Upon this subject pastors can teach in the first place that water,
which is always at hand and within the reach of all, was the fittest matter
of a Sacrament which is necessary to all for salvation.”[ccclxxviii]
Notice that
the Catechism teaches that water is “within the reach of all,” a phrase which
excludes the very notion of baptism of desire – that water is not within the reach
of all. Also notice that the Catechism
declares that the sacrament is necessary for all for
salvation! This excludes any notion of
salvation without the Sacrament of Baptism.
Thus, the Catechism of Trent teaches repeatedly and unambiguously that it
is the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church that the Sacrament of
Baptism is necessary for all for salvation.
All of this is clearly contrary to the theories of baptism of desire and
baptism of blood.
Moreover, the Catechism also
teaches that Christians are distinguished from non-Christians by the Sacrament
of Baptism.
Catechism
of the Council of Trent, On Baptism – Second Effect: Sacramental
Character, p. 159: “In the character impressed by Baptism, both
effects are exemplified. By it we are
qualified to receive the other Sacraments, and the Christian is
distinguished from those who do not profess the faith.”[ccclxxix]
Those who
assert that the Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for all for
salvation (e.g., all those who believe in “baptism of desire”) contradict the
very teaching of the Catechism of Trent.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Matter of Baptism - Fitness,
p. 165: “Upon this subject pastors can teach in the first place that water, which
is always at hand and within the reach of all, was the fittest matter of a
Sacrament which is necessary to all for salvation.”[ccclxxx]
OBJECTION- In Sess. 7,
Can. 4 on the Sacraments in General, the Council of Trent teaches that
people can obtain justification by the sacraments or the desire for them.
ANSWER- Session 7, Can. 4 on the Sacraments in General says nothing of
the sort. An awkward translation of
this canon, as well as the mistaken notion that Trent teaches baptism of desire
in another place in Trent (which has already been refuted), has led to this
erroneous assertion. In fact, we will
see that the truth is just the opposite of what the baptism of desire advocates
claim. Let’s take a look at the canon.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Can. 4, On the
Sacraments: “If anyone says that the sacraments of the new law are not necessary
for salvation but are superfluous, and that people obtain the grace of
justification from God without them or a desire for them, by faith alone,
though all are not necessary for each individual: let him be anathema.”[ccclxxxi]
When one carefully
examines this canon, he sees that it is not declaring that either the
sacraments or the desire for them is sufficient for justification; but rather
it is condemning those who would say that neither the sacraments nor the desire
for them is necessary for justification.
I repeat, it is not declaring that either is
sufficient; it is condemning those who would say neither
is necessary. Precisely, it is
condemning those who would say that neither is necessary and that faith
alone suffices.
Consider the following canon
that I have made up: “If anyone says that the Virgin Mary possesses the
Queenship of Heaven without God’s permission or her being worthy of it,
but assumes this Queenship by usurpation alone, let him be anathema.”
The sentence construction of
this imaginary canon is similar to the canon we are discussing. Consider it carefully. After considering it, I ask: does this canon
mean that the Blessed Mother possesses her Queenship solely by “her being
worthy of it”? No, she must also
have God’s permission. The canon does
not say that either “her being worthy of it” or “God’s permission” is
sufficient for Mary to possess the Queenship. Rather, it condemns those who
would say that neither “God’s permission” nor “her
being worthy of it” is
necessary. In other words, the canon is
condemning those who would say that both God’s permission and Mary’s
worthiness are useless, since she assumes the Queenship by usurping it.
Likewise, canon 4 above does
not say that either the sacraments or the desire for them is sufficient for
justification; it condemns those who would say that both the sacraments and the
desire are unnecessary in obtaining justification, since faith alone is all one
needs. Canon 4 does not in any way teach
the possibility of baptism of desire.
ONE CAN SEE THAT THIS CANON ACTUALLY REFUTES
BAPTISM OF DESIRE WHEN IT IS COMPARED WITH SIMILAR DOGMATIC CANONS ON THE
SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL
Further, since this canon is anathematizing a
false position on the necessity of the
sacraments in general for justification,
what doesn’t hold true for all the sacraments on justification must
therefore be qualified in the canon. It
is a canon on the sacraments in general. To put it another way, the Council of Trent
couldn’t anathematize the statement: “If
anyone says that one can obtain justification without the sacraments...” –
since, in the case of one sacrament, the Sacrament of Penance, one can obtain
justification by the desire for it. The
Council of Trent explicitly defined this no fewer than three times.
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent,
Sess. 14, Chap. 4, On Penance: “The
Council teaches, furthermore, that though it sometimes happens that this
contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man to God, before
this sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation must not be
ascribed to the contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament which is
included in it.”[ccclxxxii]
Therefore, since one can obtain justification without the Sacrament of
Penance, in order to make room for this truth in its definition on the
Sacraments in General and Justification, the Council had to add the
clause “without them or the desire for
them” to make its statement applicable
to all the sacraments and their necessity or lack thereof for
justification.
With this in mind, one can clearly see
that Sess. 7, Can. 4 doesn’t assert or state anywhere that one can obtain justification or salvation
without the Sacrament of Baptism; it is dealing with a different issue in a
very specific context.
To
further prove this point, let’s look at two other dogmatic definitions (one
from
►Pope Pius IV, “Iniunctum nobis,” The Council of
Trent, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “I
also profess that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the
New Law instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and necessary for the salvation of
mankind, although all are not necessary for each individual…”[ccclxxxiii]
►Pope Pius IX, Vatican
Council I, Sess. 2, Profession of Faith, ex cathedra: “I profess also that there are seven sacraments
of the new law, truly and properly so called, instituted by our Lord Jesus
Christ and necessary for salvation, though each person need not receive
them all.” [ccclxxxiv]
Before we compare these two definitions
with Sess. 7, Can. 4 above, the reader must notice that the Councils of Trent and Vatican I
infallibly define here that “the sacraments” as such (i.e., the sacramental system as a whole) are
necessary for man’s salvation. Both
definitions add the qualification that all seven sacraments are not
necessary for each individual. This is
very interesting and it proves two points:
1) It proves that every man must receive at least one sacrament to be saved;
otherwise, “the sacraments” as such (i.e. the sacramental system) couldn’t be
said to be necessary for salvation.
Hence, this definition shows that each man must at least receive the
Sacrament of Baptism in order to be saved.
2) Notice that the Council of Trent and
Vatican I made it a special point
when defining this truth to emphasize that each person does not need to receive
all of the sacraments to be saved!
This proves that where exceptions or clarifications are necessary in
defining truths, the councils will include them! (That is why the Council of Trent declared
that Our Lady was an exception to its Decree on Original Sin). Thus, if some men could be saved without “the
sacraments” by “baptism of desire,” then the council could have and would have
simply said that; but it didn’t. Nothing
about salvation being possible without the sacraments was taught in these
dogmatic professions of Faith. Rather,
the truth that the sacraments are necessary for salvation was defined,
with the necessary and correct qualification that all seven of the
sacraments are not necessary for each person.
Fr.
Francois Laisney (Believer in Baptism of Desire), Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 9: “Baptism
of Desire is not a sacrament... it does not produce the sacramental
character.”
Now,
let’s compare these two definitions with Sess. 7, Can. 4 above. Here are all three:
Pope Pius IV, “Iniunctum nobis,” Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “I also profess that there are truly and properly
seven sacraments of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and
necessary for the salvation of mankind, although all are not necessary for each
individual…”[ccclxxxv]
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I,
Sess. 2, Profession of Faith, ex cathedra:
“I profess also that there are seven sacraments of the new law, truly and
properly so called, instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ and necessary for
salvation, though each person need not receive them all.”[ccclxxxvi]
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent,
Session 7, Can. 4, On the Sacraments in General, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that the sacraments of the new law are
not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that people obtain the grace of justification from God without
them or a desire for them, by faith alone, though all are not
necessary for each individual: let him be anathema.”[ccclxxxvii]
In comparing these definitions, one notices
that Sess. 7, Can. 4 of Trent (the third one) is very similar to the first two
dogmatic definitions. In fact, they
are almost exactly the same, but with
two glaring differences: in the first two dogmatic definitions there is
no reference to “without them or the desire for them,” and there is no
reference to the topic of justification.
The first two definitions are simply dealing with the necessity of
the sacraments for salvation, whereas the third (Sess. 7, Can. 4) is
dealing with an additional topic: justification and faith alone, and it makes
an additional statement about it.
It is blatantly obvious that the phrase
“without them or the desire for them” (not found in the first two definitions)
has something to do with the additional subject that is addressed here
(justification and faith alone), which is not addressed in the first two
definitions. In fact, the clause
“without them or the desire for them” comes directly after (directly before in the Latin) the
reference to justification in Sess. 7, Can. 4!
This serves to prove my point above, that the reference to “without them
or the desire for them” in Sess. 7, Can. 4 is there to make room for the
truth that justification can be obtained without the Sacrament of Penance by
the desire for it, which Trent teaches multiple times. That is why this clause “without them or the
desire for them” is not mentioned in
the first two dogmatic definitions dealing with the sacraments and their
necessity for salvation! If
baptism of desire were true, the clause “without them or the desire for them”
would be included in the first two definitions quoted above, but it isn’t.
Sess.
7, Can. 4 is condemning the Protestant idea that one can be justified without
the sacraments or even without the desire
for them, by faith alone. Some ask:
why didn’t it simply condemn the idea that one can be justified without the
sacraments by faith alone? The answer
is, as stated above, because a person can
be justified without the Sacrament of Penance by the desire for it! Therefore, Trent condemned the Protestant idea
that one can be justified without the sacraments or without the desire for them by faith alone. But a person can never be saved without
incorporation into the sacramental system through the reception of Baptism. That is why no qualification was made in this
regard in any of these definitions.
Considering these facts, one can see that this canon is not in any way
teaching baptism of desire.
In fact, when looking at Sess. 7, Can. 4
again, we notice something else that is very interesting. Notice that not just the profession of Faith
from Trent and Vatican I, but also Sess. 7, Can. 4 condemns anyone who
says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation. It adds no qualification, except that all
seven are not necessary for each individual.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent,
Session 7, Can. 4, On the Sacraments in General: “If anyone says that the sacraments of the new law are not necessary
for salvation but are superfluous, and that people obtain the grace of justification from God without
them or a desire for them, by faith alone, though all are not necessary for each individual: let him be
anathema.”[ccclxxxviii]
After declaring that the sacraments are necessary
for salvation (baptism of desire is not a sacrament), it adds at the end the
qualification (as the other definitions did) that all seven are not necessary
for each individual! But it adds no
qualification that salvation can be attained by the desire for the
sacraments in general. Notice that
it DOESN’T SAY:
“If
anyone says that the sacraments of the new law or the desire for them are not necessary for salvation
but are superfluous… let him be anathema.”
It doesn’t say this at all. The “desire for them” was coupled with the
reference to justification for the reason discussed above. All of this serves to prove again that the
Council of Trent didn’t teach baptism of desire, contrary to what so many have
asserted.
Some may object that this seems rather
complicated. It really isn’t complicated
for anyone who thinks about it carefully.
And if it is complicated, it is complicated by the people who deny
the simple truth that one must be baptized to be saved, and who tenaciously
assert that it is not necessary for all to be born again of water and the Holy
Ghost. Those who misunderstand or stray
from the straightforward and totally simple truth (defined in the Canons on the
Sacrament of Baptism) are the ones who make it complicated and burdensome to
refute their errors and/or perversions of the truth. If people simply repeated and adhered to the
truths defined in the Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism it would be very
simple.
The Council of Trent had every opportunity
to declare: “If anyone shall say that there are not three ways of receiving the
grace of the Sacrament of Baptism, by desire, by blood or by water, let him be
anathema,” but it never did. Rather, it
declared:
Pope Paul
III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7,
1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that real and natural
water is not necessary for baptism, and on 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.”[ccclxxxix]
Pope Paul
III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism,
Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism
[the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn.
3:5): let him be anathema.”[cccxc]
OBJECTION- Pope
Innocent II taught that a priest could be saved without the Sacrament of
Baptism by his desire for it and his confession of the true faith (Denzinger
388):
“To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the
authority of the holy fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you
indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he
persevered in the faith of holy mother Church and in the confession of the name
of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly
fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth
book of Augustine’s City of
ANSWER- First of all, there is
no such thing as a priest who has not been baptized. The Church teaches that one who has not been
baptized cannot receive the priesthood validly.
This problem alone demonstrates that the above statement is not
infallible. Secondly, the date of
this document is unknown, the author is unknown – it is by no means clear that
it was Innocent II – and the person to whom it is addressed is unknown! Could such a document ever prove
anything? No. It remains a mystery why a document of
such doubtful authenticity found its way into Denzinger, a handbook of dogmatic
statements. This is probably because
Denzinger was edited by Karl Rahner, a notorious heretic, whose heretical bias
caused him to present this clearly non-magisterial statement as Magisterial,
for he is a believer in baptism of desire.
To illustrate
the lack of magisterial authority of the previous letter allegedly
from Pope Innocent II, I will quote from Thomas Hutchinson’s book, Desire
and Deception (pp. 31-32):
“We speak
of the letter Apostolicam Sedem, written at the behest of Pope Innocent II
(1130-1143), at an unknown date to an unnamed bishop of
---- Text of letter omitted because
it has been listed already ----
“Now, there are more than a few problems connected
with this letter. Firstly, it depends
entirely on the witness of Saints Ambrose and Augustine for its
conclusion. Its premises are false, as
the Fathers in question did not actually hold the opinions herein imputed to
them. (author: as noted a mere
sentimental speculative utterance does not prove they hold to this as official
teaching)…
“Lastly, there is even a question of
who wrote this letter. Many
authorities ascribe it to Innocent III (1198-1216). This question is mentioned in Denzinger. The letter is certainly not in keeping with
the totality of his declarations either.
In any case, a gap of 55 years separated the two pontificates. So a private letter of uncertain date,
authorship, and destination, based upon false premises and contradicting
innumerable indisputably valid and solemn documents, is pretended to carry the
weight of the Magisterium on its shoulders.
Were any other doctrine concerned, this missive (letter) would not
even be given any consideration. As
we shall see, however, mystification and deception are part and parcel of the
history of this topic of Salvation.
Perhaps this letter was attributed to Innocent III because of his
statement that the words of consecration at Mass do not actually have to be
said by the priest, but only thought internally --- a sort of Eucharist by
Desire. Later Saint Thomas Aquinas took
him to task on this point.
“But Innocent III is indeed the key to
understanding the original teaching of the Church on this topic. It was in his time (as always until the
Second Plenary Council of
These considerations dismiss
any argument in favor of baptism of desire from this letter. The letter, while certainly not infallible,
may indeed be a forgery.
OBJECTION- Pope
Innocent III taught that a person who baptized himself could be saved by the
desire for the Sacrament of Baptism.
Pope
Innocent III, to the Bishop of Metz, Aug. 28, 1206: “We respond that, since
there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized,
as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when he says to the
Apostles: ‘Go, baptize all nations in the name etc.,” the Jew mentioned must be
baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one
person, and he who baptizes another...If, however, such a one had died
immediately, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of
the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith.”[cccxcii]
This
proves the theory of baptism of desire.
ANSWER- It is true that Pope Innocent III apparently said that a person who
baptized himself could be saved by his desire for the sacrament, but it is
false to say that this proves the theory of baptism of desire. Baptism of desire is disproved by the
infallible teaching of Pope St. Leo the Great, the Council of Florence and the
Council of Trent on the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for
salvation. But the first thing that
should be said about this letter from Innocent III is that a letter to the
Bishop of Metz does not meet the requirements for an infallible
pronouncement. This is a fact hardly
anyone would dispute.
To prove
this point consider the following: In the letter Ex parte tua, Jan. 12,
1206, the same Innocent III teaches that original sin was remitted by the
mystery of circumcision.
Pope
Innocent III, Ex Parte tua, to Andrew, the Archbishop of Lyons, Jan. 12,
1206: “Although original sin was remitted by the mystery of circumcision,
and the danger of damnation was avoided, nevertheless there was no arrival at
the kingdom of heaven, which up to the death of Christ was barred to all.”[cccxciii]
This is
definitely wrong, since the Council of Trent defined as a dogma (Session VI,
Chap. 1 on Justification) that “not even the Jews by the very letter of the
law of Moses were able to be liberated or to rise” from original sin.[cccxciv]
Pope Paul
III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 1 on Justification: “… whereas
all men [*except the Blessed Virgin - as Trent says in Sess. V*] had lost their
innocence in the prevarication of Adam, ‘having become unclean’, and (as the
Apostle says), ‘by nature children of wrath… but not even the Jews by the
very letter of the law of Moses were able to be liberated or to rise therefrom…”[cccxcv]
In other
words, not even the observance of Circumcision and the rest of the Mosaic Law
enabled Jews to be freed from original sin (de fide), contrary to what
Innocent III taught in his letter Ex parte tua. So we have Innocent III teaching blatant
error in the letter Ex parte tua to Andrew, the Archbishop of
Lyons. Since Ex parte tua is at
least as authoritative as the other two statements allegedly from Innocent II
and Innocent III, which are often quoted by baptism of desire supporters, it
proves that they are likewise fallible and non-Magisterial. And this is the kind of “evidence” which
baptism of desire supporters try to bring forth from the Papal Magisterium: a
dubious letter alleged to be from Innocent II – with no date or addressee – and
a letter from Innocent III to an archbishop, which ranks on the same level as Ex
Parte Tua which contains things contrary to Catholic dogma. The evidence in favor of baptism of desire
from the infallible Papal Magisterium is zero.
In fact, as mentioned already, it was during Innocent III’s time
forbidden to bury the unbaptized (whether catechumens or even children of Catholic
parents) in consecrated ground. And it
is the infallible teaching of the same Pope at the Fourth Lateran
Council which affirms the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation.
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.”[cccxcvi]
“The faithful” only includes
those baptized with water, as section 6 of this document proves.
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.”[cccxcvii]
And here
is another statement from the same Pope which, though not infallible, insists
on the absolute necessity of rebirth in water.
Pope
Innocent III, letter to Thorias, Archbishop of Nidaros: “You have asked whether children ought to be
regarded as Christians whom, when in danger of death, on account of scarcity of
water and absence of a priest, the simplicity of some has anointed on the head
and the breast, and between the shoulders with a sprinkling of saliva for
baptism. We answer that since in
baptism two things always, that is, ‘the word and the element,’ are required by
necessity, according to which Truth
says concerning the word: ‘Going
into the world etc.’ [Luke 16:15; Matt. 28:19], and the same concerning the element says: ‘Unless anyone etc.’ [John 3:5]
you ought not to doubt that those do not have true baptism in which not only
both of the above mentioned (requirements) but one of them is missing.”[cccxcviii]
Perhaps
Pope Innocent III’s blunders in his fallible capacity as pope are the reason we
read the following vision about him barely avoiding Hell and being allegedly
condemned to suffer in Purgatory until the end of the world.
“In The Mourning of the Dove, St. Robert
Bellarmine (+ c. 1600) tells us about a person appearing to St. Lutgarde all
clothed in flame and in much pain. When St. Lutgarde asked him who he was, he
answered her: ‘I am [Pope] Innocent III, who should have been condemned to
eternal Hell-fire for several grievous sins, had not the Mother of God
interceded for me in my agony and obtained for me the grace of repentance. Now I am destined to suffer in Purgatory till
the End of the World, unless you help me.
Once again the Mother of Mercy has allowed me to come to ask you for
your prayers.’”[cccxcix]
OBJECTION- St.
Alphonsus taught that baptism of desire is “de fide” (of the faith). This means that baptism of desire is dogma!
St. Alphonsus: “Baptism by fire, however, is the
perfect conversion to God through contrition, or the love of God above all
things, with the explicit desire, or implicit desire, for the true river of
baptism. As the Council of Trent says
(Sess. 14, Chap. 4), it takes the place of the latter with regard to the
remission of the guilt, but does not imprint a character nor take away all the
debt of punishment. It is called fire
because it is made under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, who is given this
name… Thus it is of faith (de fide) that men are saved even by the baptism of
fire, according to c. Apostolicam, de pres. non bapt. and the Council of Trent,
Sess. 6, Chap. 4, where it is said that no one can be saved without the laver
of regeneration or the desire for it.”
ANSWER- First, St. Alphonsus was not
infallible. It is simply a fact that St.
Alphonsus made some theological mistakes, as the following discussion will
show. To advance St. Alphonsus’s opinion
on some matter as if it were a dogma is not Catholic.
Second, St. Augustine
held that it was de fide that
unbaptized infants suffer the fires of Hell and St. Cyprian held that it was de fide that heretics cannot validly
baptize. Both were dead wrong.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 9,
1910, “Limbo,” p. 258: “…St. Thomas and
the Schoolmen generally were in conflict with what St. Augustine and other
Fathers considered to be de fide [on unbaptized infants suffering the fires
of hell]...”[cd]
St. Cyprian, 254 A.D.: “We… judging
and holding it as certain that no one beyond the pale [that is, outside the
Church] is able to be baptized…”[cdi]
Third, the root of St.
Alphonsus’s error on baptism of desire was that he misunderstood Sess. 6, Chap.
4 of Trent (his opinion on this passage simply does not hold up under scrutiny
– see the discussion of that passage).
And this mistake led to his false conclusion that baptism of desire is a
teaching of the Catholic Church. The
passage which St. Alphonsus thought taught baptism of desire does not teach
baptism of desire, but affirms: as it
is written, unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost he
cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
Fourth, in teaching
baptism of desire, St. Alphonsus was teaching that one can be sanctified by the
Spirit and the Blood of Christ without the water of baptism and this
is contrary to what Pope St. Leo the Great infallibly taught. When a clash occurs between dogmatic
definitions and the opinions of saints, the Catholic, of course, goes with the
dogmatic definitions, no matter how great or learned the saint may be.
Finally, most
theologians after St. Alphonsus who believed in “baptism of desire” didn’t even
hold his opinion that baptism of desire is de fide. Most of them said that baptism of desire is close
to the Faith, not defined of the Faith.
Hardly any of them said that it is defined of the Faith. This fact proves that it is NOT of the
faith, because such a discrepancy would not exist among the theologians who
claim to favor it if it could be demonstrated that baptism of desire is of the
Faith. Here is an admission by a
defender of baptism of desire:
Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau, Baptism of Desire, p. 43: “The existence
of baptism of desire is, then, a truth which, although it has not been
defined as a dogma by the Church, is at least proximate to the
faith.”[cdii]
If the Council of Trent taught
baptism of desire, then baptism of desire is a defined article of the
Faith. But the Council of Trent did not
teach baptism of desire, which is why Fr. Rulleau is forced to admit
that it is not defined of the Faith, but only (in his view) “proximate to the
faith.” “Proximate to the Faith” and “of
the Faith” are not the same. Fr. Rulleau
(a fierce advocate of the theory) would not be caught softening his own
position if he could prove that it is of the faith, but he cannot.
Thus, St. Alphonsus’s
statement is wrong for several reasons: 1) it is contrary to defined dogma
(Pope St. Leo the Great and the understanding of Trent on John 3:5 as it is written); 2) his statement
cannot be proven – no definition can be cited; 3) it is not shared by even the
theologians who believe in baptism of desire; 4) there are errors in the very
paragraph in which it is stated.
Let’s examine # 4) there
are errors in the very paragraph in which it is stated. To substantiate his position on baptism of
desire, St. Alphonsus first makes reference to Sess. 14, Chap. 4 of the Council
of Trent. He says:
“As the Council of Trent says (Sess. 14, Chap. 4), it takes the
place of the latter with regard to the remission of the guilt, but does not
imprint a character nor take away all the debt of punishment.”[cdiii]
This is completely
wrong. Sess. 14, Chap. 4 of the Council
of Trent does not say that baptism of desire “takes the place of the latter
(i.e., baptism) with regard to the remission of the guilt,” as St.
Alphonsus claims. Let’s look at the
passage:
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 4, on the Sacrament
of Penance: “The Council teaches, furthermore, that though it sometimes
happens that this contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man
to God, before this sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation
must not be ascribed to the contrition itself without the desire of the
sacrament which is included in it.”[cdiv]
The Council here defines that
perfect contrition with the desire for the Sacrament of Penance
can restore a man to the grace of God before the sacrament is received. It says nothing of Baptism! St. Alphonsus’s very premise – that baptism
of desire is taught in Sess. 14, Chap. 4 – is erroneous.
And this shows again what I
have been demonstrating throughout this document: basically all the saints and theologians
who expressed belief in baptism of desire contradicted themselves in explaining
it while making other errors in the same document.
It should also be noted that,
although St. Alphonsus mentioned that he believed that an adult could be saved
by the explicit desire or implicit desire for the Sacrament of Baptism, he uses
the word implicit not to mean “not known,” but rather “not expressed in
words” – in other words, an adult who knows of Baptism and desires it,
but does not express this desire in words.
St. Alphonsus, even though wrong about baptism of desire, did not hold
to the modern day heresy of invincible ignorance – the idea that an
adult can be saved by baptism of desire who does not believe in Christ or the
Church and does not know of Baptism. St.
Alphonsus would rightly condemn such an idea as heretical.
1. St. Alphonsus: “See also the special love which God has shown you in
bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic
or true Church. How many are born
among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all
are lost.”[cdvi]
It’s interesting to consider that when the people who quote St.
Alphonsus in favor of baptism of desire – and treat him as if he were
infallible – are asked if they agree with his teaching here (that all who die
as heretics, Jews, Muslims and pagans go to Hell), almost all of them avoid the
question like the plague. They avoid the
question because, in this case, they do not share St. Alphonsus’s
position. Rather, they believe that
heretics, Jews, Muslims and pagans can be saved and therefore are in heresy for
that reason alone.
2. St. Alphonsus: “We must believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the
only true Church; hence, they who are out of our Church, or if they are
separated from it, cannot be saved.”[cdvii]
3. St. Alphonsus: “If you are ignorant of the truths of the faith, you are
obliged to learn them. Every
Christian is bound to learn the Creed, the Our Father, and the Hail Mary under
pain of mortal sin. Many have no idea
of the Most Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, mortal sin, Judgment,
4. St. Alphonsus: “How thankful we ought to be to Jesus Christ for the gift
of faith! What would have become of us
if we had been born in Asia, Africa,
One can see that, although
St. Alphonsus was incorrect in his belief that baptism of desire could be
efficacious in an adult who died before receiving the sacrament, he condemned
the modern day heresy which asserts that one can attain salvation in another
religion or without faith in Christ and the Catholic mysteries of Faith.
Another point that is useful
in refuting the objection from St. Alphonsus’s teaching on baptism of desire is
what St. Alphonsus taught concerning the so-called baptism of blood.
St.
Alphonsus, Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-97: “Baptism of blood is the
shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the faith or for some other
Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is
comparable to true baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and
punishment as it were ex opere operato… Hence martyrdom avails also for
infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true
martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly
teaches that the opposing view is at least temerarious.”
What St. Alphonsus teaches
here is completely wrong. He teaches
that infants can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism by martyrdom. This is directly contrary to the ex
cathedra teaching of Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence.
Pope Eugene
IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “Regarding
children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when
no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of
baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the
Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not
be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance
of certain people…”[cdx]
Pope
Eugene IV here defines from the Chair of Peter that there is no other remedy
for infants to be snatched away from the dominion of the devil other than the
Sacrament of Baptism. St. Alphonsus
teaches that there is another remedy in martyrdom. St. Alphonsus’s opinion on this matter cannot
be held, since it contradicts the Council of Florence. Now, we know that St. Alphonsus is a saint in
Heaven because the Church has told us this – in fact, he is my favorite
spiritual writer; but here St. Alphonsus was contradicting the solemn teaching
of the Magisterium: that the Sacrament of Baptism is the only remedy for
infants. We must conclude, therefore,
that St. Alphonsus was not obstinate in his teaching on baptism of blood for
infants; that is, he was not aware that his opinion contradicted the teaching
of the Church, especially the teaching of the Council of Florence. However, if he or anyone else were to hold
such an opinion obstinately (i.e., after being shown that it contradicted
Another error we find in the paragraph from
St. Alphonsus is his reference to the Holy Innocents as an example of baptism
of blood. This is erroneous because the
Holy Innocents’ deaths occurred before the Resurrection of Christ – before
the law of Baptism was instituted.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism
made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are
unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave
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.”[cdxi]
Further,
notice how St. Alphonsus says above that the opinion that baptism of blood is
not efficacious in infants is temerarious (reckless). In other words, he is teaching with Suarez
that it is “reckless” to believe that infants who die without sacramental
baptism will not be saved. In
teaching this he was actually proposing the error of John Wyclif, which was
solemnly anathematized at the Council of Constance.
Pope Martin
V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 - Condemning the
articles of John Wyclif - Proposition 6:
“Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental
baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.”[cdxii]
- Condemned
This is a
fascinating proposition from The Council of Constance. The arch-heretic John Wyclif
was proposing that those (such as ourselves) are stupid for teaching that
infants who die without water (i.e., sacramental) baptism
cannot possibly be saved. And he was
anathematized for this proposition, among many others. I have already quoted what The Council of
Constance had to say about John Wyclif’s anathematized propositions, such
as #6 above, but I will quote it again here.
Pope Martin
V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415: “The books and
pamphlets of John Wyclif, of cursed memory, were carefully examined by
the doctors and masters of
St. Alphonsus is actually the
best-selling author of all time, having
written more than 111 books, not including his letters.[cdxiv] It is not at all surprising that he, being a
fallible human being, made some mistakes in matters touching on faith. But his error on baptism of desire stemmed
from the fact that he erroneously thought that it was taught in Sess. 6, Chap.
4 of Trent. That is the main reason he
believed in it: he thought it was taught by Trent and from that mistake he
erroneously interpreted the canons on Baptism in Trent (including the all
exclusive Canon 5) as somehow to be understood in light of baptism of desire.
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons
on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, ex cathedra: “If
anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf.
Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”[cdxv]
If St. Alphonsus had more
literally examined Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent, he would have seen that it does
not teach baptism of desire (as discussed in the section on that passage), but
affirms John 3:5 as it is written.
It is also important to
note that while the principle of Papal infallibility was always believed in
the Church (expressed from the earliest times by such phrases as in the
apostolic see the Catholic religion has always been preserved untainted and
holy doctrine celebrated), there is no doubt that after the definition of
Papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council in 1870 there is much more clarity about which
documents are infallible and which are not.
St. Alphonsus and others who lived before 1870 did not necessarily have
this degree of clarity, which caused many of them to lessen the distinction, in
certain cases, between the infallible decrees of popes and the fallible
teaching of theologians. It also
caused them to not look quite as literally at what the dogma actually says, but
rather at what the dogma might mean in light of the opinion of popular theologians
of the time.
For instance, in arguing that
baptism of desire is de fide, St.
Alphonsus referenced the statement from Innocent III or Innocent II (they don’t
even know which one) on the “priest” who was unbaptized, which I have
discussed. But obviously that letter of
Innocent (?) or whoever it was to an archbishop did not meet the requirements
for Papal Infallibility, and contains a clear error (referring to an unbaptized
person as a “priest”). The fallibility
of this document is not something that St. Alphonsus seems to have given much
consideration. And this proves what I
said above, that
When Our Lord spoke to Peter
about Satan’s desire to sift the apostles (Lk. 22:31-32), He told him that He
prayed for “thee (singular), that thy (Peter’s) faith fail not…” He did not say, “but I have prayed for all
of you, that your faith fail not.”
Only St. Peter and his successors have been promised an unfailing faith,
and this when speaking from the Chair of St. Peter (cf. Vatican I, Sess. 4,
Chap. 4, Denz. 1837). The popes when
speaking with this unfailing faith, such as Pope St. Leo the Great in his
dogmatic tome to Flavian, the Council of Florence on John 3:5, and the Council
of Trent on the Sacrament of Baptism (Sess. 7, Can. 5), exclude any possibility
of salvation without water baptism and affirm infallibly that unless a man is
born again of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. That is what a Catholic must adhere to and
believe.
OBJECTION- I know that the Council of Trent defines in Canon 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism
that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. But the Council of Trent says the same thing
about the Sacrament of Penance.
Pope Paul
III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism,
canon 5, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the
Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let
him be anathema.”[cdxvi]
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent,
Sess. 14, Can. 6 on the Sacrament of Penance: ”If anyone denies that
sacramental confession was instituted by divine law or is necessary to
salvation… let him be anathema.”[cdxvii]
ANSWER- This
argument falters primarily because this translation of Sess. 14, Can. 6 on the
Sacrament of Penance is not precise. The
Latin for this canon reads:
Pope Paul
III, Council of
“6. Si quis
negaverit, confessionem sacramentalem vel institutam vel ad salutem necessariam
esse iure divino… a.s.”[cdxviii]
This is more properly translated as it is
found in Decrees of the Ecumenical
Councils by Fr. Norman Tanner:
“If anyone denies that the institution of sacramental confession or
its necessity for salvation are from divine law… let him be
anathema.”[cdxix]
This translation more correctly
corresponds to the grammatical structure of the Latin, as confirmed by Latin
experts I’ve consulted. And one can see
that this translation has a meaning that is different from the other one
above. In context this one condemns
anyone who would deny that its (i.e., the Sacrament of Penance’s) necessity for salvation are
from divine law, not anyone who would deny that it is necessary for
salvation. “Its” necessity is not the
same as baptism; “its” necessity is for those who have fallen into mortal sin
and do not possess the requisite dispositions for perfect contrition. Therefore, in sum, this canon (Sess. 14.
But baptism of desire advocates will also
quote Sess. 14, Chap. 2 of Trent to try to prove the point.
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap.
2, On Penance: “This sacrament of
Penance, moreover, is necessary for the salvation of those who have fallen
after baptism, as baptism itself is necessary for those not yet regenerated.”[cdxx]
They argue that people who have fallen
into mortal sin can be justified and saved without the Sacrament of Penance by
perfect contrition, and therefore people can be saved without the Sacrament of
Baptism, since
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap.
4, On Penance: “The Council
teaches, furthermore, that though it sometimes happens that this
contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man to God, before
this sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation must not be
ascribed to the contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament which is
included in it.”[cdxxi]
The Council of Trent clearly teaches three
times that the grace of the Sacrament of Penance can be attained by
the desire for the Sacrament of Penance (twice in Sess. 6, Chap. 14; and once
in Sess. 14, Chap. 4), while it nowhere teaches the false doctrine of baptism
of desire. This is an important point.
It demonstrates that, even if one wanted to argue about the above
translation, there is a clear difference between what Trent clearly and
explicitly taught about the necessity of the Sacrament of Penance and what it
did not teach about the Sacrament of Baptism.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 14
on Justification: “Hence it must be taught that the repentance of a Christian
after his fall is very different from that at his baptism, and that it includes
not only a cessation from sins… but also
the sacramental confession of the same, at least in desire and to be made
in its season, and sacerdotal absolution, as well as satisfaction by fasting,
almsgiving, prayers, and other devout exercises of the spiritual life, not
indeed for the eternal punishment, which
is remitted together with the guilt either by the sacrament or the desire of
the sacrament, but for the temporal punishment…”[cdxxii]
The fact
that
And
this is why the statement by Trent in Sess. 14, Chap. 2 on the necessity of the
Sacrament of Penance does not equate to Trent’s statements on the necessity of
the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation, because the Council clearly clarifies
its meaning on the necessity of the Sacrament of Penance just two Chapters
later by defining that perfect contrition restores such a man to Justification
without the Sacrament of Penance.
Dogmatic decrees must be understood in their complete context.
A few
baptism of desire advocates will also cite Sess. 6, Can. 29 from the Council of
Trent.
Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Canon 29 on
Justification: “If anyone says that he who has fallen after baptism cannot by
the grace of God rise again; or that he
can indeed recover lost justice, but by faith alone without the
sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church,
taught by Christ the Lord and His apostles, has hitherto professed, observed,
and taught: let him be anathema.”[cdxxiii]
They argue as follows: 1) this canon condemns anyone who says that
Justification can be restored without the Sacrament of Penance; and 2) we know
that Justification can be restored by the
desire for the Sacrament of Penance; therefore 3) the statement in Trent on
the absolute necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism (Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the
Sacrament) does not mean that desire for it cannot grant Justification. But, as is the case with the statements
above, this Canon (Sess. 6, Can. 29) does not state what they claim. It does not condemn anyone who says that
Justification can be restored without the Sacrament of Penance. It condemns anyone who says that
Justification can be restored by “faith alone” without the Sacrament of
Penance. Thus, the argument of baptism
of desire advocates – and their attempted analogy with
Pope Paul
III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex
cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional,
that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”[cdxxiv]
OBJECTION- If it is
true that there is no such thing as baptism of desire or baptism of blood, then
why didn’t any pope come out and condemn these theories as they were appearing
in so many catechisms in the late 1800’s and following?
ANSWER- Baptism of
desire and baptism of blood are shown in various ways to be excluded by the
infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.
The fact that no pope came out and explicitly condemned the theories by
name doesn’t change that fact. The fact
that no pope since the late 1800’s removed these theories from inclusion in
catechisms doesn’t prove anything either.
It was being taught in catechisms at the same time that one can be saved
in a non-Catholic religion. To my
knowledge, the heresy that souls can be saved in non-Catholic religions was not
removed by express order of any pope.
Does this mean that these popes believed in the heresy that one can be
saved in a non-Catholic religion? Does
this mean that it’s okay to believe the heresy that one can be saved in a
non-Catholic religion? Absolutely
not.
Popes are very busy people –
with tons of responsibilities – so they can be unaware of what is being taught
catechetically at the diocesan level.
They rely on their bishops to preserve the faith in their respective
dioceses, which unfortunately did not happen in the last 100 years. One example that is very interesting to
consider in this regard is the fact that no pope ever ordered St. Thomas
Aquinas’s opinion on the Immaculate Conception to be removed from the Summa
Theologica, even though many of them were consistently recommending
it!
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 14, A. 3, Reply
to Obj. 1:
“The flesh of the Virgin was conceived in original sin, and
therefore contracted these defects. But
from the Virgin, Christ’s flesh assumed the nature without sin…”[cdxxv]
St. Thomas taught that Mary
was not conceived immaculate more than once in the Summa Theologica. Obviously, he taught this before the
definition of Mary’s immaculate conception by Pope Pius IX in 1854, but to hold
But I believe that the main reason why the
false doctrine of baptism of desire was never explicitly condemned by name is
the fact that God allows heresies to arise to see who will believe the truth
and who won’t; and the denial of the necessity of Baptism and the necessity of
the Catholic Church is the key heresy to the Great Apostasy.
1 Cor.
11:19: “For there must be also heresies:
that they also, who are approved, may be manifest among you.”
OBJECTION- The 1917 Code of Canon
Law gives Christian Burial to unbaptized catechumens and teaches baptism of
desire.
ANSWER- As we’ve pointed out before, the 1917 Code of
Canon Law is not infallible. The
1917 Code was definitely not an ex
cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) pronouncement because it does not bind
the whole Church, but only the Latin Church (not the Eastern Rites), as
stipulated in Canon 1 of the 1917 Code.
Canon 1, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “Although in the Code of canon law the
discipline of the Oriental Church is frequently referenced, nevertheless, this
[Code] applies only to the Latin Church and does not bind the Oriental,
unless it treats of things that, by their nature, apply to the Oriental.”[cdxxvi]
A pope speaks infallibly from the Chair of
Peter when his teaching on faith or morals binds the entire Church, which the 1917 Code doesn’t:
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4,
Chap. 4:
“…the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church... operates with that infallibility…”[cdxxvii]
Thus, the 1917 Code’s proposition in canon
737 that Baptism is necessary “at least in desire” for salvation is not binding
on the universal Church or protected by infallibility. Regarding its law in canon 1239, that
unbaptized catechumens can be given Christian burial, this contradicts the
entire Tradition of the Catholic Church for 1900 years on whether unbaptized
persons can be given Christian burial.
Canon 1239, 1917 Code: “1. Those who die without baptism are not to be
accorded ecclesiastical burial. 2. Catechumens
who through no fault of their own die without baptism are to be reckoned as
baptized.”[cdxxviii]
Since the time of Jesus Christ and
throughout all of history, the Catholic Church universally refused
ecclesiastical burial to catechumens who died without the Sacrament of Baptism,
as The Catholic Encyclopedia admits:
The
Catholic Encyclopedia, “Baptism,” Volume 2, 1907: “A certain statement in the funeral oration of St.
Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof
that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before
baptism. There is not a vestige of
such a custom to be found anywhere… The practice of the Church is
more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of
This is the law of the Catholic Church
since the beginning and throughout all of history. So, since this issue is tied to the Faith and
not merely disciplinary, either the Catholic Church was wrong since the time of
Christ for refusing ecclesiastical burial
for catechumens who died without baptism or the 1917 Code is wrong for
granting it to them. It is either one or
the other, because the 1917 Code directly contradicts the Traditional
and constant law of the Catholic Church for nineteen centuries on this point
which is tied to the Faith. The answer
is, obviously, that the 1917 Code is wrong and not infallible, and the
Catholic Church’s law for all of history refusing ecclesiastical burial to
catechumens is right. In fact, it is
interesting to note that the Latin version of the 1917 Code contains many
footnotes to traditional popes, councils, etc. to show from where certain
canons were derived. Canon 1239.2 on
giving ecclesiastical burial to unbaptized catechumens has no footnote, not to
any pope, previous law or council, simply because there is nothing in Tradition
which supports it!
The Catholic Encyclopedia (1907) quotes an interesting decree from Pope
Innocent III wherein he commented on the
traditional, universal and constant law of the Catholic Church from the
beginning which refused ecclesiastical burial to all who died without the
Sacrament of Baptism.
The
Catholic Encyclopedia, “Baptism,” Volume 2, 1907: “The reason of this
regulation [forbidding ecclesiastical burial to all unbaptized persons] is
given by Pope Innocent III (Decr., III,
XXVIII, xii): ‘It has been decreed by the sacred canons that we are to have no
communion with those who are dead, if we have not communicated with them
while alive.’”[cdxxx]
The
1917 Code is not infallible Church discipline either, as proven by the fact
that it contains a law which directly contradicts the infallible discipline of
the Church since the beginning on a point tied to the Faith. The actual Bull promulgating the 1917 Code, Providentissima Mater Ecclesia, was not
signed by Benedict XV, but by Cardinal Gasparri and Cardinal De Azevedo. Cardinal Gasparri, the Secretary of State, was
the main author and compiler of the canons.
Some theologians would argue that only disciplines which bind the whole
Church – unlike the 1917 Code – are protected by the infallibility of the
governing authority of the Church, an argument which seems to be supported in
the following teaching of Pope Pius XII.
Pope Pius XII,
Mystici Corporis Christi (# 66), June
29, 1943:
“Certainly the loving Mother is spotless
in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the
faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed upon all; in the evangelical
counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces
through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs,
virgins, and confessors.”[cdxxxi]
This would mean that a disciplinary law is not a law of the “Catholic”
(i.e. universal) Church unless it binds the universal Church. Regardless, the 1917 Code doesn’t enjoy
infallibility. This is further proven by
the following canons.
1)
The 1917 Code teaches that heretics can be in good faith.
Canon 731.2, 1917 Code: “It is forbidden that
the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics,
even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand,
rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church.”
A
heretic, by infallible definition, is of bad faith and brings down upon
his head eternal punishment.
Pope St.
Celestine I, Council of Ephesus, 431:
"... all heretics
corrupt the true expressions of the Holy Spirit with their own evil minds
and they draw down on their own heads an inextinguishable flame."[cdxxxii]
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman
Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are
outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics
and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the
everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels,
unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…”[cdxxxiii]
Pope
Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832: “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.” [cdxxxiv]
A
person in good faith who is erring
innocently about a dogma (loosely and improperly called a “material heretic” in
theological discussions) is not a heretic, but a Catholic erring
in good faith. So the statement in the
1917 Code about heretics and schismatics in good faith is definitely theologically
erroneous and it proves that it was not protected by infallibility.
2)
The 1917 Code teaches that Catholics may be present at non-Catholic forms of
worship, including non-Catholic weddings and non-Catholic funerals!
Canon 1258, 1917 Code: “1. It is not licit for
the faithful by any manner to assist actively or to have a part in the
sacred [rites] of non-Catholics. 2.
Passive or merely material presence can be tolerated for the sake of
honor or civil office, for grave reason approved by the Bishop in case of
doubt, at the funerals, weddings, and similar solemnities of non-Catholics,
provided danger of scandal is absent.”
Note: this canon is not talking about Catholic Masses or Catholic
worship presided over by a heretic, but
non-Catholic or non-Christian (false) worship and rites. This is outrageous! This canon allows one to travel to and attend
a Jewish Synagogue or a Buddhist Temple or a Lutheran Service, etc.,
etc., etc. for the wedding or funeral of infidels or heretics – just as long as one doesn’t actively
participate! This is ridiculous, for
to go out of his way to be present at such non-Catholic services where
false worship is conducted (for the sake of honoring or pleasing the person
involved in it) is a scandal in itself.
It is to honor a person who is sinning against the First Commandment. To go to the funeral of a non-Catholic is to
imply that there was some hope for him for salvation outside the Church; and to
attend the wedding of a non-Catholic is to imply that God condones his or her
marriage outside the Church. A Catholic
can neither take part actively in
false worship nor go out of one’s way to travel to the false worship or the
non-Catholic ceremony to honor it with his “passive” presence. Hence, this canon also proves that this code
is not infallible.
The
1917 Code contradicts the immemorial Tradition of the Church on ecclesiastical burial
and it holds no weight for a moment against the infallible declaration of the
Chair of St. Peter (binding the entire Church) that no one can enter heaven
without the Sacrament of Baptism.
Pope Paul
III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex
cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional,
that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be
anathema.”[cdxxxv]
THE ARGUMENT THAT BAPTISM IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR SOME TO
RECEIVE
OBJECTION- Baptism of desire supporters assert that for some people the command
to be baptized is simply impossible to fulfill.
ANSWER- God does not command impossibilities (de fide). Thus, it is not impossible for any man to get
baptized.
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 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."
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…’"[cdxxxvi]
OBJECTION- Wasn’t the idea that catechumens cannot have the remission of sins
condemned in the Errors of Michael Du Bay?
ANSWER- No! And
the fact that certain baptism of desire advocates obstinately attempt to quote
the Errors of Michael Du Bay in favor of baptism of desire simply shows: 1)
their dishonesty; and 2) their lack of evidence for “baptism of desire.”
Errors of
Michael Du Bay, Condemned by St. Pius V in “Ex omnibus afflictionibus,” Oct. 1,
1567: “31. Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a ‘pure heart and
good conscience and a faith not feigned’ [1 Tim. 1:5], can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remissions
of sins.”[cdxxxvii]
- Condemned
Errors of
Michael Du Bay, Condemned by St. Pius V in “Ex omnibus afflictionibus,” Oct. 1,
1567: “33. A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes
the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is
only received in the laver of baptism, before the remission of sins has been
obtained.”[cdxxxviii]
- Condemned
Michael
Du Bay’s propositions above are condemned because they assert that perfect
charity can be in catechumens and penitents without the remission of sins.
(Note: this says nothing one way or the other about whether or not perfect
charity can be in catechumens with the
remission of sins.) Du Bay’s
propositions above are false because one cannot have perfect charity without
the remission of sins.
Pope Paul
III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 7 on Justification, ex cathedra:
“Justification … is not merely remission of sins, but also the
sanctification and renewal of the interior man… Hence man through Jesus Christ, into whom he is ingrafted, receives in the said justification
together with the remission of sins all these gifts infused at the same time:
faith, hope and charity.”[cdxxxix]
Faith,
hope, charity and the remission of sins are inseparable in a justified
person. Thus, Michael Du Bay was rightly
condemned for his false statement that catechumens and penitents can
have perfect charity without the
remission of sins. His assertion
contradicts Catholic teaching. And when
a pope condemns propositions like the false propositions of Michael Du Bay, he
condemns the entire proposition as such. In condemning such
an error, no assertion is made
positively or negatively about either part of the statement, nor is any assertion made, positively or
negatively, about whether catechumens can have remission of sins with
perfect charity, which is not the topic of Michael Du Bay’s
statement. But we know from other
teachings that unbaptized catechumens cannot have the remission of sins at all
since they are outside the Church.
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…”[cdxl]
A good
example which further serves to show how the baptism of desire advocates are
completely wrong in using Michael Du Bay as an argument for “baptism of desire”
is found Denz. 646, an error of John Hus, condemned by the Council of
Constance:
Errors of
John Hus: “#20. If the Pope is wicked
and especially if he is foreknown (as a reprobate), then as Judas, the Apostle,
he is of the devil, a thief, and a son of perdition, and he is not the head
of the holy militant Church, since he is not a member of it."[cdxli]
- Condemned
Based on this passage, some people have erroneously concluded that the
argument of sedevacantists (that a pope
who becomes a heretic loses his office and ceases to be head of the Church
since he is not a member of it) is condemned here. But the Council of
Constance is not condemning that at all; it is not asserting anything one way
or the other in that regard. Rather, it is condemning the entire
proposition as such, which asserts that because a pope is wicked
(or immoral) he is not the head of the Church since he is not a member of
it. And this is false: just because a
pope is wicked does not mean that he is not a member of the Church and
therefore he is not the head of the Church.
The sedevacantists, on the other hand, correctly point out that a heretical pope (not merely a wicked
one) is not a member of the Church and
therefore cannot be the head of the Church (and thus he loses his office
automatically when he becomes a heretic).
This is actually the teaching of the Church.
Pope
Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18,
1208:
“By the
heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not
of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and
Therefore….
St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church: "Thus
we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John
XXII; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now
when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity
and out of the Church..."[cdxliii]
St. Antoninus (1459): "In the case in
which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact
alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long
as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut
off. A pope who would be separated from
the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be
head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside
of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church." (Summa
Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)
St. Robert
Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases
to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and
a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church.
This is the teaching of all the
ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all
jurisdiction."
St. Robert
Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority
and from reason that the manifest heretic is 'ipso facto' deposed. The
argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus 3:10), who orders that the
heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be
manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial
sentence. And this is what
St. Robert
Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be
Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he
cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is
not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is
clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont.
Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. De great. Christ. Cap. 20),
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896:
“No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his
authority, since IT IS ABSURD TO IMAGINE THAT HE WHO IS OUTSIDE CAN
COMMAND IN THE CHURCH.”[cdxliv]
Thus,
as we can see, the second half of John Hus’s condemned statement, “[a
pope] is not the head of the holy
militant Church, since he is not a member of it,” is true.
But Hus’s proposition is condemned as
it is because in the beginning it
asserted that this cessation of membership (and therefore headship) comes about from simply being a wicked pope,
which is false. Thus, taken as a
whole, Hus’s proposition, like Du Bay’s, is false and therefore it was
condemned.
So, the
error of John Hus is a valuable example in demonstrating that the baptism of
desire advocates are completely wrong again in citing the errors of
Michael Du Bay as an argument. In
condemning such a proposition from Michael Du Bay, the pope makes no statement
positively or negatively about whether
catechumens can have remission of sins with perfect charity, because that
was not what Du Bay asserted. The fact is that catechumens cannot have
remission of sins at all because they are outside the Church.
But the
baptism of desire advocates know that the Errors of Michael Du Bay don’t prove
their point or they could figure that out if they tried, so why do some of them
keep using this non-argument as an argument?
It’s simply dishonesty! It is
actually an outrage that they obstinately try to play upon the laypeople’s
ignorance by using these errors of Michael Du Bay as an argument in favor of
baptism of desire. The dishonest CMRI
out of
HOW
CAN BAPTISM OF DESIRE BE CONTRARY TO DOGMA WHEN...
OBJECTION- How can
baptism of desire be contrary to dogma when a saint such as St. Alphonsus
believed in it after the Council of Trent?
That would make him a heretic, which is impossible since he is a
canonized saint.
ANSWER- First, the key
to heresy is obstinacy/pertinacity. It
is a fact that a man (if he is not obstinate) could hold a position that is
heretical, such as the idea that Christ only has one will, without being a
heretic (unless the man came to depart from the essential belief in the Trinity
and Incarnation; in that case, even if he were not obstinate, he would lose the
Catholic Faith). Most of the traditional
Catholics with whom I’ve spoken believe that Christ only has one will, not
two. That is heresy condemned by the Church. Christ has two wills (not in conflict), since
He is God and man. So, were all of these
traditionalists that I spoke with heretics?
No, because they weren’t aware of this dogma, or didn’t understand it
completely, and were not pertinacious and still held their essential belief in
Jesus Christ as God and man. But if they
were pertinacious or obstinate about the issue then they would have become
heretics.
Canon 1325, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously
denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and
Catholic faith, [such a one] is a heretic.”
The same principle might apply not only to
a dogma of which one is unaware, but
also to a text that might be misread on a matter that pertains to dogma
or heresy. Is there any proof of
this? Yes.
Most of us know the case of Pope Honorius
I, who was condemned many years after his death for (at least) furthering the
monothelite heresy (that Christ has only one will). Pope Honorius I (630-638) was condemned
after his death by the Third Council of
Constantinople in 680. But Pope John IV, who reigned shortly after
Honorius, attempted to defend Honorius’s letters and even said that it’s
“altogether contrary to the truth” to assert that Honorius taught that Christ
has only one will.
Pope John IV,
“Dominus qui dixit” to Constantius the Emperor, Regarding Pope Honorius, 641:
“…So, my aforementioned predecessor
[Honorius] said concerning the mystery of the incarnation of Christ, that
there were not in Him, as in us sinners, contrary wills of mind and flesh; and certain ones converting this to
their own meaning, suspected that He taught one will of His divinity and
humanity which is altogether contrary to the truth.”[cdxlv]
Okay, here we have a Catholic pope defending
the two letters of Honorius which were later condemned by dogmatic councils. This proves that one can remain a Catholic
(even the pope!) while wrongly attempting to justify as Catholic something
that, in fact, is worthy of condemnation.
Some may respond: “well, Pope John IV lived before the infallible condemnation of
Honorius’s letters was published; that’s why he was not a heretic for defending
these letters which furthered heresy.”
This is a specious response. The Third
Council of Constantinople condemned Honorius based on letters he wrote
during his reign. Pope John IV was
looking at the very same letters and statements that the Third Council of Constantinople condemned. So, looking at the very same statements,
Pope John IV (in his fallible capacity) and The
Third Council of Constantinople (in its infallible capacity) said two
drastically different things. This
proves that one can misunderstand as Catholic something that, in fact, is
heretical or favoring heresy and remain a Catholic, if there is legitimate
reason for confusion. [Of course,
this wouldn’t apply to blatantly obvious points, such as the necessity of
Protestants to convert or that pagan religions are false (such as the Vatican
II antipopes deny), but only finer points of dogmatic issues or matters on
which some confusion or reason for confusion might exist.]
The same is true with baptism of desire
– or, to be more precise, the version of
baptism of desire which was held by certain saints for unbaptized catechumens
only. Just like Pope John IV
misunderstood the letters of Pope Honorius in good faith, these saints
misread Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of the Council of Trent. They thought that it taught baptism of
desire, and therefore they (wrongly) taught baptism of desire. However, when one scrutinizes their arguments
and closely examines the teaching of Sess. 6, Chap. 4, one sees that the
Council of Trent doesn’t teach baptism of desire. One also discovers that there is no evidence
for baptism of desire in the infallible teaching of the Church. One further discovers that baptism of desire
cannot be squared with numerous facts from the infallible teaching of the
Catholic Church. Thus, once one sees
these points clearly explained, one has an obligation to abandon such a false
opinion which is at variance with so many facts. One cannot continue, at that point, to insist
that men can be saved without Baptism.
The points covered above prove that a saint or a pope could misread a
text and, based on that misreading, teach something that is contrary to the
Faith in good faith.
In conclusion, whether one wants to call
baptism of desire a heresy or a grave theological error incompatible with
dogma, the fact is that it is a false opinion which cannot be reconciled with
numerous infallible definitions and no Catholic should hold it at all after
seeing these facts.
Moreover, while any idea of baptism of
desire is false, one must make a very important distinction between the
version of baptism of desire held by certain saints (for unbaptized catechumens
only) and the version held by most today (which will be covered in more
detail later in the book). The saints
who held baptism of desire only applied it to unbaptized catechumens who
believed in the Trinity, the Incarnation and the Catholic Faith. Almost all who believe in it today apply it
to those who don’t even believe in Christ and/or are members of false
religions. Those who believe in this
latter idea (that baptism of desire can apply to Jews or Muslims, etc.) would
have to immediately abandon it upon seeing any of the infallible definitions on
Outside the Church There is No Salvation.
If not, they are definitely heretics who have been automatically
excommunicated from the Church. One
could not reasonably believe that members of non-Catholic religions being saved
is compatible with Outside the Church There is No Salvation.
On the other hand, since the false idea that unbaptized catechumens
can be saved was held by certain saints and taught in the fallibly capacity of
other texts, those who hold baptism of desire as those certain saints did
(i.e., for unbaptized catechumens only) would have more room for erring in good
faith (reasonably thinking for a time that it was the traditional teaching of
the Church) until all the aspects of the issue were presented to them.
CORNELIUS THE CENTURION
OBJECTION- Acts 10:47 says that Cornelius and his companions received the Holy
Ghost. This means that they were
justified without Baptism.
ANSWER- Acts 10:47 does not say that Cornelius and his
companions were justified without Baptism.
Nothing there says that their sins were remitted or that they were
“saved,” a phrase frequently used to describe those who have been justified by
Baptism. The context of Acts 10 is
dealing with receiving the Holy Ghost by
receiving the gift of speaking in tongues, not having one’s sins
remitted. Acts 10:47, therefore, is
merely speaking of Cornelius and his companions having received the gift of
tongues. The description “receiving the
Holy Ghost” or “being filled with the Holy Ghost” is actually used frequently
in scripture to describe a person making a godly prophecy or receiving some
spiritual gift. It does not necessarily
mean that one has received the remission of sins. The following two passages are examples of
the phrase “filled with the Holy Ghost” being used to describe a spiritual gift
(prophesy, etc.), not the remission of sins.
Luke 1:41-42 “And it came to pass,
that when
Luke 1:67 “And Zachary, his father, was filled with the Holy Ghost, and he
prophesied, saying…”
THE GOOD THIEF AND THE HOLY INNOCENTS
OBJECTION- What about the Good Thief and the Holy Innocents?
ANSWER- This was addressed already in the section on
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism
made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are
unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave
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.”[cdxlvi]
In fact, when Our Lord said to
the Good Thief, “This day you will be
with Me in paradise,” Jesus was not referring to heaven, but actually to
Hell. As Catholics know, no one entered
heaven until after Our Lord did, after His Resurrection. On the day of the Crucifixion, Christ
descended into hell, as the Apostles’ Creed says. He did not descend to the Hell of the damned,
but to the place in Hell called the Limbo
of the Fathers, the waiting place of the Just of the Old Testament, who
could not enter Heaven until after the Savior came.
1 Peter 3:18-19 “Christ also died once for our sins… In which also coming he preached to
those spirits that were in prison…”
To further prove the point
that the Good Thief did not go to Heaven on the Day of the Crucifixion, there
is the fact that on Easter Sunday, when Mary Magdalene met the Risen Lord, He
told her, “Do not touch Me, for I have
not yet ascended to My Father.”
John 20:17- “[On the Day of the
Resurrection] Jesus saith to her; Mary.
She turning, saith to him; Rabboni, (that is to say, Master). Jesus saith to her; Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father…”
Our Lord
hadn’t even yet ascended to Heaven on the Sunday of the Resurrection. It is therefore a fact that Our Lord and the
Good Thief were not in Heaven together on Good Friday; they were in the Limbo
of the Fathers, the prison described in 1 Peter 3:18-19. Jesus called this place
OBJECTION- You can’t judge if all non-Catholics go to Hell. You are not God. You must leave such judgments to Him.
ANSWER- God has already revealed His judgment to
us. To say that one cannot be sure or
“cannot judge” if all who die as non-Catholics go to hell is simply to
reject God’s judgment as possibly untrue,
which is heresy and blasphemy and pride of the worst kind. It is to sinfully judge as possibly worthy
of Heaven those whom God has explicitly revealed He will not save. To put it simply: to say that one cannot
judge that all who die as non-Catholics go to Hell (when God has revealed this)
is to judge in the most gravely sinful way – in a way directly contrary to
God’s revealed truth and revealed judgment.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of
Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman
Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the
Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics,
cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was
prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church
before the end of their lives…”[cdxlvii]
And the “You
Can’t Judge” heresy is incredibly widespread today. On Dec. 15, 2003 I had a conversation with a
“traditionalist monk” named Fr. Giardina of Christ the King Monastery in
St. Francis
Xavier, Nov. 5, 1549: “The corsair who commanded our vessel died here at
Cagoxima. He did his work for us, on the
whole, as we wished… He himself chose to
die in his own superstitions; he did not even leave us the power of rewarding
him by that kindness which we can after death do to other friends who die in
the profession of the Christian faith, in commending their souls to God, since
the poor fellow by his own hand cast his soul into hell, where there
is no redemption.”[cdxlviii]
THE OBJECTIVE-SUBJECTIVE HERESY
OBJECTION- Objectively speaking, there is absolutely no salvation outside the Catholic
Church. But subjectively speaking, we just don’t know.
ANSWER- This is similar to the “You Can’t Judge”
heresy. Those
who advance this heresy deny dogmatic truth; for the Objective-Subjective
Heresy means that the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation is only
true “objectively,” which necessarily means that non-Catholics can be saved
“subjectively,” which means that the end
result is a denial of the defined dogma.
The
Objective-Subjective Heresy is just a clever way of saying that the dogma
Outside the Church There is No Salvation might not mean what it says. It’s diabolical double-talk. It is equivalent to asserting:
“Jesus
Christ is objectively the Son of
God.”
Could a
Catholic hold that? No, he could not,
because Jesus Christ is not just objectively
the Son of God; He is the Son of God – period! But this is exactly what those who hold the
Objective-Subjective heresy are saying!
For to say that one dogma (Outside the Church There is No Salvation) is
only true objectively is to say that
any other dogma (e.g., Jesus Christ is the Son of God) is only true
objectively. There is no way around
this. The Objective-Subjective Heresy asserts the heresy that dogmas are not
really divinely revealed truths, but only presumptions or policies that we
go by, and this is condemned Modernism.
Pope Pius
X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the
Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22: “The
dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven,
but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human
mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned[cdxlix]
Pope Pius
X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the
Modernists, July 3, 1907, #26: “The
dogmas of faith are to be held only according to a practical sense, that
is, as preceptive norms for action, but not as norms for believing.”-
Condemned[cdl]
The idea that we can preach
that there is no salvation outside the Church while we believe in our hearts
that there is salvation outside the Church or may be salvation outside
the Church is heretical. That only
Catholics can be saved is a truth revealed from heaven which every Catholic
must believe first, and profess second.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of
Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The
Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches
that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also
Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into
the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless
they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives...”[cdli]
Since
dogmas are truths fallen from heaven, to
say that any dogma (e.g., the dogma that all who die as non-Catholics are lost)
may have a “subjective” reality that is different
from the revealed truth is heresy – it is a denial of that truth. Therefore, the idea that subjectively non-Catholics can be saved is blatant heresy; it is a
denial of the revealed truth that all who die as non-Catholics are necessarily
lost.
The same
Objective-Subjective heresy is taught in the book The Devil’s Final Battle, which is promoted by a number of
“traditionalist” organizations.
The Devil’s Final Battle, compiled
and edited by “Fr.” Paul Kramer, p. 69: “This
teaching must not be understood to preclude the possibility of salvation for
those who do not become formal members of the Church if, through no fault
of their own, they do not know of their objective
obligation to do so… only God knows whom
He will save (in some extraordinary manner) from among the great mass of
humanity which has not exteriorly professed the Catholic religion.”[cdlii]
This is
completely heretical. It is particularly
pernicious, in fact, because this book pretends to uphold the dogma Outside the
Catholic Church There is No Salvation and it will be read in “traditional
circles” – all the while rejecting the dogma.
The above statement is a denial of Papal Infallibility and a repudiation
of the divinely revealed truth that God will only save Catholics and
those who become Catholics. The
heretical statement above literally means that we just don’t know if what God has revealed is true or not. And it shows again how prevalent and virulent
the Objective-Subjective heresy is, finagling its way into all kinds of
places. The truth remains, however, that
the Catholic Church teaches that Church membership is necessary for salvation. It nowhere teaches what the modern heretics
love to say: that Church membership is objectively
necessary for salvation.
THE “WITHIN BUT NOT A MEMBER” OBJECTION OF MSGR. FENTON
OBJECTION- In his book The Catholic Church
and Salvation, Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton points out that, while only the
baptized are actual members of the Church, one can be “within” or “inside” the
Church without being a member. Thus, the
unbaptized can be saved without being members of the Catholic Church because
they can still be “inside.”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually
only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have
received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.”[cdliii]
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The
Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 10: “Furthermore, they [the Fathers
of the Fourth Lateran Council] knew that there
is no such thing as real membership in the Church militant of the New
Testament, the true and only ecclesia
fidelium [Church of the faithful], apart from the reception of the
sacrament of baptism.”[cdliv]
FENTON’S “CLEVER” EXPLANATION
►Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The
Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, pp. 9-10: “It is not, and it has never been, the teaching of the Catholic Church
that only actual members of the Church can attain eternal salvation. According to the teaching of the Church’s own
magisterium, salvation can be attained and, as a matter of fact, has been
attained by persons who, at the moment of their death, were not members of this
Church. The Church has thus never confused the notion of being ‘outside the
Church’ with that of being a non-member of this society.”[cdlv]
ANSWER- As the objection says, Msgr. Fenton admits that one cannot be a “member”
of the Catholic Church without having received the Sacrament of Baptism, but he
“cleverly” asserts that being “inside/within” the Church (which everyone must
to be saved) is not the same thing as being a “member.”
The Catholic Church has never taught what
Fenton says about non-members being inside the Catholic Church. This is precisely why he can quote nothing
from the Traditional Catholic Magisterium to back it up. He also asserts the blatant falsehood
that the Church’s Magisterium has declared that salvation can be and has been
attained by persons who were not members
of the Church. This is simply not
true.
Pope Pius XII crushes Fenton’s argument
and his entire book by teaching that the Church is the members!
FENTON CONTRADICTED BY POPE PIUS XII
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis
Christi (#30), June 29, 1943: “…it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His
Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they
would not have been united to this Mystical Body through the waters of Baptism
except by the salutary virtue of the Cross, by which they had already been
under the complete sway of Christ.”[cdlvi]
Notice
that Pope Pius XII equates the Church with “all the members of His Mystical
Body”! Therefore, only the members are
in the Church! Since the Church is THE MEMBERS, and there is no salvation outside
the Church, there is no salvation outside being a member. Msgr. Fenton is simply wrong.
To further prove the point, let’s look at
the Council of Trent’s Decree on Justification, Chap. 7.
FENTON CONTRADICTED BY THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 7 on
Justification: “Hence man through Jesus Christ, into whom he is ingrafted, receives in the said justification
together with the remission of sins all these gifts infused at the same time:
faith, hope and charity. For
faith, unless hope and charity be added to it, neither unites one
perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of his body.”[cdlvii]
The justified man is ingrafted into
Christ. The concept of being “ingrafted”
is again that of membership: all the justified are ingrafted into Christ as
members. This is proven by the
council’s declaration that becoming a living member of the Church
doesn’t happen “unless” (”nisi“) hope and charity are added to
faith. That means that if and when hope
and charity are added to faith, one is made a living member of the
Church. Well, hope and charity are
added to faith in every justified person.
A person simultaneously receives faith,
hope and charity infused into his soul at the moment of justification, as Trent
says above. Therefore, every person who is justified, since they all have faith,
hope and charity, is made a living member
(“vivum membrum”) of the Church. This totally contradicts the teaching of
Msgr. Fenton and Suprema haec sacra,
which is that one can be justified by baptism of desire (and thus have faith,
hope and charity) without being a “member” of Christ’s Body. Msgr. Fenton is simply wrong.
FENTON CONTRADICTED BY VATICAN I
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I,
Sess. 4, Chap. 2: “For this reason ‘it has always been necessary because of
mightier preeminence for every Church to come to the Church of Rome, that is
those who are the faithful everywhere’, so
that in this See, from which the laws of ‘venerable communion’ emanate over
all, they as MEMBERS
associated in one head, coalesce into one bodily structure.”[cdlviii]
Vatican I infallibly defines that from the
See of Rome communion emanates over “all.” “All” what?
“All” in the Church, of course.
Vatican I: “all… as members associated in one
head” form one bodily structure. All in
the Church are “members”! In the face of
this infallible teaching from Vatican I, the baptism of desire advocate who is
advancing the Fenton argument is forced to argue that communion doesn’t emanate
from the See of Peter over “all” in the Church, but only over those in the
Church who are members! – not over the “others” supposedly inside the Church
without being members! This is so ridiculous
and patently absurd that it doesn’t require further comment except to say:
Msgr. Fenton is proven wrong again.
Other texts and points could be brought up
to further disprove Fenton, as I have done in a lengthy article on our
website. (That particular article also
shows that Fenton’s own definition of “member” as “part” serves to refute his
claim that one can be inside something without being a “part” of it.) The fact is that Fenton’s argument is thoroughly
false and contrary to the teaching of these Magisterial Decrees. This also proves that the teaching of Suprema haec sacra (the 1949 Letter
against Fr. Feeney, which is adhered to by the SSPX, SSPV and CMRI) which
Fenton defends (and which is covered in depth later in this book) is contrary to
the teaching of the Catholic Church, for
it teaches the same thing on membership in the Church as Fenton.
“Cardinal” Marchetti-Selvaggini, Suprema haec sacra, “Protocol 122/49,”
Aug. 8, 1949: “Therefore, that one may
obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated
into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at
least he be united to her by desire and longing.”
BAYSIDE, MEDJUGORJE AND OTHER FALSE APPARITIONS
OBJECTION- Our Lady herself revealed at Bayside and Medjugorje that non-Catholics
can be saved, so you are wrong.
“Our Lady” of Bayside, August 14, 1979: “Do not judge your brothers and
sisters who have not been converted. For
My Father’s House, My Son has repeated
over and over, remember always – that in My Father’s House, there are many
rooms in the Mansion, signifying faiths and creeds.”[cdlix]
ANSWER- Our Lady does not contradict infallible dogma
and the Chair of St. Peter. To say
otherwise is blasphemous heresy. The
statement above allegedly from “Our Lady of Bayside,” that in the Father’s
House there are many mansions
representing many faiths and creeds, is
blatantly heretical. It contradicts
Catholic dogma, which is the teaching of Jesus Christ. This heresy in Bayside totally gives away the
Bayside Message as a false apparition of the Devil.
Pope Leo
XII, Ubi Primum (# 14), May 5, 1824:
“It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder
of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings
which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to
confer eternal rewards on their members… by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism… This
is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”[cdlx]
The
Bayside Message contradicts what Catholics must hold by divine faith, that
there is only one faith that leads to Heaven, the Catholic Faith, outside of
which there is no salvation. The many mansions in the Father’s house that
Our Lord refers to in the Gospel represent different rewards for Catholics who
die in the state of grace. Those who
continue to believe in Bayside and dismiss these facts are following the
deception of the Devil; they are rejecting the Catholic Faith and leaving the
Catholic Church. They are choosing to
follow the “Message” of Bayside over the teaching of the Catholic Church. Those who are aware of this heresy and
continue to believe in Bayside are not Catholics and not followers of Our Lady,
but rather are followers of the deception the Devil has set up for them.
And it
is sad to say, but for many followers of false apparitions such as Bayside, the
false messages become their “dogma” and replace the real dogma defined by the
popes.
What Does Medjugorje Say?
"The Madonna always stresses that there is but one God and that people
have enforced unnatural separation. One
cannot truly believe, be a true Christian, if he does not respect other
religions as well."[cdlxi]
– "Seer" Ivanka Ivankovic
"The Madonna said that religions are separated in the earth, but the people of all religions are
accepted by her Son."[cdlxii] – "Seer" Ivanka Ivankovic
Question: "Is the Blessed Mother calling all
people to be Catholic?" Answer: "No. The Blessed Mother says all
religions are dear to her and her Son."[cdlxiii] – "Seer" Vicka
Ivankovic
This is
total apostasy. It is a total rejection
of Catholic dogma; it is a total rejection of the dogma Outside the Catholic
Church There is No Salvation; and it is a total rejection of the clear teaching
of the Gospel on the necessity of believing in Jesus Christ, the Son of God,
for salvation. This proves that
Medjugorje, like the rest of the false modern apparitions, is a deception of
the Devil. Those who are aware of these
facts and refuse to reject it as a false apparition are rejecting the Catholic
Faith.
THE BROWN SCAPULAR
OBJECTION- Our Lady said that whoever dies wearing the Brown Scapular will not go
to Hell. This means that you are wrong:
non-Catholics and the unbaptized can be saved who die wearing the Scapular.
ANSWER- Everyone should wear the Brown Scapular; it is
a sign of devotion to Our Lady and a powerful sacramental. And we too originally believed that whoever
dies wearing the Brown Scapular could not go to Hell. We were convinced that God would make sure
that only baptized Catholics in the state of grace died with it on. But in researching the history behind the
Brown Scapular promise, one will discover that the Catholic Church has never
stated that Our Lady promised that whoever dies wearing the Brown Scapular will
not suffer eternal fire. I refer the
reader to the articles in The Catholic
Encyclopedia (Volume 13) on “Scapular” and the “Sabbatine Privilege.” The
Catholic Encyclopedia points out that the promise that has been declared by
the Church relating to the Brown Scapular is the Sabbatine Privilege, which has
various requirements attached, one of which is to be a baptized Catholic who
dies in the state of grace. The authors
of The Catholic Encyclopedia note
that nowhere has a pope authoritatively stated that whoever dies with the Scapular will be saved.
In The
Glories of Mary, St. Alphonsus tells us about the Scapular.
St. Alphonsus, The Glories of Mary,
p. 272: “… the sacred scapular of
St. Alphonsus here lists the promises of
the Sabbatine Privilege; he mentions nothing about the alleged promise that
“whoever dies wearing this scapular shall not suffer eternal fire.” He points out that one must be in the
state of grace (which presupposes the Catholic Faith and Baptism); one must
be a member of the confraternity, etc.
So it is possible for a person to die with the Brown Scapular on and
still go to Hell, if the person is a non-Catholic or a Catholic in the state of
mortal sin. This is the teaching of the
Catholic Church. Those who say otherwise
are simply mistaken.
18. The Soul of the Church Heresy
OBJECTION- It’s
possible to belong to the “Soul” of the Church without belonging to her
Body. In this way those who die as
members of non-Catholic religions can be joined to the Church and saved, as the
Baltimore Catechism (1921) explains:
Q. 512 How are such persons said
to belong to the Church?
A. Such persons are said to
belong to the “Soul of the Church”; that is, they are really members of the
Church without knowing it. Those who
share in its sacraments are said to belong to the body or visible part of the
Church.
ANSWER- The Soul of the Church heresy is crushed by an examination of Catholic
teaching. The Soul of the Church heresy
is that which teaches that one can be saved in another religion or without the
Catholic Faith by being united to the Soul of the Church, but not the Body. (This heresy is rampant and is held by
multitudes of “traditionalists” and “traditional” priests.) The purveyors of this heresy are forced to
admit that belonging to the Body of the Church only comes with the Sacrament of
Baptism.
The
“Soul of the Church Heresy” will now be soundly refuted by a study of various
magisterial pronouncements.
First,
this heresy stems from a misunderstanding of the true meaning of the term “Soul
of the Church.” The Soul of the Church
is the Holy Ghost. It is not
an invisible extension of the mystical body which includes the unbaptized.
Pope Pius
XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943:
“… Leo XIII, of immortal memory in the Encyclical, “Divinum illud,”
[expressed it] in these words: ‘Let it suffice to state this, that, as
Christ is the Head of the Church, the Holy Spirit is her soul.’”[cdlxiv]
Second,
the Church is essentially (i.e., in its essence) a Mystical Body.
Pope Leo X,
Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516: “… the mystical
body, the Church (corpore mystico)…”[cdlxv]
Pope St. Pius X, Editae saepe (# 8), May 26, 1910: “… the
Church, the Mystical Body of Christ…”[cdlxvi]
Pope Leo XII, Quod Hoc Ineunte (# 1), May 24, 1824: “… His
mystical Body.”[cdlxvii]
Therefore, to teach that one can be saved without belonging to the Body
is to teach that one can be saved without belonging to the Church, since the
Church is a Body. And this is
without question HERETICAL.
A man
can be either inside the Church or outside the Church. He can be either inside or outside the
Body. There isn’t a third realm in
which the Church exists – an invisible Soul of the Church. Those who say that one can be saved by
belonging to the Soul of the Church, while not belonging to her Body, deny the
undivided unity of the Church’s Body and Soul, which is parallel to denying the
undivided unity of Christ’s Divine and Human natures.
Pope Leo
XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 3), June 29, 1896: “For this reason the
Church is so often called in Holy Writ a body, and even the body of Christ…
From this it follows that those who arbitrarily conjure up and
picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in grievous and
pernicious error... It is assuredly impossible that the
The
denial of the union of the Church’s Body and Soul leads to the heresy that the
Church is invisible, which was condemned by Popes Leo XIII (above), Pius XI[cdlxix]
and Pius XII.[cdlxx]
Third,
the most powerful proof against the “Soul of the Church” heresy logically
follows from the first two already discussed.
The third proof is that the infallible magisterium of the Catholic
Church has defined that belonging to the Body of the Church is necessary
for salvation!
Pope
Eugene IV, in his famous Bull Cantate Domino, defined that the unity of
the ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) is so
strong that no one can be saved outside of it, even if he sheds his blood in
the name of Christ. This destroys
the idea that one can be saved by belonging to the Soul of the Church without
belonging to its Body.
Pope Eugene
IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes,
professes, and proclaims that none of those existing outside the Catholic
Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics and schismatics can become
participants in eternal life, but they will depart ‘into everlasting fire which
was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end
of life they have been added to the flock; and that the unity of this
ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) is so strong that
only for those who abide in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for
salvation, and do fasts, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and
exercises of a Christian soldier produce eternal rewards. No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced,
even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has
persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”[cdlxxi]
This
definition of Pope Eugene IV demolishes the “Soul of the Church Heresy.” Pope Pius XI destroys it as well.
Pope Pius
XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “For since the mystical body
of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly
joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical
body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever
therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in
communion with Christ its head.”[cdlxxii]
So much
for the “Soul of the Church Heresy.”
Pope Leo X,
Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
“For,
regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one
universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they
all have one Lord and one faith.
That is why it is fitting that, belonging to the one same body,
they also have the one same will…”[cdlxxiii]
Pope Clement XIV, Cum Summi (# 3), Dec. 12,
1769: “One is the body of the Church, whose head is Christ, and all
cohere in it.”[cdlxxiv]
Recently, an article was published by Fr. Anthony Cekada called Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles. Fr. Cekada is a “traditionalist” priest who
rightly rejects Vatican II but yet holds the heresy common to almost all today:
that those who die as non-Catholics can be saved. Fr. Cekada is, therefore, a person who
rejects the Catholic dogma that the Catholic Faith is necessary for
salvation. Not surprisingly, Fr. Cekada
is also a fierce advocate of baptism of desire (although, as I just said, Fr.
Cekada holds that members of false religions who don’t even desire baptism can be saved). When I asked him via e-mail whether he agreed
with the common teaching of heretical, 20th century pre-Vatican II
theologians (see the “Heresy before Vatican II Section”) that souls can be
saved “outside the Church” by “invincible ignorance,” he conveniently chose not
to respond. That is simply because he does
believe that those who die in non-Catholic religions can be saved and he
rejects the defined dogma which declares that they cannot.
In his
article, Baptism of Desire and
Theological Principles, Fr. Cekada attempts to prove that Catholics are
bound by the “common” teaching of theologians, according to Pope Pius IX in Tuas Libenter. He further argues that baptism of desire
was the “common” teaching of theologians before Vatican II; and he concludes
that Catholics are, therefore, bound to believe in baptism of desire under pain
of mortal sin. Since his article has had
some influence on traditional Catholics, and the subject matter ties in
directly to a central point under discussion in this document (namely, the
universal and constant teaching on the
necessity of rebirth of water and the Spirit based on John 3:5), I feel it
necessary to show how Fr. Cekada has completely perverted the very principles
he applies, has misled his readership and is contradicted by the authorities he
quotes.
In his letter
to the Archbishop of Munich (Tuas
Libenter), upon which Fr. Cekada bases his argument, Pope Pius IX says that
Catholic writers are bound by those matters which, though not taught by express
decree of the Roman See, are nevertheless taught by the ordinary and universal
Magisterium as divinely revealed and held by theologians in universal and constant agreement.
Pope Pius
IX, Tuas Libenter, Letter to the Archbishop of
“For, even if it were a matter concerning that
subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless,
it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by
express decrees of ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this
See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down
as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread
throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and constant [universali et constanti] consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong
to faith.”[cdlxxv]
As referenced at the beginning of this
document, it was defined as a dogma by the First Vatican Council that the ordinary and universal magisterium
is infallible. In
his letter to the Archbishop of Munich, Pope Pius IX teaches that Catholic
writers are bound by those matters which “are handed down as divinely revealed
by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the
world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by
Catholic theologians to belong to faith.”
Notice, the obligation to the
opinion of the theologians only arises from the fact that these matters were
already taught as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the
Church and therefore also held by universal and constant agreement. In his application of this teaching in his
article, Fr. Cekada conveniently skips
over the “universal” requirement. Fr.
Cekada also uses the word “common” instead of the properly translated,
“universal and constant.”
Fr. Anthony
Cekada, Baptism of Desire and Theological
Principles, 1. General Principle: “All Catholics are obliged to adhere to a
teaching if Catholic theologians hold it by common consent, or hold it
as de fide, or Catholic doctrine, or theologically certain.”
Notice how
Fr. Cekada conveniently ignores the requirement stipulated by Pope Pius IX that
the theologians must be in “universal and constant agreement”! If he had faithfully applied the “universal”
part of it throughout his article, the attentive and sincere reader would
easily have picked up the flaw in his feeble argumentation. And is baptism of desire something that has
been held by universal and
constant agreement? Most certainly
not; in fact, it is just the opposite.
Fr. William Jurgens: “If there
were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of
‘Unless a man be born again of water and
the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken
absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit
to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical
impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to
be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”[cdlxxvi]
As we
can see, exactly the opposite of baptism of desire is what is taught in
universal and constant agreement! It is the universal and constant teaching of
Catholic Fathers and theologians since the beginning that absolutely no one can
be saved without water baptism.
Thus, the very principle that Fr. Cekada attempts to apply in favor of
baptism of desire is used against it.
Fr. Anthony
Cekada, Baptism of Desire and Theological
Principles, 2. Particular Fact: “But, Catholic theologians do hold
the teaching on baptism of desire and baptism of blood by common consent,
or hold it as de fide, or Catholic doctrine, or theologically certain.
3. Conclusion (1 + 2): Therefore, all Catholics are obliged to
adhere to the teaching on baptism of desire and baptism of blood.”
The fact
that baptism of desire did become a common and almost unanimous error among 20th
century “theologians” means nothing, which is why Pope Pius IX included that
important word “universal” in Tuas
Libenter, which Fr. Cekada conveniently ignores.
The
Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 9, “Limbo,” p. 257: “After enjoying several centuries of undisputed supremacy,
The Catholic Encyclopedia is saying here that basically from the time of Augustine (4th
century) to Abelard (12th century) it was the common and
almost unanimous teaching of theologians that unbaptized infants suffer the
fires of Hell after death, a position that was later condemned by Pope Pius
VI. This proves that the “common” error
of one period (or even for hundreds of years) is not the universal and constant teaching
of the Church from the beginning. This
point alone totally blows Fr. Cekada’s thesis away.
Furthermore, the heresy that one can be saved “outside” the Church by
“invincible ignorance” was also the common and almost unanimous teaching
at the beginning of the 20th Century, thus proving again that the common teaching (or common error) at
any particular time does not replace the universal
and constant teaching of all Catholic theologians throughout history
on the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after
Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy
writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our
Lord, when He gave 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.”[cdlxxviii]
Notice
here that the Catechism of Trent is
inculcating that the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation is the unanimous
teaching of theologians. But that is the
very position which Fr. Cekada’s article – in the name of the “common” consent
of theologians – says is a mortal sin to hold!
One can easily see from these
facts that Fr. Cekada has erred in a major way and is actually completely
wrong: the universal and constant
teaching of theologians, as Fr. Jurgens and the Catechism of
Archbishop
Patrick Kenrick (19th Century), Treatise
on Baptism: “Hence, all the
illustrious writers of antiquity proclaimed in unqualified terms its (Baptism’s) absolute necessity.”[cdlxxix]
In fact,
if the “common” error of theologians at a particular time constituted a
teaching of the Church that one is bound to follow, then all Catholics would be
bound by the heresy of religious liberty (besides all the others) taught at
Vatican II, since this has been accepted by “common” consent of the so-called
“Catholic theologians” since Vatican II.
And this is why Fr. Cekada offers the following pitiful response to that
very objection to his quite obviously false thesis.
Fr. Anthony
Cekada, Baptism of Desire and Theological
Principles, Answering the Objection
about Vatican II – D. Theologians
and Vatican II: “The group of European modernist theologians
primarily responsible for the Vatican II errors were enemies of traditional
scholastic theology and had been censured or silenced by church authority:
Murray, Schillebeeckx, Congar, de Lubac, Teilhard, etc. When the strictures
were removed under John XXIII, they were able to spread their errors freely. If
anything, the fact that they had been previously silenced demonstrates the
Church’s vigilance against error in the writings of her theologians.”
Oh, I
see, because Fr. Cekada deems that the “theologians” who were “primarily
responsible” for Vatican II were “European Modernists” and “enemies of
traditional scholastic theology,” he is free to dump his entire thesis that a
Catholic is bound to follow the “common” consent of theologians under pain of
mortal sin. How convenient! The reader should easily see that by such a
statement Fr. Cekada is arguing hypocritically and completely refuting
himself. Fr. Cekada must be quite
dedicated to his heresy to argue in such a contradictory fashion. Furthermore, his claim that because a few of
the more radical of the Vatican II theologians were silenced, he is therefore
free to reject the common consent of “theologians” after Vatican II, is a
hopeless argument; for the fact remains
that the “common” consent of purported “Catholic” theologians since Vatican II
was to endorse Vatican II’s heretical documents, even if a few of the more
radical ones were timidly “silenced” before Vatican II.
Hence, as
anyone with eyes to see can see, if one is free to reject the “common” consent
of Vatican II theologians because one deems them “enemies of traditional
scholastic theology,” then one can just as well dump the fallible, contradictory
teaching of the pre-Vatican II theologians on baptism of desire, since it is
patently contrary to “traditional dogmatic theology” (viz., the defined dogma on the necessity of rebirth of water and the
Spirit), not to mention the universal Tradition of the Church from the
beginning on John 3:5.
Furthermore, if a Catholic were bound to
follow the “common” teaching of theologians at a particular time, and had lived
during the Arian period in the 4th century, then one would have been
bound by the Arian heresy (the denial of the Divinity of Jesus Christ),
since this was not only the “common” teaching of alleged “Catholic” theologians
and Bishops at the time, but almost the unanimous teaching.
Fr. William
Jurgens: “At one point in the Church’s history, only a few years before
Gregory’s [Nazianz] present preaching (+380 A.D.), perhaps the number of
Catholic bishops in possession of sees, as opposed to Arian bishops in
possession of sees, was no greater than something between 1% and 3% of the
total. Had doctrine been determined by popularity, today we should all be
deniers of Christ and opponents of the Spirit.”[cdlxxx]
Fr. William
Jurgens: “In the time of the Emperor Valens (4th century), Basil was
virtually the only orthodox Bishop in all the East who succeeded in retaining
charge of his see… If it has no other importance for modern man, a knowledge of the history of Arianism
should demonstrate at least that the Catholic Church takes no account of
popularity and numbers in shaping and maintaining doctrine: else, we
should long since have had to abandon Basil and Hilary and Athanasius and
Liberius and Ossius and call ourselves after Arius.”[cdlxxxi]
Fr.
Cekada’s argument, in fact, would rule out the possibility of a Great Apostasy,
and would render Our Lord’s words in Luke 18:8 (When the Son of Man returns do you think He will find faith on earth?)
impossible, since all Catholics would always be bound to follow what the
majority of “Catholic” theologians say, no matter how heretical it is. Needless to say, Fr. Cekada’s argument is
completely absurd, as is obvious to the sincere Catholic with common sense.
Fr. Anthony
Cekada, Baptism of Desire and Theological
Principles, B. Proof of the Thesis. “1. Major
Premise. The consent of theologians in matters of faith and morals is so
intimately connected with the teaching Church that an error in the consensus
of theologians would necessarily lead the whole Church into error. 2. Minor
Premise. But the whole Church cannot err in faith and morals. (The Church
is infallible) 3. Conclusion. The consensus of theologians in matters
of faith and morals is a certain criteria of divine Tradition.”
We have
seen how this claim of Fr. Cekada, in his attempt to apply it to “baptism of
desire,” is false, illogical, historically ridiculous and easily refuted. I will quote Pope Pius XII again, who himself
contradicts the above assertion.
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.’”[cdlxxxii]
And what
is ironic and very important is that the fallible theologians Fr. Cekada
references in his article not only disagree among themselves about whether this
so-called “baptism of desire” is of the Faith or merely close to the Faith, but the “theologians” he cites actually
prove the position of those who reject the false doctrine of baptism of desire.
THE VERY “THEOLOGIANS” HE BRINGS FORWARD ALSO DISPROVE HIS POSITION
One of the 25 pre-Vatican II theologians that Fr. Cekada references in
his article on Baptism of Desire and
Theological Principles is the German theologian Dr. Ludwig Ott, whose book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is
somewhat popular in traditional Catholic circles. Dr. Ott was a modernist heretic who believed
in baptism of desire and salvation “outside” the Church, as is stated clearly
in his book (See the “Heresy Before Vatican II Section”). But despite this, in his quarter-million-word
compendium (Fundamentals of Catholic
Dogma), Dr. Ott is forced to admit the following based on the overwhelming
testimony of Catholic Tradition and defined dogma.
Dr. Ludwig
Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,
The Necessity of Baptism, p. 354: “1. Necessity of Baptism for Salvation- Baptism by water (Baptismus
Fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all
men without exception, for salvation. (de fide.)”[cdlxxxiii]
Excuse
me, but this de fide (i.e., of the
Faith) teaching of the Catholic Church on the absolute necessity of water
baptism for all without exception for salvation is precisely why
Catholics must reject the false doctrine of “baptism of desire”! Baptism of desire is directly contrary to the
above de fide teaching of the Church:
baptism of desire is the idea that
baptism of water is not necessary for all men without exception for salvation!
But Fr.
Cekada, the illogical heretic, would have us believe that based on the
testimony of Ludwig Ott (and others) we are supposed to accept baptism of desire under pain of mortal sin, when Dr.
Ludwig Ott himself is affirming that the absolute necessity of water baptism
for all without exception is de fide
– the very truth which compels one to reject baptism of desire! Thus, Fr. Cekada is simply refuted and
condemned by the testimony of the very authorities he brings forward.
The fact
that Dr. Ludwig Ott immediately proceeds to contradict the above statement on
the absolute necessity of water baptism without
exception in his book, and proceeds to teach baptism of desire and blood on
the very same page – which ideas he interestingly does not term de fide (of the Faith) but close to the
Faith – simply shows that the common error of baptism of desire, that became
almost unanimous among “theologians” such as Ott in the late 19th
and early 20th century, is simply not in harmony with the universal,
constant (and de fide) teaching of
the Church on the absolute necessity of water baptism without exception for
salvation.
Another example would be the famous book, The Catechism Explained, by
Fr. Spirago and Fr. Clarke. Like Dr.
Ott’s book, The Catechism Explained
taught baptism of desire and that there is salvation “outside” the Church. Yet despite this fact, these “theologians”
(Frs. Spirago and Clarke) were compelled to admit the following truth, which is
confessed universally by all purported Catholic theologians.
Fr. Francis
Spirago and Fr. Richard Clarke, The
Catechism Explained, 1899, Baptism: “3.
BAPTISM IS INDISPENSABLY
NECESSARY TO SALVATION. Hence
children who die unbaptized cannot enter heaven. Our Lord says: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of heaven’ (John 3:5). He
makes no exception, not even in the case of infants… Baptism is no less
indispensable in the spiritual order than water in the natural order…”[cdlxxxiv]
This
shows, again, how the universal teaching of theologians is that baptism of
water is absolutely necessary for salvation, and that Our Lord’s words in John
3:5 have no exceptions. The fact that
Frs. Spirago and Clarke proceed to contradict this statement and teach baptism
of desire (and the heresy of salvation “outside” the Church) just shows their
own inconsistency – and the inconsistency of all who favor baptism of desire.
Fr. Francis
Spirago and Fr. Richard Clarke, The
Catechism Explained, 1899, Baptism: “… for adults the simple desire is
sufficient, if actual baptism is impossible.”[cdlxxxv]
How can
water baptism be indispensably necessary for salvation (as they just told us),
if the simple desire for it is sufficient in its place? That is a direct contradiction. And anyone who says that it is not simply
denies the law of non-contradiction. One
cannot say that:
And at the same time….
These
two statements are contradictory, but this is exactly what people were being
taught all over the world in catechisms since the late 1800’s. They were being taught the truth (1st
proposition), while simultaneously they were taught the opposite of that truth
(2nd proposition). This shows
that even in the time of growing apostasy, heresy and modernism that was the
period from approximately 1850 to 1950, all theologians and catechisms still
affirmed the universally taught truth on the absolute necessity of water
baptism for salvation, even though they did not remain consistent with it.
THEOLOGIANS ARE ALSO UNANIMOUS THAT ONLY THE WATER BAPTIZED ARE PART OF
THE
Additionally devastating to Fr. Cekada’s article is the fact that even
the theologians that he references in
favor of baptism of desire affirm that it
is of the Faith that only the water baptized are part of the Catholic Church,
outside of which there is no salvation.
I quote Dr. Ludwig Ott again, in his Fundamentals
of Catholic Dogma.
Dr. Ludwig
Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,
Membership in the Church, p. 309: “3. Among
the members of the Church are not to be counted: a) The unbaptized…
The so-called blood Baptism and the Baptism of desire, it is true, replace
Baptism by water (sic) in so far as the communication of grace is concerned, but do not effect incorporation into the
Church… Catechumens are not to be counted among the members of the Church…
The Church claims no jurisdiction over them (D 895). The Fathers draw a sharp line of separation
between Catechumens and ‘the faithful.’”[cdlxxxvi]
Here we
see Dr. Ludwig Ott, one of the “theologians” cited by Fr. Cekada to “prove”
baptism of desire, clearly affirming the universal Catholic teaching that only
water baptized persons are inside the Church.
Dr. Ott has no problem admitting this since he believes in salvation
“outside” the Church (see “Heresy Before Vatican II Section”).
But
there are three very important admissions here by Dr. Ott, each
relating, ironically, to the three most famous dogmatic definitions on Outside the Church There is No Salvation.
1) The most
expansive definition on Outside the Church There is No Salvation was from Pope
Eugene IV at the Council of Florence. In
this definition, Pope Eugene IV defined infallibly that it is necessary to be
inside the unity of the ecclesiastical body, which means that it is necessary
to be incorporated into the
ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis).
Pope Eugene
IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes,
professes, and proclaims that none of those existing outside the Catholic
Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics and schismatics can become
participants in eternal life, but they will depart ‘into everlasting fire which
was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end
of life they have been added to the flock; and that the unity of this
ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) is so strong that
only for those who abide in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for
salvation, and do fasts, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and
exercises of a Christian soldier produce eternal rewards. No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced,
even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has
persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”[cdlxxxvii]
Please
focus on the necessity of incorporation
into the ecclesiastici corporis
(the ecclesiastical body). Then notice
that in the quotation above from Dr. Ott, he admits that “baptism of desire”
and “baptism of blood” do not effect incorporation – that is to say,
they do not bring one into the Mystici Corporis
(the Mystical Body)!
Dr. Ludwig
Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,
Membership in the Church, p. 309: “3. The so-called blood Baptism and the
Baptism of desire, it is true, replace Baptism by water (sic) in so far as the
communication of grace is concerned, but
do not effect incorporation into the Church…’”[cdlxxxviii]
By this
statement, Dr. Ott is admitting that “baptism of desire” and “baptism of blood”
are not compatible with Pope Eugene IV’s infallible definition on the absolute
necessity of incorporation into the ecclesiastical Body (ecclesiastici corporis) for
salvation. Thus, Dr. Ott proves that
baptism of desire/blood cannot be true and is actually contrary to dogma.
2) The
second infallible definition on Outside the Church There is No Salvation was
from Pope Boniface VIII in the Bull Unam
Sanctam. In this definition, Pope
Boniface VIII defined infallibly that it is necessary for every human creature
to be entirely subject to the
Roman Pontiff (and therefore the Catholic Church) for salvation.
Pope
Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“Furthermore,
we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they
by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman
Pontiff.”[cdlxxxix]
I pointed out the fact that
without water baptism no one is a subject of the Church or the Roman Pontiff. I quoted the Council of Trent to prove the
point.
Pope Julius
III, Council of Trent, On the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance,
Sess. 14, Chap. 2, ex cathedra: “… the Church exercises
judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism. For what have I to do with those who are
without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle.
It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ
the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body’ (1
Cor. 12:13).”[cdxc]
(Denz. 895)
Now,
notice how Dr. Ott admits that “baptism of desire” and “baptism of blood” neither
make one a subject nor place one under the jurisdiction of the Church!
Dr. Ludwig
Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,
Membership in the Church, p. 309: “3. Among the members of the Church are not
to be counted: a) The unbaptized… Catechumens
are not to be counted among the members of the Church… The Church claims no jurisdiction over them (D 895).’”[cdxci]
By this
statement, Dr. Ott is admitting that “baptism of desire” and “baptism of blood”
are not compatible with Pope Boniface VIII’s infallible definition on the
absolute necessity of subjection to the Church and the Roman Pontiff for
salvation! Dr. Ott is showing us that
baptism of desire/blood cannot be true (and that it is, in fact, contrary to
dogma), and he is even referencing the very decree that I referenced (D. 895
from
3) The first
infallible definition on Outside the Church There is No Salvation was from Pope
Innocent III at the Fourth Lateran
Council. In this definition, Pope
Innocent III defined infallibly that the Catholic Church is a Church of “the
faithful” and that outside of this “faithful” no one at all is saved.
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…”[cdxcii]
I
pointed out how Catholic Tradition, Catholic Liturgy and all of the fathers
teach that only the water baptized are part of the faithful. Now, notice how in the quotation cited above
from Dr. Ott, he admits that “baptism of desire” and “baptism of blood” do
not make one part of the faithful! I
quote it again:
Dr. Ludwig
Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,
Membership in the Church, p. 309: “3. Catechumens are not to be counted among
the members of the Church… The Church claims no jurisdiction over them (D
895). The Fathers draw a sharp line of separation between Catechumens and
‘the faithful.’”[cdxciii]
By this
statement, Dr. Ott is admitting that “baptism of desire” and “baptism of blood”
are not compatible with Pope Innocent III’s infallible definition on the
absolute necessity of belonging to “the faithful” for salvation!
Therefore, in just one paragraph, Dr. Ott makes at least three
admissions, based on defined Catholic dogma, which show that baptism of desire
and baptism of blood are not compatible with Catholic teaching; and he makes these admissions on points that
are central to the three most famous
infallible definitions on Outside the Church There is No Salvation!
And this rather crucial series of admissions by Dr. Ott – quite
devastating to the theory of baptism of desire – brings me to my next point: the theologians, based on the testimony of
Tradition and Catholic teaching, all define the Catholic Church the same way
– a union of faith and sacraments.
THEOLOGIANS
UNANIMOUSLY DEFINE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS A UNION OF SACRAMENTS – THE TESTIMONY OF ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE, ST. FRANCIS
DE SALES, THE CATECHISM OF TRENT AND ALL THEOLOGIANS
Saint
Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, has given a famous definition of the
Catholic Church. St. Robert Bellarmine’s
formula is recognized by many as the most precise scholastic definition of the
Church to this day.
St. Robert
Bellarmine (16th century):"The
Church is one, not twofold, and this one true [Catholic] Church is the assembly of men united in the
profession of the same Christian faith and in the communion of the same
sacraments, under the rule of legitimate pastors, and in particular,
that of the one Vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman Pontiff. The first part excludes all infidels, those
who were never in the Church such as Jews, Turks, and pagans, or those who once
were in it and later fell away, like the heretics and apostates. The
second part excludes the catechumens and excommunicated, since the former are not admitted to the
sacraments and the latter are excluded from them…"[cdxciv]
Here we
see the definition of the Church which is accepted by all theologians: a
union of faith and sacraments. According to this definition of the Church, there can be no baptism of desire because those
who have not received any of the sacraments (the unbaptized, including
unbaptized catechumens) don’t share in the unity of the sacraments and
therefore are not part of the Catholic Church. Could anything be more simple and clear?
But it
is a fact, which may surprise some, that St. Robert Bellarmine did not remain
consistent with his definition of the Church above. He actually adopted the false idea of baptism
of desire, which became somewhat widespread among theologians in the late
middle ages, as I discussed in the section on the history of baptism of
desire. But in adopting the false idea
of baptism of desire, St. Robert simply failed to remain consistent with his
own definition of the Church above, as well as the unanimous definition of theologians
on the Church.
But this
was not the only issue on which St. Robert did not remain entirely consistent;
he failed to remain consistent in his struggle with the true teaching on Limbo,
as The Catholic Encyclopedia points
out.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 9,
1910, “Limbo,” p. 258: “It is clear that
Bellarmine found the situation [on Limbo] embarrassing, being unwilling, as he
was, to admit that St. Thomas and the Schoolmen generally were in
conflict with what St. Augustine and other Fathers considered to be de fide [on Limbo], and what the Council of Florence seemed to have taught
definitively.”[cdxcv]
Here we
see again that the fathers, doctors and saints, including Robert Bellarmine,
actually contradicted themselves on Limbo, even what some of them held to be de fide.
This again shows us why Catholics don’t form definite doctrinal
conclusions from the teaching of saints, including St. Robert Bellarmine. Catholics form definite doctrinal conclusions
from Catholic dogma, and the teaching of saints only when it is in line with
dogma. And St. Robert Bellarmine’s
definition of the Church above, which excludes all unbaptized persons from the
Catholic Church, is consistent with dogma; his statements on baptism of
desire are not.
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex
cathedra: “… the one mystical body … And in this, ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph.
4:5). Certainly Noe had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one
Church… outside which we read that all living things on the earth were
destroyed… which body he called
the ‘Only one’ namely, the Church, because of the unity of the spouse, the faith, the sacraments, and the charity of the Church. ”[cdxcvi]
Here we
see that Pope Boniface VIII defined as a dogma that the Church is a union of
sacraments. The Catholic Church is
infallibly defined as a union of sacraments also by Pope Eugene IV.
Pope Eugene
IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes,
professes, and proclaims… that the unity of this
ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) is so strong that only for those who abide in it are the sacraments of the Church of
benefit for salvation,
and do fasts, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of a
Christian soldier produce eternal rewards.
No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood
for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom
and unity of the Catholic Church.”[cdxcvii]
The
obvious meaning and sense of this dogmatic text is that the Catholic Church is
an ecclesiastical Body and a union of sacraments, a union “so
strong.” This is the truth confessed by
all theologians. St. Francis De Sales
teaches the exact same truth.
St. Francis
De Sales, Doctor of the Church: “The
Church is a holy university or general company of men united and collected
together in the profession of one same Christian faith; in the participation of the same sacraments…”[cdxcviii]
Here we see
that St. Francis De Sales repeats the same truth and defines the Church the
same way. This is how everybody defines the Church! The Catechism
of the Council of Trent affirms the same teaching:
Catechism of the Council of Trent, The Members of the Church Militant,
pp. 99-100: “The Church militant is
composed of two classes of persons, the good and the bad, both professing the same faith and partaking
of the same sacraments…”[cdxcix]
Is any teaching more
consistent? The Catechism of Trent
concludes:
Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. 159: “In the character impressed
by Baptism, both effects are exemplified. By it we are qualified to receive the
other Sacraments, and the Christian is distinguished from those who do not
profess the faith.”[d]
So
again, we see how baptism of desire advocates, such as Fr. Cekada, are completely
wrong and actually pervert the truth when they assert that the teaching of
theologians binds one to “baptism of desire.”
It is exactly the opposite. The
unanimous teaching of theologians contradicts the false doctrine of baptism
of desire, by defining the Church as only those who have received the
sacraments, which definition is also a dogma (Eugene IV; Boniface VIII, de fide).
Catholics are not bound, and in fact must reject, the fallible
statements and speculations of men, however great, such as St. Robert
Bellarmine, when they are not in harmony with Catholic dogma, not to mention
when they contradict the very principles they elsewhere affirm.
And this
is precisely why St. Robert Bellarmine was at a complete loss to
cogently explain the idea of “baptism of desire” when he had already defined
the Catholic Church as a body excluding all the unbaptized. He failed miserably in attempting to explain
how catechumens can be saved when only baptized persons are part of the
Catholic Church.
St. Robert
Bellarmine, De Ecclesia Militante: “Concerning catechumens there is a greater
difficulty, because they are faithful [have the faith] and can be saved if
they die in this state, and yet outside the Church no one is saved… the
catechumens are in the Church, though
not in actual fact, yet at least
in resolution, therefore they can be saved…”[di]
Notice the difficulty
St. Robert
Bellarmine (16th century): "The Church is one, not twofold, and this one true [Catholic] Church
is the assembly of men united in the
profession of the same Christian faith and in the communion of the same
sacraments, under the rule of legitimate pastors, and in particular,
that of the one Vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman Pontiff. First part excludes all infidels, those who
were never in the Church such as Jews, Turks, and pagans, or those who once
were in it and later fell away, like the heretics and apostates. The
second part excludes the catechumens and excommunicated, since the former are not admitted to the
sacraments and the latter are excluded from them…"[dii]
First,
St. Robert’s “difficulty” in attempting to explain his (fallible) position that
catechumens can be saved, when catechumens are excluded from the Church by his
own definition, is simply because the idea that an unbaptized person can be
part of the Church is found nowhere in any council or statement from the Papal
Magisterium. The Catholic Church has exclusively held and taught that only those who have received the Sacrament
of Baptism are part of the Church and no dogmatic decree has ever taught
anything else.
And this
is why St. Robert is constrained to admit that catechumens are not actually
inside the Church, but he argues that they can be saved by being in it in
resolution, but not in fact. (Note: St.
Robert was only applying this idea to catechumens, not pagans, heretics and
schismatics, as our Modernists today love to assert). But contrary to St. Robert’s fallible and
false assertion that catechumens can be saved by being in the Church “not in actual fact, yet at least in resolution,” it is defined that one must be in
actual fact part of the Church. It is
defined that one must be “in the bosom and unity” (Eugene IV); that one must be
incorporated into the “ecclesiastical body” (Eugene IV); that one must be
“entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff” (Boniface VIII); that one must be in
the union of “sacraments” and “the faithful” (Eugene VI; Boniface VIII;
Innocent III). And these things only come
with water baptism, as attested to by St. Robert’s own definition of the
Church. But in trying to explain the
unexplainable (how baptism of desire is compatible with Catholic dogma), and in
trying to defend the indefensible (how unbaptized catechumens can be in a
Church which is defined by a union of sacraments), St. Robert contradicted
these principles and made a mistake.
Second,
in attempting to substantiate his erroneous belief in baptism of desire, St.
Robert says that catechumens are “faithful.”
This is contrary to the fathers and the teaching of Traditional Catholic
Liturgy since apostolic times, which excluded catechumens from “the faithful”
(as discussed in the Section on “The One Church of the Faithful”). It is also contrary to the ready admissions
of baptism of desire advocates such as Ludwig Ott, which I’ve already quoted.
Dr. Ludwig
Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,
Membership in the Church, p. 309: “3. Catechumens are not to be counted among
the members of the Church… The Church claims no jurisdiction over them (D
895). The Fathers draw a sharp line of separation between Catechumens and
‘the faithful.’”[diii]
By now
the reader should again be discovering the theme which I’ve been showing throughout
this extensive examination of the history of the baptism of desire issue: that
baptism of desire is a fallible, erroneous tradition of man, which has never
been taught by the Papal Magisterium, which has gained momentum based on the
fallible and flawed passages of some nevertheless great men, who
contradicted themselves and violated their own principles in trying to explain
it, while almost always making other errors in the same documents.
In fact,
St. Robert’s statement that catechumens are “faithful” also contradicts the
Catechism of the Council of Trent.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Communion of Sacraments, p.
110: “The fruit of all the sacraments
is common to all the faithful, and these sacraments, particularly baptism, the door, as it
were, by which we are admitted into the Church, are so many sacred bonds which
bind them and unite them to Christ.”[div]
This
means that those who haven’t received the sacraments are not part of the
“faithful,” again contrary to what Bellarmine asserted in his admittedly
“difficult” attempt to reconcile the false idea of baptism of desire with his
own definition of the Catholic Church, which excluded all the unbaptized. When saints enter into “difficult” attempts
to explain speculative things that are not clearly taught by the Church they
are bound to make mistakes. And so
Catholics must not follow St. Robert in this “difficult” (or rather,
impossible) attempt to explain baptism of desire, but rather they should follow
St. Gregory Nazianz (Doctor of the Church), who stated regarding the idea that
one can reckon as baptized him who
desired baptism but did not receive it, “I cannot see it.”[dv]
St.
Robert indeed erred on the subject of baptism of desire, just as he did on
Limbo; but what is most important to remember, as stated already, is this:
while the principle of Papal infallibility was always believed in the Church
(expressed from the earliest times by such phrases as in the apostolic see
the Catholic religion has always been preserved untainted and holy doctrine
celebrated), there is no doubt that after the definition of Papal
infallibility at the First Vatican Council in 1870 there is much more
clarity about which documents are infallible and which are not. St. Robert Bellarmine and others who lived
before 1870 did not necessarily have this degree of clarity, which caused many
of them to lessen the distinction, in certain cases, between the infallible
decrees of popes and the fallible teaching of theologians. It also caused them to not look quite as
literally at what the dogma actually declares, but rather at what they thought
the dogma might mean in light of the opinion of popular theologians of the time.
Catholics who live today can
say that they understand more about Papal Infallibility than the theologians
and doctors in the middle ages all the way down to 1870, and that they possess
an advantage in evaluating this issue not only because they live after the
definition of Papal Infallibility, but also because they can review the entire
history of papal pronouncements of the Church on this issue and see the harmony among them on the
absolute necessity of water baptism.
UNIVERSAL TRADITION ON BAPTISM AFFIRMED EVEN BY HERETICAL MODERN
CATECHISMS
To
further illustrate the point that the absolute necessity of water baptism for
salvation is the universal and constant teaching of all theologians even
during the time of the apostasy and even by those same persons who proceeded to
deny this truth, let’s take, for example, a recent edition of the Baltimore
Catechism and the Catechism attributed to Pope St. Pius X.
The
New St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism, No. 2, Q. 320- “Why is Baptism necessary for the
salvation of all men? A. Baptism
is necessary for the salvation of all men because Christ has said: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the
Spirit, he cannot enter into the
Notice
how this edition of the Baltimore Catechism, which taught the error of baptism of
desire to multitudes (as we will see), reiterates
the universal and constant teaching of the Catholic Church, based on the
words of Jesus Christ in John 3:5, that Baptism of water is necessary for
the salvation of all men. The
Baltimore Catechism, therefore, teaches the exact same truth of Faith that has
been a constant echo in Catholic Tradition since the beginning.
Hermas, 140 A.D., quoting Jesus in John 3:5: “They had need to come up
through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the
St. Justin the Martyr, 155 A.D.: “… they are led by us to a place where
there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which
we ourselves were reborn… in the name of God… they receive the washing of
water. For Christ said, ‘Unless
you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ The reason for doing this we have learned
from the apostles.”[dviii]
So,
contrary to popular belief, those who reject “baptism of desire” actually
follow the teaching of the
The New St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism,
No. 2, Q. 321- “How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have
not received the Sacrament of Baptism.
A. Those who through no fault of
their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through
what is called baptism of blood or baptism of desire.”[dix]
This
statement blatantly contradicts the truth taught in Q. 320, that baptism of water is absolutely
necessary for all men to be saved.
In the Baltimore Catechism the people have been taught two directly
contradictory notions one after the other:
and…
Can both
be true at the same time? No, they
cannot. As a Catholic, one must follow
the first statement, which is in accord with defined dogma and the universal
Tradition since the beginning of the Church, and is based on the declaration of
Christ Himself.
Furthermore, the edition of the
The New St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism,
No. 2, Q. 321- “However, only baptism of
water actually makes a person a member of the Church. It (baptism of blood/desire) might be
compared to a ladder up which one climbs into the Bark of Peter, as the Church
is often called. Baptism of blood or desire makes a person a member of the Church in
desire. These are the two lifelines trailing from the sides of the Church to
save those who are outside the Church through no fault of their own.”[dx]
Here we
see this edition of the Baltimore Catechism teaching that: 1) Baptism of desire
doesn’t make one a member of the Church; 2) Baptism of desire does make one a
member of the Church in desire; 3) there is salvation outside the Church
by baptism of desire and blood.
The
first two statements contradict each other, while the third is direct heresy
against the dogma that Outside the Church
no one at all is saved (Pope Innocent III, de fide). Thus, this edition
of the Baltimore Catechism’s explanation of “baptism of desire” is not only
fallible, but directly heretical.
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.”[dxi]
But
having taught that baptism of desire “saves” people “outside” the Church, this
version of the Baltimore Catechism proves the point again that baptism of
desire is incompatible with defined dogma – not to mention its own teaching on
the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation.
THE CATECHISM ATTRIBUTED TO ST. PIUS X
The
Catechism attributed to Pope St. Pius X repeats for us the same de fide teaching of the Catholic Church
on the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation.
The
Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The
Sacraments, “Baptism,” Q. 16: “Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation? A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to
salvation, for Our Lord has expressly said: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter
into the
So,
contrary to popular belief, those who reject “baptism of desire” actually
follow the teaching of the Catechism attributed to Pope St. Pius X on the absolute
necessity of water baptism. They don’t
follow, however, the teaching of this fallible
Catechism when it proceeds to contradict this truth on the absolute necessity
of water baptism for salvation.
The
Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The
Sacraments, “Baptism,” Q. 17: “Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in
any other way? A. The
absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of
Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the
desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.”[dxiii]
This
again is a total contradiction to what is stated in Question 16. It should be noted that this catechism, while
attributed to Pope St. Pius X, did not come from his pen and was not
solemnly promulgated by him. There
is no Papal Bull from him promulgating the catechism, so it is just a fallible
catechism that went out during his reign and was given his name. But, even if St. Pius X had himself authored
the above words (which he didn’t), it wouldn’t make a bit of difference to the
points I’ve made. This is because a pope
is only infallible when speaking magisterially.
This catechism is not infallible because it wasn’t promulgated solemnly
from the Chair of Peter or even specifically by the pope. Further, this catechism is proven not to be
infallible by the fact that it teaches the abominable heresy that there is
salvation “outside” the Church (as I will show)!
But I
will first quote where the catechism affirms the dogma.
The
Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The
Apostles’ Creed, “The Church in Particular,” Q. 27: “Q. Can one be saved
outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church? A. No, no one can be saved outside the
Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the
flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.”[dxiv]
Here the
Catechism attributed to Pope St. Pius X reaffirms the defined dogma. But it proceeds to deny this dogma just two
questions later!
The Catechism
of Pope St. Pius X, The Apostles’ Creed,
“The Church in Particular,” Q. 29: “Q. But if a man through no fault of his own
is outside the Church, can he
be saved? A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if
he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the
implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and
does God’s will as best as he can, such a man is indeed separated from the
body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and
consequently is on the way of salvation.”[dxv]
Here we
see this fallible Catechism word for word denying the dogma Outside the
Church There is No Salvation! It
teaches that there can be salvation “outside” the Church, which directly denies
the truth it taught to the people in Question 27. This statement is so heretical, in fact, that it would be repudiated even by most of
the crafty heretics of our day, who know that they cannot say that people are
saved “outside,” so they argue that non-Catholics are not “outside” but are
“inside” somehow. So even those
crafty heretics who reject the true meaning of Outside the Church There is No
Salvation would have to admit that the above statement is heretical!
Further,
notice that the catechism attributed to St. Pius X teaches the heresy that
persons can be united to the “Soul” of the Church, but not the Body. As proven already, the Catholic Church is a
Mystical Body. Those who are not
part of the Body are no part at all.
Pope Pius
XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “For since the mystical body
of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly
joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical
body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever
therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in
communion with Christ its head.”[dxvi]
This
discussion on the catechisms should demonstrate to the reader how the rampant
denial of Outside the Church There is No Salvation and the necessity of Water
Baptism has been perpetuated through fallible texts with imprimaturs and
why it has been imbibed today by almost all who profess to be Catholic. It has been perpetuated by fallible documents
and texts which contradict themselves, which contradict defined dogma, and
which teach heresy, and which – all the while – elsewhere affirm the immutable
truths of the absolute necessity of the Catholic Church and water baptism for
salvation. And this is why Catholics are
bound to adhere to infallibly defined dogma, not fallible catechisms or
theologians.
Pope Pius
IX, Singulari Quadem: “For,
in truth, when released 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 mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on
earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold
most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is ‘one God, one
faith, one baptism’ [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in
inquiry.”[dxvii]
Pope Paul
III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism,
ex cathedra: “If
anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary
for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”[dxviii]
20. Exultate
Deo also ends the debate
I have discussed the teaching of the Council of Florence on Baptism in
earlier sections; but, due to the fact that the teaching of Exultate Deo
from the Council of Florence excludes the possibility of baptism of desire and
baptism of blood, I want to show clearly that it is infallible and cannot be
contradicted.
Pope Eugene
IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex
cathedra: “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 again 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.”[dxix]
It is important to point out
that not everything in the Bull Exultate
Deo (the Decree for the Armenians) deals with faith and morals to be
believed by the universal Church. Those
areas are not necessarily taught ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter)
or infallibly. But this quotation above
most certainly does deal with faith and morals to be believed by the universal
Church and is therefore taught ex cathedra. Some people point out the fact that Exultate Deo does not have the same
solemn language as Cantate Domino from
the Council of Florence, which everyone agrees is infallible. Some
conclude, therefore, that it’s possible that Exultate Deo might not be
infallible in faith and morals. But this
argument is easily refuted. Not only was
the Bull Exultate Deo approved by
Pope Eugene IV and included in the decrees of the Council, but it was required
for the Armenians as a profession of faith, as the true doctrine of the
Catholic religion. This proves that it
is infallible.
Pope Leo XIII, Paterna caritas (# 2), July 25, 1888: “Then the
Constitution of the Council, Exultate Deo, was published by the
pope, in which he taught them all that he considered to be necessary for the
right knowledge of Catholic truth; and upon this, the Legates, in the name
of their Patriarch, and of the whole Armenian race, declared that they
received the Constitution in entire submission and readiness to obey,
‘promising in the same name, as true sons of obedience, loyally to obey the
behests and commands of the Apostolic See.”[dxx]
Furthermore, Exultate Deo
(the Decree for the Armenians) was solemnly confirmed by a number of other
infallible Bulls in the same Council, including Cantate Domino.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” Sess. 11,
Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church embraces,
approves and accepts all other universal synods which were legitimately
summoned, celebrated and confirmed by the authority of a Roman Pontiff, and
especially this holy synod of Florence, in which, among other things, most
holy unions with the Greeks and the Armenians have been achieved and many
most salutary definitions in respect of each of these unions have been issued,
as is contained in full in the decrees previously promulgated, which are as
follows: Letentur coeli; Exultate Deo…”[dxxi]
In Sess. 13 of the Council of
Florence, Pope Eugene IV issued another Bull – this one on union with the
Syrians – in which he again infallibly approves of the doctrine contained in Exultate
Deo (the Decree for the Armenians).
The Bull ends with Pope Eugene IV invoking the wrath of God upon anyone
who would contradict it. Here is the
pertinent portion of the text.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Bull of Union with the
Syrians, Sess. 13, Nov. 30, 1444: “Eugenius, bishop, servant of the servants
of God, for an everlasting record… we ordain and decree that he (the
archbishop Abdala) ought to receive and embrace, in the name of the above
persons, whatever has been defined and established at various times by the
holy Roman Church, especially the decrees on the Greeks and the
Armenians (Exultate Deo) and the Jacobites, which were issued in
the sacred ecumenical council of Florence…”[dxxii]
In addition, Exultate Deo itself begins its section on the
sacraments – in which the quote on the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism is
contained – with authoritative language which proves that it is the infallible
teaching of the Catholic Church.
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22,
1439: “Eugenius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting
record… for the easier instruction of the Armenians today and in the future we
reduce the truth about the sacraments of the Church to the following
brief scheme.”[dxxiii]
Therefore, the teaching contained in Exultate Deo, concerning
points of faith and morals to be believed by the universal Church, is
infallible and dogmatic. It cannot
contain error. Thus, when Exultate
Deo defines that unless we are born again of water and the Holy Ghost,
we cannot, as the Truth says, enter into the
Pope Eugene
IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate
Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “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.”[dxxiv]
To hold that one can enter into the kingdom of heaven without being born
again of water and the Spirit is to contradict this infallible teaching.
21. The New Testament is clear that the Sacrament
of Baptism is Indispensable for Salvation
I have already discussed John 3:5, so I
will now look at some of the other New Testament passages which affirm the
absolute necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation.
THE
GREAT COMMISSION – MATTHEW 28 AND MARK 16
Matthew
28:19-20- “And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in
heaven and in earth. Going, therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; Teaching
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you...”
In
the very last scene recorded in St. Matthew’s Gospel, known as the Great
Commission – THE VERY LAST INSTRUCTION THAT JESUS CHRIST GIVES THE APOSTLES
BEFORE LEAVING THIS WORLD – Jesus Christ gives His Apostles two commands: to
teach all nations and to baptize.
Since this is Christ’s very last command to His Apostles, these words
carry a special significance. This
should tell everyone something about the importance of Baptism. The Sacrament of Baptism is inextricably
bound up, by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, with the very command to teach all
nations the Christian faith. St. Mark’s
Gospel reveals the same truth in his version of the Ascension scene, the last
scene in his Gospel.
Mark 16:15-16-
“And he (Jesus) said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every
creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he
that believeth not shall be condemned.”
Here we see
Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself saying that those who are baptized will be saved, clearly indicating that those who are not baptized will not be
saved. But some ask, why didn’t Our
Lord say, “he that believeth not and is
not baptized shall be condemned,” after saying he that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved. The answer
is that those who don’t believe are not
going to get baptized, so it is not necessary to mention baptism
again. Besides, Our Lord says that very
thing (that those who are not baptized will not be saved) in John 3:5.
So we see that, in the very last command of Our Lord to the
Apostles, the notion of belief and receiving baptism are wrapped up; they are
one and the same formula which is necessary
for salvation. To believe and to
receive the Sacrament of Baptism are one and the same saving event.
St. Francis
Xavier, Dec. 31, 1543: “After all this he [one of the heathen] asked me in my
turn to explain the principal mysteries of the Christian religion, promising to
keep them a secret. I replied, that I
would not tell him a word about them unless he promised beforehand to publish
them abroad [to tell everyone] what I should tell him of the religion of Jesus
Christ. He made the promise, and then I
carefully explained to him those words
of Jesus Christ in which our religion is summed up: ‘He who believes and is
baptized shall be saved’ (Mark 16:16).”[dxxv]
In Romans chapters 5 and 6 we find St.
Paul explaining how men are born in the state of original sin, because the sin
of the first man, Adam, has caused his descendants to be born bankrupt of the
state of grace.
Romans 6:3-4 “Know you not that all we, who are baptized
in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death? For we are buried together with him by
baptism unto death.”
In this very strong language,
THE COUNCIL OF
In accordance with the infallible
declaration of
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “For unless a man be
born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God
[John 3:5]… 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)…”[dxxvi]
And here is another regional council which,
though not dogmatic, teaches the same truth as the dogmatic statement above:
namely, that only by being buried by the
Sacrament of Baptism unto death, can one hope to have remission of sin,
incorporation with Christ and salvation.
St. Remigius, Bishop of Lyons, Council of Valence III, 855, Can. 5:
“Likewise we believe that we must hold most firmly that all the multitude of the faithful, regenerated ‘from
water and the Holy Spirit’ (John 3:5), and through this truly incorporated
into the Church, and according to the apostolic doctrine baptized in the death of Christ (Rom.
6:3), in His blood has been absolved from its sins…”[dxxvii]
1 CORINTHIANS 12:13
1 Corinthians 12:13-
“For in one Spirit were we all
baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free;
and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink.”
Here we see
THE COUNCIL OF
Based on this very text [“For in one
Spirit were we all baptized into one body”], the Catholic Church
infallibly teaches that only through the Sacrament of Baptism is one
incorporated into the Body of the Church.
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, on the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance,
Sess. 14, Chap. 2, ex cathedra: “… the
Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the
gate of baptism. For what have I to do with those who are
without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle.
It is otherwise with those of the
household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has
once made ‘members of his own body’ (1 Cor. 12:13).”[dxxviii]
It is a dogma, based on 1 Corinthians,
that those who have not received the laver of baptism are “without” the Church; they are not “members of His body”; they are not “of the household of the faith”; and the Church exercises no “judgment” over them. I have already discussed the profound
significance of this dogmatic statement in section 7 on “Subjection to the
Roman Pontiff,” but I will very briefly repeat that here for the reader’s
sake. It is de fide that every human creature must be subject to the Church to
be saved, because every human creature must be subject to the Roman Pontiff to
be saved.
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex
cathedra:
“Furthermore,
we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they
by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman
Pontiff.”[dxxix]
And if the definition of Trent above on 1
Cor. 12:13 proves that no one can be subject to the Church without water
baptism (as it does), this means that no one can be saved without water
baptism. All persons are made
subject to the Church (and therefore the Roman Pontiff) only by receiving the
Sacrament of Baptism.
Pope Leo XIII,
Nobilissima (# 3), Feb. 8, 1884:
“The Church …
is consequently bound to watch keenly over the teaching and upbringing of the children placed under its authority
by baptism…”[dxxx]
GALATIANS 3 – FAITH IS BAPTISM
In Galatians 3 we find one of the most
famous parts of
In Galatians
3:23 he says: “But before the faith
came…”
In verse 24 he
says: “that we may be justified by faith…”
In verse 25 he
says: “But after the faith is come…”
In verse 26 he
says: “For you are all the children of God by
faith, in Christ Jesus.”
But what does
Galatians
3:27: “For as many of you as have
been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is
neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
This very interesting chapter of
Scripture should give a message to Protestants and Catholics alike.
St.
Ambrose, (4th Century) Bishop and Doctor of the Church:
“… for
in the Christian what comes first is faith.
And at
Thus,
THE COUNCIL OF
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.
In Titus 3:5 we find one of the
strongest of all the passages in Sacred Scripture on the necessity of the
Sacrament of Baptism.
Titus 3:5- “Not by the works of justice, which we have
done, but according to his mercy, he
saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost…”
Here,
What is very interesting about this
passage is that the word of God tells us that it is not “by the works of
justice which we have done”
that we are saved. In other words, it is
not by our desire or our blood or our contrition that we are saved, but by the Sacrament itself that
Christ instituted (the laver of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Ghost).
THE FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL DEFINES THE TRUTH OF TITUS 3:5
Pope Innocent
III, Fourth Lateran Council, 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.”[dxxxv]
St. Fulgence (+512): “For he is saved by
the Sacrament of Baptism…”[dxxxvii]
EPHESIANS 4:5 – One
Spirit – One Body – One Faith – One Lord –
One Baptism.
Ephesians
4:4-6: “Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. One body and one Spirit; as you are called in
the hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One God
and Father of all…”
Here
What’s interesting about this quotation from
St. Jerome is that he is pointing out that the “one baptism” shared by all in
the Church (according to Ephesians 4:5) is not simply one in terms of the
number of baptisms, but it is “one” in regard to the manner in which all
have been baptized: all have been baptized in the name of the Father and of the
Son and of the Holy Ghost in the Sacrament.
And so essential and
inextricably bound up with the Christian Faith is the necessity of the
Sacrament of Baptism that St. Aphraates, the oldest of the Syrian Fathers,
wrote in 336:
“This, then, is faith: that a man believe in God … His Spirit
…His Christ… Also, that a man believe in the resurrection of the dead; and moreover, that he believe in the
Sacrament of Baptism. This is the belief of the Church of God.”[dxxxix]
THE COUNCIL OF
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex
cathedra:
“… one
universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one
faith, and one baptism…”[dxl]
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.”[dxli]
We
see that all who are part of the Catholic Church have the one Baptism of water.
ACTS 2 AND THE FIRST PAPAL SERMON
In Acts Chapter 2 we find the Pentecost
scene, the birthday of the New Testament Church. And there we find many extraordinary events
recorded, including the first sermon in the
Acts 2:37-38-
“Now when they had heard these things they had compunction in their heart, and
said to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and
brethren? But Peter said to them: Do
penance, and be baptized every one of
you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
Here we see the word of God and the first
pope teaching the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for the remission of
sins, as proclaimed in the very first sermon in the Catholic Church.
THE
NICENE-CONSTANTINOPLE CREED CONFIRMS ACTS 2
In accordance with this infallible
declaration of the word of God, that one must receive the Sacrament of Baptism
for the remission of sins, the Catholic Church has defined that there is one
baptism given for the remission of sins.
The
Nicene-Constantinople Creed, ex cathedra:
“We confess one baptism for the remission of sins.”[dxlii]
Acts 16:26-33: “And suddenly
there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were
shaken. And immediately all the doors
were opened, and the bands of all were loosed.
And the keeper of the prison, awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the
doors of the prison open, drawing his sword, would have killed himself,
supposing that the prisoners had fled.
“But Paul cried out with a loud voice,
saying: Do thyself no harm, for we are all here. Then calling for a light, he went in, and
trembling, fell down at the feet of Paul and Silas. And bringing them out, he said: Masters, what must I do, that I may be
saved? But they said: Believe in
the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they preached the word of the Lord to him
and to all that were in his house. And
he, taking them the same hour of the night, washed their stripes, and himself was baptized, and all his house
immediately.”
What’s interesting about this chapter is
what the author of the Acts of the Apostles, St. Luke, decided to include. In giving the account of the jailer who was
miraculously converted after the earthquake in the prison, St. Luke gives
just the briefest of details – the most necessary parts of the story. St. Luke records that the jailer asked Paul
and Silas what he must do to be saved. St. Luke records their very brief answer:
“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” But notice that St. Luke, before moving on to
a different topic, makes sure to mention that the jailer and his entire
house were baptized immediately.
This shows us once again how receiving baptism is necessary for all for
salvation. The fact that the jailer and
his family were baptized immediately was a detail which St. Luke viewed as
critical to include in a story about the essential things the jailer and his
family had to do to be saved.
1 PETER 3:20-21 – WATER BAPTISM AND THE ARK
1 Peter
3:20-21: “… when they waited for the
patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few,
that is, eight souls were saved by water.
Whereunto baptism being of the
like form, now saveth you also…”
This is also one of the strongest passages
in all of Sacred Scripture on the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism. Notice the force of St. Peter’s assertion
here. Baptism now saves you. And he is talking about Water Baptism (the
Sacrament), of course, because he draws an analogy between the baptismal waters
and the Flood waters! St. Peter compares
receiving the Sacrament of Water Baptism to being on the ark of Noe. As no one escaped physical death outside the
ark of Noe during the time of the Flood (only eight souls survived the Flood by
being firmly planted on the ark), likewise now no one avoids spiritual death or
is saved from original sin without the Sacrament of Baptism!
POPE BONIFACE VIII CONFIRMS THE ARK –
WATER BAPTISM – FLOOD – CHURCH
CONNECTION OF 1 PET. 3
As St. Peter says in 1 Peter 3:20-21,
that in the days of Noe eight souls were saved from the water by getting into
the ark, and now the Sacrament of Baptism being of the like form (that is, of
water) now saves us also, so too has the Catholic Church defined as a dogma
that entering the Church is as necessary for salvation as being on the ark
was necessary in being saved from death.
And the only way to enter the Church is through the one baptism of
water.
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex
cathedra: “… the one mystical body … And in this, ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph.
4:5). Certainly Noe had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one
Church… outside which we read that all living things on the earth were
destroyed… which body he called the ‘Only one’ namely, the Church,
because of the unity of the spouse, the faith, the sacraments, and the charity of the Church.”[dxliii]
Notice how Pope Boniface VIII defines the unity of the Church as the
unity of “the sacraments,” which means that no one can be inside the Church
without having received at least the first of the sacraments: Baptism.
St. Maximus the Confessor (+ c. 620): “The
flood of those days was, as I say, a Figure of baptism. For that was then prefigured which is now
fulfilled; that is, just as when the fountains of water overflowed,
iniquity was imperiled, and justness alone reigned: sin was swept into the
abyss, and holiness upraised to heaven.
Then, as I said, that was prefigured which now is fulfilled in Christ’s
Church. For as Noe was saved in the
Ark, while the iniquity of men was drowned in the Flood, so by the waters of
baptism the Church is carried close to heaven…”[dxliv]
22. Other Scriptural Considerations
Besides the infallible teaching of the Catholic Magisterium, there are a
few other things from Sacred Scripture that are interesting to consider in
regard to the topic at hand.
John
1:12-13-“But as many as received Him, to them He gave power to become the
sons of God: to them that believe in His name: WHO ARE BORN, NOT
OF BLOOD, NOR OF THE WILL OF THE FLESH, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN,
BUT OF GOD.”
The context of the passage is dealing with “becoming the sons of God,”
that which
Pope St.
Leo the Great, Sermon 63: On the Passion
(+ c. 460 A.D.): “… from the birth of baptism
an unending multitude are born to God, of whom it is said: Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will
of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (Jn. 1:15).”[dxlvi]
So as
God, through St. John, is describing man’s being “born again” to the state of
grace in Baptism, He speaks of those who are born, “NOT OF BLOOD, NOR
OF THE WILL OF THE FLESH, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, BUT OF
GOD”! The “will of the flesh” is
desire. The “will of man” is
desire. “Blood” is blood. In my opinion, what God is saying here in
this very verse is that in order to become a son of God – in order to be
justified – it does not suffice to be born again of blood or desire (i.e.,
baptism of blood or desire). One must be
born again of God. The only way to be
born again of God is to be baptized with water in the name of God: in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Mt. 28:19).
Some
writers 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
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 eventually receive the Eucharist, they had to in order to be saved. This applies to all who can receive the
Eucharist, that is, all who hear that command and can fulfill it, 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.
The
difference in the wording of these two verses actually shows the supernatural
inspiration of the Bible and the absolute necessity of water baptism for every
man.
23. All True
Justice and the Causes of Justification
ALL TRUE JUSTICE
MEETS UP WITH THE SACRAMENTS (de fide)
In the Foreword to Sess. 7 of the
Council of Trent’s Decree on the Sacraments there is a very important
statement.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Foreword, ex cathedra: “For the completion of the salutary doctrine of
Justification… it has seemed fitting to treat of the most holy sacraments of the Church, through which all true
justice either begins, or being begun is increased or being lost is restored.”[dxlvii]
The Council of Trent here defines that
all true justice (sanctifying grace) either begins or is increased or is
restored at the sacraments. I repeat,
all true justice either begins or is increased or is restored at the
sacraments. This means that all true justice must be at least one of the three:
begun at the sacraments, increased at the sacraments or restored at the
sacraments. But the baptism of
desire theory is that some persons can have a true justice (sanctifying grace)
that is none of the above three! They
argue that some persons can have true justice that is: 1) not begun at the
sacraments, but before; and also 2) not increased at the sacraments (since the
person dies before getting to the sacraments); and 3) not restored at the
sacraments (for the same reason as # 2).
Thus, the “baptism of desire” theory posits a true justice which is
neither begun nor increased nor restored at the sacraments. But such an idea is contrary to the above
teaching of
St. Ambrose (+ 390): “… when the Lord
Jesus Christ was about to give us the form of baptism, He came to John, and
John said to Him: I ought to be baptized
by thee, and comest thou to me? And
Jesus answering said: Suffer it to be so for now. For so it becometh us to fulfill all justice
(Mt. 3:14-15). See how all justice rests on baptism.”[dxlviii]
THE INSTRUMENTAL AND
EFFICIENT CAUSES OF JUSTIFICATION
We have seen how the Council of Trent
defines that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. We have seen how, in every single instance
(that is, four), the Council of Trent infallibly declares that John 3:5 applies
literally and to every man. We have seen
how even the passage that baptism of desire advocates mistakenly think favors
their position (Sess. 6, Chap. 4), actually excludes baptism of desire by
declaring that John 3:5 is to be understood as
it is written. I will now briefly
discuss two other points in this venerable Council.
In Sess. 6, Chap. 7, the Council of Trent
defines what the causes of Justification are in the impious. Justification is the term for the state of
sanctifying grace. If desire or blood
were a cause for Justification, as the baptism of desire advocates argue, then
you would think that they would be mentioned in the chapter on the Causes of
Justification, wouldn’t you? Why
isn’t either mentioned in Chapter 7 on the causes of Justification?
What
we do find mentioned is that the
Sacrament of Baptism is the instrumental cause of Justification.
Pope Paul
III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 7, 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…”[dxlix]
In this Chapter, the Council of Trent listed
in all 5 causes of Justification, four of which are God or the attributes of
God, and one of which (the instrument of that Justice) is the Sacrament of
Baptism.
If there were exceptions to the truth that
the Sacrament of Baptism is the cause of Justification in the impious, as the
baptism of desire advocates claim, then the exceptions would have been included
by the council, just like the council specifically declared in its decree on
Original Sin that Mary was not included in its definition on Original Sin.
Council of Trent, Sess. 5, #6: “This
holy Synod declares nevertheless that it
is not its intention to include in this decree, where original sin is treated
of, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary…”[dl]
The Virgin Mary is also excluded in
Sess. 6 of Trent by the context, because the entire decree in Sess. 6 deals
with the Justification of the impious/sinner. The context of the “impious,” therefore, does
not include Mary since she was never impious – she was always in a state of
perfect sanctification. But the point is
that the council needed to specify that Mary was not included in
its definition on Original Sin in Sess. 5 and it did so, thus demonstrating that if there are any
exceptions to a dogmatic statement they will always be mentioned in the decree;
for an infallible statement cannot declare that which is false.
Furthermore, look at what the Council of
Trent says about the efficient cause of Justification in the impious.
Pope Paul
III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 7, ex cathedra: “… the
efficient cause [of Justification] is a truly merciful God who gratuitously
‘washes and sanctifies’, ‘signing and anointing with the Holy Spirit…”[dli]
This is very interesting.
Fr.
Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic,
p. 9: “Baptism of Desire is not a sacrament... it does not produce the
sacramental character.”
Therefore, if
Another very important aspect to this issue is the Dogmatic Profession
of Faith issued by the Council of Trent and by Vatican Council I. Both councils infallibly declared that the
sacramental system as a whole is necessary for salvation, and this truth must
be professed and believed by all Catholics and by converts.
Pope Pius IV, “Iniunctum nobis,” Nov. 13,
1565, ex cathedra: “I also profess
that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the New Law
instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and necessary for the salvation of
mankind, although all are not necessary for each individual…”[dlii]
Notice that Pope Pius IV in “Iniunctum nobis,” the Profession of Faith
of the Council of Trent, declares that “the sacraments” as such (i.e., the sacramental system as a whole) are necessary
for man’s salvation, but it adds that all are not necessary for each
individual. This is very interesting and
it proves two points:
1)
It proves that every man must receive at
least one sacrament to be saved; otherwise, “the sacraments” as such (i.e.
the sacramental system) couldn’t be said to be necessary for salvation. Hence, this definition (besides the others) shows
that each man must at least receive the Sacrament of Baptism in order to be
saved.
2)
Notice that the Council of Trent (and
But
nothing about salvation being possible without the sacraments was taught in
these dogmatic professions of Faith.
Rather, the truth that the sacraments are necessary for salvation
was defined, with the necessary and correct qualification that all 7 of
the sacraments are not necessary for each person.
The
First Vatican Council repeated the same Profession of Faith, which is a
dogma. It made this Profession in the
very first statement on Faith at
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 2, Profession of Faith, ex cathedra: “I profess also that there
are seven sacraments of the new law, truly and properly so called, instituted
by our Lord Jesus Christ and necessary for salvation, though each
person need not receive them all.”[dliii]
No
matter how hard one tries to avoid it, “baptism of desire” is incompatible with
this truth, a truth which must be professed and believed by Catholics and by
converts from heresy. In fact, this
dogma blows away the theory of baptism of desire.
Fr.
Francois Laisney (Believer in Baptism of Desire), Is Feeneyism Catholic, p. 9: “Baptism of Desire is not a
sacrament... it does not produce the sacramental character.”
25. St.
Isaac Jogues and
In
this work on Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation and the
necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism, I could not leave out a section on the
incredible lives of two of the most illustrious missionaries in Church history,
St. Isaac Jogues (17th century missionary to the North American
Savages) and St. Francis Xavier (16th century missionary to the Far
East). The trials of St. Isaac Jogues in
bringing the Gospel to the North American heathen, and the incredible success
of St. Francis Xavier in bringing the Gospel to
In
their lives we also find remarkable occurrences relating to people receiving
the Sacrament of Baptism, occurrences which demonstrate again the truth of the
dogma received from Jesus Christ Himself: Unless
a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the
Kingdom of God (John 3:5). We will
now look at some different occurrences and quotes from their lives.
ST. ISAAC JOGUES AGAINST INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE
St.
Isaac Jogues and his companions were preaching the Gospel to the most savage of
the North American heathen in the areas of
The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, pp. 219,221: “The executioners chose Rene Goupil as the next
victim. They sawed off the thumb of his right hand with an oyster
shell. So much blood spurted out that they feared he would die [they
wanted to torture him more or trade him]… Then they turned to Couture… They
pricked him with awls and pointed stakes, carved off shreds of his flesh,
burned him with firebrands and glowing irons, until he fell lifeless under
their cruelties… One of them discovered [later] that two of Couture’s
fingers had been left intact… Towering with rage… he began to saw off the index finger of his right hand with the ragged
edge of a shell. He pressed down with all his might on the flesh and
tore it, but he could not sever the tendons… Frenzied, he gripped the finger
and twisted it until he tore it out, dragging with it a tendon as long as the
palm.”[dliv]
But why did St. Isaac Jogues and his
companions feel compelled to subject themselves to the possibility of falling
into the hands of these savages? What was the point? The
answer is that they knew that there was no such thing as “salvation for the
invincibly ignorant.” They knew that if these savages didn’t come to know
Jesus Christ and the Trinity (the Catholic Faith) and get baptized they would
be eternally lost without any doubt.
The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, p. 197: “They tore Ondessonk [St. Isaac
Jogues] away and beat him with insane fury, with clubs and muskets, about the
head and shoulders, until he sank to the earth. They kicked
him and jumped on him till he was insensible.
The four Iroquois passed on, but others took up the bloody revenge. Two younger men, especially, grasped his arms
and clenched the nails of his forefingers in their teeth. They
tugged and yanked till they drew the fingernails from their sockets. They took each of his forefingers in their
mouths and ground and crushed them with their teeth until the fingers were a
jelly of blood and flesh and splinters of bone.”[dlv]
St.
Isaac Jogues and his companions were subjected to many other things, including
mind-boggling cold:
St. Isaac Jogues: “Indeed, under the influence of
that terrific hate of the savages, I suffered beyond telling from the cold,
from the contempt of the basest of them, from the furious ill temper of the
women… Great hunger, also, I had to endure. Since nearly all the
venison, and on the hunt they eat scarcely anything else, was offered in
sacrifice to the demons, I spent many days without eating… I suffered
greatly from the cold, in the midst of the deep snows, with nothing to wear but a short and threadbare cloak…Though
they had plenty of deerskins, many of which they were not using, they would
give me none. Sometimes, on an extremely bitter night, shivering from the
cold, I would take one of the skins secretly; as soon as they discovered it,
they would rise up and take it away from me. That shows how terribly
much they hated me… My skin was split open with the cold, all over my body, and
caused me intense pain.”[dlvi]
Yet, after all this, St. Isaac Jogues still refused to escape from
these savages when at first he had the opportunity! He wanted to stay and baptize infants who
were dying, and instruct and baptize the heathen adults who would listen. Why?
If he had left the people, surely those who were sincere would have been
saved for being ignorant “through no
fault of their own,” right? After
all, it wouldn’t have been their fault if Isaac Jogues said that he couldn’t
endure this any longer. No! St. Isaac knew that there was no salvation
for them without the presence of the baptizing Church and knowledge of the
Catholic Faith. The following quote is
one of the most interesting that one will ever see against the heretical idea
of salvation for the “invincibly ignorant.”
St. Isaac Jogues: “Although, in all probability, I could escape [from
the Iroquois] either through the Europeans or through the other savages living
around us, if I should wish it, I decided to live on this cross on which Our
Lord had fixed me in company with Himself, and to die with His grace helping
me… Who could instruct the prisoners who
were being constantly brought in? Who
could baptize them when they were dying, and strengthen them in their
torments? Who could pour the sacred
waters on the heads of the children? Who
could look after the salvation of the adults who were dying, and after the
instruction of those in good health? Indeed,
I believe that it happened not without a singular providence of the Divine
Goodness, that I should have fallen into the hands of these very savages… These savages, I must confess, unwillingly
and reluctantly have thus far spared me, by the will of God, so that thus through me, although
unworthy, they might be instructed, they might believe, and be baptized,
as many of them as are preordained for
eternal life.”[dlvii]
Could any statement from a Saint refute the heresy of salvation for the
“invincibly ignorant” better? St. Isaac
knew that those heathen who did not come to know the Catholic Faith and get
baptized simply were not preordained for eternal life.
Romans 8:29-30- “For whom He foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable
to the image of his Son: that he might be the first-born amongst many
brethren. And whom he predestinated, them he also called: and whom he
called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”
As Catholics, of course, we don’t believe as the heretic John Calvin,
who held a predestination according to which no matter what one does he is
either predestined for heaven or hell.
That is a wicked heresy. Rather,
as Catholics we believe in the true understanding of predestination, which is
expressed by St. Isaac Jogues and Romans 8 above. This true understanding of predestination
simply means that God’s foreknowledge from all eternity makes sure that those
who are of good will and are sincere will be brought to the Catholic faith and
come to know what they must – and that those who are not brought to the
Catholic faith and don’t know what they must were not among the elect.
There is another interesting story in Jogues’ life which confirms
this. After having much success in
converting people in various places, he and his companions began to be shut out
from all the villages in a certain section of the heathen savages. The Devil had convinced the heathen savages
in this area – and the idea was spreading – that the presence of the
missionaries was the reason why there were famine and disease among them. So, being totally exhausted and shut out from
every hut in the area, and freezing from the cold and dying for a place to rest
and warm themselves, we pick up the story:
The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, pp. 145-146: “…wandering about from place to place, and everywhere meeting with blows
and threats and hatred, Jogues and Garnier came to a little cluster of cabins
in the heart of the hills. They were both exhausted by the terrible
exposure to the cold and by the lack of food.
They forced themselves upon one of the cabins and were grudgingly
received. Jogues felt feverish and
sick through all his body. He could not move from his mat. Then came a messenger from one of the
villages in which they had been welcomed on their entry into the Petun
land. The runner told them that some of
the people who were sick were begging them to return.
“It was a call from God. They could not but heed it. In
order to complete the journey of
thirty-five miles by daylight, they started out about three o’clock in the
morning. All the country was pale with snow
in the dawn, and the mountain air was painfully cold. Jogues was still gripped by the fever and
unsteady on his legs. They slid their
snowshoes laboriously over the crackling crust of the icy snow. Frequently, they stopped for breath in deadly
exhaustion.
“But they had to shorten their rests, for
fear lest they die of the cold. Their only food, a lump of corn bread about
the size of the fist, was hard as ice. They arrived at the village late at night,
covered with sweat and yet half-frozen, they said. The
sick persons were still alive. They were
baptized. ‘Some souls gone astray here and there, who are placed on the road
to heaven when they are just about to be swallowed up in hell,’ was
their comment, ‘deserve a thousand times more than these labors, since these
souls have cost the Savior of the world much more than that.’”[dlviii]
As
St. Isaac Jogues says, he knew that if he did not reach these people, instruct
them and baptize them they would be “swallowed up in hell.” That is why he forced himself at the very
moment he had just found a bit of rest and warmth to make the thirty-five mile
trip, though he was starving, freezing and exhausted – a trip which almost
killed him. There is another interesting
story which illustrates the same truth.
“When dawn
trickled through the firs, they [Jogues and Garnier] struck out along the
trail, now blanketed with snow. Some
distance on, beyond a clear field, they noticed a few cabins. The families, they found, were just
abandoning their huts and were going to the nearest Petun village, for they had
neither corn nor any other food… They
[Jogues and Garnier] attached themselves to the band and traveled all the day…
‘We had no special plan to go to this
village [which we named] St. Thomas rather than to any other,’ they remarked ‘but since we had
accepted what company the savages offered, and since we followed them there, there is no doubt but that we arrived
where God was leading us for the salvation of a predestined soul which awaited
nothing but our arrival in order to die to its earthly miseries.’ They had finished their supper and were
conversing with their hosts, when a young man entered and asked the Blackrobes
to visit his mother who was sick. ‘We go
there,’ they exclaim, ‘and find the poor woman in her last extremities. She
was instructed, and happily received, with the Faith, the grace of
Baptism. Shortly after that, she [died
and] beheld herself in the glory of heaven.
In that whole village there was only that one who had need of our
help.”[dlix]
ST. FRANCIS XAVIER AGAINST
INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE
St.
Francis Xavier was arguably the greatest missionary in Church history after the
apostle Paul. He was responsible for the
baptism of millions in the
St. Francis
Xavier, Dec. 31, 1543: “There is now in
these parts [of India] a very large
number of persons who have only one reason for not becoming Christians, and
that is that there is no one to make them Christians. It often comes into my mind to go round all
the Universities of Europe, and especially that of Paris, crying out everywhere
like a madman, and saying to all the learned men there whose learning is so
much greater than their charity, ‘Ah! What
a multitude of souls is through your fault shut out of heaven and falling into
hell!’… They labor night
and day in acquiring knowledge… but if they would spend as much time in that which
is the fruit of all solid learning, and be as diligent in teaching the ignorant
the things necessary to salvation, they would be far better prepared to give an
account of themselves to our Lord when He shall say to them: ‘Give an account
of thy stewardship.’”[dlx]
Here we see that St. Francis Xavier is saying that these ignorant
heathen in India would easily become Christians if there were someone to
instruct them, and yet they are still going to go to Hell if they don’t hear
about the Faith! This totally eliminates
the idea of salvation for the “invincibly ignorant” or salvation by “implicit
baptism of desire.”
St. Francis
Xavier, Jan. 20, 1545: “Since your Highness [King John III of Portugal] well
understands that God will require of you an account of the salvation of so many nations, who are ready to follow the better path if any one will show them it,
but meanwhile, for want of a teacher, lie
in blind darkness, and the filth of the most grievous sins, offending their
Creator, and casting their own souls
headlong into the misery of eternal death.”[dlxi]
Here again we see St. Francis Xavier eliminating any idea of salvation
for “the invincibly ignorant,” excluding from salvation even those ignorant
souls whom he thought would embrace the Faith if they were taught it!
St. Francis
Xavier, May, 1546: “In this
St. Francis
Xavier, Jan. 28, 1549: “I intend to write what I have found, not only to India,
but to the Universities of Portugal, of Italy, and above all of Paris, and
admonish them, while they are devoting themselves heart and soul to learned
studies, not to think themselves so free and disengaged from responsibility as to take no trouble at all about the
ignorance of the heathen and the loss of their immortal souls.”[dlxiii]
St. Francis
Xavier, Jan. 29, 1552: “Nothing leads me
to suppose that there are any Christians there [in
In
all of these quotes we again see that St. Francis Xavier, like St. Isaac Jogues
and all of the saints, totally rejected the heretical idea that souls
who are ignorant of the Gospel can be saved.
ST. ISAAC JOGUES ON THE NECESSITY
OF WATER BAPTISM
In
the life of these extraordinary missionaries, we also find many quotes and
instances which confirm the absolute necessity of water baptism for
salvation. As in the life of the great
missionary Fr. De Smet, both men saw the remarkable occurrence that many of
the people that they would reach to baptize would die almost immediately after. They clearly saw this as a sign that God had
preserved the lives of these people until they were able to receive that most
necessary sacrament.
The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, p. 92:
“Then, most of all [the heathens concluded], the Blackrobes caused people to
die by pouring water on their heads; practically
everyone they baptized died soon after.”[dlxv]
The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, p. 136:
“Fr. Lalemant [one of Jogues companions and superiors] confesses: ‘It happened very often, and has been
remarked more than a hundred times, that in those places where we were
most welcome, where we baptized most people, there it was, in fact, where they
died most. On the contrary, in
the cabins to which we were denied entrance, although they were sick to the
extremity, at the end of a few days one saw every person prosperously cured.’”[dlxvi]
The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, pp. 97-98: “[
The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, p. 142:
“There is hardly any corn in this
The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, p. 279: “…
in February he walked the six miles to the nearer town, where the Mohawks were
holding their winter festival and games… he
wandered through the cabins, searching for the sick and for those affably
inclined. In one lodge he discovered
five babies, all dangerously ill. He
baptized them, without attracting notice, and three days later, says Fr.
Lalemant, ‘he heard that these little innocents were no longer in the land of
the dying [they were dead]. What an admirable stroke of predestination
for those little angels.”[dlxix]
The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, p. 199: “Rene called Father Jogues’ attention to one
of the old men [an Indian who was captured with them]… The man had not yet been
baptized, and it might possibly happen that he would be the victim chosen
by the Iroquois as a blood sacrifice before they left the camp. Ondessonk [Fr. Jogues] persuaded the old man
to accept baptism… The Mohawks finished their council and the division of the booty...
The old man whom Fr. Jogues had just before baptized refused to stir from where
he was sitting… Scarcely had he [the old
man] finished speaking [refusing to move] when one of the braves smashed his
skull and scalped him. Father Jogues
rejoiced in the sorrow, for the waters
of baptism had scarce dried on his head.”[dlxx]
The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, pp.
122-123: “At Teanaustayae, Jogues witnessed a torture and a conversion that
surpassed anything human. A chief
belonging to the
The
missionaries were convinced that it was only because Peter had received the
Sacrament of Baptism that he had the miraculous strength to undergo all of
these incredible tortures, survive and still move against his persecutors.
The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, pp. 298-299: “Once, when he had entered a cabin in one of the villages to inquire
about the sick, Jogues heard his name
called from the darkness of a corner.
Going over, he found a young man desperately ill. ‘Ondessonk,’ the sick young man exclaimed,
‘do you not know me?’
‘I do not
remember ever having seen you before,’ Fr. Jogues replied.
‘Do you not
remember well the favor I did you at your entrance into the country of the
Iroquois?’ the man questioned.
‘But what
favor did you do me?’ asked Jogues, puzzled.
‘Don’t you
remember the man who cut your bonds, in the third village of the Agnieronon
Iroquois, when you were at the end of your strength?’ he continued.
‘Of course
I remember that very well. That man put
me in his debt very, very much. I have
never been able to thank him. I beg you,
give me some news of him, if you are acquainted with him.’
‘It was I,
myself, who did it. I who took pity on
you and loosed you.’…
Father
Jogues told the dying man about God, of the happiness in the next life with God
for those who believed, of what it was necessary to believe in order to be
baptized and be made happy forever after death.
The man listened with attention.
With deep sincerity, he begged for baptism and for the happiness
Ondessonk promised him. Father Jogues poured on his head the water
of salvation. While he prayed beside the
mat, a few hours later, the man died peacefully.”[dlxxii]
AMAZING BAPTISMS
Especially in the life of St. Isaac Jogues, we find incredible stories
about his baptizing people under amazing and/or miraculous circumstances. These stories also show the truth of the
dogma, Unless a man is born again of water
and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5).
The Life of St. Isaac Jogues [while
captive among the Iroquois Mohawks], p. 272: “The camps at night were in the
open, in a hollow of the snow. He had no furs, like the others, to protect
him, and he could not move the hearts of any of the party to lend him any
covering, though they carried several skins back as their spoils of the
chase…
“Along
the way, they had to cross a gorge of a swift mountain stream. The
bridge was a tree trunk stretched a few feet above the swirling, deep waters. It was unsteady with slippery moss. One of the party was a pregnant woman, who
also carried a baby in the basket on her back and was otherwise burdened with
the camp utensils. The strap of the
cradle was across her forehead, and the bundles were fastened to her
shoulders. The squaw [Indian woman] started to climb across the tree, while Father
Jogues waited to follow her. She lost
her balance and toppled over into the tumbling rapids. The baggage strapped to her shoulders weighed
her to the bottom, the thong that held the cradle slipped from her forehead to
her neck and was strangling her.
“In
an instant, Father Jogues leaped into the gorge and the icy current. Wading and swimming, he fought his way to the
woman, unstrapped the bundles and the cradle, and dragged her and the baby back
to the bank. He took good care to baptize the baby before he lifted it out of the
water. The Mohawks made a roaring
fire and revived the woman, who was numbed almost to death. They allowed Ondessonk [Fr. Jogues] to warm
himself and even commended him, for they realized that the woman would have
been drowned except for his aid. She recovered, but the newly baptized child
died within a few days.”[dlxxiii]
This fascinating story shows us how the
Almighty can and does get any soul that He wants to baptism. If the woman hadn’t fallen into the icy
waters, St. Isaac wouldn’t have had the opportunity to baptize her baby. It’s quite obvious that God arranged it so
that this little child received the sacrament just before He took it from the
earth.
The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, p. 225: “Two of the Hurons, Jogues learned, were to be
burned to death that night at Tionontoguen.
He stayed with them on the platform and concentrated his appeals on
them. Finally they consented. About that moment, the Mohawks threw the prisoners some raw
corn that had been freshly plucked. The
sheaths [of the corn] were wet from the recent rains. Father
Jogues carefully gathered the precious drops of water on a leaf and poured them
over the heads of the two neophytes [new converts], baptizing them in the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Mohawks understood that his [Jogues’] act
meant to bring happiness to these hated victims. They raged at his audacity and beat him down,
threatening to slaughter him with the Hurons… That night the two Hurons [whom
he had baptized] were burned over the fire.”[dlxxiv]
If the
sheaths of corn had not been thrown at that very moment, Jogues wouldn’t have
had the water with which to baptize the two Indians. And, as noted in his life, St. Isaac Jogues
always instructed the heathen in the essentials they had to know for baptism
(e.g., the Trinity and the Incarnation).
John 3:5,7 – “[Jesus saith] 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.”
OTHER QUOTES FROM JOGUES AND XAVIER ON BAPTISM
In the
life of St. Isaac Jogues, there is a fascinating account of his party’s capture
by the Iroquois savages. In it we find
the description of Jogues’ focus on baptizing an unbaptized Huron Indian who
was accompanying them. Here is the
account of when their party was suddenly and unexpectedly attacked by the
Iroquois savages, who wanted to capture and torture them:
The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, p. 205:
“The most devoted of all was Atieronhonk, whom
Jogues had baptized at the first volley.
The man could not get over his astonishment. [Atieronhonk said]: ‘It
must be admitted that these people who come to instruct us have no doubt
whatever of the truths they teach us. It
must be that God alone is their reward.
There is Ondessonk [Isaac Jogues].
He forgot himself at the moment of danger. He thought only of me, and spoke to me of
becoming a Christian. The musket balls whisked past our ears,
death was before our very eyes. He
thought only of baptizing me, and not of saving himself. He did not fear death. But
he [Jogues] did think that I would be lost forever if I died without baptism.”[dlxxv]
Below
is another interesting account of an Indian named Ahatsistari, who was
converted by St. Isaac Jogues and his companions. Ahatsistari addressed St. Isaac Jogues and
St. John De Brebeuf as follows:
The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, p. 168:
“I have the faith deep down in my heart, and my actions during the past winter
have proved it sufficiently. In two days
I am departing on the warpath. If I am killed
in battle, tell me: where will my soul go if you refuse me baptism? If you saw into my heart as clearly as the
great Master of our lives, I would already be numbered among the Christians;
and the fear of the flames of hell would not accompany me, now that I am about
to face death. I cannot baptize
myself. All that I can do is to declare with utmost honesty the desire that I
have for it. After I do that, if my soul
be burned in hell, you will bear the guilt of it. Whatever you may decide to do, however, I
will always pray to God, since I know Him.
Perhaps He will have mercy on me, for you say that He is wiser than you
are.”[dlxxvi]
It is
obvious that Ahatsistari hadn’t been taught “baptism of desire.” He understood that he would go to Hell if he
died without the Sacrament of Baptism.
Shortly after this speech, Ahatsistari was solemnly baptized.
St. Francis
Xavier, May, 1546: “Here there are altogether seven towns of Christians, all of
which I went through and baptized all the newborn infants and the children not
yet baptized. A great many of them died soon after their baptism, so that it was
clear enough that their life had only been preserved by God until the entrance
to eternal life should be opened to them.”[dlxxvii]
St. Francis
Xavier, Feb, 1548: “The thing which I wish to commend to you above everything
else is that you should employ special diligence and watchfulness in the
baptism of little children, so as not to leave any lately born child not
regenerated in the saving laver of Christ in any of the villages… Make search and inquiry for yourselves, and
baptize with your own hands all those whom you find in want of that most
necessary Sacrament.”[dlxxviii]
The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, p. 94: “On one occasion, Father Jogues found a
savage named Sonoresk favorably disposed and sufficiently instructed, who
was grasping his last breath. All
through the night the man kept repeating ‘Rihouiosta’ (I believe). Ondessonk
[St. Isaac Jogues] baptized him, and the man suddenly recovered. He announced that baptism cured him: the
water that had been poured on his head by Ondessonk [Jogues] had flowed down
through his throat, so that he felt no more pains. His
rejoicing in this life was not for long, however, for he died the next day.”[dlxxix]
Heretics and modernists
resist the truth, just as they resist Him who is the Truth (Jn. 14:6). And because they resist the truth they resist
facts, because facts report truth without any error. One of the facts that the modernists and
heretics resist most of all is the fact that the Catholic Church has infallibly
taught that Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation and that John 3:5
is to be taken as it is written and that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary
for salvation (Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament).
So what do these people do
with these facts staring them in the face?
They resort to attacking the reporter of these facts (argumentum ad
hominem), which enables them to ignore the facts themselves. The episode of Father Leonard Feeney, S.J. is
a case in point.
The dogma Outside the
Catholic Church There is No Salvation really has nothing to do with Father
Leonard Feeney. (In fact, I had never
heard of Fr. Feeney when I came to the same conclusion – based upon Catholic
dogma – that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation and
that all those who die as non-Catholics are lost.) It has to do with the teaching of the Chair
of St. Peter, as I have shown, which is the authentic and infallible teaching
of Christ. To reject this Catholic dogma
is to reject Christ Himself.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 5), June 29, 1896: “But he who dissents even in one point from
divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby
refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.”[dlxxx]
Father Feeney became famous
for his public stand for the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No
Salvation in the 1940’s and 1950’s. Most
people fail to realize that, at that time, the world’s bishops were by no means
staunch traditionalists. Most of the
world’s bishops had already embraced the heresy of indifferentism, which
explains why almost all of them signed the heretical Vatican II documents just
a short time later. They had embraced
the heretical idea that “invincible ignorance” saves those who die as
non-Catholics, as I’ve discussed in certain previous sections. This is why one can easily detect heresy
against the dogma in most theology manuals and texts beginning as early
as the late 19th century. In
fact, during his time, Father Feeney wrote to all of the bishops of the world
about the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation and received only
three positive responses. In other
words, only three of the world’s bishops at that time manifested a positive
belief in the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No salvation as it
had been defined. It is no wonder
that Vatican II went through with virtually no resistance from the Episcopate.
Father Feeney believed
and preached the dogma – as it had been defined – publicly in
One of his main enemies was the
Archbishop of Boston, Richard Cushing, a B’nai Brith (Jewish Freemasons) man of
the year, and someone who called the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is
No Salvation “nonsense.” In April of
1949, Cushing silenced Fr. Feeney and interdicted
Cushing had allies with other
heretical clergymen in
Right from the start, these
fallen clergymen fused the issue with Father Feeney rather than the real source
from which it came. This enabled them to
focus on Father Feeney, and ignore Jesus
Christ, whose doctrine this was.
Pope Pius IX, Nostis et Nobiscum (# 10), Dec. 8, 1849: “In
particular, ensure that the faithful are deeply and thoroughly convinced of the
truth of the doctrine that the Catholic faith is necessary for attaining
salvation. (This doctrine,
received from Christ and emphasized by the Fathers and Councils, is
also contained in the formulae of the profession of faith used by Latin, Greek
and Oriental Catholics).”[dlxxxiv]
These heretics failed to
realize that to belittle a defined dogma to something of Father Feeney’s
invention is blasphemous and severely dishonest. But God is not mocked. We see the same thing today, especially
rampant among so-called traditionalists.
But I will return to this point.
On December 2, 1948, the
President of Boston College, Father William L. Keleher, S.J., held an interview
with Dr. Maluf, who was an ally of Father Feeney in the stand for the dogma. Fr. Keleher stated:
“Father Feeney came to me at the beginning of this situation and I
would have liked to do something except that I could not agree with his
doctrine on salvation… He (Fr. Feeney) kept repeating such phrases as
‘There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.’”[dlxxxv]
When Maluf (a member of the
“the theologians at
So there you have the case
of Father Feeney in a nutshell.
Father Feeney held, as it had been defined, that there is no salvation
for those who die as non-Catholics.
Those against him, including Fr. Keleher (President of Boston College),
the Archbishop of Boston, the priests at
Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (#
2), May 27, 1832:
“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.”[dlxxxvii]
A Jesuit priest of the new
Vatican II religion skillfully describes what the scene was like when “the
Boston Heresy Case” (i.e., whether only those who die as Catholics can be
saved) erupted into public view during Holy Week 1949.
Mark S.
Massa, “S.J.”, Catholics and American Culture, p. 31: “The
On April 13, 1949, Fr.
Keleher (the President of Boston College) fired Dr. Maluf, James R. Walsh and
Charles Ewaskio from the faculty at
“They continued to speak in class and out of class on matters contrary
to the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church, ideas leading to bigotry
and intolerance. Their doctrine
is erroneous and as such could not be tolerated at
One cannot help but notice
Fr. Keleher’s double-tongue: these men were dismissed for ideas leading to intolerance,
which could not be tolerated. If
intolerance is the false doctrine here, as Fr. Keleher indicates, then he is condemned
by his own mouth. Furthermore, one
cannot pass over Fr. Keleher’s brazen assertion that “Their doctrine [i.e., the
solemnly defined dogma that those who die as non-Catholics cannot be saved] is
erroneous.” By this statement Keleher is
asserting that the Church’s doctrine (on no salvation outside the Church) is
erroneous and in no way his own. This
was the type of heretical, anti-Catholic character in league with Archbishop
Richard Cushing in the quest to crush Fr. Feeney’s preaching of the dogma.
This was the beginning of the
end, so to speak, as will be seen when we look at what has resulted in
27. Protocol
122/49 (Suprema haec sacra)
About four months after the
silencing of Fr. Feeney in April by Richard Cushing, the apostate Archbishop of
Boston, the Holy Office issued a document on August 8, 1949. Actually, the document was a letter addressed
to Bishop Cushing, and signed by Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani, known to most
as Protocol No. 122/49. It is also
called Suprema haec sacra and the
Marchetti-Selvaggiani letter. It is one
of the most crucial documents in regard to the modern apostasy from the
faith. Protocol 122/49 was not published
in the Acts of the Apostolic See (Acta Apostolicae Sedis) but in The
Pilot, the news organ for the Archdiocese of Boston. Keep in mind that this letter was published
in
The absence of Protocol
122/49 from the Acts of the Apostolic See proves that it has no binding
character; that is to say, Protocol 122/49 is not an infallible or binding
teaching of the Catholic Church.
Protocol 122/49 was not signed by Pope Pius XII either, and has the
authority of a correspondence of two Cardinals (Marchetti-Selvaggiani who wrote
the letter, and Cardinal Ottaviani who also signed it) to one archbishop –
which is none. The letter, in
fact, and to put it simply, is fraught with heresy, deceit, ambiguity and
betrayal. Immediately after the
publication of Protocol 122/49, The Worcester Telegram ran a typical
headline:
This was the impression given to almost the entire Catholic world by
Protocol 122/49 – the Marchetti-Selvaggiani letter. Protocol 122/49, as the above headline bluntly
said, held the “No Salvation Outside the Church Doctrine” to be false. By this fateful letter, the enemies of the
dogma and the Church appeared to have been vindicated and the defenders of the
dogma seemed to have been vanquished.
The problem for the apparent victors, however, was that this document
was nothing more than a letter from two heretical cardinals of the Holy Office,
who had already embraced the heresy later adopted by Vatican II, to one
apostate archbishop in
It’s interesting that even
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, the well known editor of The American Ecclesiastical Review before Vatican II, who was
unfortunately a defender of Protocol 122/49, was forced to admit that it’s not
infallible:
Msgr.
Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic
Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 103: “This letter, known as Suprema haec sacra [Protocol 122/49]… is
an authoritative [sic], though obviously not
infallible, document. That is to
say, the teachings contained in Suprema haec sacra are not to be
accepted as infallibly true on the authority of this particular document.”[dxci]
In other
words, according to Fenton, the teaching of Suprema
haec sacra is not infallible and must be found in earlier documents; but it
isn’t, as we will see. Fenton is simply
wrong when he says that Suprema haec
sacra is nevertheless authoritative.
Suprema haec sacra is neither
authoritative nor infallible, but heretical and false.
Since almost the entire
public was (and is) given the impression that Protocol 122/49 represented the
official teaching of the Catholic Church, it constituted the selling out of
Jesus Christ, His doctrine and His Church to the world, a selling out that had
to take place before the wholesale apostasy of Vatican II. By Protocol 122/49 and the persecution of Fr.
Feeney, the public was given the impression that the Catholic Church had now
overturned a 20 centuries’ old dogma of the faith: that the Catholic Faith is
definitely necessary for salvation. And
even to this day, if one were to ask almost every so-called Catholic priest in
the world about the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation, he
would be answered with a reference to the Father Feeney controversy and
Protocol 122/49, even if the priest is unable to identify or recall the
specific names and dates. Try it, I know
from experience. Basically all of the
Novus Ordo priests who know anything about the issue will use Protocol 122/49
and the “condemnation” of Fr. Feeney to justify their heretical, anti-Catholic,
antichrist, anti-magisterial belief that men can be saved in non-Catholic
religions and without the Catholic Faith.
These are the fruits of the infamous Protocol 122/49. And by
their fruits you shall know them (Mt. 7:16).
Now let’s take a look at a
few excerpts from the Protocol:
Suprema haec sacra, Protocol 122/49, Aug. 8, 1949: “Now, among those things which the
Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that
infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside
the Church.
“However, this
dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands
it.”[dxcii]
Let’s stop it right
there. Already it’s clear that the
author of the Protocol is preparing the reader’s mind to accept something
different than simply “that infallible statement by which we are taught that
there is no salvation outside the Church.”
The author is clearly easing into an explanation of the phrase “Outside
the Church There is No Salvation” other than what the words themselves state
and declare. If the author were not
preparing the reader to accept an understanding other than what the words of
the dogma themselves state and declare, then he would have simply written:
“This dogma must be understood as the Church has defined it, exactly as the
words state and declare.”
Compare the Protocol’s
attempt to explain the dogma away with Pope Gregory XVI’s treatment of the same
issue in his encyclical Summo Iugiter Studio.
Pope
Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, 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… You know how zealously Our predecessors
taught that article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the
necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation… Omitting other
appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the
Fathers, We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that
THIS IS INDEED THE TEACHING OF THE
Pope
Gregory XVI does not say, “However, this dogma must be understood in
that sense in which the Church herself understands it,” as does the
heretical Protocol 122/49. No, he
unequivocally affirms that THIS IS INDEED THE TEACHING OF THE
Also, notice that Pope
Gregory XVI makes reference to the dogmatic definition of the Fourth
Lateran Council to substantiate his position and literal understanding of
the formula Outside the Church There is No Salvation. Throughout the whole document, Protocol
122/49 makes no reference to any of the dogmatic definitions
on this topic. This is because Pope
Gregory XVI, being a Catholic, knew that the only understanding of a dogma that
exists is that which
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 4, On Faith
and Reason: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be
perpetually retained, which
If the understanding of the
dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation was not clear from the teaching
of the Chair of Peter (the infallible definitions on the topic), then a 1949
letter of Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani is certainly not going to give it to
us! And if no exceptions or
qualifications to this dogma were understood at the time of the definitions –
nor at the time of Pope Gregory XVI – then it is impossible for exceptions to
come into our understanding of the dogma after that point (e.g., in 1949),
because the dogma had already been defined and taught long before. Discovery of a new understanding of
the dogma in 1949 is a denial of the understanding of the dogma as it
had been defined. But define new dogma
is indeed what the Protocol tried to do.
I continue with the Protocol.
Suprema haec sacra, Protocol 122/49, Aug. 8, 1949: “Now, among the commandments of Christ,
that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated
by Baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain
united to Christ and to His Vicar... Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing
the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless
refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff,
the Vicar of Christ on earth.”[dxcv]
Here the Protocol begins to
enter into its new explanation of the dogma Outside the Catholic Church
There is No Salvation, but in a diabolically clever manner. The ambiguity lies in the fact that this
statement is true: no one who, knowing
the Church to have been divinely established, nevertheless refuses to
submit to Her and the Roman Pontiff will be saved. But everyone reading this document is also
given the clear impression by this language that some people, who have unknowingly
failed to submit to the Church and the Roman Pontiff, can be saved. This is heretical and would actually make it
counterproductive to convince people that the Catholic Church is divinely
established!
Compare the dogmatic definition of the
Catholic Church with the addition to the dogma by Protocol 122/49.
The Dogma:
Pope
Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: