Baptism of desire advocates
love to quote Sess. 7, Can. 4 of Trent, but
a careful consideration of
this canon, in conjunction with dogmatic definitions on the Sacraments, reveals
their mistake and serves to refute their position
By Bro. Peter Dimond,
O.S.B.
*Note: this canon
was addressed in the book, but this article includes some new things, including
an important definition comparison which confirms the point.*
Objection: doesn’t
this canon teach baptism of desire?
Answer: No.
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.”
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. In other words, 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.”
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 this canon 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. Those who
obstinately insist that this canon teaches baptism of desire or that one can be
justified by the desire for baptism are simply wrong; they err in understanding
the canon, while contradicting the clear definition of Trent on the necessity
of the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation.
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.”
To further prove this point, let’s look at two other dogmatic definitions
(one from Trent and one from Vatican I) which deal with the sacraments in
general and salvation. This comparison
will corroborate the point above.
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…”
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.”
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
7 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 7 of the sacraments are not necessary for each
person. The First Vatican Council
defined this dogma in the very first statement on Faith at Vatican I.
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.”
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 utterly refutes 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.”
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…”
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.”
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.”
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 clause “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. And 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. 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 can see something very
interesting. Notice that 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 7 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.”
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 7 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.”
Not
at all. All of this serves to prove
again that the Council of Trent didn’t teach baptism of desire, as so many
assert. For a discussion of Sess. 6,
Chap. 4, please consult our book.
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.”
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.”