St. Alphonsus’ Blatant Error on ‘Baptism of Desire’

Supporters of ‘baptism of desire’ are fond of quoting St. Alphonsus’ opinion on the issue. In our video, Baptism of Desire Buried (linked below), we carefully discuss it. We not only demonstrate that St. Alphonsus’ explanation of BOD (i.e., ‘baptism of desire’) is riddled with problems, but that it would have to be rejected even by ‘baptism of desire’ supporters. Many supporters of ‘BOD,’ however, didn’t seem to notice or grasp the significance of the point made in the video on that particular issue. (It was merely one point among many covered in the video, by the way). BOD advocates often refuse to carefully consider the facts which contradict their position and their arguments. As a result, they remain oblivious to the truth.

Therefore, I want to reiterate a crucial point. In the process hopefully some of those who had not previously been paying attention will begin to do so. I will also address a false claim recently advanced by a BOD advocate: that St. Alphonsus didn’t actually misquote the Council of Trent in his explanation of BOD.

WAKE UP BOD SUPPORTERS: ST. ALPHONSUS ADMITS THAT ‘BAPTISM OF DESIRE’ DOES NOT PROVIDE THE GRACE OF SPIRITUAL REBIRTH/BAPTISM, WHICH TRENT SAYS EVERYONE MUST HAVE TO BE JUSTIFIED

As explained in our video, Baptism of Desire Buried, St. Alphonsus defines baptismus flaminis (‘baptism of blowing/breath) as something which remits the guilt of sin, but not the temporal punishment due to sin. Let me repeat that: St. Alphonsus admits that ‘baptism of desire’ does not take away the temporal punishment due to sin. This is a devastating problem for BOD and its supporters, as we will see.

St. Alphonsus: “Baptism of blowing is perfect conversion to God through contrition or through the love of God above all things, with the explicit desire, or implicit desire of the true river of baptism whose place it supplies (iuxta Trid. Sess. 14, c. 4) with respect to the remission of the guilt, but not with respect to the character to be imprinted, nor with respect to the full liability of the punishment to be removed: it is called of blowing because it is made through the impulse of the Holy Spirit, who is called a blowing.” (St. Alphonsus, Moral Theology, Volume V, Book 6, n. 96)

Latin- “Baptismus flaminis est perfecta conversio ad Deum per contritionem, vel amorem Dei super omnia, cum voto explicito, vel implicito, veri baptismi fluminis, cujus vicem supplet (iuxta Trid. Sess. 14, c. 4) quoad culpae remissionem, non autem quoad characterem imprimendum, nec quoad tollendum omnem reatum poenae: dicitur flaminis, quia fit per impulsum Spiritus Sancti, qui flamen nuncupatur.”

St. Alphonsus says that BOD (‘baptism of desire’) does not remove the temporal punishment due to sin. According to his explanation, someone who dies with a ‘baptism of desire’ may need to spend time in Purgatory. That’s actually a fatal problem for the ‘theory’ because the Church has dogmatically defined that the grace of baptism is not merely the remission of the guilt of sin, but also the remission of all temporal punishment due to sin.

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life… The effect of this sacrament is the remission of every fault, original and actual, and also of every punishment which is owed for the fault itself. Therefore to the baptized no satisfaction is to be enjoined for past sins; but dying, before they commit any fault, they immediately attain the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God.”

ALL THOSE ‘BORN AGAIN’ HAVE EVERY PUNISHMENT DUE TO SIN REMITTED

Likewise, the Council of Trent’s Decree on Original Sin solemnly defined that all those who are ‘born again’ have all the guilt and every punishment due to sin removed. This grace of being ‘born again’ renders the recipients ‘immaculate’ and it leaves in them nothing that could retard their entrance into Heaven.

Council of Trent, Sess. 5, Original Sin, # 5, ex cathedra: “If any one denies, that, by the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only erased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. FOR, IN THOSE WHO ARE BORN AGAIN, there is nothing that God hates; because, there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; in such a manner that absolutely nothing may delay them from entry into heaven."

As we can see, it’s a dogma that the grace of baptism/spiritual rebirth/being ‘born again’ provides not only justification and the remission of the guilt of sin, but also the remission of every punishment due to sin.

TO BE JUSTIFIED EVERYONE MUST BE ‘BORN AGAIN’ – A GRACE WHICH INCLUDES THE REMISSION OF EVERY TEMPORAL PUNISHMENT DUE TO SIN

Furthermore, it’s de fide definita that UNLESS YOU RECEIVE THE GRACE OF SPIRITUAL REBIRTH/BEING ‘BORN AGAIN’ YOU CAN NEVER BE JUSTIFIED!

Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3: “But though He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated; because as truly as men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own, SO UNLESS THEY WERE BORN AGAIN IN CHRIST THEY WOULD NEVER BE JUSTIFIED, since by that new birth through the merit of His passion the grace by which they become just is bestowed upon them.”

IS IT BECOMING CLEAR YET?

To ‘baptism of desire’ supporters, we ask: is the problem beginning to sink in yet? Are you beginning to see the error in St. Alphonsus’ passage? This is an error which, as often as you cite St. Alphonsus on the issue, necessarily permeates your argument and the entire man-made theory. In case you still don’t perceive the problem, I will explain it for you again, in capital letters:

EXPLAINING THE PROBLEM SIMPLY FOR ‘BOD’ SUPPORTERS

1) ST. ALPHONSUS TEACHES THAT ‘BOD’ DOES NOT PROVIDE THE REMISSION OF THE PUNISHMENT DUE TO SIN.

BUT…

2) IT’S DEFINED THAT THE GRACE OF BAPTISM/BEING ‘BORN AGAIN’/SPIRITUAL REBIRTH NECESSARILY PROVIDES THE FULL REMISSION OF EVERY PUNISHMENT DUE TO SIN.

HENCE, BOD DOES NOT PROVIDE THE GRACE OF BAPTISM/REBIRTH/BEING ‘BORN AGAIN.’

AND:

3) TRENT DEFINED THAT EVERYONE MUST HAVE THE GRACE OF BEING ‘BORN AGAIN’ (WHICH PROVIDES A PERSON WITH THE FULL REMISSION OF EVERY PUNISHEMENT DUE TO SIN) TO BE JUSTIFIED!

THEREFORE, IT’S CERTAIN THAT ST. ALPHONSUS’ OWN EXPLANATION OF ‘BOD’ PROVES THAT NO ONE COULD BE SAVED BY ‘BOD,’ ALTHOUGH HE DIDN’T REALIZE IT. YES, SAINTS CAN BE WRONG AND FAIL TO REALIZE THINGS.

THESE FACTS NOT ONLY PROVE THAT ST. ALPHONSUS’ PARTICULAR EXPLANATION OF BOD IS COMPLETELY UNTENABLE – AND THOSE WHO ADVANCE IT OBSTINATELY IN THE FACE OF SUCH FACTS SIN GRAVELY AND TEACH HERESY – BUT IT DEMONSTRATES THAT ‘BOD’ IS A FALSE THEORY; FOR, ACCORDING TO ITS MOST CELEBRATED DEFINITION, ‘BOD’ DOESN’T EVEN GIVE YOU WHAT THE COUNCIL OF TRENT DECLARES YOU MUST HAVE TO BE JUSTIFIED (IN THE STATE OF GRACE).

TO ADVANCE ST. ALPHONSUS’ EXPLANATION OF ‘BAPTISM OF DESIRE’ IN THE FACE OF THESE FACTS IS TO EMBARRASS YOURSELF

These facts establish that St. Alphonsus’ explanation of BOD is erroneous and indefensible. When proponents of ‘BOD’ promote it in the face of these facts they don’t merely contradict Catholic dogma, they embarrass themselves; for they advance an explanation of the issue that is patently at odds with Catholic principles and even with what BOD advocates repeatedly argue.

For instance, over the years ‘baptism of desire’ supporters have argued that what ultimately matters is not the sacramental character of baptism, but the GRACE OF BAPTISM. The grace of baptism is the key, they have told us. The grace of baptism, not the sacramental character, is what’s absolutely necessary, they have proclaimed. The grace of baptism is what God can provide apart from the external rite of baptism, they have asserted. God will not save anyone who does not have this ‘spiritual rebirth,’ even if He must grant the spiritual rebirth without water, they have declared.

In his appallingly dishonest book Is Feeneyism Catholic?, BOD supporter Fr. Francois Laisney expressed it thus:

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 … call it ‘baptism’ only because it produces the grace of baptism, the new birth… yet it does not produce the sacramental character.”

Is it clear by now that they have a problem? If you’ve been paying attention, you know that we just quoted St. Alphonsus who admits that ‘baptism of desire’ does not produce the grace of baptism: it doesn’t provide the remission of the punishment due to sin.

In the above passage, therefore, Laisney has contradicted BOD and the very sources upon which he bases it (e.g., the teaching of St. Alphonsus) by teaching that no one is saved without the grace of the new birth. Indeed, Laisney relies heavily on the argument that ‘the grace of baptism’ (the new birth) – which he declares to be absolutely necessary – is granted by BOD. That’s the essence of his exegesis of John chapter 3. That’s how he and others attempt to explain Jesus’ solemn proclamation on the absolute necessity of being ‘born again’ (John 3:3), which Jesus defines as being ‘born again of water and the Spirit’ (John 3:5), to enter Heaven.

You must be ‘born again,’ Laisney and others proclaim, but not necessarily born again of water. Jesus’ declaration about the necessity to be ‘born again’ admits of no exceptions, they protest, but ‘BOD’ provides that indispensable rebirth without water. Actually, no, it doesn’t, as Alphonsus’ own passage proves.

Falling into the same trap, the heretic John Salza argued in a similar fashion. He asserted that Jesus’ solemn proclamation in John 3 means that being ‘born again’ is indispensable, but that water baptism is not.

John Salza: “The Church teaches that being “born again” is an absolute necessity for salvation (with which God cannot dispense), and that “water baptism” is a necessity of means (with which God can dispense)… In John 3:5, the "unless" acts directly upon "born again" and only indirectly upon "water" and "Holy Ghost.”

Wrong again. His own sources refute him. For if the Church teaches that being ‘born again’ is an absolute necessity with which God cannot dispense, then the definition of BOD, furnished by the very authorities they cite for it (e.g., St. Alphonsus), is false. As shown above, St. Alphonsus teaches that ‘BOD’ doesn’t give you the grace of being ‘born again.’

So, without even delving into the many other aspects of dogmatic teaching which contradict ‘BOD,’ these few pronouncements prove very clearly that the theory is incompatible with dogma. The reason the arguments advanced for it are so inconsistent, contradictory and ever-changing is because the theory is not true. It’s a false theory of man that was never taught by the Church.

The truth is that Jesus Christ and Catholic dogma infallibly declare that the grace of spiritual rebirth is inseparable from water baptism.

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)… 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.”

That’s why no one can be saved without water baptism. People are only reborn though ‘water and the Holy Ghost,’ as Jesus declared:

“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” (John 3:5).

The Church has dogmatically defined that these words of Jesus Christ are to be understood as they are written: i.e., that no one enters Heaven without the rebirth of water and the Spirit in the Sacrament of Baptism.

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.”

Since any ‘theory’ that advances the contrary is false, that theory (i.e., BOD) necessarily finds itself plagued by errors and contradictions, as we see in St. Alphonsus’ attempted explanation of the issue.

DOES ST. ALPHONSUS’ USE OF ‘IUXTA’ PROVE THAT HE DID NOT MISQUOTE THE COUNCIL OF TRENT?

In addition to the aforementioned demonstrable error in St. Alphonsus’ passage on BOD, there is also the fact that he cites the wrong portion of the Council of Trent in attempting to make his point. In arguing that BOD grants the remission of the guilt of sin but not the temporal punishment due to sin, St. Alphonsus cited Sess. 14, Chap. 4 of the Council of Trent.

St. Alphonsus: “Baptism of blowing is perfect conversion to God through contrition or through the love of God above all things, with the explicit desire, or implicit desire of the true river of baptism whose place it supplies (iuxta Trid. Sess. 14, c. 4) with respect to the remission of the guilt, but not with respect to the character to be imprinted, nor with respect to the full liability of the punishment to be removed: it is called of blowing because it is made through the impulse of the Holy Spirit, who is called a blowing.” (St. Alphonsus, Moral Theology, Volume V, Book 6, n. 96)

The problem, however, is that Sess. 14, Chap. 4 has nothing to do with the issue. It concerns the Sacrament of Penance, not Baptism. It teaches that for those already baptized, perfect contrition plus the desire for the Sacrament of Penance can forgive a man of the guilt of sin.  Since it’s about those who have already been baptized, it has nothing about ‘baptism of desire’ or the notion that someone can be saved without Baptism.

Therefore, St. Alphonsus completely misquoted and misapplied Trent’s declaration about how for those already baptized, perfect contrition and desire for the Sacrament of Penance can forgive the guilt of sin. Trent makes no such declaration about Baptism. Since he misunderstood and misquoted Trent’s teaching, it’s not a surprise that St. Alphonsus’ explanation of BOD, which asserts that ‘BOD’ does not remove the temporal punishment due to sin, is fraught with errors.

In fact, there are a number other problems with his passage, which are discussed in our video Baptism of Desire Buried. In the video his passage is quoted in full and analyzed. That includes his misunderstanding of Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent, which BOD adherents enjoy citing.

It should also be stressed that when St. Alphonsus mentions the ‘implicit’ desire for baptism, he’s referring to people who believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation, but aren’t aware of water baptism or have not expressed that desire for water baptism in words. Again, the ‘implicit desire’ to which he refers is an implicit desire for water baptism, not an implicit desire for faith in Christ. He did not believe that anyone (ignorant or not) could be saved without faith in the essential mysteries of Catholicism: the Trinity and the Incarnation. However, he did (wrongly) think that one who believed in the Trinity and the Incarnation could be saved without water baptism by an implicit desire for water baptism.

Nevertheless, BOD heretics abuse Alphonsus’ passage (a passage which already contains numerous errors). They falsely assert that by ‘implicit desire’ St. Alphonsus endorsed the heresy of ‘implicit faith in Christ,’ which can save Jews, Muslims, etc. That is completely untrue, as other citations from St. Alphonsus, which we’ve referenced in our material, show.

ST. ALPHONSUS’ USE OF ‘IUXTA’

As demonstrated above, St. Alphonsus’ passage suffers from numerous major defects: 1) he advances a demonstrably untenable position on people being saved without the grace of ‘rebirth’; and 2) he cites the wrong portion of the Council of Trent as a primary basis for his teaching on how the rebirth is not required.

Nevertheless, the BOD advocates, never losing faith in man – at least when they think a man advances an opinion that you don’t need the Church, Jesus or Baptism – fight to the end to defend St. Alphonsus’ error.

The attempt of one BOD supporter recently came to our attention. According to this truly disgusting liar and heretic to whom we shall refer as ‘Amb.,’ MHFM’s assertion that St. Alphonsus cited the wrong part of Trent in his explanation of BOD is not true. ‘Amb.’ says that it’s false for us to assert that Alphonsus referenced Sess. 14, Chap. 4 (the wrong part of Trent) as a basis for his concept; for St. Alphonsus used the Latin word ‘iuxta.’

St. Alphonsus wrote: “… baptism whose place it [‘baptism of blowing’] supplies (iuxta Trid. Sess. 14, c. 4) with respect to the remission of the guilt, but not with respect to the character to be imprinted, nor with respect to the full liability of the punishment to be removed.”

‘Amb.’ claims that the Latin word iuxta doesn’t mean ‘according to’ in this passage. It’s not a citation/reference; rather, ‘Amb.’ declares, iuxta simply means ‘like.’ According to him, St. Alphonsus wasn’t teaching that the concept he articulated in that sentence is found or taught in Sess. 14, Chap. 4. No, not at all. According to ‘Amb.’, Alphonsus was simply teaching that a similar or like idea can be found in Sess. 14, Chap. 4 of Trent.

‘Amb.’ denounced our assertion, that St. Alphonsus actually misquoted Trent, as blatant ‘ignorance or dishonesty.’ Interestingly, ‘Amb.’ then proceeded to completely misquote the Council of Trent’s teaching in Sess. 6, Chap. 4. He employed the outrageously false translation ‘except through’ instead of ‘without’ which totally perverts the meaning of the Latin word ‘sine’ and Trent’s text. Ironically, it also powerfully demonstrates ‘Amb’s’ blatant ‘ignorance or dishonesty.’ To deliberately use the ‘except through’ mistranslation, after being made aware that it’s false, is a mortal sin.

Before responding further, we should probably inform the heretic ‘Amb.’ that Fr. Jean Marc Rulleau and Fr. Francois Laisney – priests of the Society of St. Pius X who authored books in favor of ‘baptism of desire’ – both quote St. Alphonsus’ passage. In their books they both render iuxta and St. Alphonsus’ use of it in regard to Sess. 14, Chap. 4 of Trent with the same meaning we have given to it. They both understand and quote iuxta as a citation/reference, with the meaning of ‘according to.’ For example:

Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau, Baptism of Desire, citing St. Alphonsus: “… 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.”

As we can see, Rulleau renders ‘iuxta’ with the clear sense of a citation/reference. According to him, St. Alphonsus wrote: “As the Council of Trent says (Sess. 14, Chap. 4)…”

Rulleau’s rendering is not a literal translation of the Latin, but it accurately communicates that St. Alphonsus was indeed citing that part of Trent (Sess. 14, Chap. 4) for his concept on ‘BOD’ and for his claim on the temporal punishment due to sin vis-à-vis BOD. According to Rulleau, St. Alphonsus is NOT simply stating that something ‘similar to’ or ‘like’ his concept can be found in Trent. No, he was referencing that portion of Trent to substantiate his claim.

Francois Laisney of the SSPX renders the passage in a similar way.

Fr. Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 77: “… St. Alphonsus:… it [baptism of desire] supplies its [Baptism’s] power, according to Trent, with regard to the remission of the fault, but not the impression of the character, nor with regard to the complete taking away of the punishment due to sin…”

Notice that Francois Laisney renders Alphonsus’ iuxta as ‘according to,’ which is the precise meaning it bears in this passage.

Laisney, however, dishonestly leaves out St. Alphonsus’ reference to Sess. 14, Chap. 4, which should be found immediately after the word ‘Trent’ if he were honestly and correctly translating. Laisney omits ‘Sess. 14, Chap. 4’ because he realizes that St. Alphonsus’ reference is completely inaccurate. Since Laisney recognized that including ‘Sess. 14, Chap. 4’ in Alphonsus’ quote would undermine the argument for BOD, he omits it. This is consistent with the shocking and almost unbelievable dishonesty exhibited throughout Laisney’s book. This is exposed in detail in a section of our book, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation.

As we can see, pro-BOD authors cite St. Alphonsus’ passage, his use of iuxta, and his (inaccurate) reference to Sess. 14 of Trent with the same essential meaning that we do (i.e., in the sense of a citation/reference – meaning ‘according to’).

Since ‘Amb.’ declares that translating St. Alphonsus’ iuxta with the meaning of ‘according to’ is either blatant ‘ignorance or dishonesty,’ he must of necessity castigate his fellow BOD supporters. They are the ones who presented the passage in that way. Moreover, ‘Amb.’ happens to be completely wrong.

ST. ALPHONSUS USED IUXTA TO MEAN ‘ACCORDING TO’

In addition to the facts mentioned above, it’s not a surprise that ‘Amb.’ is, in fact, completely wrong about iuxta. To confirm the point I consulted Timothy Johnson on this matter. Johnson is an expert in Latin and other languages. He is a teacher of Latin who studied classical languages at Cambridge University.

With the recognition that iuxta can mean ‘near to,’ ‘bordering’ and ‘according to,’ depending upon the context, I asked him what sense the word carried in the aforementioned passage from St. Alphonsus.

Timothy responded by explaining that:

“when places or physical entities are referred to, iuxta can mean 'near to' or 'bordering'; but in ecclesiastical Latin it always has the meaning of ‘according to’ when an authority (be it personal, textual or otherwise) is referred to.”

I also asked: is the use of iuxta in this passage of Alphonsus a citation? He responded with a ‘yes.’

Thus, iuxta, when referring to textual authorities in ecclesiastical Latin, means ‘according to.’ St. Alphonsus used it as a citation/reference, with the meaning of ‘according to,’ exactly as we have presented the quote in the past. Thus, by condemning (in arrogant fashion) what we presented, the BOD heretic proved that he had no idea what he was talking about. And, as our discussions of St. Alphonsus' passage have proven, his citation of Sess. 14, Chap. 4 was totally inaccurate and further demonstrates the falsity of his argument.

Moreover, at approximately the same time the BOD heretic’s claim about iuxta came to my attention, I was consulting the Fourth Lateran Council in Latin. I happened to come across a passage in the council which used iuxta.

Fourth Lateran Council, 1215:

Haec sancta Trinitas, secundum communem essentiam individua, et secundum personales proprietates discreta, primo per Moysen et sanctos Prophetas aliosque famulos suos, iuxta ordinatissimam dispositionem temporum, doctrinam humano generi tribuit salutarem.

This is translated:

This Holy Trinity according to common essence undivided, and according to personal properties discrete, granted the saving doctrine to the human race, first through Moses and the holy Prophets and His other servants according to the most orderly disposition of the times.

The Council says ‘iuxta ordinatissimam dispositionem temporum,’ which means ‘according to the most orderly disposition of the times.” Iuxta here means ‘according to.’ I found it somewhat interesting that I came across this passage (in which the Church uses ‘iuxta’ to mean ‘according to’) on the day when (or approximately on the day when) ‘Amb's’ errors, heresies and his claim about iuxta also came to my attention.

I also recently noticed more uses of ‘iuxta’ (again with the meaning of ‘according to’) in the Latin of the 1703 Holy Office Decree under Pope Clement XI, concerning truths that must be believed explicitly. In these answers, which make clear that one is not permitted to baptize any adult who does not believe in Jesus Christ and the Trinity (for no adult can be saved without faith in the Incarnation and the Trinity), we find two uses of ‘iuxta.’

Responses of the Holy Office under Pope Clement XI, 1703:

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 may put into practice what has been commanded him.

Resp. 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.

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 to him only an understanding of God and some of His attributes, especially His justice in rewarding and in punishing, according to this passage of the Apostle "He that cometh to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder' [Heb . 11:6], from which it is inferred that a barbarian adult, in a certain case of urgent necessity, can be baptized although he does not believe explicitly in Jesus Christ.

Resp. 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, according to the capacity of the one to be baptized.”

In the first bolded portion, the Latin reads: “…iuxta hunc Apostoli locum,” which means: “according to this passage of the Apostle.” Iuxta is again used to mean ‘according to.’ In the second bolded portion, the Latin reads: “iuxta captum baptizandi,” which means “according to the capacity of the one to be baptized.” Iuxta again means ‘according to.’

Thus, despite his sickening bombast – not to mention his disgusting bad will and hatred of the truth – ‘Amb.’ was, not surprisingly, completely wrong about iuxta. Even if hadn’t been wrong on that particular issue, his defense of Alphonsus’ quote would still be fatally flawed; for, as proven above, St. Alphonsus’ explanation of BOD is untenable whether or not he misquoted the Council of Trent. The fact that Alphonsus did misquote Trent simply serves to supplement the point that his teaching on this matter was flawed.

Nevertheless, in ‘Amb.’s’ truly demonic blindness and bad will, he proceeded to assert that St. Alphonsus’ explanation of BOD was ‘brilliant’’! Does he really believe that it’s ‘brilliant’? What, in particular, is brilliant about it? Nothing. ‘Amb.’ considers it ‘brilliant’ because he thinks it provides ammunition against the truth that every man must enter Christ’s Church to be saved. BOD supporters don’t have any devotion to the saints they cite. That’s proven when they compromise and deny the teaching of those saints that everyone above the age of reason must know and believe in Christ and the Trinity to be saved. No, they only enjoy the teaching of a saint on this issue if they think it provides fuel for their heretical position that people can be saved outside the Church. Since they are evil, they are attracted to anything they think favors salvation outside of Christ.

St. Alphonsus did write brilliant things, especially on spiritual matters; but he was not infallible and his passage on the issue at hand was anything but brilliant. It was deeply flawed, and it is totally indefensible. Keep in mind that St. Augustine, a Doctor of the Church, wrote a book of retractions.

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

The same principle of course applies to St. Alphonsus and any other doctor of the Church.

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.”

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.’”

Our book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation and our video Baptism of Desire Buried provide a detailed refutation of the arguments advanced for BOD. They also cover an array of dogmatic proof that BOD is incompatible with Catholic teaching.

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312, ex cathedra: “Besides, one baptism regenerating 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.”

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.”

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema.”

Objection Addressed in our book Outside The Catholic Church There Is Absolutely No Salvation

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]...”[1]

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…”[2]

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.”[3]

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.”[4]

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.”[5]

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. Trent says nothing of the sort. If the very premises upon which he argued baptism of desire were flawed and erroneous, how can one be bound to the conclusions that flow from such false premises? In fact, the incredibly dishonest author of the Society of St. Pius X on baptism of desire, Fr. Francois Laisney, does not include St. Alphonsus’s erroneous reference to Sess. 14, Chap. 4 of Trent when Laisney quotes the passage from St. Alphonsus on baptism of desire![6] This is incredibly dishonest, of course, but Fr. Laisney of the SSPX omits it because he knows that St. Alphonsus was wrong in referencing Trent in that way; and, therefore, he knows that it pokes a big hole in his argument in favor of baptism of desire based on the obviously fallible St. Alphonsus.

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 in reference to baptism, not in reference to faith in Jesus Christ and the Trinity. 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 and the basics of the Catholic faith. 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.”[7]

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.”[8]

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, Paradise, Hell, or Eternity; and this deplorable ignorance damns them.”[9]

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, America, or in the midst of heretics and schismatics? He who does not believe is lost. This, then, was the first and greatest grace bestowed on us: our calling to the true faith. O Savior of the world, what would become of us if Thou hadst not enlightened us? We would have been like our fathers of old, who adored animals and blocks of stone and wood: and thus we would have all perished.”[10]

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…”[11]

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 Florence), then such a one would be a heretic and outside the Catholic Church. This proves that it is possible for brilliant saints, who are even doctors of the Church, to err in a very significant way on certain matters of the Faith. Other saints have as well, as I have shown in the section on the fathers.

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.”[12]

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.”[13] - 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 Oxford University… This holy synod, therefore, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, repudiates and condemns, by this perpetual decree, the aforesaid articles and each of them in particular; and it forbids each and every Catholic henceforth, under pain of anathema, to preach, teach, or hold the said articles or any one of them.”[14]

St. Alphonsus is actually the best-selling author of all time, having written more than 111 books, not including his letters.[15] 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.”[16]

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 St. Alphonsus’s conclusions are fallible and that one cannot unfailingly rely upon them.

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.