The Errors of Michael Du Bay

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.”[1] - 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.”[2] - 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.”[3]

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…”[4]

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."[5] - 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 Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”[6]

Therefore….

St. Francis De Sales (17^th 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..."[7]

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. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ."

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), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope."

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.”[8]

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 Spokane, Washington, for example, recently published a pamphlet and an article on baptism of desire.  The pamphlet and the article not only totally misquoted the Council of Trent’s teaching in Sess. 6, Chap. 4 (using “except through” instead of “without”), but quite dishonestly used the above errors of Michael Du Bay as a “proof” for baptism of desire.  In using these tactics in their pamphlet and article, the CMRI deceived their readers who don’t care enough about the Faith to examine the issue carefully and weigh the merits of their argument – those readers who simply believed what the CMRI concluded because it seemed documented, which is probably a great number.  This is how heretics kill souls and lead them astray.