The False Doctrine of 'Baptism of Desire' on Display - Adolphe Tanquerey

Bro. Peter Dimond The quote below is another example of a ‘theologian’ before Vatican II who gave the false explanation of ‘baptism of desire,’ according to which one can be justified without being reborn or having the temporal punishment due to sin remitted.  (By the way, almost all the ‘theologians’ in the years just before Vatican II also believed that souls could be saved in any religion and completely repudiated defined salvation dogma.)  For those who aren’t familiar with the Catholic teaching on why it’s wrong to assert that one can be justified or saved without being reborn and having the temporal punishment due to sin remitted, see the video and the quotes below. The following explanation is typical of how ‘baptism of desire’ was propounded.  This shows, once again, that the doctrine itself is false.  ‘Theologian’ after ‘theologian’ was simply feeding people a false doctrine.  These examples are significant because the enemies of the necessity of the Catholic Church in our day base their positions on the views of fallible pre-Vatican II theologians.  In many cases, they were the men whose errors and heresies paved the way for the Vatican II apostasy.

Adolphe Tanquerey (d. 1932), A Manual of Dogmatic Theology. Vol. II., New York: Desclee Company, 1959, pp. 227-229.: "Contrition or perfect charity, along with at least an implicit desire for Baptism, supplies for the forces of Baptism of water as to remission of sins... An implicit desire for Baptism is included in a general resolution to fulfill all the precepts of God.  It is certainly sufficient in one who is invincibly ignorant of the law of Baptism; likewise, it very probably is sufficient in one who knows the need of Baptism.  Perfect charity, together with the desire for Baptism, indeed remits original sin and actual sins, and in like manner infuses sanctifying grace; but it does not imprint the baptismal character, nor of itself does it remit the entire temporal punishment due to sin. Wherefore the obligation remains to receive Baptism of water when the opportunity is given.”

Tanquerey teaches that one can be justified without having the temporal punishment due to sin removed.  His statement is contrary to Catholic teaching.  The Church teaches that the temporal punishment due to sin is necessarily removed by the grace of rebirth/baptism, and that one must have that grace to even be justified.  Moreover, the notion that one can be incorporated into Christ (which is necessary for justification and salvation) without becoming entirely new (and therefore having everything taken away) is contrary to the clear teaching of the New Testament on the new birth.  ‘Baptism of desire’ is opposed to dogmatic teaching and the clear testimony of Holy Scripture.

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… 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.”

Notice, the effect of rebirth or baptism is that everything is removed (the guilt of sin and the temporal punishment due to sin), so that a person who dies in that state is not delayed in any way from immediately entering Heaven.  (The temporal punishment due to sin is what can delay those who die in grace from immediately entering Heaven.)  One must be born again (i.e., have everything removed) to even be justified (put into a state of grace).

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.” Council of Trent, Sess. 5, Original Sin, # 5, ex cathedra: “FOR IN THOSE WHO ARE BORN AGAIN, there is nothing that God hates… 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.”

The explanation of 'baptism of desire' advanced by Tanquerey and others is that 'baptism of desire' justifies without granting rebirth or the removal of the temporal punishment due to sin.  That explanation is clearly false, as the teaching above proves.  The reason 'theologians' erred so greatly in attempting to explain 'baptism of desire' is that the doctrine they were defending ('baptism of desire') is itself false.

www.vaticancatholic.com