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
- The Dogma, Pope Pius IX and
Invincible Ignorance– page 105
·
What about Pope Pius IX? – page
107
·
Singulari Quadam (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 promise of Christ
to St. Peter that his faith cannot fail (i.e., is
indefectible) presupposes that Peter’s faith – and the office Jesus establishes
in Peter – is
infallible. For that which is unfailing in matters of faith must be infallible. Papal
Infallibility is therefore directly
connected to Christ’s promise to St. Peter (and his successors) in Luke 22
concerning Peter’s unfailing Faith.
Papal Infallibility is also found in Christ’s promise to Peter in Matthew 16. Jesus declares that whatever Peter binds
(i.e., whatever he declares must be held by the universal Church) is also bound
in Heaven. Since Heaven cannot bind
error, the things St. Peter and his successors bind on the universal Church must always be true. That’s infallibility. Although 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
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 Church of Christ, of which the Roman
Pontiff is the head.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Canons of the Sacrament of Baptism,
Canon 13: “If anyone
says that children, because they have not the act of believing, are not after
having received baptism to be numbered among the faithful, and that for this reason are to be
rebaptized when they have reached the years of discretion; or that it is better
that the baptism of such be omitted than that, while not believing by their own
act, they should be baptized in the faith of the Church alone, let him be anathema.”
It’s a dogma that infants and others become subject to the
authority of the Church when they enter the true Church by receiving the
Sacrament of Baptism.
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).”[lvii]
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).
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, Trent). And since it is not possible to be subject to the Roman Pontiff without
the Sacrament of Baptism, it is not possible to be saved without the Sacrament
of Baptism, since every human creature must be subject to the Roman Pontiff for
salvation (de fide, Boniface VIII).
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.”[lviii]
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.[lix] 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.”[lx]
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.”[lxi]
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.”[lxii]
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.”[lxiii]
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.”[lxiv]
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.”[lxv]
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.”[lxvi]
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.”[lxvii]
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].”[lxviii]
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.”[lxix]
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.”[lxx]
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…”[lxxi]
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.”[lxxii]
- 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.”[lxxiv]
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.”[lxxv]
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.”[lxxvi]
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.[lxxvii]
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.”[lxxix]
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.”[lxxx]
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…”[lxxxi]
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.”[lxxxii]
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).”[lxxxiii]
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…”[lxxxiv]
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.”[lxxxv]
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.”[lxxxvi]
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).”[lxxxvii]
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.”[lxxxviii]
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…”[lxxxix]
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.”[xc]
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.”[xci]
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.”[xcii]
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.”[xciii]
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.”[xciv]
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.”[xcv]
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.”[xcvi]
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.’”[xcviii]
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.”[xcix]
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.”[c]
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…”[ci]
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.”[cii]
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.”[ciii]
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.”[civ]
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.’”[cv]
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.’”[cvi]
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.”[cvii]
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."[cviii]
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.”[cix]
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.”[cx]
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."[cxi]
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."[cxii]
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.”[cxiii]
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.”[cxiv]
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.”[cxv]
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.[cxvi] 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…”[cxvii]
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.”[cxix]
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]…”[cxx]
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.”[cxxi]
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…”[cxxii]
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]…”[cxxiii]
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.”[cxxiv]
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.”[cxxv]
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.’”[cxxvi]
St. Ephraim, c. 350 A.D.: “…
we are anointed in Baptism, whereby we
bear His seal.”[cxxvii]
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!”[cxxviii]
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…”[cxxix]
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.”[cxxx]
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.”[cxxxi]
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.”[cxxxii]
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.”[cxxxiii]
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.”[cxxxiv]
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.”[cxxxv]
St. Ephraim, 366 A.D.:
“This the Most Holy Catholic Church professes. In
this same Holy Trinity She baptizes unto eternal life.”[cxxxvi]
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…”[cxxxvii]
St. Ambrose, 387 A.D.:
“… no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament
of Baptism.”[cxxxviii]
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.”[cxli]
“… God does not forgive sins
except to the baptized.”[cxlii]
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.”[cxliii]
Pope St. Gregory the Great, c. 590 A.D.:
“Forgiveness of sin is bestowed on
us only by the baptism of Christ.”[cxliv]
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.”[cxlv]
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.”[cxlvi]
The eminent scholar Fr. Jurgens is admitting here three important things:
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;
The fathers are so constant on this point that it
likely constitutes divine revelation, without even considering the infallible
teaching of the popes;
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.”[cxlvii]
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.”[cxlviii]
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.”
[cxlix]
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.[cl]
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.”[clii]
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[cliii]
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.’”[cliv]
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…”[clvi]
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.”[clvii]
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.”[clviii]
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.”[clix]
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).[clx] 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.”[clxi]
“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.”[clxii]
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.”[clxiii]
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…”[clxiv]
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…”[clxv]
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…”[clxvi]
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…”[clxvii]
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.”[clxviii]
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…”[clxix]
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…”[clxx]
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]…”[clxxi]
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.”[clxxii]
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.”[clxxiii]
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.”[clxxiv] 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…”[clxxv]
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.”[clxxvi]
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...”[clxxvii]
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.”[clxxix]
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.”[clxxxi]
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.”[clxxxii]
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.”[clxxxiv]
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);[clxxxv]
the unbaptized are not members of the Catholic Church (de fide, Pius XII, Mystici Corporis # 22);[clxxxvi]
and the unbaptized do not have the mark of Christians (de fide, Pius XII, Mediator Dei # 43).[clxxxvii]
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.”[cxcii]
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.”
[cxciii]
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.”[cxciv]
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.”[cxcv]
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.”[cxcvi]
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.”[cxcvii]
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.”[cxcviii]
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’...”[cc]
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…”[cci]
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.”[ccii]
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…”[cciii]
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.”[cciv]
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.”[ccvi]
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.[ccxii]
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.[ccxiii]
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,”[ccxiv]
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.”[ccxvi]
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.”[ccxvii]
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.”[ccxviii]
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.”[ccxx]
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?”[ccxxi]
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.”[ccxxii]
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.”[ccxxiii]
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.”[ccxxiv]
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 the neglect of their neighbors,
depart this life without the saving grace of baptism.”[ccxxv]
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.’”[ccxxx]
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.’”[ccxxxi]
Pope St. Siricius, Decree to Himerius, A.D. 385:
LATIN: “Sicut sacram ergo paschalem
reverentiam in nullo dicimus esse minuendam, ita infantibus qui necdum loqui
poterunt per aetatem vel his, quibus in
qualibet necessitate opus fuerit sacra unda baptismatis, omni volumus celeritate
succurri, ne ad nostrarum perniciem tendat animarum, si negato desiderantibus
fonte salutari exiens unusquisque de saeculo et regnum perdat et vitam.”
“Therefore just as we say that the
holy paschal observance is in no way to be diminished, we also say that to
infants who will not yet be able to speak on account of their age or to those who in any necessity will need the holy stream of baptism,
we wish succor to be brought with all celerity, lest it should tend to the
perdition of our souls if the saving font be denied to those desiring it and
every single one of them exiting this world lose both the Kingdom and life.”
“Quicumque etiam
discrimen naufragii, hostilitatis incursum, obsidionis ambiguum vel cuiuslibet
corporalis aegritudinis desperationem inciderint, et sibi unico credulitatis auxilio poposcerint subveniri, eodem quo poscunt
momento temporis expetitae regenerationis praemia consequantur. Hactenus
erratum in hac parte sufficiat; nunc praefatam regulam omnes teneant sacerdotes,
qui nolunt ab apostolicae petrae, super quam Christus universalem construxit
Ecclesiam, soliditate divelli.”
“Whoever should fall into the
peril of shipwreck, the incursion of an enemy, the uncertainty of a siege or the
desperation of any bodily sickness, and
should beg to be relieved by the unique help of faith, let them
obtain the rewards of the much sought-after regeneration in the same moment of
time in which they beg for it. Let the previous error in this matter be
enough; [but] now let all priests
maintain the aforesaid rule, who do not want to be torn from the solidity of
the apostolic rock upon which Christ constructed His universal Church.”
As we can see, he authoritatively
teaches that even if those adult catechumens who desired Baptism died before receiving it, they will not be
saved. That completely and totally
rejects the idea of “baptism of desire.”
He also teaches that the Sacrament of Baptism is the only way for them to be saved, and that if there is any danger
they should be baptized at once.
Therefore, those who teach that people desiring water baptism can be saved without receiving it contradict
the rule of Catholic faith. Those
who teach that there is any other way for people to be saved other than
receiving the saving font of water baptism contradict the rule of Catholic
faith. As the Pope’s Decree proclaims, receiving
water baptism is the unico auxilio
(the unique help). Unico, which is a form of
unicus,
means “unique;
one-and-only; peerless; unparalleled.”
There can be no alternatives, no other kinds of baptism. Receiving water baptism is the unique,
the only way to be saved – for infants, for those who desire it or happen to be
in any kind of predicament, necessity, illness, etc. That’s the teaching of Pope St.
Siricius.
In this very context he speaks
about the custom of delaying adult baptisms until Paschal time. Paschal time is when the Resurrection is
celebrated. Since Baptism is the
rising from the state of condemnation to new life in Christ (see Colossians
2:12; Romans 6:3-4; etc.), it became customary to celebrate the baptism of adult
converts at Paschal time, after the unbaptized catechumens had undergone a
period of testing and instruction in preparation for the Christian life. As this decree and others clearly prove,
the custom of delaying adult baptisms until Paschal time was not incompatible
with the position – and the Church’s infallible teaching – that all those
preparing for baptism would indeed be lost if they died before receiving it. No one can be saved without Baptism, as
Jesus declared in John 3:5 and the Church infallibly teaches. God can and will keep good-willed and
sincere souls alive until Baptism.
He is in control.
The practice of baptizing adult
converts at Paschal time – and the custom of an extended catechumenate –was a
disciplinary one. It was not a
requirement of Apostolic Tradition, as we see in Acts chapter 8. There we read that Philip baptized the
Eunuch of Candace after a very brief discussion of the basics of the Christian
faith. So, while declaring that the
holy Paschal observance is to be continued, Siricius adds that if these
unbaptized catechumens find themselves in any necessity at all, they are to be
baptized with all celerity, that is, with all swiftness or right away. He then explains why he’s insistent on
this point. He declares that they
must be baptized right away in any kind of necessity, “lest it should tend to the perdition of our souls if the saving font be
denied to those desiring it and every single one of them exiting this world
lose both the Kingdom and life.”
The Pope teaches that all those who desire water baptism, but die without
receiving, will not be saved.
That refutes the idea of “baptism of desire.” For a full discussion of Siricius’
decree, and how it completely refutes “baptism of desire,” see our video on that
matter.
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.”[ccxxxii]
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.”[ccxxxiv]
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 divin