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 divine promise suffices to obtain grace:
let him be anathema."
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6,
Can. 19: "If anyone shall say that nothing except faith is commanded in the
Gospel... let him be anathema."
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6,
Chap. 11: "And so no one should flatter himself because of faith alone,
thinking that by faith alone he is made an heir and will obtain the
inheritance, even though he suffer not with Christ 'that he may be also
glorified' (Rom. 8:17)."
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6,
Chap. 10: "'You see, that by works a man is justified and not by faith
alone' (Jas. 2:24)."
I’m sure
that St. Bernard did not really believe that faith alone justifies and saves
(Luther’s heretical doctrine); but this is the phrase he uses above three times! This brings home the point with crystal
clarity: that if one is going to dogmatize the teachings of saints (as many
baptism of desire advocates like to do) and quote them as proof texts, then one
is going to wind up with a lot of error and even heresy. And it proves again that St. Bernard’s
utterances are not teachings of the Catholic Church, but fallible opinions about
which he could be wrong (as he himself admits) and, in this case, about which he
is definitely wrong.
Fourth,
in expressing his opinion on baptism of desire, St. Bernard says that one can be
prevented from receiving baptism through some “invincible power.” This is also theologically incorrect. God is Almighty; He alone is the
“invincible power”! Nothing can
prevent Him from getting a good willed soul to 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’...”[ccxxxv]
And
ironically, by making the aforementioned statement on a catechumen being
prevented from receiving baptism by some “invincible power,” St. Bernard is also
directly contradicting
All of
this proves that St. Bernard’s endorsement of baptism of desire was very flawed,
contradictory, admittedly fallible, and based solely on what he deemed to
be the opinions of men. It holds no
weight even for a moment against the flawless, perfectly consistent, infallible
dogma, which proclaims that no man can be saved without the Sacrament of
Baptism.
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.”[ccxxxvii]
And this tradition of man (baptism of desire) gained
more momentum after St. Bernard, when St. Thomas Aquinas unfortunately made it
his own, based again on the few passages in St. Augustine, the one in St.
Ambrose, and his own speculative theological reasoning.
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS
St. Thomas Aquinas, despite all of his fabulous writing and learning about the
Catholic Faith, being a fallible human being, was wrong on many points,
including his explicit statement in the
Summa Theologica that “The flesh of
the Virgin was conceived in Original Sin.”[ccxxxviii] One scholar noted that the book
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…”[ccxli]
In Summa Theologica III, Q. 66, Art. 11,
“The other
two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its
efficacy, both from Christ’s Passion and of the Holy Ghost.”[ccxlii]
With all due respect to St. Thomas, this is a feeble attempt to answer the
objection as to how there can be “three baptisms” when God reveals that there is
only one. It is feeble because St.
Thomas says that the other two baptisms, desire and blood, are included in the baptism of water; but this is false. One who receives baptism of water doesn’t
receive baptism of desire and baptism of blood, even according to the baptism of
desire advocates. Therefore, it is
false to say, as
Furthermore, in teaching the theory of baptism of desire, St. Thomas
repeatedly admitted that neither is a sacrament.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, Q. 66, A. 11, Answer 2: “As stated above, a
sacrament is a kind of sign. The
other two [baptism of desire and blood], however, are like the Baptism of Water,
not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect.
Consequently
they are not sacraments.”[ccxliii]
The fierce baptism of desire advocate, Fr. Laisney, admits the same in his book, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 9:
Fr. Laisney,
Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 9: “Baptism of Desire is not a sacrament;
it does not have the exterior sign required in the sacraments. The theologians, following St. Thomas…
call it ‘baptism’ only because it produces the grace of baptism… yet it does not
produce the sacramental character.”[ccxliv]
But the Council of Trent (a few centuries after
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, 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.”[ccxlv]
So, whom does one follow,
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, Q. 68, Art. 2: “… it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible
sanctification…”
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.”[ccxlvi]
There is an obvious contradiction here.
The fallible St. Thomas Aquinas says that it is possible to obtain salvation
without the Sacrament of Baptism, while the infallible Council of Trent
defines that the sacrament is necessary for salvation. And what does “necessary” mean? According to Part III, Q. 68, A. 2, Obj.
3 in
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.”[ccxlviii]
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.’”[ccxlix]
Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi dominic gregis (#45), Sept. 8, 1907: “It goes without
saying that if anything is met with among
the scholastic doctors which may be regarded as an excess of subtlety, or
which is altogether destitute of probability, We have no desire whatever to propose it for the imitation of present
generations.”[ccl]
And just in case anyone argues that one can receive the Sacrament of
Baptism without water, I will quote the Council of Trent’s definition in
Can. 2.
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2
on the Sacrament of Baptism, Session 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.”[ccli]
THE DOGMATIC
COUNCIL OF
It would have been interesting to see, however, what
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.”[cclii]
This definition is crucial to this discussion, because one cannot affirm one
baptism of water and at the same time obstinately cling to the belief that there
are “three baptisms,” two of which are not of water. That is a clear contradiction. Those who understand and comprehend this
dogma must repudiate the so-called “three baptisms.”
ST. THOMAS REJECTED “INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE”
It is also very important to point out that while St. Thomas Aquinas was wrong
on baptism of desire, he held the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation
and rejected the modern day heresy that people can be saved who are “invincibly
ignorant” of Jesus Christ. In
numerous places St. Thomas directly addressed the question of persons in
so-called invincible ignorance.
St. Thomas Aquinas, De
Veritate, 14, A. 11, ad 1: Objection- “It is possible
that someone may be brought up in the forest, or among wolves; such a man cannot
explicitly know anything about the faith.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. II, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4: “If a man born among barbarian
nations, does what he can, God Himself will show him what is necessary for
salvation, either by inspiration or sending a teacher to him.”[ccliv]
St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2,
solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him,
unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.”[cclv]
In the Summa Theologica,
Therefore,
We have seen how Tradition doesn’t teach
baptism of desire and how the infallible teaching of the Church on the Sacrament
of Baptism and John 3:5 excludes it.
And we have seen how this error was perpetuated in the middle ages through
flawed passages in the fallible texts of Churchmen.
I will now discuss perhaps the most interesting pronouncement on this
issue, the dogmatic letter of Pope St. Leo the Great to Flavian, which excludes
the exact concept of baptism of desire and baptism of blood.
Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to
Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:
“Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter
preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of
Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the same
apostle’s words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of
life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but
by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot
(1 Pet. 1:18). Nor should he
withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of
Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin (1 Jn. 1:7); and
again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith. Who is there who conquers the world save
one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in
water only, but in water and blood.
And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who
give testimony – Spirit and water and blood.
And the three are one.
(1 Jn. 5:4-8) IN OTHER WORDS,
THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF
BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND
REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS
SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”[cclviii]
Before I get into the tremendous significance of this pronouncement, I will give
a little background on this dogmatic letter.
This is Pope St. Leo the Great’s famous dogmatic letter to Flavian,
originally written in 449, and later accepted by the Council of Chalcedon – the fourth general council of the Church – in
451 (quoted in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Georgetown Press, Vol.
1, pp. 77-82). It is one of the most
important documents in the history of the Church. This is the famous letter which, when
read aloud at the dogmatic Council of Chalcedon, caused all of the
fathers of the council (more than 600) to rise to their feet and proclaim: “This
is the faith of the Fathers, the faith of the apostles; Peter has spoken
through the mouth of Leo.”
The very letter in itself embodies the term ex cathedra (speaking from
the Chair of Peter), as proven by the reaction of the fathers at
And if that were not
sufficient to prove that Pope Leo’s letter is without question infallible and
dogmatic, consider the fact that it was also approved by Pope Vigilius at the
Second Council of Constantinople (553)[cclix]
and by the dogmatic Third Council of Constantinople (680-681).[cclx] It was also confirmed infallibly by a
number of other popes, including: Pope St. Gelasius, 495,[cclxi]
Pope Pelagius II, 553,[cclxii]
and Pope Benedict XIV, nuper ad nos, 1743.[cclxiii]
Because of the tremendous significance of Pope Leo’s letter to the topic at
hand, I will quote an extract from Pope St. Gelasius which shows how no one can
contradict, in the slightest way, this dogmatic epistle of Pope St. Leo to
Flavian.
Pope St. Gelasius, Decretal, 495: “Also
the epistle of blessed Leo the Pope to Flavian… if anyone argues concerning the
text of this one even in regard to one iota, and does not receive it in all
respects reverently, let him be anathema.”[cclxiv]
Here we have Pope St. Gelasius speaking ex cathedra to condemn anyone who
would depart, even in regard to one iota, from the text of Pope Leo’s dogmatic
epistle to Flavian.
Now, in the section of Pope Leo’s dogmatic letter quoted above, he is dealing
with Sanctification by the Spirit.
“Sanctification by the Spirit” is the term for Justification from
the state of sin. Justification is
the state of grace. No one can
get to heaven without Sanctification by the Spirit [Justification], as
everyone professing to be Catholic admits.
Pope St. Leo affirms, on the authority of the great apostles Sts. Peter and
John, that this Sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of
Christ’s Blood. It is only
by receiving the Blood of Redemption, he proves, that one can be changed from
the state of Adam (original sin) to the state of grace
(justification/sanctification). It
is only by this Blood that Sanctification by the Spirit works. This dogma was also defined by the
Council of Trent.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 5, on
original sin, ex cathedra: “If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam...
is taken away either by the forces of human nature, or by any remedy other than
the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who has reconciled
us to God in his own blood, ‘made unto us justice, sanctification,
and redemption’ (1 Cor. 1:30); or if he denies that the merit of Jesus
Christ is applied to adults as well as to infants by the sacrament of baptism…
let him be anathema.”[cclxv]
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6,
Chap. 3, ex cathedra: “But although Christ died for all, yet not all
receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit
of His Passion is communicated.”[cclxvi]
It is a divinely revealed truth that no one can be freed from the state of sin
and sanctified without the application of the Blood of Redemption to him. Of this no Catholic can doubt.
Baptism of desire/blood advocates – and this
would also include the St. Benedict Center, since they also believe in
justification by desire – argue
that the Blood of Redemption, which effects the Sanctification by the Spirit, is
applied to the soul by the desire for baptism or by his martyrdom,
without water baptism. Remember
that: baptism of desire/blood advocates argue that
the Blood of Redemption, which effects Sanctification by the Spirit, is
applied to the soul without water baptism. But this is exactly the
opposite of what Pope Leo the Great defines dogmatically! I will quote the crucial portions of his
statement again:
Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:
“Let him
heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit
is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2)… It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through
water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is
the Spirit who testifies. For there
are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF
SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF
BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND
REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS
SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”[cclxvii]
Pope
This infallibly excludes the very concept of baptism of desire and baptism of
blood, which is that sanctification by
the Spirit and the Blood
without water is possible.
In light of this dogmatic letter, as well as the other facts already brought
forward, baptism of desire and baptism of blood cannot be held; for these
theories separate the Spirit and the Blood from the water in sanctification.
And lest someone tries to find fault with this infallible definition by arguing
that the Blessed Virgin Mary is an exception to it, it should be recognized that
Pope St. Leo is defining on sanctification/justification from the state
of sin.
Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to
Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:
“Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter
preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by
the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the
same apostle’s words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty
way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and
silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or
spot (1 Pet. 1:18). Nor should
he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of
Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin (1 Jn. 1:7)…”
The Blessed Virgin Mary had no sin.
She was conceived already in a state of perfect sanctification. Since Pope Leo is defining on
sanctification/justification from sin, his definition does not apply in any way
to her.
Therefore, there can be no Justification of a sinner without water
baptism (de fide). There can
be no application to a sinner of Christ’s Redemptive Blood without water baptism
(de fide). There can be no
salvation without water baptism (de fide).
To further prove the point that this dogmatic pronouncement specifically
eliminates the entire theory of baptism of desire, notice how St. Thomas
Aquinas (in teaching baptism of desire) says exactly the opposite of what Pope
St. Leo the Great defined.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, Q. 68, Art. 2: “…a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism,
by means of the invisible
sanctification…”
Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to
Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:
“IN OTHER
WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION
AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM.
THESE
THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE.
NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”[cclxviii]
The significance of Pope St. Leo’s pronouncement is extraordinary. It naturally crushes any idea of
salvation for the supposedly “invincibly ignorant.”
These souls cannot be sanctified and cleansed by the Blood of
Christ without receiving the saving waters of baptism, which God will bring to
all of good will.
The dogma that the Blood of Christ is applied to a sinner in the Sacrament of
Baptism was defined by the Council of Trent; however, the definition is not as
specific as Pope Leo’s. The
difference is that, whereas
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 5, on
original sin, ex cathedra: “If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam... is taken away either by the
forces of human nature, or by any remedy other than the merit of the one
mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who has reconciled us to God in his own
blood,
‘made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption’ (1 Cor. 1:30);
or if he denies that the merit of Jesus Christ is applied to adults as
well as to infants by the sacrament of baptism… let him be anathema.”[cclxix]
Pope St. Leo’s pronouncement also radically confirms the Church’s
consistent understanding of the words of Jesus Christ in John 3:5 in their
absolutely literal sense: Unless a man is born again of water and the Spirit, he
cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
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.”[cclxx]
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On
Original Sin, Session V: “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].”[cclxxi]
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons
on the Sacrament of Baptism, Session 7, canon 2, 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.”[cclxxii]
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons
on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, ex cathedra: “If
anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf.
Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”[cclxxiii]
One can see the harmony of Pope St. Leo the Great’s dogmatic pronouncement with
all of these others: there is no salvation without water and the Spirit
because the Blood of Christ – without which no one is justified – is itself
inseparable from the water and the Spirit.
Those who comprehend this pronouncement from Pope St. Leo must reject any belief
in the theories of baptism of desire and blood.
They must admit that the theologians who believed in baptism of desire
and blood were mistaken. They must
cease believing and teaching that Sanctification by the Spirit comes without the water of baptism. Those who refuse to do this are
obstinately
contradicting the teaching of the Church.
To obstinately contradict the teaching of the Church is to fall into
heresy. To fall into heresy without
repentance is to lose one’s salvation.
Some may
wonder why some saints and theologians taught baptism of desire and blood even
after the time of Pope Leo’s pronouncement.
The answer is simple: They were unaware of Pope Leo’s definitive pronouncement
in this regard; they were erring in good faith; they were fallible human beings;
they were not aware that their position was contrary to this infallible teaching
of the Catholic Church.
But once
one recognizes that this position on baptism of desire and blood is contrary to
the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church – as a careful consideration of
Pope Leo’s pronouncement proves – one must change his position if he wants to
remain Catholic and save his soul.
St. Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo and confirmed for us that the
Spirit of Sanctification and the Blood of redemption cannot be separated from
their link with water baptism, so we must align our position with this or else
we don’t have the faith of Peter.
16. Major Objections
SESS. 6, CHAP. 4 OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
OBJECTION– In
Session 6, Chapter 4 of its Decree on Justification, the Council of Trent
teaches that justification can take place through the water of baptism or the desire for it.
ANSWER– No, it doesn’t. It actually
teaches that justification cannot take place without water baptism or the desire for it, as it is written: unless
a man is born again of water and the Spirit he cannot be saved. That’s
quite different.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words
there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there
is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the
first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the
second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel
has been promulgated, CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT the laver of regeneration or a
desire for it, AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man is born again of
water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”
[Preliminary Note: If
Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent were teaching what the baptism of desire advocates
claim (which it isn’t), then it would mean that every man must receive baptism or at least have the actual desire/vow for baptism to be saved.
It would mean that it would be heresy to say that any unbaptized person could be
saved if he doesn’t have at least the desire/vow for water baptism. But 99% of the people who quote
this passage in favor of baptism of desire don’t even believe that one must
desire baptism to be saved. They believe that Jews, Buddhists, Hindus,
Muslims, etc. can be saved who don’t desire water baptism.
Thus, 99% of those who quote this passage reject even what they claim it is teaching.
Frankly, this fact just shows the dishonesty and the bad will of most baptism of
desire advocates in attempting to quote this passage as if they were devoted to
its teaching when, in fact, they don’t believe in it at all and are in heresy
for teaching that non-Catholics can be saved who don’t even desire water
baptism.]
We will now consider the facts which prove that this passage of the
Council of Trent does not teach that
justification can take place by the water of
baptism or the desire for it.
We will cover five primary points: 1) English examples that prove
our point about this passage; 2) Latin examples that prove our point about this
passage; 3) the common mistranslation of this passage, which has misled so many
on this matter; 4) the passage’s declaration that John 3:5 is to be understood
“as it is written”; and 5) a stunning dogmatic precedent that the Latin word aut has been used with sine in an inclusive sense.
First, the passage has been grossly mistranslated in
the popular English version of Denzinger, the Sources of Catholic Dogma. This
false and misleading translation has been dishonestly repeated by many
supporters of “baptism of desire”, despite their awareness (in many cases) that
the translation is inaccurate.
The false translation changes the meaning of the Latin word sine from “without”
(its actual meaning) to “except through.” Trent’s passage actually says
that justification cannot happen without water baptism or a desire for it, as it is written [John 3:5] – not
that justification cannot happen “except through” water baptism or a desire for it.
The false translation completely alters the theological meaning of Trent’s
assertion; for to state that something cannot happen without x or y is not to state that it can happen by either
x or y.
ENGLISH EXAMPLES TO PROVE THE POINT
Let’s
consider examples in both English and Latin to prove the point. Here
are three examples in English:
This paper cannot be written without pad
or pencil.
Does that mean
that the paper can be written with the pad alone or with the pencil alone?
Obviously not. It means that you need both.
This sacrament cannot take place without
matter or form.
Does that mean that the sacrament can
take place with matter, even though there is no form? Obviously not.
It means that you need both.
This wedding cannot take place without a
bride or a groom.
Does that mean
that a groom without a bride is sufficient for the wedding? Obviously not.
It means that you need both. In the same way, the sentence structure in
Sess. 6 Chap. 4 does not mean that desire without the laver of regeneration is
sufficient for justification. You need both.
It’s also
important to remember that when “baptism of desire” advocates attempt to respond
to these examples, they are unable to do so. Instead, they are forced to
use examples that are not faithful to the sentence structure given in this
passage. They will often slightly alter the wording of the passage in the
example they are providing by turning the sentence into a positive either/or
statement. They often don’t respond with examples that declare: “cannot
take place without”. That’s because Trent’s sentence structure does not
support or prove their point.
Further, even if
one held that the syntax of the first half of Sess. 6, Chap. 4 is somewhat
ambiguous, and might be interpreted as requiring one or both elements, Trent’s
position that no one can be saved without water baptism is affirmed in the very same sentence in
the words that immediately follow.
THE
VERY PASSAGE – INDEED, THE VERY SAME SENTENCE – DECLARES THAT JOHN 3:5 IS TO BE
UNDERSTOOD “AS IT IS WRITTEN,”
WHICH IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH “BAPTISM OF DESIRE”
Before we look at examples in Latin which also prove our point, the reader should also notice
that, in this very passage, the Council of Trent teaches that John 3:5 is to be
taken as it is written (Latin: sicut scriptum est). This excludes
any possibility of salvation without being born again of water in the
Sacrament of Baptism; for baptism of desire cannot be true if John
3:5 is to be taken as it is written. John 3:5 declares that every man must
be born again of water and the Spirit
to be saved, which is what the theory of baptism of desire denies. The theory
of baptism of desire and an interpretation of John 3:5 “as it is written” are
mutually exclusive. Every baptism of desire proponent will admit
this. That is why all of them must opt for a non-literal interpretation of John 3:5.
Fr. Francois Laisney (Believer in Baptism
of Desire), Is Feeneyism Catholic, p. 33: “Fr. Feeney’s greatest
argument was that Our Lord’s words, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5) mean the absolute necessity
of baptism of water with no exception whatsoever… The great question is, then,
how did the Church explain these words of Our Lord?”
Fr. Laisney, a fierce baptism of desire advocate, is admitting here
that John 3:5 cannot be understood as it is written if
baptism of desire is true. He therefore holds that the true understanding of
John 3:5 is that it does not apply literally to all men; that is, John 3:5 is
not to be taken as it is written. But how does the Catholic Church
understand these words? What does the passage in Trent that we just discussed
say: It says infallibly, “AS IT IS WRITTEN, UNLESS A MAN IS BORN AGAIN OF WATER AND THE HOLY GHOST, HE CANNOT
ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD.” This indicates that the passage
is not teaching that people can be justified or saved without the rebirth of
water and the Spirit. The literal understanding of John 3:5 (as it is
written) is what we find in every dogmatic pronouncement on the topic.
Indeed, if Trent were teaching “baptism
of desire,” one would find a full explanation of the idea in the Decree on
Justification and/or in the canons on Baptism. However, there is nothing
about “baptism of desire” anywhere because Trent was not teaching it.
There is also no mention of “baptism of blood” anywhere in Trent’s decree
because Trent was not teaching the “three baptisms”.
“BOD” ADVOCATES COMMIT A SOPHISM/FALLACY
OF FALSE CAUSE
“Sophism of false cause is the deception arising from
assuming something as the cause of an effect which in reality is not its cause.
What is assumed as a cause may be: a) something prior in time (after this,
therefore on account of this); b) something contemporaneous (with this,
therefore on account of this); c) an occasion; d) a condition; e) an empty
name: v.g. there is no thought without the
brain; therefore the brain is the cause of the thought.” (Henri Grenier, Thomistic Philosophy, Vol. 1, 1948, p. 248).
As this quote from a Thomistic philosophy manual shows, the sophism
of false cause is the error of assuming something to be the cause of an effect
when it is merely a condition. To say that there is no thought without the
brain does not mean that the brain is the cause of the thought. Likewise,
to say that justification cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or
without the desire for it [as it is written, John 3:5] does not prove that justification can
take place by the desire for baptism without the laver of regeneration or that
desire is a cause of justification. Desire is, rather, a condition
necessary for adult justification. It is not a cause of first
justification. Trent’s teaching that desire is a condition (not a cause) of first justification in
adults served to refute the Protestant heresy which denied free will and held
that grace is irresistible.
THOSE
ABOVE REASON MUST DESIRE WATER BAPTISM IN ORDER TO BE JUSTIFIED
The reason the word “desire” is mentioned in the context of Sess.
6, Chap. 4 is that this chapter of Trent’s decree deals with adult
justification: iustificationis impii (the justification of the
impious). “Impious” is a strong description that concerns those above the
age of reason who are guilty of actual and mortal sin. In chapter 4 and
the following chapters of the Decree on Justification, Trent is concerned with
justification for those above the age of reason, as the context clearly shows.
It was in Session 5 on Original Sin that Trent dealt with infants’ transition to
justification. As is the case with adults, the only way for infants to be
justified is through the Sacrament of Baptism. However, since adults and
those above reason must also desire the sacrament in order to be justified
by it, chapter 4 of Trent specified that justification cannot happen without a desire.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, On
Baptism – Dispositions for Baptism, p. 180: “INTENTION … In the first place they must desire and
intend to receive it…
PREREQUISITE VS. CAUSE
It’s also very important to note that
chapter 4, which mentions the word “desire/vow” in the context of the
prerequisites for justification (not as something that brings about
justification), is a ”description” (descriptio) of the Justification of the Impious: “Insinuatur descriptio iustificationis
impii…”
In a description of what will be present in adult justification, the desire
for baptism will necessarily be mentioned. However, chapter 7 of the
Decree on Justification deals with the “causes” (causae) of
justification: “Cap. 7. Quid sit iustificatio
impii, et quae eius causae.”
In defining the causes of
justification, only the Sacrament of Baptism is mentioned. It alone is the
instrumental cause. That’s because receiving the Sacrament of Baptism is
the only way to be justified.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6,
Chap. 7, the Causes of Justification: “The causes of this Justification are: the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ… the efficient cause is truly a merciful God… the meritorious cause is His most beloved and
only-begotten Son… the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism,
which is the sacrament of faith, without faith no one is ever
justified… 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…”[cclxxxix]
In listing all the causes of
justification, why didn’t the Council mention the possibility of “baptism of
desire”? It had ample opportunity to do so, just as it clearly taught no fewer than
three times that the reconciliation provided by the Sacrament of Penance can be
obtained by perfect contrition and the desire for that sacrament (Sess. 14,
Chap. 4; and twice in Sess. 6, Chap. 14). Desire, martyrdom, contrition are
nowhere to be found in Trent’s decree on the causes of first justification
because they cannot grant first justification. Only water baptism grants
first justification. “Baptism of desire” is not mentioned because it’s not
a true doctrine. In fact, a careful consideration of Sess. 14, Chap. 4 of
Trent on the Sacrament of Penance supports this point.
In Sess. 14, Chap. 4 Trent declares that a baptized person who
has fallen into grave sin can be reconciled to God (and thus restored to
justification) through perfect contrition and a desire for the Sacrament of
Penance.
Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 4 on
the Sacrament of Penance, Latin: “Docet praeterea, etsi contritionem hanc
aliquando caritate perfectam esse contingat hominemque Deo reconciliare
priusquam hoc sacramentum actu suscipiatur, ipsam nihilominus reconciliationem ipsi contritioni sine sacramenti voto,
quod in illa includitur, non esse adscribendam.”
Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 4, On the Sacrament of Penance: “The Council
teaches, furthermore, that although this contrition sometimes happens to be
perfect through charity and to reconcile man to God before this sacrament is
actually received, nonetheless this reconciliation ought not to be ascribed to
the contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament which is included in
it.”
Trent teaches that perfect contrition (in
a baptized person who has fallen) is able “to reconcile” (reconciliare) man to
God before the Sacrament
of Penance is received; but that the “reconciliationem” (the reconciliation) to
God “non esse adscribendam” (ought not to be ascribed) to the perfect contrition
alone without the desire for the Sacrament of Penance. In the Latin,
“adscribendam” (to be ascribed) is a feminine accusative singular gerundive
agreeing with “reconcilationem” (reconciliation). Therefore, in Trent’s
teaching the “reconciliation” (which brings justification to a
fallen baptized person prior to the Sacrament of Penance) is directly ascribed, imputed or attributed to perfect contrition
and the desire for the Sacrament of Penance. Consider that
carefully; for it proves that (according to Trent) perfect contrition with the
desire for the Sacrament of Penance is a CAUSE of reconciliation to God (and restoration to
justification) in a baptized person who has fallen into grave sin. Reconciliation is ascribed to
them.
They are the things which, along with God’s grace, effectuate it or bring it
about.
Hence, if ‘baptism of desire’ were true – i.e., if ‘desire’ for the
Sacrament of Baptism and/or contrition could bring about justification in an
unbaptized person, as perfect contrition and the desire for the Sacrament of
Penance can bring justification to a fallen baptized person without the
Sacrament of Penance – Trent would have included the concept of “desire” under the “causes” of first
justification.
However, as stated above, Trent has a
chapter on the “causes” of justification and doesn’t mention anything of the
sort. There is nothing taught about “desire,” contrition or martyrdom
being a cause of justification in the unbaptized simply because “baptism of
desire” is a false doctrine. If it were a true doctrine, it would have
been stated; but it’s not the teaching of the Catholic Church. Rather,
Trent teaches that the Sacrament of Baptism alone is the instrumental cause of
justification because justification only comes to the baptized, as every
dogmatic definition dealing with the Sacrament of Baptism’s necessity and John
3:5 proves.
I also discussed the Latin of Sess. 6 Chap. 4 with someone I know.
His name is Timothy Johnson. He’s an expert in Latin and other languages.
He studied classical languages at Cambridge University in England. He
agrees that the passage does not teach that one can be justified by the desire
for water baptism. He emphasizes that it uses the preposition sine, meaning
“without”, and he considers the common mistranslation of “without” to “except
through” to be outrageous. By the way, the CMRI is one group (among many)
that obstinately employs the false “except through” translation.
Here’s what
Timothy Johnson said about this passage:
Timothy Johnson: “… the preposition
‘without’ (sine) governs both lavacro and voto. As for the translation in Denzinger which
reads ‘except through’ instead of ‘without’, that is grammatically indefensible
and theologically malicious. It dissolves the very idea of a set of prerequisites and
replaces it with a series of alternatives. Truly diabolical!”
As he explains, sine (the preposition which means “without”) governs
“lavacro” (laver) which is in the ablative case, and “voto” (desire), which is
also in the ablative case. “Without” applies to both words. It could
thus be translated: it [justification] cannot take place without water baptism or
without the desire for it, as it is written….
The passage does not say that justification “can” happen “by” this
or that. It states that it “cannot” happen “without” this or that, “as it
is written” (sicut scriptum est).
“Cap. 4. Insinuatur uxuriate
iustificationis impii, et modus eius in statu gratiae – Quibus verbis
iustificationis impii uxuriate uxuriate, ut sit uxuriate ab eo statu, in quo
homo nascitur filius primi Adae, in statum gratiae et adoptionis filiorum [Rom.
8:15] Dei, per secundum Adam Iesum Christum Salvatorem nostrum; quae uxuriate
post Evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non
potest, sicut scriptum est:
‘Nisi quis uxuria fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, non potest introire in
regnum Dei’ (John 3:5).”
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words
there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there
is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the
first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the
second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, after the gospel
having had been promulgated, CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT (sine) the
laver of regeneration or a desire for it, AS IT IS WRITTEN (sicut scriptum est): Unless a man is born again of
water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”
And if you’re looking for a confirmation right in this passage that
there is no departure from the absolute necessity of water baptism, it comes in
the very words which follow the words we are discussing. It comes with the
words, as it is written: sicut scriptum est.
Sicut scriptum est is perfect indicative passive.
Literally, it means: “as it is, having been written.” It can be
translated, “as it was written”; “as it has been written”; or “as it is
written.” It’s a declaration, within that very sentence, that there is
perfect harmony with the understanding of John 3:5 “as it is written” that we
find throughout the Council of Trent and in the Council of Florence. We
will look at those examples in a bit.
In fact, in pondering this passage, it struck me that if the
misunderstanding, mistranslation and misuse of this passage has been the source
of so much heresy and evil (as it has), then it would make sense that God in His
providence and in His goodness would leave a clear indication in the very
passage that to advance anything that contradicts John 3:5 “as it is written” is
false; and God did leave this indication (with the words “as it is written”) in
the very words that follow the words that have been so misunderstood, perverted
and misused. In fact, God left a similar indication of how the word aut (or) can be used
in an inclusive way in another dogmatic statement of extreme relevance.
LATIN
EXAMPLES TO PROVE THE POINT
Now let’s consider examples in Latin to prove the point. In
an attempt to defend their false view of this passage, “baptism of desire”
advocates frequently assert that the Latin word aut (which means “or”) cannot be used in an inclusive way, as we
are contending that it is. Rather, they say that it is strictly exclusive: i.e.,
either/or, one or the other, but not both. They are completely wrong.
What they state in that regard is 100% untrue. Below are examples from
Latin passages which absolutely disprove their false assertion.
EXAMPLES FROM THE LATIN VULGATE TO PROVE
THE POINT
Here are some
examples in the Latin Vulgate which prove that “aut” can be used in an inclusive
sense. In all these examples the “or” in Latin is the word “aut,” the same
word we find in Sess. 6 Chap. 4.
Romans 1:21- “… quia cum cognovissent
Deum non sicut Deum glorificaverunt aut gratias egerunt; sed
evanuerunt in cogitationibus suis et obscuratum est insipiens cor eorum.”
Romans 1:21- “Because that, when they
knew God, they have not glorified him as God or given thanks; but
became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened.”
So, does this mean that the evil people did not glorify God, but
they did give Him thanks? No, obviously not. Or conversely: does it
mean that they glorified God, but did not give Him thanks? No, of course
not. Obviously the meaning is that these wicked people both did not
glorify God and did not give Him thanks. Aut is clearly used
in the inclusive sense in this passage of the Vulgate.
Another example is Titus 1:6:
Titus 1:6- “… si quis sine crimine est,
unius uxoris vir filios habens fideles non in uxuriate uxuriate aut non
subditos.”
Titus 1:6- “If any [priest] be without
crime, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not
accused of riot, or unruly.”
Does this mean that the priest’s children must be free either of
riotousness or unruliness? No, of course not. Obviously the meaning
is that the priest’s children (if he had children during the apostolic period)
must have been free from both the
accusation of riot and unruliness – not one or the other. Thus, aut is clearly used
in the inclusive sense. Another example is John 3:8:
John 3:8- “Spiritus ubi vult spirat, et
vocem ejus audis, sed nescis unde veniat, aut quo vadat: sic est
omnis qui natus est ex spiritu.”
John 3:8- “The Spirit breatheth where he
will; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he
cometh, or whither he goeth: so is
every one that is born of the Spirit.”
Does this mean that Nicodemus does not know where the Spirit comes
from, but he does know where He goes? No, of course not. Clearly the
meaning is that Nicodemus does not know where the Spirit comes from and also does not know where He goes. Thus, aut is used in the
inclusive sense. In fact, in the part of John 3:8 where the Vulgate uses aut, numerous English
translations have “and” and some have “or.” Even though aut means or, it can
be inclusive or functionally equivalent to “and,” as we see here. In these
instances, aut must apply to both, or be understood inclusively, to be faithful to
the intended meaning. It is therefore a fact that aut can
be used in an inclusive sense. Now we will look at a
dogmatic example of this point.
A STUNNING DOGMATIC PRECEDENT OF “AUT” USED WITH “SINE” IN AN INCLUSIVE WAY
The document to
which we must now turn is Pope St. Leo the Great’s famous dogmatic letter to
Flavian, originally written in 449, confirmed by the Council of Chalcedon in
451. This is the document about which the Fathers of the Council of
Chalcedon cried out, “Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo,” because Leo’s
letter so accurately defined the truth about the two natures of our Lord Jesus
Christ, a human nature and a divine nature, in one divine Person. This
document is extremely important to this topic, not only with respect to the
theological aspects of this issue, but also to the grammatical ones. The
numerous providential aspects of this decree are amazing.
It is heresy to
reject the teaching of Leo the Great’s letter to Flavian. Now, Leo
the Great’s decree contradicts the precise theory of “baptism of desire.”
“Baptism of desire” is typically explained as supplying the grace of
sanctification or justification without the water of baptism. Well, in his
dogmatic decree, Pope St. Leo the Great says:
“IN OTHER WORDS,
THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF
BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE
FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”
Pope Leo the Great infallibly declares
that sanctification is inseparable from the water of baptism. That directly contradicts the
concept of “baptism of desire” and “baptism of blood.” Both theories maintain that sanctification comes to
a person separately from water baptism.
Leo’s dogmatic letter also declares that the Blood of Redemption is
inseparable from water baptism. That’s extremely significant as well
because the Council of Trent defined that one is justified only by the Blood of
Redemption, “the merit of the one mediator.” This merit “is applied to adults and to
infants through the Sacrament of Baptism.” We can thus detect
the harmony between Pope Leo the Great’s teaching on the Blood of Redemption and
its inseparable connection to water baptism, and Trent’s teaching on the same
point. Trent declares that the Blood of Redemption is applied through the
Sacrament of Baptism, just as Leo the Great defined. Leo’s decree
specified that the Blood is “inseparable” from the water of baptism.
If BOD were true, which it’s not, you
would find a clear explanation in the Council of Trent of how the merit of
Christ is applied to people without the Sacrament of Baptism. You would
find a clear definition of it in one of the canons on the Sacrament of Baptism.
You would find a clear statement that you can be justified before the Sacrament
of Baptism and why this is so, but you don’t have anything like that in any
Council anywhere. That’s because BOD is false. What you have, on the
contrary, is statement after statement that John 3:5 is literal, that no man is
saved without the Sacrament of Baptism, that the merit of Christ is applied
through the sacrament, that the sacrament is the instrumental cause of
justification, etc. So, there’s no way to reconcile BOD or BOB with this
dogmatic proclamation. They are false theories. In fact, God left a
striking piece of evidence to refute modern-day arguments for “baptism of
desire” in Leo the Great’s decree.
GOD LEFT A STUNNING USE OF “AUT” WITH “SINE” IN LEO
THE GREAT’S DECREE TO REFUTE MODERN “BAPTISM OF DESIRE” SUPPORTERS
As I was
pondering Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent, I thought to myself: just as God left a
clear indication in Session 6 Chapter 4 that there is absolutely no deviation
from the absolute necessity of water baptism, with the words “as it is written”
– and He left that indication in the very passage that has been so misused –
it’s possible that God would leave a similar indication in a document such as
Pope Leo the Great’s decree of how the Latin word “aut” can be used in an
inclusive way. Wouldn’t it be interesting if a document that carries great
significance on the water baptism issue would also contain a clue that “aut” can
be used in an inclusive way? In other words, God left the indication and the
proof there, we just had to look for it.
As I looked through the Latin of Leo the
Great’s decree, I found the striking proof and example I was looking for.
I came across this passage from the document in which there are multiple uses
of aut, as well as a use
of aut with sine, just as we have
in Session 6 Chapter 4. As we will see, this use of aut with sine is an absolutely
inclusive use.
The passage concerns the truths of
Christ: that He is both Son of God and the Christ.
Latin – PASSAGE FROM POPE ST. LEO THE GREAT, DOGMATIC
LETTER TO FLAVIAN
“… tu es, inquit, Christus
filius dei vivi [Mt. 16:16], nec inmerito beatus est pronuntiatus a domino et a
principali petra soliditatem et virtutis traxit et nominis qui per revelationem
patris eundem et dei filium est confessus et Christum, quia unum horum sine alio receptum non proderat ad
salutem et aequalis erat periculi dominum Iesum Christum aut deum tantummodo sine homine aut sine deo solum hominem
credidisse.”
TRANSLATION:
“You are, he said, the Christ, the Son of
the Living God [Mt. 16:16], and not undeservedly was he pronounced blessed by
the Lord and did he derive from the original Rock [i.e. God] the solid character
of both [its] virtue and [its] name, [he] who through the revelation of the
Father confessed that the same [i.e. Jesus] was both the Son of God and the
Christ, because one of these [truths] received [i.e. admitted] without the other
was unprofitable to salvation, and it was of equal danger to
have believed that the Lord Jesus Christ was either God only without [being]
man or man only without [being] God.”
Leo the Great
declares:
“… quia unum horum sine alio receptum non proderat ad
salutem et aequalis erat periculi dominum Iesum Christum aut deum tantummodo sine homine aut sine deo solum hominem
credidisse.”
“… because one of these [truths] received
[i.e. admitted] without the other was unprofitable to salvation, and it was of equal danger to have believed that the Lord Jesus
Christ was either God only without [being] man or man only without [being]
God.”
NOTICE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS PASSAGE – “it was of equal danger
to have believed that the Lord Jesus Christ was either God only without [being]
man OR [AUT] man only without [being]
God.”
Is “aut” here used in an exclusive way or in an inclusive way?
It’s clearly (and in fact, infallibly) used in an inclusive way. For you fall into danger
(heresy) unless you reject both errors – two errors being separated by “aut” or
“or.” If you only reject the error on one side of the “aut,” you
fall into danger/heresy!
This proves, in a dogmatic statement – one with tremendous
relevance to the water baptism issue – that “aut” has been used in an inclusive
sense, in which it must be understood inclusively to be understood
correctly!
In the same way,
concerning Sess. 6 Chap. 4, you fail to enter justification unless you have both
the laver of regeneration and the desire, the two requirements separated by
“aut,” prefaced by “sine” (without). And the reason, as I said earlier,
that “desire” is mentioned in Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent is that it’s talking
about the justification of the impious (adult justification), and adults must
desire the sacrament when receiving it.
I shared my
thoughts on the Latin of Leo the Great’s decree with the aforementioned Timothy
Johnson. I asked him whether he concurred that the use of “aut” with
“sine” is inclusive, and therefore comparable and/or relevant to the use in
Sess. 6 Chap. 4 of the Council of Trent. He responded by saying:
Timothy Johnson: “Yes, by using the
correlative conjunctions aut … aut …, the
author focuses on two of the four theoretical possibilities here: Jesus is (i)
God only, (ii) man only, (iii) both, (iv) neither. The first two are heresy, the
last unthinkable!”
He thus agrees that the use of “aut”
indicates that you must reject both errors, and therefore that you must hold
that Jesus is God and man. He continues:
Timothy Johnson: “It’s interesting that aut is used to stress that we must hold that
Jesus is both God and man at the same time. This reinforces the view that votum refers to a desire for baptism that is active at the same time as
baptism, i.e. an accompanying desire.”
Hence, the clear use of “aut” with “sine” in this passage
absolutely proves that “aut” can be used inclusively, and that the language of
Sess. 6 Chap. 4 does not indicate that desire without the sacrament of baptism
is sufficient for justification. What’s so amazing about this passage is
that “aut” is used with “sine” between two heretical concepts which both must be
rejected. Theologically, since we’re talking about the truth that Christ
is both God and man, there could be no stronger way
for God to show that “aut” can be used with “sine” inclusively, or that it can
apply to both. For the truth and the affirmation that
Christ is both God and man is, along with the Trinity, the foundation of
Christianity. It’s as if God deliberately left grammatical or lexical precedents
in this document to refute future arguments for BOD and salvation outside the
Church from people who wrongly contend that “aut” is always exclusive.
God knew that people would misunderstand and misuse Sess. 6 Chap. 4
to contradict the necessity of His faith and the necessity of baptism. He
thus included “sicut scriptum est” in the document to show that it is not
deviating from the absolute truth that John 3:5 is as it is written. He
also made sure the sentence used sine, so that it’s not talking about how justification
“can” happen “by” this or that, but that justification “cannot” take place
“without” the elements. He also provided us with a prior dogmatic use of aut with “sine” as an
infallible and dogmatic precedent that aut can be used inclusively. And He put this
stunning dogmatic precedent, of how “aut” can be understood, in the very document which most
specifically denies the theological concept of BOD and BOB. He
left it in the very document which dogmatically declares that the water of
baptism is inseparable from the Spirit of sanctification, the opposite of the
concept of “baptism of desire.” It’s not an accident that this is found in
this document: God left it there as a clue to refute people in our day who are
advancing objections against the necessity of His baptism.
Just as God so carefully looked over the
creation of the Earth, and so carefully fashions each animal and each person, He
protects every aspect of His teaching. He leaves all of the materials
necessary to refute heresies in the proclamations of His Church.
And what do all of the other passages
in Trent say on the necessity of Baptism and John 3:5? Do they teach that a
non-literal understanding of John 3:5 (that people can be saved without water
baptism), or do they exclude any salvation without water baptism? The answer is
undeniable: the Church infallibly teaches that there is no salvation without the
rebirth of water and the Spirit in the Sacrament of Baptism, based on a literal
understanding of John 3:5.
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, 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.”[cclxxxv]
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].’”[cclxxxvi]
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of
Baptism, Session 7, canon 2, 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.”[cclxxxvii]
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.”[lxi]
As we see, all the dogmatic
definitions in Trent (and everywhere else) teach a literal understanding of John
3:5 and that no one is saved without the Sacrament of Baptism. The
statement “as it is written” in the passage we’ve been discussing (Sess. 6,
Chap. 4) is simply more proof that Sess. 6, Chap. 4 carries the exact same
meaning.
It is true that some Catholics misunderstood Trent’s passage, and
that contributed to ‘baptism of desire’ being taught by fallible theologians and
fallible texts. In our video, How Can Baptism of Desire be Contrary to Dogma? we
discuss numerous examples of popes and saints erring on dogmatic issues and/or
the theological status of a truth, even after a pronouncement by the magisterium
was made. We refer people to that video for a full discussion of how that’s
possible.
Some might also say: “I see your point and I cannot deny it, but why didn’t the passage use
the word ‘and’ instead of ‘or’; it would have been clearer then?” This
question is best answered by considering a number of things:
First, it
must be remembered that the passage describes what justification CANNOT TAKE
PLACE WITHOUT (i.e., what cannot be missing in justification); it does not say
that justification does take place by either water or desire.
Second, the
council didn’t have to use “and” because “or” can mean “and” (or be used
inclusively) in the context of words given in the passage, as shown already.
Third,
those who ask this question should consider another, namely: why in the world, if baptism of
desire is true and was the teaching of Trent, didn’t the Council say anywhere
(when it had so many opportunities to do so) that one can be justified without
the sacrament or before the sacrament is received just as
it clearly and repeatedly did in regard to the Sacrament of Penance? This
amazing omission (obviously
because the Holy Ghost didn’t allow the Council to teach baptism of desire in
its many statements on the absolute necessity of baptism) simply confirms the
points that I’ve made above; for if the passage meant baptism of desire it would
have said so.
Fourth, the
above question is best answered by a parallel example: In 381 the Council of
Constantinople defined that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father. The
Council did not say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. The omission of the words “and the Son” (filioque in Latin)
caused countless millions to erroneously conclude that the Holy Ghost does not
proceed from the Son, a heresy that was later condemned by the Church. If the Council of Constantinople had simply included that little
statement, that the Holy Ghost also proceeds from the Son, it would have
eliminated over a thousand years of controversy with the Eastern Schismatics –
a controversy which still continues to this day. If that little phrase (“and
the Son”) had been included in Constantinople, it probably would have stopped
millions of people from leaving the Catholic Church and embracing Eastern
“Orthodoxy.” The Eastern “Orthodox” thought (and still think) that the
Catholic Church’s teaching that the Holy Ghost proceeds from Father and the Son is
contrary to the Council of Constantinople, which only stated that the Holy Ghost
proceeds from the Father.
So, did the Council of Constantinople err? Of course not.
But could Constantinople have been more clear by adding that little phrase which
would have eliminated a controversy? Absolutely. So why did God
allow this controversy to occur, when He could have prevented it by simply inspiring the council fathers at
Constantinople in 381 to include that tiny phrase? The answer
is that there must be heresies.
1 Cor. 11:19: “For there must be also heresies: that they
also, who are approved, may be manifest among you.”
God allows heresies to arise in order to
see who will believe the truth and who will not, to see who will look at the
truth sincerely and who will pervert things to suit his own heretical
desires. God never allows His councils, such as Constantinople and Trent, to
teach any error; but He can allow the truth to be stated in ways that give
people the opportunity to twist and pervert the meaning of the words used if
they so desire (no pun intended), as the Eastern schismatics did in regard to
Constantinople’s omission of the phrase: and the Son.
In fact, it doesn’t even matter if some
of the council fathers at Constantinople believed that the Holy Ghost does not
proceed from the Son; and there were probably some who didn’t believe
that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son. All that matters is what the Council
of Constantinople actually declared, a declaration which says nothing contrary to the fact that the Holy Ghost does proceed
from the Son. The intentions of the
Council Fathers at Constantinople or any other council have nothing to do with
Papal Infallibility. All that matters is what the actual dogma approved by the pope
declares or finalizes in the Profession of Faith.
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 Holy Mother Church has once declared;
and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of
a deeper understanding.”[ccxc]
In fact, in this regard it’s very
interesting to note that numerous popes point out that in the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon, the fathers at Chalcedon drew up a
canon that elevated the status of the Bishop of Constantinople. The fathers of the Council of
Chalcedon, therefore, intended to
elevate the status of the See of Constantinople in drawing up Canon 28. But the
canon was rejected by Pope Leo the Great in his confirmation of the acts of
Chalcedon, and therefore was considered worthless.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896: “The 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, by the very fact
that it lacks the assent and approval of the Apostolic See, is admitted by all to be worthless.”[ccxci]
This shows that the intention or
thoughts of the fathers at a general council mean nothing – they are
worthless. All that matters is what the Church actually declares. Therefore, the fact that some of
the council fathers at Trent – and even eminent and sainted theologians after
Trent – thought the aforementioned passage of Trent taught baptism of desire
means nothing; for the fathers at Chalcedon also thought the council was elevating the
status of Constantinople, when it didn’t; and some of the fathers at
Constantinople probably thought that the council was denying that the Holy Ghost
proceeds from the Son, when it didn’t. The bottom-line is that only those
things that are actually declared by the councils and finally approved matter –
nothing else. And the aforementioned passage of Trent does not teach baptism of
desire; it does not teach that desire justifies without baptism; and it does not
contain error.
The fact is that God made sure that the words “as it is written”
were included in that very sentence to ensure that the council was not teaching
baptism of desire by its wording in that passage. The passage thus teaches – as
it is written – unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot
enter into the Kingdom of God. And if what baptism of desire proponents say
were correct (and it’s not), we would actually have the Council teaching us in
the first part of the sentence that John 3:5 is not to be
taken as it is written (desire sometimes suffices), while
simultaneously contradicting itself in the second part of the sentence by
telling us to take John 3:5 as it is written (sicut scriptum est)! But this is absurd, of
course. Those who obstinately insist that this passage teaches baptism of
desire are simply wrong and are contradicting the very words given in the
passage about John 3:5. The inclusion of “AS IT IS WRITTEN, unless a man is born again of
water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John
3:5)” shows the perfect harmony of that passage in Trent with all of the other
passages in Trent and other councils which affirm the absolute necessity of
water baptism with no exceptions.
THE DOGMA,
POPE PIUS IX AND INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE
OBJECTION- What
about Invincible Ignorance?
ANSWER-
2 Corinthians
4:3: “And if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost,
in whom the god of this world [Satan] hath blinded the minds of unbelievers,
that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God,
should not shine unto them.”
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6 on Justification, Chap. 15: “…it must be
maintained that the grace of justification, although received, is lost not only
by infidelity, whereby even faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal
sin, although faith be not lost, thereby defending
the doctrine of the divine law which excludes from the kingdom of God not
only the unbelievers, but also the faithful who are
‘fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, liers with mankind, thieves, covetous,
drunkards, railers, extortioners’ [1 Cor. 6:9], and all others who commit deadly
sins…”[cclxxiv]
The dogma
Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation has been solemnly defined at
least seven times by popes speaking from the Chair of St. Peter. Never once were any exceptions mentioned
about “invincible ignorance.” In
fact, it is just the opposite: all exceptions were always excluded.
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.”[cclxxv]
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.”[cclxxvi]
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…”[cclxxvii]
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.”[cclxxviii]
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.”[cclxxix]
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.”[cclxxx]
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…”[cclxxxi]
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…”[cclxxxii]
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…”[cclxxxiii]
The Catholic
Church is infallible; Her dogmatic definitions are infallible; popes speaking
from the Chair of Peter are infallible.
Thus, it is very simple: If it were true that so-called “invincibly
ignorant” non-Catholics could be saved, then GOD WOULD NEVER HAVE ALLOWED THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH TO DEFINE THE DOGMA THAT NO ONE AT ALL CAN BE SAVED
OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH! But God
did allow His infallible Church to define this truth, WHICH SPECIFICALLY
EXCLUDES FROM SALVATION EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT DIE A CATHOLIC.
Thus, the
idea that a non-Catholic who is ignorant of the Faith can be saved is
heretical; it is contrary to the dogma that “no one,” (Pope Pius IV; Benedict XIV;
Pius IX) “nobody at all,” (Innocent III) “nobody, even if he shed
his blood in the name of Christ” (Eugene IV) can be saved as a non-Catholic.
It is a denial of the dogma that “every
human creature”
(Boniface VIII) must be a Catholic, and that “only those” (Eugene IV)
inside the bosom and unity of the Church can achieve salvation.
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.”[cclxxxiv]
Those who
insist that “invincible ignorance” can possibly save a person who dies as a
non-Catholic simply depart from and deny the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic
Church.
POPE
PIUS IX AND INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE
What about
Pope Pius IX? Isn’t it true that he taught that the
invincibly ignorant could be saved in two documents? What about Singulari Quadam and Quanto Conficiamur Moerore?
Confusion on this topic has increased as a result of a few misunderstood
statements from Pope Pius IX. As we
analyze these statements, it is
imperative to keep in mind that, even if Pope Pius IX had taught that the
invincibly ignorant could be saved on these two occasions, it wouldn’t mean that
such a position is true, because they were fallible documents which could
have contained error. No pope
can change or contradict dogma. Pope
Honorius, who reigned in the 7th century, was, in fact, later
condemned for propagating heresy, though not in his solemn capacity teaching to
the universal Church. Thus, no one,
not even a pope, can change the dogma that no one who dies outside the Catholic
Church, ignorant or not, can be saved.
Here are some more quotes on ignorance.
Pope Benedict XV, Humani Generis Redemptionem (# 14), June 15,
1917: “…‘Ignorance is the mother of all errors,’ as the Fourth Lateran
Council so truthfully observes.”[cclxxxv]
The Errors of Peter Abelard,
Condemned by Innocent II, July 16, 1140, #10: “That they have not sinned who
being ignorant have crucified Christ, and that whatever is done through
ignorance must not be considered sin.” - Condemned[cclxxxvi]
SINGULARI QUADAM, AN ALLOCUTION (A SPEECH TO THE CARDINALS)
The first of the documents from Pope Pius IX, frequently quoted by those who
believe in salvation outside the Church, is Singulari Quadam, an
allocution (a speech to the cardinals) given December 9, 1854:
“....those
who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible
ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the
Lord.”[cclxxxvii]
First of all, this is a speech of Pope
Pius IX to the cardinals. It is not
a dogmatic pronouncement, not even an encyclical, nor even an encyclical
addressed to the entire Church.
But is Pope Pius IX
saying that the invincibly ignorant can be justified and saved in their
condition? No. Rather, he is stating that the
“invincibly ignorant” will not be held accountable for the sin of infidelity,
but they will still go to Hell. Read
carefully the last part of the sentence, “are not subject to any guilt IN
THIS MATTER,” that is, in the matter of infidelity.
St. Thomas Aquinas explains that
unbelievers who have never heard of the Gospel are damned for their other sins,
which cannot be remitted without Faith, not because of the sin of infidelity (or
disbelief in the Gospel).[cclxxxviii] These other sins of the unbelievers serve
as the reason why God does not reveal the Gospel to them and which ultimately
excludes them from salvation. If one
among them, however, were truly sincere and of good will, and cooperating with
the natural law, then God would send a preacher (even miraculously, if
necessary) to bring the Catholic Faith and baptism to him. Pope Pius IX goes on to say in the same
allocution concerning a person of good will who is invincibly ignorant:
“the gifts
of heavenly grace will assuredly not be denied to those who sincerely want and
pray for refreshment by the divine light…
St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14,
A. 11, ad 1: Objection- “It is possible
that someone may be brought up in the forest, or among wolves; such a man cannot
explicitly know anything about the faith.
St. Thomas
Aquinas, Sent. II, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4:
“If a man born among barbarian nations, does what he can, God Himself will show
him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or sending a teacher
to him.”[ccxc]
St. Thomas
Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2:
“If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he
culpably wishes to remain where he is.”[ccxci]
Thus, Pope Pius IX was not teaching that people who are ignorant of the Catholic
Faith can be saved; he was, rather, stating that such unbelievers are not damned
for the matter of infidelity. The
fact that all who die as ignorant non-Catholics are not saved is the
affirmation of all of Catholic Tradition and all the saints, besides being the
dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church.
St. Alphonsus
Liguori, Sermons (c. +1760): “How many are born among the pagans, among the
Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.”[ccxcii]
St. Alphonsus:
“If you are ignorant of the truths of the faith, you are obliged to learn them.
Every Christian is bound to learn the Creed, the Our Father, and the Hail Mary
under pain of mortal sin. Many have no
idea of the Most Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, mortal sin, Judgment,
St. Alphonsus,
Preparation For Death, (c. +1760): “How thankful we ought to be to Jesus Christ
for the gift of faith! What would have become of us if we had been
born in Asia, Africa,
Though Singulari Quadam of Pius IX did not teach
the HERESY that one can be saved without the Catholic Faith by invincible
ignorance, it is weakly worded. Pope
Pius IX should not have concerned himself with trying to satisfy the heretical
minds of liberals and apostates who refuse to accept Church dogma. He should have simply repeated the many
times defined dogma that everyone who dies without the Catholic Faith is lost,
and clearly explained that no one who is of good will will be left in ignorance
of the true religion. But because of
his weakly worded statement, and the following one we will examine, a veritable disaster has resulted. Almost every single person who wants to
advance his heretical belief that one can be saved outside the Catholic Church
quotes this fallible statement from Pope Pius IX and the other one we
will examine.
What’s interesting, however, and further confirms the point above, is that in
Singulari Quadam, after explaining how the invincibly ignorant are not held
guilty in
this matter, Pope Pius IX declares that a Catholic must hold one Lord,
one Faith and one Baptism, and that it is unlawful to proceed further in
inquiry! – probably in an attempt to stem the tide of belief that one could be
saved outside the Church by “baptism of desire.” The people who believe in salvation
outside the Church almost never quote this part of the allocution.
Pope Pius IX,
Singulari Quadam: “For, in truth,
when released from these corporeal chains, ‘we shall see God as He is’ (1
John 3:2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond
divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed
down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that,
in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is ‘one God, one faith, one
baptism’ [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.”[ccxcv]
Therefore, even Pope Pius IX,
in the very statement wrongly quoted by the liberals against the dogma Outside
the Church There is No Salvation,
admonishes that such theorizing about salvation by other baptisms and other
faiths
is unlawful.
Pope Pius IX proceeded to speak about the invincibly ignorant again seven years
later in his encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, August 10, 1863.
Quanto Conficiamur Moerore does not
meet the requirements for infallibility; it is addressed only to the cardinals
and bishops of Italy.[ccxcvi]
Pope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore: “And here, beloved Sons and
Venerable Brothers, We should mention again and censure a very grave error in
which some Catholics are unhappily engaged, who believe that men living in
error, and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain
eternal life. Indeed, this is
certainly quite contrary to Catholic teaching.
It is known to us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance
of our most holy religion AND WHO ZEALOUSLY KEEPING THE NATURAL LAW AND ITS
PRECEPTS ENGRAVED IN THE HEARTS OF ALL BY GOD, AND BEING READY TO OBEY GOD, LIVE
AN HONEST AND UPRIGHT LIFE, can, by the OPERATING POWER OF DIVINE LIGHT AND
GRACE, attain eternal life since God...will by no means suffer anyone to be
punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin.”[ccxcvii]
First, notice that Pope Pius IX specifically condemns the idea that a man
“living in error and separated from the true Faith” can be saved. What, may I ask, is the idea of salvation
for the “invincibly ignorant”? Why,
of course, it is the idea that a man living in error and separated from the true
Faith can be saved. So, the very
concept of salvation for the “invincibly ignorant” is condemned as QUITE
CONTRARY TO CATHOLIC TEACHING in this very document of Pope Pius IX.
Second, notice
again that Pope Pius IX does not say anywhere that the invincibly ignorant
can be saved where they are.
Rather, he is reiterating that the ignorant, if they cooperate with God’s
grace, keep the natural law and respond to God’s call, they can by God’s “operating
power of divine light and grace” [being enlightened by the truth of the
Gospel] attain eternal life, since God will certainly bring all of his elect
to the knowledge of the truth and into the Church by baptism. According to the specific definition of Sacred Scripture, “divine light” is the Gospel truth of
Jesus Christ (the Catholic Faith) which removes the ignorant from
darkness.
Ephesians 5:8
“For you were heretofore darkness, but
now light in the Lord. Walk
then as children of the light.”
1 Thess. 5:4-5
“But you, brethren [believers], are
not in darkness… For all you are the
children of the light.”
Colossians 1:12-13:
“Giving thanks to God the
Father, who hath made us worthy to be
partakers of the lot of the saints
in light: Who hath delivered us
from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His love.”
1 Peter 2:9: “But you are a chosen generation… a
purchased people: that you may declare his virtues, who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.”
2 Corinthians
4:3-4: “And
if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world [Satan] hath
blinded the minds of unbelievers, that
the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God,
should not shine unto them.”
2 Timothy
1:10: “But is now made manifest by the illumination of our Savior Jesus Christ,
who hath destroyed death, and hath
brought to light life and incorruption by the Gospel.”
Pope Pius IX,
So, we must not interpret Pius IX’s words in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore
about the good-willed ignorant being saved by receiving “divine light and grace”
contrary to their clear scriptural and Traditional meaning, which is that divine
light and grace is received by hearing of the Gospel, believing it and being
baptized. Thus, in Quanto
Conficiamur Moerore, Pius IX is saying that the good-willed, sincere person
who is ignorant of the Faith will be “illuminated” by receiving the “divine
light” (hearing the Gospel) and will enter the Catholic Church so that he can be
saved.
I realize that Pope Pius IX was not nearly as clear as he could have been in the
second half of Quanto Conficiamur Moerore. The heretics have had a field day with
it, because they think that they can exploit its wording to favor their heresy
that there is salvation outside the Church.
If Pope Pius IX had repeated in a strong way the previous definitions of
the popes, without any ambiguous language, he would have avoided the danger of
modernists misinterpreting his words.
This is a shame because almost all of his statements on this topic do very
clearly affirm Church dogma without any ambiguity that heretics can jump on.
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).”[ccxcix]
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.”[ccc]
Pope Pius IX-
Syllabus of Modern Errors- Proposition 16, Dec. 8, 1854: “Man may, in the
observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation,
and arrive at eternal salvation.” [ccci]
– Condemned
Notice again that the concept of salvation
for the “invincibly ignorant” is condemned here. The concept of salvation for the
“invincibly ignorant,” as it is held by almost everyone who holds it today, is
that some men – including those who observe non-Catholic religions – can find
and arrive at salvation in these religions because they are “without fault
of their own.” But this is heretical
and condemned by Pius IX’s own Syllabus of Errors above.
Fr. Michael Muller, C.SS.R. was a Catholic priest who lived during the time of
Pope Pius IX. He wrote a famous book
entitled
The Catholic Dogma in which he defended the Church’s teaching that a
person who is “invincibly ignorant” of the Faith cannot be saved. He also defended the true meaning of Pope
Pius IX’s teaching on this topic.
Fr. Michael
Muller, C.SS.R., The Catholic Dogma, pp. 217-218, 1888: “Inculpable or
invincible ignorance has never been and will never be a means of salvation. To be saved, it is necessary to be
justified, or to be in the state of grace.
In order to obtain sanctifying grace, it is necessary to have the proper
dispositions for justification; that is, true divine faith in at least the necessary truths of salvation, confident hope in the
divine Savior, sincere sorrow for sin, together with the firm purpose of doing
all that God has commanded, etc.
Now, these supernatural acts of faith, hope, charity, contrition, etc., which
prepare the soul for receiving sanctifying grace, can never be supplied
by invincible ignorance; and if invincible ignorance cannot supply the
preparation for receiving sanctifying grace, much less can it bestow sanctifying
grace itself. ‘Invincible
ignorance,’ says
“It is, then, a curse,
but not a blessing or a means of salvation… Hence Pius IX said
‘that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, such
invincible ignorance would not be sinful before God; that, if such a person
should observe the precepts of the Natural Law and do the will of God to the
best of his knowledge, God, in his infinite mercy, may enlighten him so as to
obtain eternal life; for, the Lord, who knows the heart and the thoughts of
man will, in his infinite goodness, not suffer anyone to be lost forever without
his own fault.’ Almighty God,
who is just condemns no one without his fault, puts, therefore, such souls as
are in invincible ignorance of the truths of salvation, in the way of salvation,
either by natural or supernatural means.”[cccii]
In these well-written lines we see Catholic dogma affirmed. Invincible ignorance can never save a
man; those who are invincibly ignorant, if they strive to do their best and are
of good will, will be enlightened by God of the Catholic Faith “either by
natural or supernatural means”; Fr. Muller confirms that Pope Pius IX was not
teaching the heresy that invincible ignorance justifies and saves, but that
a soul in such a state – who is of good will and follows the natural law – will
be enlightened by God about the Catholic Faith so that he can be saved. In fact, Fr. Muller’s rendering of Pius
IX’s words in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore show more clearly the pope’s
actual meaning.
Though it’s clear that these documents of Pope Pius IX did not teach that
“invincible ignorance” could save someone, as Fr. Muller confirms, this is not
the main issue in regard to this extremely important topic of the necessity of
the Catholic Church for salvation.
The main issue concerns what the Church
has infallibly
taught, not what Pope Pius IX fallibly taught. Both of these documents were fallible,
not dogmatic, and could have contained error!
The heretics who believe in salvation outside the Church love to dump all
of the dogmatic teaching of the Church on this issue and focus ad nauseam on what they think Pope Pius
IX fallibly taught. They ignore
all of the dogmatic definitions (quoted already in this document), while
intent on trying to exploit two fallible documents from Pope Pius IX. They pit their own misinterpretation of a
few lines in a speech of Pius IX to the cardinals and in a letter to the clergy
of Italy against the dogmatic definitions of the Fourth Lateran Council, Pope
Boniface VIII and the Council of Florence!
This is absolutely absurd and totally dishonest. One priest expressed it well:
“Just imagine, my dear listeners, the whole
secret of salvation being missed in the Gospels, in the teachings of the
Apostles, in the protestations of the Saints, in the defined teachings of the
Popes, in all the prayers and the liturgies of the Church – and imagine it
suddenly coming clear in one or two carelessly worded sentences in an
encyclical of Pope Pius IX, on which the Liberals base their teaching that there
is salvation outside the Church.”[ccciii]
The truth is that the liberals recognize what is being said here; they realize
that even if Pope Pius IX did teach what they claim (which he didn’t), his
statements were not infallible and would carry no weight when compared with the
dogmatic definitions on the topic.
But they don’t care about that, because, as one priest who believes in salvation
outside the Church told me: “I like what
Pius IX said.” Yes, he likes
what he
thinks Pius IX said, and he doesn’t
like what God has said via the Church’s infallible statements.
That pretty much sums it up: those who obstinately insist on salvation for the
“invincibly ignorant” while ignoring these facts, and obstinately quote Pius IX
to attempt to prove it, simply reject dogma, in favor of their own contrived
interpretations of fallible statements, interpretations which lead them to
conclusions which were explicitly condemned by Pope Pius IX himself. Thus, these people “choose” their
heretical ideas over Catholic dogma – heresy, in the Greek, means “choice” – and
in so doing they demonstrate bad will and actually mock God. Such persons are devoid of the true
Faith; they don’t possess the gift of acceptance of the supernatural revelation
of God; they assert that Jesus Christ is not important enough that everyone
above reason must know Him to be saved; and they want the truth their own way.
St. John Chrysostom (+390): “So the
Machabees are honored in that they preferred to die rather than betray the Law… Then [in the Old Law] it sufficed to
salvation to know God alone. Now it
is no longer so; the knowledge of Christ is necessary to salvation…”[ccciv]
The heresy that non-Catholics can be saved by “invincible ignorance” wasn’t
really a problem before the year 1800, since the teaching of Catholic Tradition
that no one can be saved who is ignorant of the Gospel was quite clear and
maintained by most. But thanks to
the growing modernism in the 1850’s, combined with the liberals’ hijacking of
Pope Pius IX’s weak statements, the heretical theory of salvation for the
invincibly ignorant exploded and became the belief of many priests in the latter
half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th
century. This has culminated in our
situation today, in which almost 100% of people who claim to be “Catholics” (and
even “traditional Catholics”) believe that Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus,
Protestants, etc. can be saved.
We can thank the heretical idea of salvation for the “invincibly
ignorant” for this, but there will be much more on this later in the document.
Heresy and modernism were so widespread even at the time of the
First Vatican Council in 1870, that St. Anthony Mary Claret, the only
canonized saint at the Council, had a stroke because of the heresies that were
being promoted. None of these
heresies, of course, did God permit to be included in the decrees of
The fact is that all cultures are demonic and under the dominion of the Devil
until they are evangelized. This is
the incontrovertible teaching of Tradition and Scripture.
Fr. Francisco de Vitoria, O.P., a famous 16th century Dominican
theologian, summed up the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on this
topic very well. Here is how he put
it:
“When we postulate invincible ignorance on
the subject of baptism or of the Christian faith, it does not follow that a person can be saved without baptism or the
Christian faith. For the
aborigines to whom no preaching of the faith or Christian religion has come will
be damned for mortal sins or for idolatry, but not for the sin of unbelief. As St. Thomas says, however, if they do
what in them lies [in their power], accompanied by a good life according to the
law of nature, it is consistent with God’s providence that he will illuminate
them regarding the name of Christ.”[cccv]
All the people who die in cultures which have never been penetrated by the
Gospel go to Hell for sins against the natural law and the other grave sins
which they commit – which bad will and failure to cooperate with God’s grace is
the reason He does not reveal the Gospel to them.
The First Vatican Council defined infallibly, based on Romans 1, that the
one true God can be known with certitude by the things which have been made, and
by the natural light of human reason.[cccvi]
Everyone can know with certainty that there is
a supreme spiritual being, Who is the One True God and the Creator of the world
and all that it contains.
Everyone knows that God is not something that they have carved out of wood or
jade or stone. They know that God is
not the tree that they worship or the river they worship or the rock or the
snake or the sacred tree frog. They
know that these things aren’t the Creator of the universe. Every such person knows that he is
worshipping a creature rather than the Creator.
They are, as
And if somebody accepted the truth, if he were intellectually honest enough to
say, “God, this piece of wood can’t be You, reveal Yourself to me,” then God
would send an angel, if necessary, as He sent an angel to Cornelius in Acts
chapter 10; and He would follow it up with a missionary who would bring the good
news and the Sacrament of Baptism.
John 18:37:
“For this was I born, and for this came I into the world, that I should give
testimony to the truth: every one who
is of the truth, heareth my voice.”
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.”[cccviii]
St. Augustine (+426): “Consequently both those who have not heard the gospel
and those who, having heard it, and having been changed for the better, did not receive perseverance… none of these are separated from that
lump which is known to be damned, as all are going… into condemnation.”[cccix]
St. Prosper of Aquitane (+450):
“Certainly God’s manifold and indescribable goodness, as we have abundantly
proved, always provided and does yet provide for the totality of mankind, so
that none of those perishing can plead
the excuse that he was excluded from the light of truth…”[cccx]
Romans 8:29-30- “For whom He foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to
the image of his Son: that he might be the first-born amongst many
brethren. And whom he predestinated, them he also called: and whom he
called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”
Acts 13:48- “And the Gentiles hearing it,
were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were preordained to life everlasting, believed.”
As Catholics, of course, we don’t believe as the heretic John Calvin, who
held a predestination according to which no matter what one does he is either
predestined for heaven or hell.
That is a wicked heresy.
Rather, as Catholics we believe in the true understanding of
predestination, which is expressed by Romans 8, Acts 13 and the fathers and
saints quoted already. This true
understanding of predestination simply means that God’s foreknowledge from all
eternity makes sure that those who are of good will and are sincere will be
brought to the Catholic Faith and come to know what they must – and that all
those who are not brought to the Catholic Faith and don’t know what they must
simply were not among the elect.
OTHER POPES AND SAINTS AGAINST INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE
Defenders of
salvation for the “invincibly ignorant” might be disquieted to hear that two other popes, Pope Benedict XIV and Pope
St. Pius X, explicitly reiterated the Church’s dogma that there are certain
mysteries of faith about which no one who wishes to be saved can be ignorant. These mysteries are the mysteries of the
Trinity and the Incarnation, as it was defined by the Athanasian Creed.
Pope Benedict XIV, Cum Religiosi (# 4), June 26, 1754:
“See to it that every minister performs carefully the measures laid down
by the holy Council of
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.’”[cccxii]
Every person
above the age of reason must have a positive knowledge of these mysteries of
Faith to be saved. There are no
exceptions. And this truth of the Catholic Faith is
why scores of popes and saints have taught that every single member of that mass
of humanity who lives in ignorance of Christ is under the Devil’s dominion and
will not be saved, unless he is incorporated into Christ’s marvelous light by
faith and baptism.
Pope Gregory XVI, Probe Nostis (#6), Sept. 18, 1840: “We are thankful for the success of apostolic missions in America, the
Indies, and other faithless lands…They search out those who sit in darkness
and the shadow of death to summon them to the light and life of the
Catholic religion… At length they snatch
them from the devil’s rule, by the bath of regeneration and promote them to
the freedom of God’s adopted sons.”[cccxiii]
In his Bull Sublimus Dei, Pope Paul III addresses the question of the Indians in
the “recently discovered” New World.
Speaking in the context of those above the age of reason, Pope Paul III
declares that they are capable of receiving the Faith, and he reiterates the
teaching of tradition that not one of them can be saved without faith in Jesus
Christ.
Pope Paul III, Sublimus Dei, May 29,
1537: “The sublime God so loved the human race that He created man in such wise
that he might participate, not only in the good that other creatures enjoy, but
endowed him with capacity to attain to the inaccessible and invisible Supreme
Good and behold it face to face; and since
man, according to the testimony of the sacred scriptures, has been created to
enjoy eternal life and happiness, which none may obtain save through faith in
our Lord Jesus Christ, it is necessary that he should possess the nature
and faculties enabling him to receive that faith; and that whoever is thus
endowed should be capable of receiving that same faith. Nor is it credible that
any one should possess so little understanding as to desire the faith and yet be
destitute of the most necessary faculty to enable him to receive it. Hence
Christ, who is the Truth itself, that has never failed and can never fail, said
to the preachers of the faith whom He chose for that office 'Go ye and teach all
nations.' He said all, without exception,
for all are capable of receiving the doctrines of the faith…By virtue of Our
apostolic authority We define and declare by these present letters… that the
said Indians and other peoples should be converted to the faith of Jesus Christ
by preaching the word of God and by the example of good and holy living.”[cccxiv]
This shows us, once
again, that it is contrary to the Catholic Faith to assert that souls ignorant
of the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith can be saved.
That great “Apostle of
the Rocky Mountains,” Fr. Pierre De Smet, who was the extraordinary missionary
to the American Indians in the 19th century, was also convinced –
with all the great Catholic missionaries before him – that all the Indians
whom he did not reach would be eternally lost.
(See also the section later on St. Isaac Jogues and St. Francis Xavier)
Fr. De Smet,
S.J., Jan. 26, 1838: “New priests are to be added to the Potawatomi Mission, and
my
Fr. De Smet,
S.J., Dec. 8, 1841: “My heart aches at the thought of so many souls left to
perish for lack of priests to instruct them.”[cccxvi]
Fr. De Smet,
S.J., Oct. 9, 1844: “What emotion at the
sight of this vast country, where, for lack of missionaries, thousands of men
are born, grow to manhood, and die in the darkness of infidelity! But now through our efforts, the greater
number, if not all, shall know the truth.”[cccxvii]
This truth on
salvation is why St. Louis De Montfort says the following in his masterpiece True Devotion to Mary (which we strongly
recommend for everyone):
St. Louis De
Montfort, True Devotion to Mary # 61:
"There has been no name given under heaven, except the name of Jesus, by which
we can be saved.... Every one of the faithful who is not united to Him as a
branch to the stock of the vine, shall fall, shall wither and shall be fit only
to be cast into the fire. Outside of Him there exists nothing but
error, falsehood, iniquity, futility, death and damnation."[cccxviii]
This truth on salvation is why Pope Gregory the Great responded in the following
manner after seeing some youths from unevangelized Britain in a slave market:
(+6th
century): “The Britain Gregory knew had
nothing to do with Christ. One
day… Gregory had seen in a slave market a group of handsome flaxen-haired youths
from the north, and inquired who they might be.
‘Angles,’ he was told, from Britain.
‘Not Angles, but angels,’ replied Gregory, exclaiming how sad it was ‘that beings with such bright faces should
be slaves of the prince of darkness’ when they ‘should be co-heirs with the
angels of heaven.’ And he
resolved: ‘They shall be saved from God’s ire, and called to the mercy of
Christ.’”[cccxix]
Pope Gregory the Great clearly held that the Angles were not in a position to be
saved, even though they were ignorant of the Gospel. They were, as he said, enslaved to the
prince of darkness since they were outside the supernatural kingdom of Christ
(the Catholic Church) and under the dominion of the Devil by reason of original
sin. Hence, he resolved to send St. Augustine
of Canterbury to evangelize them and save them.
This truth on salvation is why St. Francis De Sales stated the following in The Catholic Controversy:
St. Francis De
Sales, The Catholic Controversy
(+1672): "Yes, truly; for outside the Church there is no salvation, out of this
St. Francis De
Sales, The Catholic Controversy
(+1672): "…[that] men can be saved outside the true Church, which is impossible."[cccxxi]
St. Francis De
Sales, The Catholic Controversy
(+1672): “Who should ever detract from the glory of so many religious of all orders, and of so many secular priests, who
leaving their country, have exposed
themselves to the mercy of wind and tide, to get to the nations of the New
World, in order to lead them to the true faith, and to enlighten them with the
light of the Gospel… amongst the Cannibals, Canarians… Brazilians, Malays,
Japanese, and other foreign nations, and made themselves prisoners there,
banishing themselves from their own earthly country in order that these poor people might not be banished from the heavenly
paradise."[cccxxii]
This truth on
salvation is why Pope Leo XIII says that Christopher Columbus’s discovery of
America led to the salvation of hundreds of thousands of mortals who would
otherwise have been lost for dying in a state of ignorance of the true
faith.
Pope Leo XIII, Quarto Abeunte Saeculo #1 (+1902): “By his (Christopher Columbus’) toil another world emerged from the
unsearched bosom of the ocean: hundreds of thousands of mortals have, from a
state of blindness been raised to the common level of the human race, reclaimed
from savagery to gentleness and humanity; and, greatest of all, by the acquisition of those blessings of which
Jesus Christ is the author, they have been recalled from destruction to
eternal life.”[cccxxiii]
This truth on salvation is why Pope Pelagius I, representing the mind and
Tradition of the entire early Catholic Church, declared that those who “did not
know the way of the Lord” were lost.
Pope Pelagius
I, Fide Pelagii to Childebert, April,
557: “For I confess that all men from Adam… will then rise again and stand
before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the proper things
of the body, according as he has done, whether it be good or bad [Rom. 14:10; 2
Cor. 5:10]… the wicked, however,
remaining by choice of their own with vessels of wrath fit for destruction [Rom.
9:22], who either did not know the way of the Lord, or knowing it
left it when seized by various transgressions, He will give over by a very just judgment to
the punishment of eternal and inextinguishable fire, that they may burn
without end.”[cccxxiv]
SACRED SCRIPTURE AGAINST INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE –
AND THE EVIDENCE OF THE IMMEDIATE DISSEMINATION OF
THE GOSPEL THROUGHOUT THE WORLD
St. Justin
Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew
(+155 A.D.): “There is not a single race
of men – whether barbarians or
Greeks, or of whatever name they may be called, either wagon-dwellers or
those who are called homeless or herdless who dwell in tents – among whom prayers and thanksgivings are not offered to God the Creator
of all things, in the name of the crucified Jesus.”[cccxxv]
The fact remains that God has revealed that all who wish to be saved must
believe in the Catholic Faith (the Trinity and the Incarnation being “the
Catholic Faith” in its simplest mysteries – see the Athanasian Creed). The fact that God will make sure that
souls of good will hear His voice and receive the Catholic Faith should not be hard for a Catholic to accept.
After all, in the Apostles’ Creed alone, Catholics are required to profess
belief in numerous supernatural events: the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection and
the Ascension. A Catholic is also required to believe in Sacred Scripture, which is
filled with miracles and supernatural phenomena. Transubstantiation (the Real Presence of
Christ in the Eucharist) is also an everyday miracle which Traditional Catholics
believe. So why is it hard to
believe that God removes ignorance from souls of good will no matter where they
are, even miraculously, if necessary?
The name of Jesus is the only name under all of heaven (Acts.
4:12) by which one can be saved; and those who enter in not by Jesus are thieves
and robbers (John 10).
John 10:1,9:
“[Jesus saith] Amen, Amen, I say to you: he that entereth not by the door into
the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber…
I am the door.”
In a famous case, Ven. Mary of Agreda
is said to have bilocated from her convent in
It is also taught in numerous places in the New Testament that the Gospel
was, even in the time of the Apostles, preached throughout the entire world.
Acts 1:8:
“[Jesus saith]… you shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you,
and you shall be witnesses unto me in
Colossians
1:23- “If so ye continue in the faith, grounded and settled, and immoveable from
the hope of the gospel which you have
heard, which is preached in all the creation that is under heaven,
whereof I Paul am made a minister.”
Colossians
1:4-6: “Hearing your faith in Christ Jesus… the truth of the gospel: Which is come to you, as also it is in the
whole world…”
1
Thessalonians 1:9- “For from you was spread abroad the word of the Lord, not
only in
Romans
10:13-18: “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed?
Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a
preacher… Faith then cometh by hearing: and by hearing the word of Christ. But I say: Have they not heard?
Yes, verily, their sound went forth over all the earth, and their words unto the
ends of the whole earth.”
The New Testament is clear that the Gospel reached “the uttermost part of
the earth” (Acts 1), “all the creation which is under heaven” (Colossians 1) and
“unto the ends of the whole earth” (Romans 10). It is quite possible that the Apostles
were transported to the “uttermost part of the earth” to preach the Gospel and
baptize in the same vessel by which the prophet Elias was miraculously taken
from the earth – a fiery chariot.
2 Kings 2:11-
“And as they went on, walking and talking together, behold a fiery chariot, and fiery horses parted them both asunder: and
Elias went up by a whirlwind into heaven.”
In fact, we know that St. Philip the Apostle was transported in a manner similar
to Elias, after Philip baptized the Eunuch of Candace.
Acts 8:38-39:
“And Philip commanded the chariot to stand still; and they went down into the
water, both Philip and the eunuch: and he baptized him.
And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord took away
Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more.
And he went on his way rejoicing.”
Acts 2 also tells us that on the day of Pentecost, Jews from “every nation under
heaven” (who had come to Jerusalem for the day of Pentecost) were converted and
baptized.
Acts 2:1-41:
“And when the days of the Pentecost were accomplished, they were together in one
place… Now there were dwelling at
Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. And when this was noised abroad, the
multitude came together, and were confounded in mind, because every man heard
them speak in his own tongue. And
they were all amazed, and wondered, saying: Behold, are not all these, that
speak, Galileans? And now have we
heard, every man our own tongue wherein we were born?
Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and inhabitants of
Mesopotamia, Judea, and Cappadocia, Pontus and
Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, Egypt, and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews also, and
proselytes, Cretes, and Arabians… They therefore that received his word, were
baptized; and there were added in that
day about three thousand souls.”
Once these souls from “every nation under heaven” had been converted and
baptized, they traveled back to their respective lands and spread the Gospel –
facilitating the immediate dissemination of the Gospel to distant lands
throughout the world. That is why,
for example, there is evidence of Christianity in Parthia that is
contemporaneous with the earliest Western contacts in that realm after Christ.
Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 1, p. 429: “The importance of this conversion of substantial numbers of pilgrims [on
Pentecost] who would soon be returning to their own homes in distant lands
and could spread the Faith has often been missed… But this fact probably
explains why, for instance, there are
indications of Christianity in the Parthian realms as far back as we can trace
Western contacts with it, after Christ.”[cccxxvii]
Since these souls had been converted in a powerful manner, “astonished” (Acts.
2:12) – fear having “come upon every soul:
many wonders also and signs were done by the apostles in
Andrew –
preached in Scythia (barbarian Ukraine) and perhaps Greece
Bartholomew –
preached in south Arabia (and perhaps India)
Jude Thaddeus
– preached in Mesopotamia (and perhaps Armenia and Iran)
Matthew –
Media or Ethopia
Matthias –
entirely unknown
Philip – Asia
Minor (Phrygia)
Simon the
Zealous – Iran
Thomas –
Parthia and India[cccxxix]
“The most
striking fact about this list is that, with the single exception of Philip, every one of these Apostles about whose
missionary work even the scantiest memory was preserved, went beyond the boundaries of the Roman Empire…
The truth therefore seems to be (as we should have expected, though in our
narrow vision may find hard to believe) that Christ really meant exactly what He said when He spoke to the
disciples after His Resurrection of carrying His message to the ends of the
earth, and had no intention of waiting for the development of aircraft and
television so that it might be done more easily.”[cccxxx]
This is why the celebrated Church fathers St. Justin Martyr (quoted above), St.
Irenaeus, St. Clement and many others write:
St. Irenaeus,
Against Heresies, +180 A.D.: “For the Church, although dispersed
throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received
from the Apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, Father
Almighty… Jesus Christ, the Son of God…and in the Holy Spirit… and the birth
from a Virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection…Neither do the Churches
among the Germans believe otherwise or have another tradition, nor do those
among the Iberians, nor among the Celts, nor away in the East, nor in Egypt, nor
in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the
world. But just as the sun… is one
and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere and enlightens all men who
desire to come to a knowledge of truth.”[cccxxxi]
St. Clement of
Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks,
c. +190 A.D.: “The Divine Power, moreover,
radiating with an unsurpassable speed and with a readily obtainable benevolence,
has filled the whole Earth with the seed of salvation… He showed Himself as
the herald of truth, our Mediator and Savior…”[cccxxxii]
We also know that the Holy Ghost specifically forbade the Apostles to preach the
Gospel in certain places, most probably because of the bad will that they would
encounter.
Acts 16:6-
“And when they had passed through Phrygia, and the country of
Acts 16:7-
“And when they were come into Mysia,
they attempted to go into
On the other hand, we know that the Holy Ghost specifically directed the
Apostles – by way of supernatural inspiration – to preach the Gospel in places
where there were sincere souls in need of it, such as in
Acts 16:9-10:
“And a vision was shewed to Paul in the
night, which was a man of
Acts 8:26-
“Now an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying: Arise, go towards the south …
And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near, and join thyself to his chariot.”
None of this is to suggest, of course, that one should not preach the Gospel to
a person without supernatural inspiration.
It is merely to illustrate that God is fully aware of the souls of good
will and the souls of bad will; He is fully aware of who is truly desirous of
the truth of the Gospel and who is not, and there is nothing stopping Him from
getting His truth to those who are sincere.
The Lord will add daily to the Church those who are to be saved!
Acts 2:47: “And the Lord added daily to their society
such as should be saved.” – Haydock Catholic Commentary on this verse: “More and more he added daily to the Church [such as should be saved], as
is clearly expressed in the Greek.”
Pope Pius IX,
Vatican I, Sess. 3, Chap. 3, 1870, on
Faith: “But, since ‘without faith
it is impossible to please God’ [Heb. 11:6] and to attain to the fellowship of
His sons, hence, no one is justified
without it…”[cccxxxiii]
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…”[cccxxxiv]
The fact that no one can be saved without the Catholic Faith is surely why there
is evidence of Christianity’s arrival in the
The fifteenth and sixteenth century Catholic
conquistadors of North and South America, who also overthrew the satanic Aztec
Empire, found an abundance of evidence of the ancient presence of Christianity
in the New World.
“The Indies
represented a third of mankind; it was, therefore, theologically impossible that
they would not have been evangelized by an apostle of Christ… St. Thomas (who
preached supra Gangem, beyond the
Ganges)… Since the evangelization of St. Thomas was an integral part of
revelation, what material signs do we have of his passage into the New World?
These are the indelible marks of his [or some other apostle’s] presence: the
miraculous fountains and the amazing crosses found here and there, from Bahia in
Brazil up to Gautulco, the assortment of native rites that vaguely evoked
Christianity – confession, fasting… the belief in one God and creator, in a
Virgin who wonderfully conceived, in the universal flood; the bold
interpretation of symbols in the shape of a cross in the temples and
manuscripts… Everything seems to attest to the remnants of a Christianity
corrupted by time. The omnipresent figure of one called Zume
in Paraguay and Brazil, Viracocha in Peru, Bochica in Colombia, Quetzalcoatl in
Mexico, Cuculcan among the Mayans, is surrounded by a great number of Christian
analogies.”[cccxxxvi]
Evidence has now been
uncovered that Christianity reached China as early as the 1st or 2nd
century. “A Chinese theology professor says the first Christmas is depicted in the
stone relief from the Eastern Han Dynasty (AD 25-220). In the
picture… a woman and a man are sitting around what looks like a manger, with
allegedly ‘the three wise men’ approaching from the left side, holding gifts,
‘the shepherd’ following them, and ‘the assassins’ queued up, kneeling, on the
right.”[cccxxxvii] In fact, both St. Francis Xavier
(1506-52) and Fr. Matteo Ricci (1552-1610), two of the most influential
missionaries from the Society of Jesus, “claimed in their writings that they
found evidence supporting that Thomas had made his way to China successfully.”[cccxxxviii]
Thus, by these four means was the Gospel transmitted even to the ends of the
earth during the period of Jesus Christ’s revelation – i.e. the period whose end is officially
marked with the death of the last apostle: 1) the preaching of the Apostles
which covered the entire Roman Empire and vast areas outside of it, and the
preaching of the multitudes converted by them; 2) the preaching of all those
converted on Pentecost, who carried the Gospel back to their distant lands; 3)
the possible miraculous transportation of Apostles to distant lands where good
willed souls were to be found, just as Philip was transported away from the
eunuch (Acts 8); 4) the direct supernatural intervention of God telling people
what they need to believe and do to be converted to the Christian Faith to be
saved. We see this direct supernatural
intervention of God to instruct souls of good will in the case of Cornelius and
St. Paul:
Acts 10:1-5:
“Now there was a certain man in Caesarea, named Cornelius… A religious man, and
one that feared God…He saw in a vision
manifestly… an angel of God coming
in to him, saying to him: Cornelius… send men to Joppe, and call
hither one Simon, who is surnamed Peter.”
Acts 9:3-7:
“And as he [Saul] went on his journey, it came to pass that he drew near to
Damascus: and suddenly a light from
heaven shined round about him…And he, trembling and astonished, said: Lord,
what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said to him: Arise, and go into the city, and there it
shall be told thee what thou must do.”
We must also keep in mind a fifth very important factor, which sheds further
light on this issue: the teaching of Christ is that the overwhelming majority of
mankind is of bad will and therefore damned.
Jesus revealed that few find the path to salvation in Matthew 7:13, and
the great spiritual teachers of the Catholic Church have taught that not only is
most of humanity lost (i.e., all who die as non-Catholics), but even most of
those who profess to be Catholic.
Since the sad fact of human history is that few are of the truth – something
that is also discovered by reading the Old Testament and the stories about how
few were found worthy to enter the promised land, and how few remained faithful
to God’s law in proportion to the super-majority of
even God’s people who repeatedly fell into idolatry – this helps explain why
God leaves segments of Earth’s population in ignorance. It’s because there is not a good-willed
soul to be found there. Thus, those
parts of the New World which were not reached by the Gospel were not reached
because the elect were not to be found there.
The words of the New Testament about the Gospel being preached in all creation
under heaven, and Our Lord’s words that the Apostles would witness to Him in
“the uttermost part of the earth” in His very last discourse before His
Ascension, suggest that perhaps some of the Apostles themselves were
miraculously transported to areas in the world where souls of good will were to
be found. But regardless of what one
takes from the scriptural passages above, the fact is that the Gospel is
preached where good willed souls are to be found, and where it is not preached
there is no salvation.
Tertullian, Against the Jews (+200 A.D.): “In whom
else have all nations believed, if not in the Christ, who has already come?
The Parthians and the Medes and the Elamites; and they who inhabit Mesopotamia,
Armenia, and Cappodocia; and they who dwell in Pontus and Asia, in Phrygia and
Pamphylia; sojourners in Egypt and inhabitants of the parts of Africa beyond
Cyrene, Romans and foreign residents; yes, and Jews in Jerusalem, and other
peoples: by this time even the various tribes of Gutlians, and the many
boundaries of the Moors, and all the confines of Spain, and the various nations
of Gaul; and the places of the Britons, inaccessible to the Romans, but already
subjugated to Christ; and of the Sarmatians and Dacians and Germans and
Scythians, and of the many remote tribes and provinces and islands unknown to us
and which we are scarcely able to enumerate…”[cccxxxix]
St. Louis De
Montfort, The Secret of the Rosary, c.
+1710: “… no one can possibly be saved
without the knowledge of Jesus Christ.”[cccxl]
Luke 24:47:
“And that penance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, unto all
nations, beginning at
“… 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).
SALVATION FOR THE “INVINCIBLY IGNORANT” REDUCED TO ITS ABSURD PRINCIPLE
The theory that
“invincible ignorance” saves can also be refuted by reducing it to its absurd
principle, which is this: If being ignorant of the Savior could render one
worthy of salvation, then Catholics are actually doing non-Christians a
disservice in preaching Jesus Christ to them.
But, in fact, the heresy has gotten so bad today in the time of the Great
Apostasy in which we live (See Section 34) that most “Catholics” today readily
profess that pagans, Jews, Buddhists, etc. who know of the Gospel and reject it can also be saved by “invincible ignorance.” But this is only the necessary result of
the invincible ignorance heresy; for if pagans who’ve never heard of Christ can
be saved “in good faith,” then pagans who reject Christ could also be in good
faith too, for how much does one have to hear to lose his “invincible
ignorance”? Once one strays from the
principle – that is to say, once one rejects the divinely revealed truth – that
all who die as pagans are
definitely lost without exception
(Pope Eugene IV, de fide), the clear
cut lines of demarcation are rejected, and a gray area necessarily takes over, a
gray area according to which one cannot
possibly know or set limits on who is possibly in good faith and who is not.
1 Corinthians
15:1-2: “Now I make known unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received,
and wherein you stand. By which also you are saved…”
The other heretical consequence of the invincible ignorance heresy is
that it would mean that infants could also be saved without baptism, because
infants are the most “invincibly ignorant” persons on earth. Hence, the argument would go, if
“invincible ignorance” saves non-Catholics, then it can save the “invincibly
ignorant” infants also. But such an
idea has been repeatedly condemned by the Catholic Church; it is a divinely
revealed truth that not one infant can enter heaven without water baptism (See
“Infants Cannot Be Saved Without Baptism” section).
JESUS CHRIST AGAINST INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE
Perhaps nothing in the New Testament is as clear as the fact that Our Lord Jesus
Christ is the Son of God, and that you must believe in Him to have eternal life.
John 3:16:
“For God so loved the world, as to give His only begotten Son: that
whosoever believeth in Him, may not perish, but may have life
everlasting.”
John 3:36: “He that believeth in the Son hath life
everlasting: but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the
wrath of God abideth on him.”
John 17:3:
“Now this is life everlasting, that
they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast
sent.”
John 8:23-24:
“And he said to them [the Jews]: You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this
world. Therefore, I said to you,
that you shall die in your sins: for
if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin.”
John 14:6:
“Jesus saith to them: I am the way, and the truth, and the life.
No man cometh to the Father, but by me.”
And Our Lord is clear that those who don’t know Him are not saved.
John 10:14: “I
am the good shepherd, and I know mine, and mine know me.”
There aren’t many passages in the New Testament that are as destructive to the
modern heresy of “invincible ignorance” as John 10:14.
Our Lord clearly and definitively tells us that He knows His sheep and
that His sheep “know Him.” And if Our Lord’s words weren’t clear
enough, He goes on to say, as recorded just two verses later in
John 10:16:
“And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring,
and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one
shepherd.”
Could anything be more clear? Almost
all theologians understand Our Lord’s words here about the “other sheep” to be
referring to the Gentiles. Our Lord
is telling the Jews that He has sheep among the Gentiles, who are of the truth,
and that He will bring them into the Church and they shall hear His Voice.
John 18:37:
“For this was I born, and for this came I into the world, that I should give
testimony to the truth: every one who
is of the truth, heareth my voice.”
THE “PRIVATE
INTERPRETATION” OBJECTION
OBJECTION- You are acting like a Protestant.
The Protestant privately interprets Sacred Scripture, while you privately
interpret dogmatic statements.
ANSWER- This objection was refuted in Section 2 of this
document, “Believe Dogma As It Was Once
Declared.”
But there are a few additional points in refuting and breaking down the utter
nonsense and heretical mentality that lies at the heart of this objection. The people who
make this assertion don’t understand Catholic teaching or what constitutes
fidelity to the Magisterium. In its Decree on the Sacrament of Order, the
Council of Trent solemnly declared that the dogmatic canons are for the use of
all
the faithful!
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 13, Chap. 4: “These are the matters which in
general it seemed well to the sacred Council to teach to the faithful of Christ
regarding the sacrament of order.
It has, however, resolved to
condemn the contrary in definite and appropriate canons in the
following manner, so that all,
making use of the rule of faith,
with the assistance of Christ, may be able to recognize more easily the
Catholic truth in the midst of the darkness of so many errors.”[cccxlii]
The word “canon" (in
Greek: kanon) means a reed; a straight rod or bar; a measuring stick;
something serving to determine, rule, or measure.
The Council of Trent is infallibly declaring that its canons are measuring rods
for “all” so that they, making use
of these rules of Faith, may be able to recognize and defend the truth in
the midst of darkness! This very
important statement blows away the claim of those who say that using
dogmas to prove points is “private interpretation.”
Further,
if a Catholic who is going exactly by what the Chair of Peter (the dogmatic
text) has declared
is not finding the truth, but is engaging in “private interpretation,” as they
claim, then what does he go by? Who
interprets the dogmatic statement?
And who interprets the interpretation of the dogmatic statement? And who interprets the interpretation of
the interpretation of the dogmatic statement?
And who interprets the interpretation of the interpretation of the
interpretation of the dogmatic statement?
The answer is that it would never end, and no one could ever
arrive at the truth on anything. In
that system, the deposit of faith – and the dogmatic teachings of the Church –
would then be nothing more than private opinions, which is SHEER PROTESTANTISM.
St.
Francis De Sales explained it well against the Protestants.
St. Francis De
Sales (Doctor of the Church), The Catholic
Controversy, c. 1602, p. 228: “The Councils… decide and define some article. If after all this another test has to be tried before their [the Council’s]
determination is received, will not
another
also be wanted? Who will not want to
apply his test, and whenever will the matter be settled?... And why not a
third to know if the second is faithful? – and then a fourth, to test the third?
Everything must be done over again, and posterity will never trust antiquity but
will go ever turning upside down the holiest articles of faith in the wheel of
their understandings… what we say is that when a Council has
applied this test, our brains have not now
to revise but to believe.”[cccxliii]
The “interpretation” ends with the words of the dogma itself! If it doesn’t, then it never ends,
as we saw above – you just have fallible
interpretation after fallible interpretation after fallible interpretation after
fallible interpretation. If the
buck doesn’t stop with the infallible definition (the Chair of Peter), then it
never stops. I pointed this fact out
to a somewhat well-known “apologist” for the Vatican II sect in a telephone
conversation. He was arguing that
our usage of Catholic dogmatic teaching (the teaching of the Chair of Peter) is
like Protestant “private interpretation.”
He was saying this in an attempt to defend some of his heretical beliefs
which contradict dogma, such as his belief that non-Catholics can be saved.
I said to him, “then who interprets the dogma?
And who interprets the interpretation of the dogma?” After I said “who
interprets the interpretation of the dogma… and who interprets the
interpretation of the interpretation… and who interprets the interpretation of
the interpretation of the interpretation…” he remained deadly silent for the
first time in the conversation. He
obviously had no response to the factual point that was made, simply because
there is no response. In the
heretical view of dogmatic teaching that he espoused, the Catholic Faith is
nothing more than Protestantism – fallible, private, human interpretation with
no Chair of Peter to give one the final word. The following quotation also illustrates this point very well.
“Why did Athanasius know he was right?
Because he clung to the infallible definition, no matter what everyone else
said.
Not all the learning in the world, nor all the rank of office, can substitute
for the truth of one infallibly defined Catholic teaching. Even the simplest member of the faithful,
clinging to an infallible definition, will know more than the most ‘learned’
theologian who denies or undermines the definition. That is the whole purpose of
the Church’s infallibly defined teaching – to make us independent of the
mere opinions of men, however learned, however high their rank.”[cccxliv]
BUT CAN’T MEN MISUNDERSTAND A DOGMATIC DEFINITION?
Of course they can. Men can
misunderstand anything. If Jesus
Christ (the Truth Himself) were here speaking to us, many people would without
doubt misunderstand what He said, just as many did when He came the first time. Likewise, just because some can and do
misunderstand what the Chair of Peter is declaring, it does not mean that those
who faithfully adhere to its definition are engaging in Protestant
“private interpretation.” That is
utterly blasphemous against the entire institution of the Papacy and the whole
point of dogmatic definitions and the Chair of St. Peter.
The dogmatic statements of the Catholic Church constitute the truth of heaven
being declared to us directly by the popes.
Pope 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[cccxlv]
Pope 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[cccxlvi]
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.”[cccxlvii]
There are a
number of other objections that are raised against the true meaning of the dogma
Outside the Church There is No Salvation and the necessity of receiving the
Sacrament of Baptism for salvation.
In this section, I will respond to them.
These objections, of course, are all proven to be wrong by the infallible
teaching of the Church examined thus far; but, once again, for the sake of
completeness, each one will be addressed individually.
What the modern
proponents of the false doctrine of baptism of desire try to do is to throw
together a combination of things which appear to favor their position, but which
actually don’t. They throw together a combination of
fallible statements (which don’t prove their point), misinterpreted texts and/or
mistranslated texts (which don’t say what they claim), as well as some other
things which don’t prove their point.
The average layperson, however, not having the facts at his or her
disposal or not willing to make the effort to see through all of the fallacious
arguments, misrepresented points and invalid reasoning, comes away with the
impression that “baptism of desire” must be a teaching of the Church. But when each of the things that the
baptism of desire advocates claim is examined individually, one can see that
not one of them proves the false doctrine of baptism of desire in any way;
they all crumble when scrutinized.
And while these people misunderstand and misrepresent the teaching of the
Church, they dishonestly don’t even attempt to address the many arguments from
the highest teaching authority of the Catholic Church (the Chair of Peter) which
show that there is no such thing as “baptism of desire” or salvation for those
who die as non-Catholics (see Section 33).
They don’t address these arguments simply because they can’t answer them.
Since some of the
following sections are more involved and technical, those who are not
necessarily looking for or interested in the answers to these objections may as
well skip over this section to the next section.
THE CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
OBJECTION- The Catechism
of the Council of Trent taught that the design and plan of receiving Baptism
could avail a person to grace and righteousness, if it is impossible for that
person to receive Baptism. That means that “baptism of desire” must be Catholic
teaching.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, “Ordinarily They Are Not Baptized At Once,” p. 179: “But though these things may be thus, nevertheless to this class [or kind] of men [persons], the Church has not been accustomed to give the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has arranged that it should be deferred to a fixed time. Nor does this delay have connected with it the danger, as indeed threatens in the case of children, as stated above; for those who are endowed with the use of reason, the design and plan of receiving Baptism, and repentance of a badly led life, would be sufficient to grace and justification, if some unexpected event hinders so that they are unable to be washed by the saving water. On the contrary, this delay is seen to carry with it certain advantages.”
ANSWER- The objection is false, for many reasons. This section will examine the matter in detail and it will prove that the supporters of “baptism of desire” (BOD) are quite wrong. The following points, among other things, will be demonstrated in this section:
1) The paragraph cited above is not part of the official teaching which the Catechism of Trent identified as the body of doctrine to be communicated by pastors to the faithful. This point is crucial and is overlooked by “baptism of desire” supporters, as we will see. They fail to recognize this fact because a) very few of them have actually read the Catechism of Trent and b) they don’t understand the Magisterium.
2) The Catechism of Trent (also called The Roman Catechism) consisted of information given to parish priests. It is not infallible in every paragraph, but only in those points of doctrine to be passed along to all the faithful. Those points are infallible because they represent what the Church has always taught on those matters.
3) The Catechism of Trent’s official teaching on Baptism, which it identifies as the truth to be passed along to the faithful, doesn’t include “baptism of desire”. Rather, it contradicts it.
4) Popes approved and recommended the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas in the same way they approved and recommended the Catechism of Trent. Yet, St. Thomas’ Summa Theologiae contains false doctrine on the Immaculate Conception. Nevertheless, popes continued to approve the Summa Theologiae after the Immaculate Conception was defined in 1854, without ever correcting the false position – a position that became heretical after 1854. Their approbation of the book was a general one. It didn’t mean that everything in the book was correct or could be followed absolutely.
5) The one paragraph BOD supporters cite on this matter is not infallible, is not part of the official teaching of the Catechism to be communicated to the faithful, and is filled with problems.
6) The one paragraph BOD supporters cite on this matter contradicts the much more authoritative teaching of numerous papal decrees of the highest authority on the exact same topic: i.e., on the delay in baptizing adult converts until Paschal time, and the teaching that those who desire baptism, but die without it, are lost.
7) The Catechism of Trent itself defers to the Council of Florence and specifically to its Decree Exultate Deo. That infallible decree contradicts “baptism of desire.” St. Alphonsus also teaches that the Council of Florence has a greater authority than the Catechism of Trent, and that Florence’s teaching can prove what the teaching of the Catechism of Trent cannot.
NOT EVERY PARAGRAPH OF THE CATECHISM OF TRENT WAS PROMULGATED INFALLIBLY
The Council of Trent closed on Dec. 4, 1563. The Catechism of Trent was still being worked on in 1564 and it wasn’t finally published until 1566. The Catechism of Trent is not the Council of Trent. It is not infallible in every paragraph, but only in those points of doctrine to be passed along to all the faithful; for those matters represent what the Church has always taught.
Even the introduction to the popular Tan Books’ translation of the Catechism of Trent has a quote from Dr. John Hagan, who admits that “its teaching is not infallible.” The Catechism of Trent is more than 500 pages long in a common English version. It was worked on by a variety of theologians.
Catechism of the Council of Trent- Fifteenth printing, TAN Books, Introduction XXXVI: “Official documents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine… Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de fide.”
THE CATECHISM OF TRENT DID NOT BIND THE ENTIRE CHURCH TO EVERYTHING IN IT; IT WAS INFORMATION GIVEN TO PARISH PRIESTS
The official title of the Catechism makes it clear that it’s addressed to parish priests, not to all the faithful or to all the bishops: “Catechismus ex decreto Concilii Tridentini ad parochos” (Catechism by Decree of the Council of Trent for Parish Priests). The Church’s teaching is infallible on faith and morals when it applies to and is binding upon all Christians (Vatican I). The Catechism of Trent does not meet that criterion of infallibility for every paragraph of its teaching. It was not addressed to all the faithful. In fact, it wasn’t even addressed to all priests, but to parish priests. Not all priests are parish priests.
THE CATECHISM OF TRENT SAYS THAT THE SOUL IS NOT INFUSED INTO THE EMBRYO AT THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Article III, “By the Holy Ghost,” p. 43: “But what surpasses the order of nature and human comprehension is, that as soon as the Blessed Virgin assented to the announcement of the Angel in these words, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word, the most sacred body of Christ was formed, and to it was united a rational soul enjoying the use of reason; and thus in the same instant of time He was perfect God and perfect man. That this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Ghost cannot be doubted; for according to the order of nature the rational soul is united to the body only after a certain lapse of time.”
The Catechism states that the rational soul is only united to the body after a certain lapse of time. According to the Catechism, an embryo is not a human being when it comes into existence at the time of fertilization or conception. On this point the Catechism is following the position of St. Thomas and many scholastic theologians. They taught that the rational soul is not infused into the embryo until approximately 40 or 80 days after conception.
St. Thomas taught that the human embryo proceeded through three stages of soul. He believed that the embryo began with the vegetative soul (anima vegetabilis, which he believed plants possess), then proceeded to the sensitive soul (anima sensitiva, which he believed animals possess), and, after 40 or 80 days, God infused the rational or intellectual soul (anima intellectiva, the human soul). He also taught that men receive a soul approximately 40 days after conception, but women 80 days after conception. DNA, however, informs us that there is no difference between men and women in terms of when they acquire the biological characteristics of a human being. Since DNA shows that the biological characteristics of a human being are present from fertilization/conception, the position of delayed ensoulment (as taught by St. Thomas and the Catechism of Trent) is generally rejected by the pro-life movement in our day.
The 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia admits that by the early 20th century, many theologians had come to reject the opinion of St. Thomas on when the rational soul is infused into the embryo. Since the Catechism of Trent expressed the same view, they necessarily contradicted its teaching on that point as well.
The 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia article on “Soul” explains: “St. Thomas’s doctrine is … In the first stage of embryonic development, the vital principle has merely vegetative powers; then a sensitive soul comes into being, educed from the evolving potencies of the organism — later yet, this is replaced by the perfect rational soul, which is essentially immaterial and so postulates a special creative act. Many modern theologians have abandoned this last point of St. Thomas's teaching, and maintain that a fully rational soul is infused into the embryo at the first moment of its existence.”
Anyone who cites the Catechism of Trent as if it’s infallible in every paragraph should be asked the following question: do you agree with its teaching that the embryo is not a human being from the moment of fertilization or conception? Even if one holds that the embryo is not human until weeks or months after fertilization/conception, there’s a problem with the Catechism’s paragraph on this point. It’s that when speaking of the human body, the Catechism says that the “rational soul is united to the body only after a certain lapse of time.” That means that, according to the Catechism, a human body can exist for weeks before a soul is infused. That’s not correct. It’s a defined dogma that the rational soul is the form of the human body. This was defined by the Council of Vienne.
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree #1, 1311-1312: “In order that all may know the truth of the faith in its purity and all error may be excluded, we define that anyone who presumes henceforth to assert, defend or hold stubbornly that the rational or intellectual soul is not the form of the human body of itself and essentially, is to be considered a heretic.”
Since the soul is the form of the human body, there cannot be a true living human body that does not have a true rational soul infused into it. Yet, the Catechism indicates that the human body exists for a certain period of time prior to the infusion of the rational soul. That’s not correct. The human body cannot exist until there is a rational soul. Prior to the infusion of the rational soul, the embryo would not be a human body, but a plant or animal body containing a plant or animal soul. Thus, the articulation of the Catechism on this point is simply wrong. It’s another example of how its teaching is not infallible in every paragraph. A human body cannot exist for a period of time prior to the infusion of the rational soul.
THE KEY DISTINCTION THAT IS OVERLOOKED BY SUPPORTERS OF “BAPTISM OF DESIRE”: NOT EVERYTHING IN THE CATECHISM IS IDENTIFIED AS PART OF THE BODY OF DOCTRINE TO BE COMMUNICATED TO THE FAITHFUL – ONLY CERTAIN THINGS ARE
Very few people who comment on the Catechism of Trent (and its teaching of Baptism) have actually read or studied the entire Catechism. When you actually read or study the entire Catechism of Trent, you recognize that it’s written and formulated in such a way that ONLY CERTAIN POINTS OF DOCTRINE are specified by the Catechism as points of doctrine that can, must or should be communicated by pastors to the faithful. Let me repeat that: ONLY CERTAIN POINTS OF DOCTRINE are specified by the Catechism as matters that can, must or should be communicated by pastors to the faithful. Not everything in the Catechism is to be communicated to the faithful.
To put it another way: the Catechism of Trent is a manual for parish priests. It’s over 500 pages long in a common English version. Those 500-plus pages contain a great deal of information, but only certain points in the Catechism are specified as what the pastors are necessarily to teach and say to the faithful. There are many things in the Catechism that don’t fall into that category.
PROOF THAT NOT EVERYTHING IN THE CATECHISM WAS TO BE PASSED ALONG TO THE FAITHFUL
Here are just a few quotes which prove that not everything in the Catechism of Trent was part of the body of doctrine that can, must or should be communicated to the faithful. I could give dozens of other examples.
Catechism of Trent, “Suffered under Pontius Pilate”: “Furthermore, the pastor should not omit the historical part of this Article, which has been so carefully set forth by the holy Evangelists…”
Here we see the Catechism informing the pastor that he should not omit this particular point. That’s because within the vast amount of information in the Catechism, there are things in the Catechism that the pastor could omit. Not every line or paragraph in the Catechism is to be communicated to the faithful.
Catechism of Trent, on Taking God’s name in vain: “The above observation should strongly convince the pastor that on this point it is not enough to speak in general terms…”
Here the Catechism is confirming that there are certain things that must be said to the faithful. Certain things cannot be passed over. But not everything in the Catechism necessarily falls into that category. The sentence above would of course make no sense if everything in the Catechism were automatically intended for the faithful or to be given to the faithful.
Catechism of Trent, on “Life Everlasting”: “The faithful, therefore, are to be informed that the words, life everlasting, signify not only continuance of existence…”
Here again it’s identifying a point that is to be communicated to the faithful, but not everything in the Catechism falls into that category.
Catechism of Trent, Opening Words of the Lord’s Prayer, on Angels “The pastor need do no more than depict the Angel lighting up the darkness of the prison, touching Peter's side and awakening him from his sleep.”
Here again we see that not everything in the Catechism needs to be passed along to the faithful.
MORE PROOF THAT ONLY CERTAIN THINGS IN THE CATECHISM WERE SPECIFED AS POINTS TO BE TAUGHT TO THE FAITHFUL; OTHER THINGS CAN BE OMITTED
Catechism of Trent, on the Eucharist: “It must be taught, then, that to priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer to the faithful, the Holy Eucharist.”
Catechism of Trent, “Deliver us from Evil,”: “It cannot be necessary to remind the faithful of the numerous evils and calamities to which we are exposed…”
Catechism of Trent, “on the forgiveness of sins”: “On this point of doctrine, then, it is the duty of the pastor to teach that, not only is forgiveness of sins to be found in the Catholic Church...”
Catechism of Trent, on Indissolubility: “The pastor should not here omit the salutary admonition of St. Augustine…”
Catechism of Trent, on the Creed, “Almighty”: “The pastor should point out the propriety and wisdom of having omitted all other names of God in the Creed, and of having proposed to us only that of Almighty as the object of our belief.”
Catechism of Trent, on the Effects of the Eucharist: “As, however, no language can convey an adequate idea of its utility and fruits, pastors must be content to treat of one or two points…”
This clearly shows that only certain things in the Catechism will be passed along to the faithful.
Catechism of Trent, Article II: “Wherefore, the pastor should not omit to remind the faithful that the guilt and punishment of original sin were not confined to Adam…”
Catechism of Trent, On the Creed, “On the Trinity”: “… let the pastor teach that the terms nature and person used to express this mystery should be most scrupulously retained; and let the faithful know that unity belongs to essence, and distinction to persons.”
Catechism of Trent, “Thy Will Be Done,” “Though the faithful are not to be left in ignorance of the import of this Petition, yet in this connection many questions concerning the will of God may be passed over which are discussed at great length and with much utility by scholastic doctors.”
The facts above establish without any doubt that within the Catechism of Trent’s 500-plus pages of information, only certain points of doctrine are identified by the Catechism as part of the body of doctrine that can, must or should be communicated to the faithful. That’s how the Catechism is written and set up. Many other examples could be given to further prove the point. The Catechism is telling the pastors that you need to tell them this; you must not forget that; you should not omit this; but it’s not necessary to say this; etc. It makes these statements throughout the entire Catechism because not everything in the Catechism is for the faithful. It’s information given to the parish priest. Only certain portions of that information are identified as what must or should be inculcated by the pastors.
ACCORDING TO THE CATECHISM OF TRENT, OUR POSITION ON BAPTISM IS THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND IS WHAT MUST BE COMMUNICATED TO THE FAITHFUL, NOT “BAPTISM OF DESIRE”
When we consult the Catechism’s teaching on Baptism, guess what we find? The one paragraph that supporters of “baptism of desire” cite is NOT specified or identified as the doctrine that the pastors are to teach to the faithful. There is nothing in it which specifies that what it says there is to be taught to the faithful. Rather, it is simply information (fallible and inaccurate information) given to the parish priests. Yes, it’s possible that within the Catechism’s hundreds of paragraphs, there can be found some inaccurate information and certain fallible opinions of men. But the official teaching the Catechism specifies as what the faithful are to be taught is reflective of sound Catholic truth, as we will see.
The doctrine on Baptism, which the Catechism does specify and single out as the doctrine on Baptism to be communicated to all the faithful, is precisely the opposite of “baptism of desire.” It is that no one can enter Heaven without being born again of water and the Spirit in the Sacrament of Baptism, and that no one can be inside the Catholic Church without having received the Sacrament of Baptism. That’s what the Catechism says pastors are to teach the faithful.
WHEN YOU CONSULT THESE QUOTES, NOTICE THAT THERE IS A SPECIFIC MENTION OF HOW THIS IS THE DOCTRINE PASTORS ARE TO TEACH THE FAITHFUL
Catechism of the Council of Trent, “Matter of Baptism - Fitness,” p. 165: “Upon this subject pastors can teach in the first place that water, which is always at hand and within the reach of all, was the fittest matter of a Sacrament which is necessary to all for salvation.”
According to the Catechism, what is to be communicated to the faithful by pastors is that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary to all for salvation. It even emphasizes that no one can be saved without water baptism by stating: “water, which is always at hand and within the reach of all”. That contradicts “baptism of desire.” “Baptism of desire” is not a sacrament, as its supporters admit. It is based on the idea that water is not “within the reach of all.” Yet, the Catechism says that what pastors can teach is that the Sacrament is necessary to all for salvation. That is what the Catholic Church has always taught and what the dogmatic teaching of the Church declares. The official teaching of the Catechism, to be passed along to the faithful, is not “baptism of desire” but contrary to it. Here’s another example.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, “On Baptism – Necessity of Baptism,” pp. 176-177: “If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that THE LAW OF BAPTISM, AS ESTABLISHED BY OUR LORD, EXTENDS TO ALL, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5).”
Notice the references to “it is no less important to them to learn”, and “Pastors, therefore, should…” Again, we see that this is the doctrine pastors are to teach. In this paragraph the Catechism of Trent officially teaches that the law of Baptism applies to all. It also declares that unless people are regenerated through water baptism they go to destruction, as Jesus taught in John 3:5.
According to the Catechism, this is what pastors are to communicate to the faithful. This is the dogmatic teaching of the Church. It’s the only thing we ever find in any infallible pronouncement. Those who teach that it’s possible to be saved without water baptism are contradicting what the Catechism says pastors are to teach. Let’s look at another example.
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… Hence we can have no doubt that the words of the Saviour: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, refer also to the same time which was to follow after His Passion. If, then, pastors explain these truths accurately, there can be no doubt that the faithful will recognize the high dignity of this Sacrament.”
Here the Catechism states that holy writers are unanimous in teaching that after the Resurrection, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all; and that, after that time, no one can enter Heaven without being born again of water and the Spirit, as Jesus taught in John 3:5. That completely refutes the argument supporters of “baptism of desire” base on the alleged authority of a consensus among theologians; for it declares that all theologians (even those who did not remain consistent with themselves on this issue) articulated a position which contradicts “baptism of desire”: i.e., that no one can enter Heaven without water baptism, based on John 3:5. That is the position Catholic writers have unanimously taught.
According to the Catechism, the doctrine to be communicated by pastors to the faithful is the position that after the Resurrection, no one enters Heaven without rebirth of water and the Holy Ghost.
It is absolutely true that the official teaching of the Catechism of Trent, to be communicated to the faithful, is not “baptism of desire” but contrary to it. And there’s more.
THE CATECHISM ALSO SAYS PASTORS ARE TO TEACH THAT ALL IN THE CHURCH ARE “MEMBERS”; THAT ALL ARE PART OF THE “BODY”; AND THAT ALL HAVE BEEN REGENERATED IN THE “SACRAMENT”
This passage is of particular interest; for in it the Catechism
identifies the true teaching, WHICH PASTORS MUST COMMUNICATE AND PASS ALONG
TO THE FAITHFUL, as:
• All
in the Church are “members”;
• All
in the Church are part of the “Body”;
• All
in the Church have been regenerated in the same sacrament of faith/baptism.
All these points contradict the false theory of “baptism of
desire” and the position of all its defenders. Proponents of “baptism of desire”
claim that people can be inside the Church without being “members”; that people
can be in the soul of the Church without being in the “Body”; and, most
importantly for this point, that people can be inside the Church without having
received THE SACRAMENT. The Catechism of Trent contradicts them on all three
points and says that the following position is what pastors are to teach.
Catechism of Trent,
on the “Our Father,” p. 510: “There is but one God, the Father and Lord of all;
and consequently we have all the same nobility of spiritual birth, all
the same dignity, all the same glory of race; for all
have been regenerated by the same Spirit through the same Sacrament of faith, and have been made children of God and co-heirs to the same
inheritance. The wealthy and great have not one Christ for their God; the poor
and lowly, another; they are not initiated by different Sacraments; nor can they
expect a different inheritance in the kingdom of heaven. We are all brethren
and, as the Apostle says in his Epistle to the Ephesians: We are
members of Christ’s body [Ephesians 5:30],
of his flesh and of his bones. This is a truth which the same Apostle thus
expresses in his Epistle to the Galatians: You are the children of God, by faith
in Jesus Christ; for as many of you as have been baptised in Christ, have put on
Christ. There is neither Greek nor Jew, neither bond nor free, neither male nor
female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Now
this is a point which calls for accuracy on the part of the pastor of souls, and
one on which he should purposely dwell at considerable length;
for it is a subject that is calculated both to strengthen and animate the poor
and lowly…”
Therefore, it is contrary to the official teaching of the
Catechism – which it says is to be passed along to the faithful – to assert that
people can be inside the Catholic Church without the Sacrament of Baptism.
People who teach “baptism of desire,” therefore, do not pass along what the
Catechism says is to be passed along to the faithful.
THUS, WHEN SUBSEQUENT PAPAL STATEMENTS ENCOURAGE OR APPROVE CATECHETICAL
INSTRUCTION BASED ON THE CATECHISM OF TRENT, THAT DOESN’T FAVOR “BAPTISM OF
DESIRE”, BUT CONTRADICTS IT
The points covered above concern the key distinction on this
matter: what the Catechism says is to be passed along to the faithful. These
points become especially relevant when considering papal statements made about
the Catechism. For example, defenders of “baptism of desire” (who typically
ignore the arguments which refute their position) assert that papal statements
after Trent approved or encouraged catechetical instruction based on the
Catechism of Trent.
In his encyclical Acerbo Nimis, Pope Pius X stated the
following.
Pope Pius X, Acerbo
Nimis (#24), April 15, 1905: “The catechetical instruction shall be based
on the Catechism of the Council of Trent; and the matter is to be divided in
such a way that in the space of four or five years, treatment will be given to
the Apostles' Creed, the Sacraments, the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer and
the Precepts of the Church.”
Yes, and what does the Catechism of Trent state is to be
communicated to the faithful on Baptism? As proven above, the teaching of the
Catechism of Trent, identified as the doctrine to be communicated to the
faithful, is:
1) The Sacrament of Baptism, administered in water, which is
within the reach of all, is necessary to all for salvation;
2) The law of Baptism extends to all, so that unless people are
regenerated through water and the Spirit in the Sacrament, as Jesus says, they
go to destruction;
3) Holy writers are unanimous in teaching that after the
Resurrection the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved;
so that unless they are reborn of water and the Spirit, as Jesus says, they
cannot enter the Kingdom of God;
4) All people in the Church have been regenerated in the same
“sacrament”.
These are the points pastors are to teach on Baptism. If pastors
follow the official teaching of the Catechism, they contradict “baptism of
desire.” The one paragraph cited in the objection, which expresses the idea that
someone can be saved by a desire for baptism, was NOT one of the
points of doctrine the Catechism says is to be communicated to the faithful.
It’s also filled with problems, as we will see.
“BAPTISM OF DESIRE” ADVOCATES ARE ALSO WRONG ABOUT POPE CLEMENT XIII'S
ENCYCLICAL IN DOMINICO AGRO
In an argument that’s similar to the one that concerns Acerbo
Nimis, BOD advocates will sometimes cite Pope Clement XIII’s encyclical In
Dominico Agro.
Pope Clement XIII, In
Dominico Agro (#4), June 14, 1761: “As our predecessors understood that that
holy meeting of the universal Church was so prudent in judgment and so moderate
that it abstained from condemning ideas which authorities among Church scholars
supported, they wanted another work prepared with the agreement of that
holy council which would cover the entire teaching which the faithful
should know and which would be far removed from any error. They
printed and distributed this book under the title of The Roman Catechism. In
it they compiled the teaching which is common to the whole Church and which is
far removed from every danger of error, and they proposed to transmit it
openly to the faithful in very eloquent words according to the precept of Christ
the Lord who told the apostles to proclaim in the light what He had said in the
dark and to proclaim from the rooftops what they heard in secret.”
Clement XIII says that the Council of Trent “wanted” a Catechism
“which would cover the entire teaching which the faithful should know and which
would be far removed from any error.” Supporters of BOD claim this supports the
claim that “baptism of desire” is infallible. They are quite wrong.
First, Clement refers to “the entire teaching which the faithful
should know”. As established above, “baptism of desire” is not part of
the teaching the Catechism says “the faithful should know.” That’s the
key point. Hence, the premise of the argument advanced by supporters of
BOD is false. “Baptism of desire” is simply not the official teaching of
the Catechism which it says is to be passed along to the faithful. The
importance of what the Catechism says is to be “communicated to the faithful” is
also clear from his next paragraph.
Pope Clement XIII, In
Dominico Agro (#5), June 14, 1761: “Therefore, in case the Church should be
deceived and wander after the flocks of the companions who are themselves
wanderers and unsettled with no certainty of truth, who are always learning but
never arriving at the knowledge of truth, they proposed that only what is
necessary and very useful for salvation be clearly and plainly explained in the
Roman Catechism and communicated to the faithful.”
As proven above, the only teaching on Baptism which the Catechism
of Trent says pastors are to communicate to the faithful is:
Catechism of the Council of
Trent, “Matter of Baptism - Fitness,” p. 165: “Upon this subject pastors can teach in the
first place that water, which is always at hand
and within the reach of all, was
the fittest matter of a Sacrament which is necessary
to all for salvation.”
And this:
Catechism of the Council of
Trent, “On Baptism – Necessity of Baptism,” pp. 176-177: “If the
knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest
importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that THE LAW
OF BAPTISM, AS ESTABLISHED BY OUR LORD, EXTENDS TO ALL,
so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be
their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and
destruction. Pastors, therefore,
should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of
water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn.
3:5).”
And this:
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… Hence we can have no
doubt that the words of the Saviour: Unless a man be born
again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, refer
also to the same time which was to follow after His Passion. If,
then, pastors explain these
truths accurately, there can be no doubt that the faithful will recognise the
high dignity of this Sacrament.”
And this:
Catechism of Trent,
on the ‘Our Father,’ p. 510: “… we have all the same nobility of spiritual
birth, all the same dignity, all the same glory of race; for all
have been regenerated by the same Spirit through the same Sacrament of faith, and have been made children of God and co-heirs to the same
inheritance… Now this is a point which calls for accuracy on the part of the
pastor of souls, and
one on which he should purposely dwell at considerable length;
for it is a subject that is calculated both to strengthen and animate the poor
and lowly…”
Second, Clement states that in the Catechism, “they compiled the
teaching which is common to the whole Church and which is far removed from any
error.” The Catechism contains many points of doctrine that constitute the
teaching common to the whole Church. That teaching is far removed from error.
That doesn’t mean that every paragraph in the 500-plus pages of information
falls into that category. Indeed, as we will see, similar things were stated
about St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae. Yet, supporters of “baptism
of desire” must concede that the Summa contains some errors (e.g., the
error on the Immaculate Conception).
So, Clement XIII’s encyclical does not provide any support for
the false doctrine of “baptism of desire.” Rather, it highlights the key
distinction explained above: what’s crucial in considering the Catechism’s
teaching are the parts it identifies as what must be “communicated to the
faithful.” That position is that no one can be saved without water baptism.
POPES RECOMMENDED ST. THOMAS’ SUMMA THEOLOGIAE IN THE SAME WAY THEY
RECOMMENDED THE CATECHISM OF TRENT
In his Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas taught that Mary was
not immaculately conceived. Here’s the proof.
ST.
THOMAS AQUINAS’ SUMMA THEOLOGIAE CONTAINS BLATANT ERROR ON THE IMMACULATE
CONCEPTION
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theologiae Pt. III, Q. 27, A. 2, Reply to Objection 2: “If the soul of
the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be
derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal
Savior of all.”
Even though the teaching of the Summa Theologiae contradicts
the truth about the Immaculate Conception, it was approved and recommended by
numerous popes. It was also placed on the altar at the Council of Trent. How
could popes repeatedly approve and recommend a book that contains such a
blatantly false teaching on the Immaculate Conception? Does that mean that they
were approving, recommending and using a “heretical” book? No. That’s because in
substance (on the whole) the teaching of the Summa Theologiae is
Catholic and sound, even though there are a few points or paragraphs that aren’t
correct. The papal approval does not mean that St. Thomas taught infallibly or
correctly in every paragraph of the Summa Theologiae, but rather that his
teaching in the book in general is Catholic. Moreover, everything in it
must be subjected to proclamations of greater weight.
In response to these points about the Summa, one supporter
of “baptism of desire” – a man I debated once, but who backed out of a
subsequent debate because he knew he couldn’t defend his position – made the
following argument: well, St. Thomas made his error on the Immaculate
Conception before the Immaculate Conception was defined as a dogma
by Pope Pius IX in 1854. Therefore, his error on that point in the Summa
Theologiae is irrelevant.
That argument is, one must say, pathetic. The doctrine St. Thomas
put forward in the Summa Theologiae on the Immaculate Conception is
FALSE. If the approbation given to a book by pope after pope after pope
necessarily means that the Magisterium endorses the teaching of that book as
true in every paragraph, that principle would have held true throughout all of
Church history. Therefore, by repeatedly approving and recommending his book,
the Magisterium would have been endorsing as correct St. Thomas’ false teaching
on the Immaculate Conception, even before it was solemnly defined in 1854. But
we know the Magisterium did not endorse that false view. That proves that
popes can repeatedly approve, utilize and recommend a book as Catholic, even
though the book contains certain points or paragraphs that are wrong and should
not be followed. Their approval for the book is legitimate because the book’s
teaching in general is Catholic, even though it might contain some errors
or false ideas.
Furthermore, the aforementioned argument is obliterated by
the fact that popes gave the same kind of approval and recommendation to the Summa
Theologiae after the Immaculate Conception was defined in 1854! Here
are a few examples.
POPES ALSO APPROVED THE SUMMA THEOLOGIAE WITHOUT QUALIFICATION AFTER 1854
In his 1899 document Depuis le jour, Pope Leo XIII praises
and recommends the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas in the same way that he
recommends the Catechism of Trent.
Pope Leo XIII, Depuis le
jour (#’s 22-23), Sept. 8, 1899: “Is it necessary to add that the book par
excellence in which students may with most profit study scholastic theology
is the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas? It is our wish,
therefore, that professors be sure to explain to all their pupils its method, as
well as the principal articles relating to Catholic faith.
We recommend equally that all seminarians have in their hands, and
frequently peruse, that golden book known as the Catechism of the Council of
Trent, or Roman Catechism, dedicated to all priests invested with the
pastoral office (Catechismus ad Parochos). Noted both for the
abundance and accuracy of its teaching and for elegance of style, this catechism
is a precious summary of the whole of theology, dogmatic and moral.”
Well, does the Summa Theologiae have heresy? After 1854 –
and Pope Leo XIII published Depuis le jour in 1899 – St. Thomas’ view on
the Immaculate Conception would not only be erroneous, but heretical.
So, what exactly does Pope Leo XIII’s praise for (and approval
of) the Summa Theologiae mean? Does it mean that every paragraph
or article in the Summa is infallible or can be followed? No. It means
that in general the book is Catholic. It does not mean that of the
thousands of paragraphs, there aren’t a few that are wrong or less than
perfectly in accord with Catholic doctrine. In the same way, the Catechism of
Trent in general is sound; but that doesn’t mean that in the over 500
pages of information, there isn’t one or a few paragraphs that are incorrect.
And, as I’ve proven, the official teaching of the Catechism, which it says is to
be communicated to the faithful, is absolutely correct. It is that no one can be
saved without the Sacrament of Baptism; and that no one can be in the Church
without the Sacrament of Baptism.
Here are some more examples of emphatic papal approval for the
teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas. Yet, this approval does not demonstrate that his
teaching was correct or can be followed in every case.
Pope St. Pius V said St.
Thomas was “the most certain rule of Christian doctrine by which he
enlightened the Apostolic Church in answering conclusively numberless
errors… which illumination has often been evident in the past and recently stood
forth prominently in the decrees of the Council of Trent.”
So, Pius V says that he’s “the most certain rule”; yet, there are
points of the teaching of St. Thomas that CANNOT be held by a Catholic.
Pope Leo XIII, Aeterni
Patris, August 4, 1879:“But the chief and special glory of Thomas,
one which he has shared with none of the Catholic Doctors, is that the Fathers
of Trent made it part of the order of conclave to lay upon the altar, together
with sacred Scripture and the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of
Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration.”
Pope Benedict XIII wrote
to the Order of Preachers that they should “pursue with energy your Doctor’s
works, more brilliant than the sun and written without the shadow of error.
These works made the Church illustrious with wonderful erudition, since they
march ahead and proceed with unimpeded step, protecting and vindicating by the
surest rule of Christian doctrine, the truth of our holy religion.”
Pope Benedict XV stated
that “the eminent commendations of Thomas Aquinas by the Holy See no longer
permit a Catholic to doubt that he was divinely raised up that the Church
might have a master whose doctrine should be followed in a special way at all
times.”
The BOD heretics do not understand Catholic teaching. They
approach both magisterial teaching and dogmatic teaching from a man-centered
perspective, rather than from a God-centered one. Faced with the facts above,
their principles would force them to reason thus: since popes repeatedly
approved St. Thomas and the Summa Theologiae, both before and after 1854,
his teaching on the Immaculate Conception is consistent with the definition of
the Immaculate Conception.
But that would be a disastrous conclusion. His teaching on the
Immaculate Conception is not consistent with Ineffabilis Deus of Pope
Pius IX. The approbation popes gave to the Summa Theologiae and to his
work was a general one. It doesn’t mean that everything he taught is correct.
None of the statements which approved his work were
infallible declarations that everything in the Summa Theologiae or
the teaching of St. Thomas is correct. The same is true of the Catechism of
Trent. It would be possible for a pope to issue an infallible declaration that a
particular work is absolutely and completely correct in every part, but no such
declaration was made about the Summa Theologiae or the Catechism of
Trent.
POPE PIUS X ALSO IMPOSED THE USE OF THE SUMMA THEOLOGIAE ON HIGHER
SCHOOLS IN ITALY, WITHOUT CORRECTING ITS FALSE TEACHING ON THE IMMACULATE
CONCEPTION
“Shortly before his death,
viz., in June, 1914, Pope Pius X issued a document imposing the obligation of
using the Summa of St. Thomas as the text-book in all higher schools in Italy and
the adjacent islands which enjoyed the privilege of conferring academic degrees
in theology.” (Daniel Joseph Kennedy, the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas
Aquinas, II. Specimen Pages from the Summa, pp. 3-4.)
How could Pope Pius X impose the obligation of using the Summa as
the text-book in 1914, when St. Thomas teaches contrary to the Immaculate
Conception in the Summa? Pope Pius X never ordered the Summa’s error
on the Immaculate Conception to be expunged. In fact, when approving or
recommending the Summa, none of the popes bothered to correct St. Thomas’
mistake on the Immaculate Conception. So, how is it possible that they approved
and recommended it? It’s possible because they gave it a general approbation.
They didn’t issue an infallible declaration that everything in it is correct.
These facts completely refute the argument advanced by supporters
of “baptism of desire,” according to which a papal recommendation or approval
of the Catechism of Trent necessarily means that everything in it is correct.
They are totally wrong.
THEY TRUST IN MAN RATHER THAN IN GOD AND THE OFFICE OF THE PAPACY
There’s an interesting dynamic at work when obstinate supporters
of “baptism of desire” approach these matters. While their rhetoric might give
the appearance of devotion to Catholic teaching, it’s simply a deception. Their
alleged devotion to selective passages in a catechism or in the teaching of a
theologian does not spring from belief in the teaching of the Catholic Church.
It is, rather, purely the product of their trust in man. They simply
cannot bring themselves to believe that a book or work used or produced by
men they admire was not corrected in every possible way by those men.
They have the utmost confidence in man and in his fallible works, even
though the Church does not teach that God always protects men in such works. And
while they have such confidence in the fallible teaching and actions of men,
they lack a similar belief in the infallibly-protected teachings of God and His
Church. They are devoid of supernatural faith in God and a real belief in papal
infallibility as a charism given uniquely to St. Peter and his successors. Their
approach is a clear mark of bad will.
Jeremiah 17:5- “Thus says
the Lord: Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his
strength, whose heart turns away from the Lord.”
If the obstinate proponents of “baptism of desire” believed in
God, they would focus on what the Magisterium clearly teaches. They would adhere
to what the infallibly-protected proclamations of God’s Church directly proclaim
on the matter. The papacy and the dogmas unerringly define the rule of Catholic
faith. The rule of faith is not decided by theologians or fallible books.
If they had fidelity to papal teaching, they would then see that
the Magisterium has never taught “baptism of desire”, or that anyone can be
saved without the Catholic faith, or that anyone can be saved without actual
membership in the Church. They would realize that while God protects every inch
and paragraph of such proclamations, the same protection is not granted to every
paragraph of the teaching of catechisms, theologians, etc. Men can be mistaken
and overlook things in a book, as the facts about the Summa Theologiae prove.
The teachings of the Chair of St. Peter cannot be mistaken, and that protection
was not granted to everyone.
To ignore that the promise of infallibility was uniquely given to
St. Peter and his successors, and not to other members of the Church (see Luke
22:31-32), is to fail to understand the very foundation of the Church of Jesus
Christ upon St. Peter.
THE
NUMEROUS PROBLEMS WITH THE ONE PARAGRAPH IN THE CATECHISM OF TRENT THAT “BAPTISM
OF DESIRE” ADVOCATES CITE
Let’s now consider the numerous problems in the one paragraph in
the Catechism typically cited by supporters of “baptism of desire.” The
paragraph is completely inaccurate and contains numerous errors. It is actually
a theological travesty: an editor who inserted his own opinion into the text and
fell into numerous errors as a result.
Catechism of the Council of
Trent, “Ordinarily They Are Not Baptized At Once,” p. 179: “But
though these things may be thus, nevertheless to this class [or kind] of men
[persons], the Church has not been accustomed to give the Sacrament of Baptism
at once, but has arranged that it should be deferred to a fixed time. Nor does
this delay have connected with it the danger, as indeed threatens in the case of
children, as stated above; for those who are endowed with the use of reason, the
design and plan of receiving Baptism, and repentance for a badly led life, would be sufficient to grace
and justification, if some unexpected event hinders
so that they are unable to be washed by the saving water. On the contrary, this
delay is seen to carry with it certain advantages.”
First, this paragraph is not infallible. It is contrary to the
dogmatic teaching of the Church on the necessity of rebirth of water and the
Spirit. It is also contrary to the official teaching of the Catechism on
Baptism, as explained above.
Second, and this is key, the paragraph doesn’t state anywhere
(nor does the lead up to the paragraph) that what is articulated here is to be
passed along to the faithful. The above paragraph is thus not the
teaching on Baptism which the Catechism identifies as the doctrine to be taught
to the faithful. It is, rather, an explanation for the priests for
why Baptism is delayed in the case of adults. The explanation is wrong, as I
will definitely prove by citing much more authoritative papal teaching which
contradicts it on precisely the same issue. But herein we find the key
distinction: the Catechism can indeed err in an explanation it gives to
the parish priests; but its official teaching of Baptism, which it says is the
doctrine to be taught to the faithful, is correct. Its official teaching on
Baptism, which it says is to be passed along to the faithful, is that no one can
be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism.
Catechism of the Council of
Trent, “Matter of Baptism - Fitness,” p. 165: “Upon this subject pastors can teach in the
first place that water, which is always at hand
and within the reach of all, was the fittest matter
of a Sacrament which is necessary to all for salvation.”
Third, the aforementioned paragraph states that some “unexpected
event” can make it impossible for someone to receive the saving water. The
notion that there are “unexpected events” that can make it impossible for
someone to receive Baptism is contrary to Catholic teaching and God’s
providence.
Pope Pius IX, Vatican
Council I, Sess. 3, Chap. 1, On God the creator of all things: “EVERYTHING
THAT GOD HAS BROUGHT INTO BEING HE PROTECTS AND GOVERNS BY HIS PROVIDENCE, which
reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well. All
things are open and laid bare before His eyes, even those which will be
brought about by the free activity of creatures.”
Pope Paul III, Council
of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 11 on Justification, ex cathedra: “... no
one should make use of that rash statement forbidden under anathema by the
Fathers, that the commandments of God are impossible to observe for a man who is
justified. FOR GOD DOES NOT COMMAND IMPOSSIBILITIES, but by commanding
admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do…”
It’s not a surprise that the Catechism makes the aforementioned
error when attempting to explain the idea of “baptism of desire.” When people
articulate or defend a false doctrine, they will always be inconsistent and make
numerous mistakes. In fact, the Catechism’s teaching on “unexpected” events
making it impossible to receive Baptism contradicts its own teaching.
Catechism of Trent,
on Transubstantiation: “The pastor should remember first of all to
prepare and fortify his hearers by reminding them that no word shall
be impossible with God.”
Fourth, it should also be noted that the aforementioned passage
states that the person must have a “design and plan of receiving Baptism” to be
saved. None of the modern-day defenders of “baptism of desire” believe that one
must have a design of receiving Baptism to be saved. They believe that pagans,
Jews, Muslims, etc. can be saved without the Catholic faith, belief in Christ or
a design of receiving Baptism.
THE
CATECHISM’S PARAGRAPH ON THE DELAY IN BAPTIZING ADULT CONVERTS IS DEFINITIVELY
REFUTED BY THE HIGHEST TEACHING OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE ON THE EXACT SAME ISSUE
Fifth, the Catechism’s information about the “delay” in baptizing
adult converts is completely and totally wrong. It is contradicted and refuted
by the teaching of numerous popes in authoritative documents of the Apostolic
See. The Catechism claims that the baptism of adults can be delayed because they
can be saved without the saving font, by the design and plan to receive
Baptism. Yet, the Church teaches exactly the opposite.
In A.D. 385 Pope St. Siricius issued a Decree to Himerius.
It is the oldest surviving papal decree in history. The Decree to Himerius is
promulgated with Siricius’ full papal authority. In it he repeatedly invokes the
highest authority of the office of St. Peter. He states that his Decree is
binding upon all the churches, all the bishops and all the priests. A decree on
Church law cannot be any more authoritative than Pope St. Siricius’ Decree to
Himerius. Here’s what he says.
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
could 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. 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 a way to be saved besides 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
credulitatis auxilio (the unique help of faith). Unico, which is a form
of unicus, means unique, one-and-only, peerless, unparalleled. There can be
no alternatives, no other kinds of baptism. According to the Catholic faith,
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, the Pope 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
Latin Text of the Oldest Surviving Papal Decree Rejects “Baptism of Desire”.
Pope St. Siricius’ Decree proves that the Catechism of Trent’s
explanation for the delay in baptizing adult converts is simply wrong. It was
not part of the official teaching the Catechism says is to be communicated to
the faithful.
In the following two statements, Pope St. Leo the Great repeated,
in very similar language, the same teaching that we find in the Decree of
Siricius. Therefore, he also refutes “baptism of desire” and the Catechism of
Trent’s erroneous paragraph.
Pope St. Leo the Great, Letter
166, Oct. 24, 458, #1: “For at the instance of certain brethren we have
discovered that some of the prisoners of war, on their free return to their
own homes, such to wit as went into captivity at an age when they
could have no sure knowledge of anything, crave the healing waters of baptism, but
in the ignorance of infancy cannot remember whether they have received the
mystery and rites of baptism, and that therefore in this uncertainty of
defective recollection their souls are brought into jeopardy, so long as under a
show of caution they are denied a grace, which is withheld, because it is
thought to have been bestowed.... Consequently the same things, which have come
into our mind by the Divine inspiration, have received the assent and
confirmation of a large number of the brethren. And so we are bound before all
things to take heed lest, while we hold fast to a certain show of caution,
we incur a loss of souls who are to be regenerated. For who is so given
over to suspicions as to decide that to be true which without any evidence he
suspects by mere guesswork? And so wherever the man himself who is anxious for
the new birth does not recollect his baptism, and no one can bear witness about
him being unaware of his consecration to God, there is no possibility for sin to
creep in, seeing that, so far as their knowledge goes, neither the bestower or
receiver of the consecration is guilty… And so, whenever such a case occurs,
first sift it by careful investigation, and spend a considerable time, unless
his last end is near, in inquiring whether there be absolutely no one who by his
testimony can assist the other's ignorance. And when it is established that the
man who requires the sacrament of baptism is prevented by a mere baseless
suspicion, let him come boldly to obtain the grace, of which he is conscious of
no trace in himself. Nor need we fear thus to open the door of salvation
which has not been shown to have been entered before.”
Notice that in this passage he teaches that people who were to be
regenerated (unbaptized catechumens) will lose their souls if they don’t receive
water baptism. There is no “baptism of desire.” Receiving the Sacrament of
Baptism is the only way to be saved. That’s the teaching of the Apostolic See.
The quote below articulates the same position.
Pope St. Leo the Great, Letter
16, Oct. 21, 447, #6: “Wherefore, as it is quite clear that these two
seasons [Easter and Pentecost] of which we have been speaking are the rightful
ones for baptizing the chosen in Church, we admonish you, beloved, not to
add other days to this observance. Because, although there are other festivals
also to which much reverence is due in God's honour, yet we must rationally
guard this principal and greatest sacrament as a deep mystery and not part of
the ordinary routine: not, however, prohibiting the license to succor those
who are in danger by administering baptism to them at any time. For while we
put off the vows of those who are not pressed by ill health and live in peaceful
security to those two closely connected and cognate festivals, we do not at any
time refuse this which is the only safeguard of true salvation to any one
in peril of death, in the crisis of a siege, in the distress of
persecution, in the terror of shipwreck.”
As we can see, receiving water baptism is the only way to be
saved.
SUMMARY OF THE FALSE PARAGRAPH
So,
for the following reasons, the Catechism of Trent’s one paragraph, which
expresses the idea that one can be justified and saved by the design and plan to
receive Baptism, does not demonstrate that the Church taught “baptism of
desire”:
1) The paragraph was not even part of the official teaching of
the Catechism to be passed along to the faithful, and it was not infallible;
2) It has improper theological terminology about unexpected
events making it impossible for someone to reach Baptism;
3) It contradicts the express (and much more authoritative)
teaching of the Apostolic See on the very same issue: the delay in baptizing
adult converts (see Siricius and Leo the Great above);
4) It contradicts the dogmatic teaching of the Church and the
declarations of the Apostolic See on the Sacrament of Baptism, and that no one
desiring water baptism can be saved without it;
5) It contradicts its own official teaching.
Is it possible that within the Catechism’s 500-plus pages of
information, there is some information given to the parish priests that is not
correct? Yes, as proven above. That’s clearly the case with the aforementioned
paragraph in the Catechism. Yet, in those points of doctrine which the Catechism
says are to be passed along to the faithful, it faithfully represents the
teaching of the Catholic Church. There it declares that the faithful are to be
taught that no one can be saved or be in the Church without the Sacrament of
Baptism.
God allows errors to be taught by fallible men and in fallible
sources because, as Scripture teaches, there must be false doctrines.
1 Cor. 11:19: “For there
must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be manifest among
you.”
Water baptism is the only way to be saved. That’s the dogmatic
teaching of the Church.
Pope Clement V, The Council
of Vienne, 1311-1312: “Besides, only one baptism regenerating
all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just
as ‘one God and one faith’ [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in
the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be the
perfect remedy for salvation for both adults and children.”
Whether infant or adult, God will keep any person of good will
alive long enough to receive the Sacrament of Baptism.
St. Augustine, Against
Julian, Book 5, Chap. 4: “Of the number of the elect and predestined, even
those who have led the very worst kind of life are led to repentance through the
goodness of God… Not one of them perishes, regardless of his age at death; never
be it said that a man predestined to life would be permitted to end his life
without the sacrament of the Mediator [Baptism]. Because of these men, our
Lord says: ‘This is the will of him who sent me, the Father, that I should lose
nothing of what he has given me.’”
THE
CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT DEFERS TO THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE’S DECREE EXULTATE
DEO
To complete the refutation of this objection, it’s important to
note that the Catechism of Trent repeatedly makes reference to the Council of
Florence. In fact, it refers specifically to the Council of Florence’s Bull Exultate
Deo.
In these passages notice that the Catechism refers to the
teaching of the Bull Exultate Deo as a “definition” and that which “no
one can doubt.” The Catechism of Trent thus defers to the teaching of the Bull Exultate
Deo and considers it infallible. The Catechism itself recognizes the
teaching of Exultate Deo as having an authority that’s higher than its
own.
Catechism of the Council of
Trent, “Penance – the Necessity of Confession,” p. 282: “Justly, then,
do those most holy men, our Fathers, proclaim, that by the keys of the Church
the gate of Heaven is thrown open, a truth which no one can
doubt since the Council of Florence has decreed that the effect of
Penance is absolution from sin.”
The place where the Council of Florence “decreed” the effect of
Penance was in the Bull Exultate Deo. Concerning that Bull, that
Catechism also states:
Catechism of Trent,
on the Form of Baptism: “It appears, however, from the decision and
definition of the Council of Florence [Exultate Deo], that those
who use this form administer the Sacraments validly, because the words
sufficiently express what is essential to the validity of Baptism, that is, the
ablution which then takes place.”
And what teaching do we find in the bull Exultate Deo on
the necessity of Baptism – the same teaching that’s found in every
dogmatic and magisterial pronouncement on the issue? The teaching of the Council
of Florence, to which the Catechism of Trent itself defers, is that no one can
enter Heaven without the Sacrament of Baptism.
Pope Eugene IV, The Council
of Florence, Exultate Deo, Nov. 22, 1439:“Holy baptism, which is the
gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments;
through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless
we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter
into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The
matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”
“Baptism of desire” is not consistent with that teaching.
ST.
ALPHONSUS ALSO TEACHES THAT THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE’S DECREE EXULTATE DEO HAS
A GREATER AUTHORITY THAN THE CATECHISM OF TRENT, AND THAT ITS TEACHING CAN PROVE
WHAT THE CATECHISM’S TEACHING CANNOT
It’s also very interesting that St. Alphonsus Liguori, in History
of Heresies, refers to the teaching of the Bull Exultate Deo. He
gives the teaching of the Council of Florence in the Bull Exultate Deo an
authority higher than the Roman Catechism. Consider his words.
St. Alphonsus, History
of Heresies, on Confirmation, #8: “However, it is more commonly held that
balsam is necessary for the validity of the sacrament: this is taught by
Bellarmine, Gonet, the author of the Theology of Perigord, by Concina, and
others, along with St. Thomas and the Roman Catechism. It is proved
from the Council of Florence, in which it was stated that the matter of
confirmation is chrism, composed of oil and balsam [Decree to the Armenians, on
the sacraments].”
Referring to the position that balsam is required in
Confirmation, St. Alphonsus references Bellarmine, St. Thomas and the Roman
Catechism (i.e., the Catechism of Trent). Yet, he only says that the position is
“proved” from the Council of Florence. The part of Florence to which he refers
is the Bull Exultate Deo. Clearly, according to St. Alphonsus, the
Council of Florence’s bull Exultate Deo has an authority that the Roman
Catechism does not. Its teaching can prove what the Roman Catechism cannot.
The teaching of the Council of Florence’s Bull Exultate Deo is
that no one enters Heaven without the Sacrament of Baptism.
For all of the reasons we’ve covered, the objection advanced by
supporters of “baptism of desire” from the Catechism of Trent holds no merit.
The infallible teaching of the Catholic Church is that there is
only one way for people to be saved: to be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost in
the Sacrament of Baptism, as Jesus taught in John 3:5. Even those who desire
water baptism, and find themselves in an accident, will lose the Kingdom and
life if they depart life without the saving water (Pope St. Siricius). However,
the all-powerful and just God can and will keep all His elect alive to receive
the unique help of faith. To obstinately teach anything else in the face of
these facts is to contradict and deny the infallible teaching of the Catholic
Church.
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, Exultate Deo, Nov. 22, 1439:“Holy
baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among
all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of
the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man,
‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth
says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this
sacrament is real and natural water.”
Pope Paul III, The
Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547:
“If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary
for salvation: let him be anathema.”
Pope Clement V, The Council
of Vienne, 1311-1312: “Besides, one baptism regenerating
all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just
as ‘one God and one faith’ [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in
the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be the
perfect remedy for salvation for both adults and children.”
Pope Clement V, The Council
of Vienne, 1311-1312: “But since one is the universal Church, of regulars
and seculars, of prelates and subjects, of exempt and non-exempt, outside of
which absolutely (omnino) no one (nullus) is saved (salvatur), one is the
Lord, one is the Faith and one is the baptism of all.”
Pope St. Siricius, Decree
to Himerius, A.D. 385: “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. 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.”
SESS. 7, CAN. 4 ON THE SACRAMENTS – ACTUALLY REFUTES
BAPTISM OF DESIRE, AS CAN BE SEEN WHEN COMPARED WITH SIMILAR DOGMATIC CANONS ON
THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL
OBJECTION- In Sess. 7,
Can. 4 on the Sacraments in General, the Council of Trent teaches that
people can obtain justification by the sacraments or the desire for them.
ANSWER- Session 7, Can. 4 on the Sacraments in General says nothing of the
sort. An awkward translation
of this canon, as well as the mistaken notion that Trent teaches baptism of
desire in another place in Trent (which has already been refuted), has led to
this erroneous assertion. In fact,
we will see that the truth is just the opposite of what the baptism of desire
advocates claim. Let’s take a look
at the canon.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Can. 4, On the
Sacraments: “If anyone says that the sacraments of the new law are not necessary
for salvation but are superfluous, and that people obtain the grace of
justification from God without them or a desire for them, by faith alone,
though all are not necessary for each individual: let him be anathema.”[cccxlviii]
When one
carefully examines this canon, he sees that it is not declaring that
either the sacraments or the desire for them is sufficient for justification;
but rather it is condemning those who would say that neither the sacraments nor
the desire for them is necessary for justification.
I repeat, it is not declaring that either is
sufficient; it is condemning those who would say neither is
necessary. Precisely, it
is condemning those who would say that neither is necessary and that
faith alone suffices.
Consider
the following canon that I have made up: “If anyone says that the Virgin Mary
possesses the Queenship of Heaven without God’s permission or her being
worthy of it, but assumes this Queenship by usurpation alone, let him be
anathema.”
The
sentence construction of this imaginary canon is similar to the canon we are
discussing. Consider it carefully. After considering it, I ask: does this
canon mean that the Blessed Mother possesses her Queenship solely by “her
being worthy of it”? No, she
must also have God’s permission. The
canon does not say that either “her being worthy of it” or “God’s permission”
is sufficient for Mary to possess the Queenship. Rather, it condemns those
who would say that neither “God’s permission” nor “her
being worthy of it” is necessary.
In other words, the canon is condemning those who would say that both
God’s permission and Mary’s worthiness are useless, since she assumes the
Queenship by usurping it.
Likewise, canon
4 above does not say that either the sacraments or the desire for them is
sufficient for justification; it condemns those who would say that both the
sacraments and the desire are unnecessary in obtaining justification, since
faith alone is all one needs. Canon
4 does not in any way teach the possibility of baptism of desire.
ONE CAN SEE THAT THIS CANON ACTUALLY REFUTES BAPTISM
OF DESIRE WHEN IT IS COMPARED WITH SIMILAR DOGMATIC CANONS ON THE SACRAMENTS IN
GENERAL
Further, since this canon is
anathematizing a false position on the
necessity of the sacraments in general
for justification, what doesn’t hold true for all the
sacraments on justification must therefore be qualified in the canon.
It is a canon on the sacraments in general. To put it another way, the Council of
Trent couldn’t anathematize the statement: “If
anyone says that one can obtain justification without the sacraments...” –
since, in the case of one sacrament, the Sacrament of Penance, one can obtain
justification by the desire for it.
The Council of Trent explicitly defined this no fewer than three times.
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess.
14, Chap. 4, On Penance: “The
Council teaches, furthermore, that though it sometimes happens that this
contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man to God, before
this sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation must not be
ascribed to the contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament which is
included in it.”[cccxlix]
Therefore, since one can obtain justification without the Sacrament of
Penance, in order to make room for this truth in its definition on the
Sacraments in General and Justification, the Council had to add the
clause “without them or the desire for
them” to make its statement applicable
to all the sacraments and their necessity or lack thereof for justification.
With this in mind, one
can clearly see that Sess. 7, Can. 4 doesn’t assert or state anywhere that one can obtain justification or salvation
without the Sacrament of Baptism; it is dealing with a different issue in a very
specific context.
To further prove this point, let’s look at two other dogmatic definitions (one
from
►Pope Pius IV, “Iniunctum nobis,” The Council of
Trent, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “I
also profess that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the New
Law instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and necessary for the salvation of
mankind, although all are not necessary for each individual…”[cccl]
►Pope Pius IX,
Vatican Council I, Sess. 2, Profession of Faith, ex cathedra: “I profess also that there are seven sacraments
of the new law, truly and properly so called, instituted by our Lord Jesus
Christ and necessary for salvation, though each person need not receive
them all.” [cccli]
Before we compare these
two definitions with Sess. 7, Can. 4 above, the reader must notice that the Councils of Trent and Vatican I
infallibly define here that “the sacraments” as such (i.e., the sacramental system as a whole) are
necessary for man’s salvation. Both
definitions add the qualification that all seven sacraments are not
necessary for each individual. This
is very interesting and it proves two points:
1) It proves that every man must receive at least one sacrament to be saved;
otherwise, “the sacraments” as such (i.e. the sacramental system) couldn’t be
said to be necessary for salvation.
Hence, this definition shows that each man must at least receive the
Sacrament of Baptism in order to be saved.
2) Notice that the Council of Trent and Vatican
I made it a special point
when defining this truth to emphasize that each person does not need to receive
all of the sacraments to be saved!
This proves that where exceptions or clarifications are necessary in
defining truths, the councils will include them! (That is why the Council of Trent
declared that Our Lady was an exception to its Decree on Original Sin). Thus, if some men could be saved without
“the sacraments” by “baptism of desire,” then the council could have and would
have simply said that; but it didn’t.
Nothing about salvation being possible without the sacraments was taught in
these dogmatic professions of Faith.
Rather, the truth that the sacraments are necessary for salvation was
defined, with the necessary and correct qualification that all seven of
the sacraments are not necessary for each person.
Fr. Francois
Laisney (Believer in Baptism of Desire),
Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 9: “Baptism
of Desire is not a sacrament... it does not produce the sacramental
character.”
Now, let’s compare these two definitions with Sess. 7, Can. 4 above. Here are all three:
Pope Pius IV, “Iniunctum nobis,” Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “I also profess that there are truly and properly seven
sacraments of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and necessary for
the salvation of mankind, although all are not necessary for each individual…”[ccclii]
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I,
Sess. 2, Profession of Faith, ex cathedra:
“I profess also that there are seven sacraments of the new law, truly and
properly so called, instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ and necessary for
salvation, though each person need not receive them all.”[cccliii]
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent,
Session 7, Can. 4, On the Sacraments in General, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that the sacraments of the new law are
not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that people obtain the grace of justification from God without them
or a desire for them, by faith alone, though all are not necessary
for each individual: let him be anathema.”[cccliv]
In comparing these
definitions, one notices that Sess. 7, Can. 4 of Trent (the third one) is very
similar to the first two dogmatic definitions.
In fact,
they are almost exactly the same, but
with two glaring differences: in the first two dogmatic definitions
there is no reference to “without them or the desire for them,” and there is no
reference to the topic of justification.
The first two definitions are simply dealing with the necessity of the
sacraments for salvation, whereas the third (Sess. 7, Can. 4) is dealing
with an additional topic: justification and faith alone, and it makes an
additional statement about it.
It is blatantly obvious
that the phrase “without them or the desire for them” (not found in the first
two definitions) has something to do with the additional subject that is
addressed here (justification and faith alone), which is not addressed in the
first two definitions. In fact, the
clause “without them or the desire for them” comes directly after (directly before in the Latin) the
reference to justification in Sess. 7, Can. 4!
This serves to prove my point above, that the reference to “without them
or the desire for them” in Sess. 7, Can. 4 is there to make room for the
truth that justification can be obtained without the Sacrament of Penance by the
desire for it, which Trent teaches multiple times. That is why this clause “without them or
the desire for them” is not mentioned
in the first two dogmatic definitions dealing with the sacraments and their
necessity for salvation! If
baptism of desire were true, the clause “without them or the desire for them”
would be included in the first two definitions quoted above, but it isn’t.
Sess. 7, Can. 4 is condemning the Protestant idea that one can be justified
without the sacraments or even without the
desire for them, by faith alone.
Some ask: why didn’t it simply condemn the idea that one can be justified
without the sacraments by faith alone?
The answer is, as stated above, because a person
can be justified without the Sacrament of Penance by the desire for it! Therefore, Trent condemned the Protestant
idea that one can be justified without the sacraments or without the desire for them by faith alone. But a person can never be saved without
incorporation into the sacramental system through the reception of Baptism.
That is why no qualification was made in this regard in any of these
definitions. Considering these facts, one can see that
this canon is not in any way teaching baptism of desire.
In fact, when looking
at Sess. 7, Can. 4 again, we notice something else that is very interesting. Notice that not just the profession of
Faith from Trent and Vatican I, but also Sess. 7, Can. 4 condemns anyone
who says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation. It adds no qualification, except that all
seven are not necessary for each individual.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent,
Session 7, Can. 4, On the Sacraments in General: “If anyone says that the sacraments of the new law are not necessary
for salvation but are superfluous, and that people obtain the grace of justification from God without them
or a desire for them, by faith alone, though all are not necessary for each individual: let him be
anathema.”[ccclv]
After declaring that
the sacraments are necessary for salvation (baptism of desire is not a
sacrament), it adds at the end the qualification (as the other definitions did)
that all seven are not necessary for each individual!
But it adds no qualification that salvation can be attained by the desire for
the sacraments in general.
Notice that it DOESN’T SAY:
“If anyone says that the sacraments of the
new law or the desire for them are not
necessary for salvation but are superfluous… let him be anathema.”
It doesn’t say this at
all. The “desire for them” was coupled with
the reference to justification for the reason discussed above. All of this serves to prove again that
the Council of Trent didn’t teach baptism of desire, contrary to what so many
have asserted.
Some may object that
this seems rather complicated. It
really isn’t complicated for anyone who thinks about it carefully.
And if it is complicated, it is complicated by the people who deny the
simple truth that one must be baptized to be saved, and who tenaciously
assert that it is not necessary for all to be born again of water and the Holy
Ghost. Those who misunderstand or
stray from the straightforward and totally simple truth (defined in the Canons
on the Sacrament of Baptism) are the ones who make it complicated and burdensome
to refute their errors and/or perversions of the truth. If people simply repeated and adhered to
the truths defined in the Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism it would be very
simple.
The Council of Trent
had every opportunity to declare: “If anyone shall say that there are not three
ways of receiving the grace of the Sacrament of Baptism, by desire, by blood or
by water, let him be anathema,” but it never did.
Rather, it declared:
Pope Paul III,
The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547,
ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that real and natural
water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our
Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born
again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some
sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”[ccclvi]
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.”[ccclvii]
OBJECTION- Pope Innocent
II taught that a priest could be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism by his
desire for it and his confession of the true faith (Denzinger 388):
“To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the
authority of the holy fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you
indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he
persevered in the faith of holy mother Church and in the confession of the name
of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly
fatherland. Read (brother) in the
eighth book of Augustine’s City of
ANSWER- First of all, there is no
such thing as a priest who has not been baptized. The Church teaches that one who has not
been baptized cannot receive the priesthood validly.
This problem alone demonstrates that the above statement is not
infallible. Secondly, the date of
this document is unknown, the author is unknown – it is by no means clear that
it was Innocent II – and the person to whom it is addressed is unknown! Could such a document ever prove
anything? No. It remains a mystery why a document
of such doubtful authenticity found its way into Denzinger, a handbook of
dogmatic statements. This is
probably because Denzinger was edited by Karl Rahner, a notorious heretic, whose
heretical bias caused him to present this clearly non-magisterial statement as
Magisterial, for he is a believer in baptism of desire.
To illustrate the lack of magisterial authority of the previous letter
allegedly
from Pope Innocent II, I will quote from Thomas Hutchinson’s book, Desire and
Deception (pp. 31-32):
“We speak of
the letter Apostolicam Sedem, written at the behest of Pope Innocent II
(1130-1143), at an unknown date to an unnamed bishop of
---- Text of letter omitted because it has been listed already ----
“Now, there are more
than a few problems connected with this letter.
Firstly, it depends entirely on the witness of Saints Ambrose and Augustine for
its conclusion. Its premises are
false, as the Fathers in question did not actually hold the opinions herein
imputed to them. (author: as noted a
mere sentimental speculative utterance does not prove they hold to this as
official teaching)…
“Lastly, there is
even a question of who wrote this letter.
Many authorities ascribe it to Innocent III (1198-1216). This question is mentioned in Denzinger. The letter is certainly not in keeping
with the totality of his declarations either.
In any case, a gap of 55 years separated the two pontificates. So a private letter of uncertain date,
authorship, and destination, based upon false premises and contradicting
innumerable indisputably valid and solemn documents, is pretended to carry the
weight of the Magisterium on its shoulders.
Were any other doctrine concerned, this missive (letter) would not
even be given any consideration.
As we shall see, however, mystification and deception are part and parcel of the
history of this topic of Salvation.
Perhaps this letter was attributed to Innocent III because of his
statement that the words of consecration at Mass do not actually have to be said
by the priest, but only thought internally --- a sort of Eucharist by Desire.
Later Saint Thomas Aquinas took him to task on this point.
“But Innocent III is
indeed the key to understanding the original teaching of the Church on this
topic. It was in his time (as always until the
Second Plenary Council of
These
considerations dismiss any argument in favor of baptism of desire from this
letter. The letter, while certainly not
infallible, may indeed be a forgery.
OBJECTION- Pope Innocent
III taught that a person who baptized himself could be saved by the desire for
the Sacrament of Baptism.
Pope Innocent
III, to the Bishop of Metz, Aug. 28, 1206: “We respond that, since there should
be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly
gathered from the words of the Lord, when he says to the Apostles: ‘Go, baptize
all nations in the name etc.,” the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by
another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who
baptizes another...If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have
rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament,
although not because of the sacrament of faith.”[ccclix]
This proves the theory of baptism of desire.
ANSWER- It is true that Pope Innocent III apparently said that a person who
baptized himself could be saved by his desire for the sacrament, but it is false
to say that this proves the theory of baptism of desire. Baptism of desire is disproved by the
infallible teaching of Pope St. Leo the Great, the Council of Florence and the
Council of Trent on the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation.
But the first thing that should be said about this letter from Innocent III is
that a letter to the Bishop of Metz does not meet the requirements for an
infallible pronouncement. This is a fact hardly anyone would
dispute.
To prove this point consider the following: In the letter Ex parte tua,
Jan. 12, 1206, the same Innocent III teaches that original sin was remitted
by the mystery of circumcision.
Pope Innocent
III, Ex Parte tua, to Andrew, the Archbishop of Lyons, Jan. 12, 1206: “Although
original sin was remitted by the mystery of circumcision, and the danger of
damnation was avoided, nevertheless there was no arrival at the kingdom of
heaven, which up to the death of Christ was barred to all.”[ccclx]
This is definitely wrong, since the Council of Trent defined as a dogma (Session
VI, Chap. 1 on Justification) that “not even the Jews by the very letter of
the law of Moses were able to be liberated or to rise” from original sin.[ccclxi]
Pope Paul III,
Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 1 on Justification: “… whereas all men
[*except the Blessed Virgin - as Trent says in Sess. V*] had lost their
innocence in the prevarication of Adam, ‘having become unclean’, and (as the
Apostle says), ‘by nature children of wrath… but not even the Jews by the
very letter of the law of Moses were able to be liberated or to rise therefrom…”[ccclxii]
In other words, not even the observance of Circumcision and the rest of the
Mosaic Law enabled Jews to be freed from original sin (de fide), contrary
to what Innocent III taught in his letter Ex parte tua. So we have Innocent III teaching
blatant error in the letter Ex parte tua to Andrew, the Archbishop of
Lyons. Since Ex parte tua is
at least as authoritative as the other two statements allegedly from Innocent II
and Innocent III, which are often quoted by baptism of desire supporters, it
proves that they are likewise fallible and non-Magisterial. And this is the kind of “evidence” which
baptism of desire supporters try to bring forth from the Papal Magisterium: a
dubious letter alleged to be from Innocent II – with no date or addressee – and
a letter from Innocent III to an archbishop, which ranks on the same level as
Ex Parte Tua which contains things contrary to Catholic dogma. The evidence in favor of baptism of
desire from the infallible Papal Magisterium is zero.
In fact, as mentioned already, it was during Innocent III’s time
forbidden to bury the unbaptized (whether catechumens or even children of
Catholic parents) in consecrated ground.
And it is the infallible teaching of the same Pope at the Fourth
Lateran Council which affirms the absolute necessity of water baptism for
salvation.
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.”[ccclxiii]
“The
faithful” only includes those baptized with water, as section 6 of this document
proves.
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.”[ccclxiv]
And here is another statement from the same Pope which, though not infallible,
insists on the absolute necessity of rebirth in water.
Pope Innocent
III, letter to Thorias, Archbishop of Nidaros:
“You have asked whether children ought to be regarded as Christians whom,
when in danger of death, on account of scarcity of water and absence of a
priest, the simplicity of some has anointed on the head and the breast, and
between the shoulders with a sprinkling of saliva for baptism. We answer that since in baptism two
things always, that is, ‘the word and the element,’ are required by necessity, according to which Truth says concerning the
word: ‘Going into the world
etc.’ [Luke 16:15; Matt. 28:19], and the
same concerning the element says: ‘Unless anyone etc.’ [John 3:5] you ought not
to doubt that those do not have true baptism in which not only both of the above
mentioned (requirements) but one of them is missing.”[ccclxv]
Perhaps Pope Innocent III’s blunders in his fallible capacity as pope are the
reason we read the following vision about him barely avoiding Hell and being
allegedly condemned to suffer in Purgatory until the end of the world.
“In The Mourning of the Dove, St. Robert
Bellarmine (+ c. 1600) tells us about a person appearing to St. Lutgarde all
clothed in flame and in much pain. When St. Lutgarde asked him who he was,
he answered her: ‘I am [Pope] Innocent III, who should have been condemned to
eternal Hell-fire for several grievous sins, had not the Mother of God
interceded for me in my agony and obtained for me the grace of repentance. Now I am destined to suffer in Purgatory
till the End of the World, unless you help me.
Once again the Mother of Mercy has allowed me to come to ask you for your
prayers.’”[ccclxvi]
OBJECTION- St. Alphonsus
taught that baptism of desire is “de fide” (of the faith). This means that baptism of desire is
dogma!
St. Alphonsus: “Baptism by fire, however, is the
perfect conversion to God through contrition, or the love of God above all
things, with the explicit desire, or implicit desire, for the true river of
baptism. As the Council of Trent
says (Sess. 14, Chap. 4), it takes the place of the latter with regard to the
remission of the guilt, but does not imprint a character nor take away all the
debt of punishment. It is called
fire because it is made under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, who is given this
name… Thus it is of faith (de fide) that men are saved even by the baptism of
fire, according to c. Apostolicam, de pres. non bapt. and the Council of Trent,
Sess. 6, Chap. 4, where it is said that no one can be saved without the laver of
regeneration or the desire for it.”
ANSWER- First, St. Alphonsus was not
infallible. It is simply a fact that
St. Alphonsus made some theological mistakes, as the following discussion will
show. To advance St. Alphonsus’s
opinion on some matter as if it were a dogma is not Catholic.
Second,
St. Augustine held that it was de fide
that unbaptized infants suffer the fires of Hell and St. Cyprian held that it
was de fide that heretics cannot validly
baptize. Both were dead wrong.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 9,
1910, “Limbo,” p. 258: “…St. Thomas and
the Schoolmen generally were in conflict with what St. Augustine and other
Fathers considered to be de fide [on unbaptized infants suffering the fires
of hell]...”[ccclxvii]
St. Cyprian, 254 A.D.: “We…
judging and holding it as certain that no one beyond the pale [that is,
outside the Church] is able to be baptized…”[ccclxviii]
Third,
the root of St. Alphonsus’s error on baptism of desire was that he misunderstood
Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent (his opinion on this passage simply does not hold up
under scrutiny – see the discussion of that passage).
And this mistake led to his false conclusion that baptism of desire is a
teaching of the Catholic Church. The
passage which St. Alphonsus thought taught baptism of desire does not teach
baptism of desire, but affirms: as it
is written, unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot
enter into the Kingdom of God.
Fourth,
in teaching baptism of desire, St. Alphonsus was teaching that one can be
sanctified by the Spirit and the Blood of Christ without the water of baptism
and this
is contrary to what Pope St. Leo the Great infallibly taught. When a clash occurs between dogmatic
definitions and the opinions of saints, the Catholic, of course, goes with the
dogmatic definitions, no matter how great or learned the saint may be.
Finally,
most theologians after St. Alphonsus who believed in “baptism of desire” didn’t
even hold his opinion that baptism of desire is de fide. Most of them said that baptism of desire
is close to the Faith, not defined of the Faith.
Hardly any of them said that it is defined of the Faith. This fact proves that it is NOT of
the faith, because such a discrepancy would not exist among the theologians who
claim to favor it if it could be demonstrated that baptism of desire is of the
Faith. Here is an admission by a
defender of baptism of desire:
Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau, Baptism of Desire, p. 43: “The existence of
baptism of desire is, then, a truth which, although it has not been defined
as a dogma by the Church, is at least proximate to the faith.”[ccclxix]
If the Council
of Trent taught baptism of desire, then baptism of desire is a defined article
of the Faith. But the Council of
Trent did not teach baptism of desire, which is why Fr. Rulleau is forced to
admit
that it is not defined of the Faith, but only (in his view) “proximate to the
faith.” “Proximate to the Faith” and
“of the Faith” are not the same. Fr.
Rulleau (a fierce advocate of the theory) would not be caught softening his own
position if he could prove that it is of the faith, but he cannot.
Thus, St.
Alphonsus’s statement is wrong for several reasons: 1) it is contrary to defined
dogma (Pope St. Leo the Great and the understanding of Trent on John 3:5 as it is written); 2) his statement
cannot be proven – no definition can be cited; 3) it is not shared by even the
theologians who believe in baptism of desire; 4) there are errors in the very
paragraph in which it is stated.
Let’s
examine # 4) there are errors in the very paragraph in which it is stated. To substantiate his position on baptism
of desire, St. Alphonsus first makes reference to Sess. 14, Chap. 4 of the
Council of Trent. He says:
“As the Council of Trent says (Sess. 14, Chap. 4), it takes the
place of the latter with regard to the remission of the guilt, but does not
imprint a character nor take away all the debt of punishment.”[ccclxx]
This is
completely wrong. Sess. 14, Chap. 4
of the Council of Trent does not say that baptism of desire “takes the place
of the latter (i.e., baptism) with regard to the remission of the guilt,” as
St. Alphonsus claims. Let’s look at
the passage:
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 4, on the
Sacrament of Penance: “The Council teaches, furthermore, that though it
sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect because of charity and
reconciles man to God, before this sacrament is actually received, this
reconciliation must not be ascribed to the contrition itself without the desire
of the sacrament which is included in it.”[ccclxxi]
The
Council here defines that perfect contrition with the desire for the Sacrament
of Penance
can restore a man to the grace of God before the sacrament is received. It says nothing of Baptism! St. Alphonsus’s very premise – that
baptism
of desire is taught in Sess. 14, Chap. 4 – is erroneous.
And this
shows again what I have been demonstrating throughout this document: basically
all the saints and theologians who expressed belief in baptism of desire
contradicted themselves in explaining it while making other errors in the same
document.
It should also be noted that, although St.
Alphonsus mentioned that he believed that an adult could be saved by the
explicit desire or implicit desire for the Sacrament of Baptism, he uses the
word implicit not to mean “not known,” but rather “not expressed in
words” – in other words, an adult who knows of Baptism and desires it,
but does not express this desire in words.
St. Alphonsus, even though wrong about baptism of desire, did not hold to
the modern day heresy of invincible ignorance – the idea that an adult
can be saved by baptism of desire who does not believe in Christ or the Church
and does not know of Baptism. St.
Alphonsus would rightly condemn such an idea as heretical.
1. St. Alphonsus: “See also the special love which God has shown you in
bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic
or true Church. How many are born
among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all
are lost.”[ccclxxiii]
It’s interesting to consider that when the people who quote St. Alphonsus
in favor of baptism of desire – and treat him as if he were infallible – are
asked if they agree with his teaching here (that all who die as heretics, Jews,
Muslims and pagans go to Hell), almost all of them avoid the question like the
plague. They avoid the question
because, in this case, they do not share St. Alphonsus’s position.
Rather, they believe that heretics, Jews, Muslims and pagans can be saved and
therefore are in heresy for that reason alone.
2. St. Alphonsus: “We must believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the
only true Church; hence, they who are out of our Church, or if they are
separated from it, cannot be saved.”[ccclxxiv]
3. St. Alphonsus: “If you are ignorant of the truths of the faith, you are
obliged to learn them. Every
Christian is bound to learn the Creed, the Our Father, and the Hail Mary under
pain of mortal sin. Many have no idea
of the Most Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, mortal sin, Judgment,
4. St. Alphonsus: “How thankful we ought to be to Jesus Christ for the gift
of faith! What would have become of
us if we had been born in Asia, Africa,
One can
see that, although St. Alphonsus was incorrect in his belief that baptism of
desire could be efficacious in an adult who died before receiving the sacrament,
he condemned the modern day heresy which asserts that one can attain salvation
in another religion or without faith in Christ and the Catholic mysteries of
Faith.
Another
point that is useful in refuting the objection from St. Alphonsus’s teaching on
baptism of desire is what St. Alphonsus taught concerning the so-called baptism
of blood.
St. Alphonsus,
Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-97: “Baptism of blood is the shedding of
one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the faith or for some other Christian
virtue. Now this Baptism is
comparable to true baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and
punishment as it were ex opere operato… Hence martyrdom avails also for
infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs.
That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view is at least
temerarious.”
What St.
Alphonsus teaches here is completely wrong.
He teaches that infants can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism by
martyrdom. This is directly contrary to the ex
cathedra teaching of Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence.
Pope Eugene
IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “Regarding
children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place,
when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament
of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the
Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not
be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of
certain people…”[ccclxxvii]
Pope Eugene IV here defines from the Chair of Peter that there is no
other remedy for infants to be snatched away from the dominion of the devil
other than the Sacrament of Baptism.
St. Alphonsus teaches that there is another remedy in martyrdom. St. Alphonsus’s opinion on this matter
cannot be held, since it contradicts the Council of Florence. Now, we know that St. Alphonsus is a
saint in Heaven because the Church has told us this – in fact, he is my favorite
spiritual writer; but here St. Alphonsus was contradicting the solemn teaching
of the Magisterium: that the Sacrament of Baptism is the only remedy for
infants. We must conclude,
therefore, that St. Alphonsus was not obstinate in his teaching on baptism of
blood for infants; that is, he was not aware that his opinion contradicted the
teaching of the Church, especially the teaching of the Council of Florence. However, if he or anyone else were to
hold such an opinion obstinately (i.e., after being shown that it contradicted
Another error we find in the paragraph from
St. Alphonsus is his reference to the Holy Innocents as an example of baptism of
blood. This is erroneous because the
Holy Innocents’ deaths occurred before the Resurrection of Christ – before
the law of Baptism was instituted.
Catechism of the Council of Trent,
Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy
writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord,
when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became
obligatory on all who were to be saved.”[ccclxxviii]
Further, notice how St. Alphonsus says above that the opinion that baptism of
blood is not efficacious in infants is temerarious (reckless). In other words, he is teaching with
Suarez that it is “reckless” to believe that infants who die without sacramental
baptism will not be saved. In
teaching this he was actually proposing the error of John Wyclif, which was
solemnly anathematized at the Council of Constance.
Pope Martin V,
Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 - Condemning the articles of
John Wyclif - Proposition 6: “Those
who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism
will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.”[ccclxxix]
- Condemned
This is a fascinating proposition from The Council of Constance. The arch-heretic John
Wyclif was proposing that those (such as ourselves) are stupid for teaching that
infants who die without water (i.e., sacramental) baptism
cannot possibly be saved. And he was
anathematized for this proposition, among many others. I have already quoted what The Council
of Constance had to say about John Wyclif’s anathematized propositions, such
as #6 above, but I will quote it again here.
Pope Martin V,
Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415: “The books and pamphlets of
John Wyclif, of cursed memory, were carefully examined by the doctors and
masters of
St.
Alphonsus is actually the best-selling author of all time,
having written more than 111 books, not including his letters.[ccclxxxi] It is not at all surprising that he,
being a fallible human being, made some mistakes in matters touching on faith. But his error on baptism of desire
stemmed from the fact that he erroneously thought that it was taught in Sess. 6,
Chap. 4 of Trent. That is the main
reason he believed in it: he thought it was taught by Trent and from that
mistake he erroneously interpreted the canons on Baptism in Trent (including the
all exclusive Canon 5) as somehow to be understood in light of baptism of
desire.
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons
on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, ex cathedra: “If
anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf.
Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”[ccclxxxii]
If St.
Alphonsus had more literally examined Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent, he would have
seen that it does not teach baptism of desire (as discussed in the section on
that passage), but affirms John 3:5 as
it is written.
It is
also important to note that while the principle of Papal infallibility was
always believed in the Church (expressed from the earliest times by such phrases
as in the apostolic see the Catholic religion has always been preserved
untainted and holy doctrine celebrated), there is no doubt that after the
definition of Papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council in 1870 there is much more clarity about which
documents are infallible and which are not.
St. Alphonsus and others who lived before 1870 did not necessarily have
this degree of clarity, which caused many of them to lessen the distinction, in
certain cases, between the infallible decrees of popes and the fallible teaching
of theologians. It also
caused them to not look quite as literally at what the dogma actually says, but
rather at what the dogma might mean in light of the opinion of popular
theologians of the time.
For
instance, in arguing that baptism of desire is
de fide, St. Alphonsus referenced the statement from Innocent III or
Innocent II (they don’t even know which one) on the “priest” who was unbaptized,
which I have discussed. But
obviously that letter of Innocent (?) or whoever it was to an archbishop did not
meet the requirements for Papal Infallibility, and contains a clear error
(referring to an unbaptized person as a “priest”).
The fallibility of this document is not something that St. Alphonsus seems to
have given much consideration. And
this proves what I said above, that
When Our
Lord spoke to Peter about Satan’s desire to sift the apostles (Lk. 22:31-32), He
told him that He prayed for “thee (singular), that thy (Peter’s) faith fail
not…” He did not say, “but I have prayed for
all of you, that your faith fail not.”
Only St. Peter and his successors have been promised an unfailing faith,
and this when speaking from the Chair of St. Peter (cf. Vatican I, Sess. 4,
Chap. 4, Denz. 1837). The popes when
speaking with this unfailing faith, such as Pope St. Leo the Great in his
dogmatic tome to Flavian, the Council of Florence on John 3:5, and the Council
of Trent on the Sacrament of Baptism (Sess. 7, Can. 5), exclude any possibility
of salvation without water baptism and affirm infallibly that unless a man is
born again of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
That is what a Catholic must adhere to and believe.
OBJECTION- I know that the Council of Trent defines in Canon 5 on the Sacrament of
Baptism that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. But the Council of Trent says that the
necessity of the Sacrament of Penance is the same as that of Baptism, and that
people can be justified without the Sacrament of Penance.
Pope Paul III,
The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5,
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.”[ccclxxxiii]
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 2, On Penance:
“This sacrament of Penance, moreover, is
necessary for the salvation of those who have fallen after baptism, as baptism
itself is necessary for those not yet regenerated.”[ccclxxxiv]
ANSWER-
This argument is false because it fails to consider
the context. Just two chapters after
the aforementioned statement on the Sacrament of Penance, the Council of Trent
explicitly states that one can be justified without the Sacrament of Penance
by perfect contrition plus the desire for it.
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 4, On Penance:
“The Council teaches, furthermore,
that though it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect because of
charity and reconciles man to God, before this sacrament is actually received,
this reconciliation must not be ascribed to the contrition itself without the
desire of the sacrament which is included in it.”[ccclxxxv]
The Council of Trent
clearly teaches three times that the grace of the Sacrament of Penance
can be attained by the desire for the Sacrament of Penance (twice in Sess. 6,
Chap. 14; and once in Sess. 14, Chap. 4), while it nowhere teaches the false
doctrine of baptism of desire.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 14 on Justification:
“Hence it must be taught that the repentance of a Christian after his fall is
very different from that at his baptism, and that it includes not only a
cessation from sins… but also the
sacramental confession of the same, at least in desire and to be made in its
season, and sacerdotal absolution, as well as satisfaction by fasting,
almsgiving, prayers, and other devout exercises of the spiritual life, not
indeed for the eternal punishment, which
is remitted together with the guilt either by the sacrament or the desire of the
sacrament, but for the temporal punishment…”[ccclxxxvi]
Chapters and canons of councils must be taken in the context of the decree as
such. An important example in this regard is
found in Sess. 5 of Trent’s Decree on Original Sin.
The first few canons make statements about how all men inherit original
sin. Yet, the sixth canon declares
that Mary is not included in the decree.
Council of Trent, Sess. 5, #6: “This holy
Synod declares nevertheless that it is
not its intention to include in this decree, where original sin is treated of,
the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary…”[ccclxxxvii]
Therefore, later canons or chapters can qualify or make exceptions for
statements within the same decree.
Trent makes an exception for the necessity of the Sacrament of Penance in the
context of its decree. It does not
do so for the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism, even though it had many
opportunities to do so. Therefore,
in context Trent does not teach that the necessity of the Sacrament of Penance
is the same as the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism.
Trent teaches that the Sacrament of Baptism is
necessary for salvation without qualification.
Pope Paul III,
The Council of Trent, 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.”[ccclxxxviii]
OBJECTION- If it is true
that there is no such thing as baptism of desire or baptism of blood, then why
didn’t any pope come out and condemn these theories as they were appearing in so
many catechisms in the late 1800’s and following?
ANSWER- Baptism of
desire and baptism of blood are shown in various ways to be excluded by the
infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.
The fact that no pope came out and explicitly condemned the theories by
name doesn’t change that fact. The
fact that no pope since the late 1800’s removed these theories from inclusion in
catechisms doesn’t prove anything either.
It was being taught in catechisms at the same time that one can be saved
in a non-Catholic religion. To my
knowledge, the heresy that souls can be saved in non-Catholic religions was not
removed by express order of any pope.
Does this mean that these popes believed in the heresy that one can be
saved in a non-Catholic religion?
Does this mean that it’s okay to believe the heresy that one can be saved in a
non-Catholic religion? Absolutely
not.
Popes are
very busy people – with tons of responsibilities – so they can be unaware of
what is being taught catechetically at the diocesan level.
They rely on their bishops to preserve the faith in their respective
dioceses, which unfortunately did not happen in the last 100 years. One example that is very interesting to
consider in this regard is the fact that no pope ever ordered St. Thomas
Aquinas’s opinion on the Immaculate Conception to be removed from the Summa
Theologica, even though many of them were consistently recommending it!
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 14, A. 3, Reply
to Obj. 1:
“The flesh of the Virgin was conceived in original sin, and
therefore contracted these defects.
But from the Virgin, Christ’s flesh assumed the nature without sin…”[ccclxxxix]
St. Thomas
taught that Mary was not conceived immaculate more than once in the Summa
Theologica. Obviously, he taught this before the
definition of Mary’s immaculate conception by Pope Pius IX in 1854, but to hold
But I believe that the
main reason why the false doctrine of baptism of desire was never explicitly
condemned by name is the fact that God allows heresies to arise to see who will
believe the truth and who won’t; and the denial of the necessity of Baptism and
the necessity of the Catholic Church is the key heresy to the Great Apostasy.
1 Cor. 11:19:
“For there must be also heresies: that
they also, who are approved, may be manifest among you.”
OBJECTION- The 1917 Code of Canon Law
gives Christian Burial to unbaptized catechumens and teaches baptism of desire.
ANSWER- As we’ve pointed out before, the 1917 Code of
Canon Law is not infallible.
The 1917 Code was definitely not an ex
cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) pronouncement because it does not bind
the whole Church, but only the Latin Church (not the Eastern Rites), as
stipulated in Canon 1 of the 1917 Code.
Canon 1, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “Although in the Code of canon law the
discipline of the Oriental Church is frequently referenced, nevertheless,
this [Code] applies only to the Latin Church and does not bind the Oriental,
unless it treats of things that, by their nature, apply to the Oriental.”[cccxc]
A pope speaks
infallibly from the Chair of Peter when his teaching on faith or morals binds the entire Church, which the 1917 Code doesn’t:
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…”[cccxci]
Thus, the 1917 Code’s
proposition in canon 737 that Baptism is necessary “at least in desire” for
salvation is not binding on the universal Church or protected by infallibility. Regarding its law in canon 1239, that
unbaptized catechumens can be given Christian burial, this contradicts the
entire Tradition of the Catholic Church for 1900 years on whether unbaptized
persons can be given Christian burial.
Canon 1239, 1917 Code: “1. Those who die without baptism are not to be
accorded ecclesiastical burial. 2.
Catechumens who through no fault of their own die without baptism are to be
reckoned as baptized.”[cccxcii]
Since the time of
Jesus Christ and throughout all of history, the Catholic Church universally
refused ecclesiastical burial to catechumens who died without the Sacrament of
Baptism, as The Catholic Encyclopedia
admits:
The Catholic
Encyclopedia, “Baptism,” Volume 2, 1907: “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
This is the law of the
Catholic Church since the beginning and throughout all of history. So, since this issue is tied to the Faith
and not merely disciplinary, either the Catholic Church was wrong since the time
of Christ for refusing ecclesiastical
burial for catechumens who died without baptism or the 1917 Code is wrong
for granting it to them. It is
either one or the other, because the 1917 Code directly contradicts the
Traditional and constant law of the Catholic Church for nineteen centuries on
this point which is tied to the Faith.
The answer is, obviously, that the 1917 Code is wrong and not infallible,
and the Catholic Church’s law for all of history refusing ecclesiastical burial
to catechumens is right. In fact, it
is interesting to note that the Latin version of the 1917 Code contains many
footnotes to traditional popes, councils, etc. to show from where certain canons
were derived. Canon 1239.2 on
giving ecclesiastical burial to unbaptized catechumens has no footnote, not to
any pope, previous law or council, simply because there is nothing in Tradition
which supports it!
The Catholic
Encyclopedia (1907) quotes an interesting decree from Pope
Innocent III wherein he commented on the
traditional, universal and constant law of the Catholic Church from the
beginning which refused ecclesiastical burial to all who died without the
Sacrament of Baptism.
The Catholic
Encyclopedia, “Baptism,” Volume 2, 1907: “The reason of this
regulation [forbidding ecclesiastical burial to all unbaptized persons] is given
by Pope Innocent III (Decr., III, XXVIII,
xii): ‘It has been decreed by the sacred canons that we are to have no communion
with those who are dead, if we have not communicated with them while alive.’”[cccxciv]
The 1917 Code is not infallible Church discipline either, as proven by the fact
that it contains a law which directly contradicts the infallible discipline of
the Church since the beginning on a point tied to the Faith. The actual Bull promulgating the 1917
Code, Providentissima Mater Ecclesia, was not
signed by Benedict XV, but by Cardinal Gasparri and Cardinal De Azevedo. Cardinal Gasparri, the Secretary of
State, was the main author and compiler of the canons.
Some theologians would argue that only disciplines which bind the whole
Church – unlike the 1917 Code – are protected by the infallibility of the
governing authority of the Church, an argument which seems to be supported in
the following teaching of Pope Pius XII.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 66), June 29,
1943:
“Certainly the loving Mother is spotless
in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in
the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed upon all; in the evangelical
counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces
through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs,
virgins, and confessors.”[cccxcv]
This would mean that a disciplinary law is not a law of the “Catholic”
(i.e. universal) Church unless it binds the universal Church. Regardless, the 1917 Code doesn’t enjoy
infallibility. This is further
proven by the following canons.
1) The 1917 Code teaches that heretics can be in good faith.
Canon 731.2, 1917 Code: “It is forbidden that
the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics,
even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand,
rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church.”
A heretic, by infallible definition, is of bad faith and brings down upon
his head eternal punishment.
Pope St.
Celestine I, Council of Ephesus, 431:
"... all heretics
corrupt the true expressions of the Holy Spirit with their own evil minds
and they draw down on their own heads an inextinguishable flame."[cccxcvi]
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…”[cccxcvii]
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.”
[cccxcviii]
A person in good faith who is erring
innocently about a dogma (loosely and improperly called a “material heretic” in
theological discussions) is not a heretic, but a Catholic erring
in good faith. So the statement in
the 1917 Code about heretics and schismatics in good faith is definitely
theologically erroneous and it proves that it was not protected by
infallibility.
2) The 1917 Code teaches that Catholics may be present at non-Catholic forms of
worship, including non-Catholic weddings and non-Catholic funerals!
Canon 1258, 1917 Code: “1. It is not licit for
the faithful by any manner to assist actively or to have a part in the
sacred [rites] of non-Catholics. 2.
Passive or merely material presence can be tolerated for the sake of
honor or civil office, for grave reason approved by the Bishop in case of doubt,
at the funerals, weddings, and similar solemnities of non-Catholics,
provided danger of scandal is absent.”
Note: this canon is not talking about Catholic Masses or Catholic worship
presided over by a heretic, but
non-Catholic or non-Christian (false) worship and rites. This is outrageous! This canon allows one to travel to and
attend
a Jewish Synagogue or a Buddhist Temple or a Lutheran Service, etc.,
etc., etc. for the wedding or funeral of infidels or heretics – just as long as one doesn’t actively
participate! This is ridiculous,
for to go out of his way to be present at such non-Catholic services
where false worship is conducted (for the sake of honoring or pleasing the
person involved in it) is a scandal in itself.
It is to honor a person who is sinning against the First Commandment.
To go to the funeral of a non-Catholic is to imply that there was some hope for
him for salvation outside the Church; and to attend the wedding of a
non-Catholic is to imply that God condones his or her marriage outside the
Church. A Catholic can neither
take part actively
in false worship nor go out of one’s way to travel to the false worship or the
non-Catholic ceremony to honor it with his “passive” presence. Hence, this canon also proves that this
code is not infallible.
The 1917 Code contradicts the immemorial Tradition of the Church on
ecclesiastical burial and it holds no weight for a moment against the infallible
declaration of the Chair of St. Peter (binding the entire Church) that no one
can enter heaven without the Sacrament of Baptism.
Pope Paul III,
The Council of Trent, 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.”[cccxcix]
THE ARGUMENT THAT BAPTISM IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR SOME TO
RECEIVE
OBJECTION- Baptism of desire supporters assert that for some people the command
to be baptized is simply impossible to fulfill.
ANSWER- God does not command impossibilities (de fide). Thus, it is not impossible for any man to
get baptized.
Catechism of
the Council of Trent, On Baptism, Tan Books, 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."
Pope Paul III,
Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 11 on Justification,
ex cathedra: "... no one should make use of that rash statement forbidden
under anathema by the Fathers, that the commandments of God are impossible to
observe for a man who is justified. ‘FOR
GOD DOES NOT COMMAND IMPOSSIBILITIES, but by commanding admonishes you
both to do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do…’"[cd]
OBJECTION- Wasn’t the idea that catechumens cannot have the remission of sins
condemned in the Errors of Michael Du Bay?
ANSWER- No!
And the fact that certain baptism of desire advocates obstinately attempt to
quote the Errors of Michael Du Bay in favor of baptism of desire simply shows:
1) their dishonesty; and 2) their lack of evidence for “baptism of desire.”
Errors of
Michael Du Bay, Condemned by St. Pius V in “Ex omnibus afflictionibus,” Oct. 1,
1567: “31. Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a ‘pure heart and
good conscience and a faith not feigned’ [1 Tim. 1:5], can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remissions
of sins.”[cdi]
- Condemned
Errors of
Michael Du Bay, Condemned by St. Pius V in “Ex omnibus afflictionibus,” Oct. 1,
1567: “33. A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes
the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is
only received in the laver of baptism, before the remission of sins has been
obtained.”[cdii]
- Condemned
Michael Du Bay’s propositions above are condemned because they assert that
perfect charity can be in catechumens and penitents without the remission of
sins. (Note: this says nothing one way or the other about whether or not
perfect charity can be in catechumens with
the remission of sins.) Du Bay’s
propositions above are false because one cannot have perfect charity without the
remission of sins.
Pope Paul III,
Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 7 on Justification, ex cathedra:
“Justification … is not merely remission of sins, but also the
sanctification and renewal of the interior man… Hence
man
through Jesus Christ, into whom he is ingrafted, receives in the said justification together with the remission of
sins all these gifts infused at the same time: faith, hope and charity.”[cdiii]
Faith, hope, charity and the remission of sins are inseparable in a justified
person. Thus, Michael Du Bay was
rightly condemned for his false statement that catechumens and
penitents can have perfect charity without
the remission of sins. His
assertion contradicts Catholic teaching.
And when a pope condemns propositions like the false propositions of Michael Du
Bay, he condemns the entire proposition as such. In
condemning such an error, no assertion is
made positively or negatively about either part of the statement, nor is any assertion made, positively or
negatively, about whether catechumens can have remission of sins with perfect
charity, which is not the topic of Michael Du Bay’s statement.
But we know from other teachings that unbaptized catechumens cannot have the
remission of sins at all since they are outside the Church.
Pope Boniface
VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: “With Faith
urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church
and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is
no salvation NOR REMISSION OF SIN…”[cdiv]
A good example which further serves to show how the baptism of desire advocates
are completely wrong in using Michael Du Bay as an argument for “baptism of
desire” is found Denz. 646, an error of John Hus, condemned by the Council of
Constance:
Errors of John
Hus: “#20. If the Pope is wicked and
especially if he is foreknown (as a reprobate), then as Judas, the Apostle, he
is of the devil, a thief, and a son of perdition, and he is not the head of
the holy militant Church, since he is not a member of it."[cdv]
- Condemned
Based on this passage, some people have erroneously concluded that the
argument of sedevacantists (that a pope
who becomes a heretic loses his office and ceases to be head of the Church since
he is not a member of it) is condemned here. But the Council of
Constance is not condemning that at all; it is not asserting anything one way or
the other in that regard. Rather, it is condemning the entire
proposition as such, which asserts that because a pope is wicked
(or immoral) he is not the head of the Church since he is not a member of it.
And this is false: just because a pope is wicked does not mean that he is
not a member of the Church and therefore he is not the head of the Church.
The sedevacantists, on the other hand, correctly point out that a heretical pope (not merely a wicked one)
is not a member of the Church and therefore cannot be the head of the Church
(and thus he loses his office automatically when he becomes a heretic).
This is actually the teaching of the Church.
Pope Innocent
III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:
“By the heart
we believe and by the mouth we confess
the one Church, not of
heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and
Therefore….
St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church: "Thus we do
not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; or
be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was.
Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his
dignity and out of the Church..."[cdvii]
St. Antoninus (1459): "In the case in which the pope would become a
heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other
sentence, separated from the Church.
A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of
the same body from which it was cut off.
A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would
by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He
could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the
Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church." (Summa
Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)
St. Robert
Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be
pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a
member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church.
This is the teaching of all the
ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all
jurisdiction."
St. Robert
Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from
reason that the manifest heretic is 'ipso facto' deposed. The argument from
authority is based on St. Paul (Titus 3:10), who orders that the heretic be
avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly
obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence.
And this is what
St. Robert
Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope,
as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be
head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a
member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is
clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont.
Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. De great. Christ. Cap. 20),
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896:
“No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his
authority, since IT IS ABSURD TO IMAGINE THAT HE WHO IS OUTSIDE CAN
COMMAND IN THE CHURCH.”[cdviii]
Thus, as we can see, the second half of John Hus’s condemned statement,
“[a
pope] is not the head of the holy
militant Church, since he is not a member of it,” is true.
But Hus’s proposition is condemned
as it is because in the beginning
it asserted that this cessation of membership (and therefore headship) comes about from simply being a wicked pope,
which is false. Thus, taken
as a whole, Hus’s proposition, like Du Bay’s, is false and therefore it was
condemned.
So, the error of John Hus is a valuable example in demonstrating that the
baptism of desire advocates are completely wrong again in citing the
errors of Michael Du Bay as an argument.
In condemning such a proposition from Michael Du Bay, the pope makes no
statement positively or negatively about
whether catechumens can have remission of sins with perfect charity, because
that was not what Du Bay asserted. The fact is that catechumens cannot
have remission of sins at all because they are outside the Church.
But the baptism of desire advocates know that the Errors of Michael Du Bay don’t
prove their point or they could figure that out if they tried, so why do some of
them keep using this non-argument as an argument?
It’s simply dishonesty! It is
actually an outrage that they obstinately try to play upon the laypeople’s
ignorance by using these errors of Michael Du Bay as an argument in favor of
baptism of desire. The dishonest
CMRI out of
HOW CAN
BAPTISM OF DESIRE BE CONTRARY TO DOGMA WHEN...
OBJECTION- How can baptism
of desire be contrary to dogma when a saint such as St. Alphonsus believed in it
after the Council of Trent? That
would make him a heretic, which is impossible since he is a canonized saint.
ANSWER- First, the key to
heresy is obstinacy/pertinacity. It
is a fact that a man (if he is not obstinate) could hold a position that is
heretical, such as the idea that Christ only has one will, without being a
heretic (unless the man came to depart from the essential belief in the Trinity
and Incarnation; in that case, even if he were not obstinate, he would lose the
Catholic Faith). Most of the
traditional Catholics with whom I’ve spoken believe that Christ only has one
will, not two. That is heresy
condemned by the Church. Christ has
two wills (not in conflict), since He is God and man.
So, were all of these traditionalists that I spoke with heretics? No, because they weren’t aware of this
dogma, or didn’t understand it completely, and were not pertinacious and still
held their essential belief in Jesus Christ as God and man. But if they were pertinacious or
obstinate about the issue then they would have become heretics.
Canon 1325, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian,
pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of
divine and Catholic faith, [such a one] is a heretic.”
The same principle
might apply not only to a dogma of which one is unaware,
but also to a text that might be misread on a matter that pertains to dogma
or heresy. Is there any proof of
this? Yes.
Most of us know the
case of Pope Honorius I, who was condemned many years after his death for (at
least) furthering the monothelite heresy (that Christ has only one will). Pope Honorius I (630-638) was
condemned after his death by the Third
Council of Constantinople in 680. But Pope John IV, who reigned shortly after
Honorius, attempted to defend Honorius’s letters and even said that it’s
“altogether contrary to the truth” to assert that Honorius taught that Christ
has only one will.
Pope John IV,
“Dominus qui dixit” to Constantius the Emperor, Regarding Pope Honorius, 641:
“…So, my aforementioned predecessor
[Honorius] said concerning the mystery of the incarnation of Christ, that
there were not in Him, as in us sinners, contrary wills of mind and flesh; and certain ones converting this to their
own meaning, suspected that He taught one will of His divinity and humanity
which is altogether contrary to the truth.”[cdix]
Okay, here we have a Catholic pope defending
the two letters of Honorius which were later condemned by dogmatic councils. This proves that one can remain a
Catholic (even the pope!) while wrongly attempting to justify as Catholic
something that, in fact, is worthy of condemnation.
Some may respond: “well, Pope John IV lived before the infallible condemnation of
Honorius’s letters was published; that’s why he was not a heretic for defending
these letters which furthered heresy.”
This is a specious
response. The
Third Council of Constantinople condemned Honorius based on letters he wrote
during his reign. Pope John IV was
looking at the very same letters and statements that the Third Council of Constantinople condemned. So, looking at the very same
statements, Pope John IV (in his fallible capacity) and
The Third Council of Constantinople (in its infallible capacity) said two
drastically different things. This
proves that one can misunderstand as Catholic something that, in fact, is
heretical or favoring heresy and remain a Catholic, if there is legitimate
reason for confusion. [Of
course, this wouldn’t apply to blatantly obvious points, such as the necessity
of Protestants to convert or that pagan religions are false (such as the Vatican
II antipopes deny), but only finer points of dogmatic issues or matters on which
some confusion or reason for confusion might exist.]
The same is true with
baptism of desire – or, to be more
precise, the version of baptism of desire which was held by certain saints for
unbaptized catechumens only. Just
like Pope John IV misunderstood the letters of Pope Honorius in good faith,
these saints misread Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of the Council of Trent. They thought that it taught baptism of
desire, and therefore they (wrongly) taught baptism of desire. However, when one scrutinizes their
arguments and closely examines the teaching of Sess. 6, Chap. 4, one sees that
the Council of Trent doesn’t teach baptism of desire. One also discovers that there is no
evidence for baptism of desire in the infallible teaching of the Church. One further discovers that baptism of
desire cannot be squared with numerous facts from the infallible teaching of the
Catholic Church. Thus, once one sees
these points clearly explained, one has an obligation to abandon such a false
opinion which is at variance with so many facts. One cannot continue, at that point, to
insist that men can be saved without Baptism.
The points covered above prove that a saint or a pope could misread a
text and, based on that misreading, teach something that is contrary to the
Faith in good faith.
In conclusion, whether
one wants to call baptism of desire a heresy or a grave theological error
incompatible with dogma, the fact is that it is a false opinion which cannot be
reconciled with numerous infallible definitions and no Catholic should hold it
at all after seeing these facts.
Moreover, while any
idea of baptism of desire is false, one must make a very important
distinction between the version of baptism of desire held by certain saints (for
unbaptized catechumens only) and the version held by most today (which will
be covered in more detail later in the book).
The saints who held baptism of desire only applied it to unbaptized
catechumens who believed in the Trinity, the Incarnation and the Catholic Faith. Almost all who believe in it today
apply it to those who don’t even believe in Christ and/or are members of false
religions. Those who believe in this
latter idea (that baptism of desire can apply to Jews or Muslims, etc.) would
have to immediately abandon it upon seeing any of the infallible definitions on
Outside the Church There is No Salvation.
If not, they are definitely heretics who have been automatically
excommunicated from the Church.
One could not reasonably believe that members of non-Catholic religions being
saved is compatible with Outside the Church There is No Salvation.
On the other hand,
since the false idea that unbaptized catechumens
can be saved was held by certain saints and taught in the fallibly capacity of
other texts, those who hold baptism of desire as those certain saints did (i.e.,
for unbaptized catechumens only) would have more room for erring in good faith
(reasonably thinking for a time that it was the traditional teaching of the
Church) until all the aspects of the issue were presented to them.
CORNELIUS THE CENTURION
OBJECTION- Acts 10:47 says that Cornelius and his companions received the Holy
Ghost. This means that they were
justified without Baptism.
ANSWER- Acts 10:47 does not say that Cornelius and his
companions were justified without Baptism.
Nothing there says that their sins were remitted or that they were
“saved,” a phrase frequently used to describe those who have been justified by
Baptism. The context of Acts 10 is
dealing with receiving the Holy Ghost by
receiving the gift of speaking in tongues, not having one’s sins remitted.
Acts 10:47, therefore, is merely speaking of Cornelius and his companions having
received the gift of tongues. The
description “receiving the Holy Ghost” or “being filled with the Holy Ghost” is
actually used frequently in scripture to describe a person making a godly
prophecy or receiving some spiritual gift.
It does not necessarily mean that one has received the remission of sins. The following two passages are examples
of the phrase “filled with the Holy Ghost” being used to describe a spiritual
gift (prophesy, etc.), not the remission of sins.
Luke 1:41-42 “And it came to pass, that
when
Luke 1:67 “And Zachary, his father, was filled with the Holy Ghost, and he
prophesied, saying…”
THE GOOD THIEF AND THE HOLY INNOCENTS
OBJECTION- What about the Good Thief and the Holy Innocents?
ANSWER- This was addressed already in the section on
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.”[cdx]
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
OBJECTION- You can’t judge if all non-Catholics go to Hell. You are not God. You must leave such judgments to Him.
ANSWER- God has already revealed His judgment to us.
To say that one cannot be sure or “cannot judge” if all who die as non-Catholics
go to hell is simply to reject God’s judgment as
possibly untrue, which is heresy and blasphemy and pride of the worst
kind. It is to sinfully judge as possibly
worthy of Heaven those whom God has explicitly revealed He will not save. To put it simply: to say that one cannot
judge that all who die as non-Catholics go to Hell (when God has revealed this)
is to judge in the most gravely sinful way – in a way directly contrary to God’s
revealed truth and revealed judgment.
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…”[cdxi]
And the “You Can’t Judge” heresy is incredibly widespread today. On Dec. 15, 2003 I had a conversation
with a “traditionalist monk” named Fr. Giardina of Christ the King Monastery in
St. Francis
Xavier, Nov. 5, 1549: “The corsair who commanded our vessel died here at
Cagoxima. He did his work for us, on
the whole, as we wished… He himself chose
to die in his own superstitions; he did not even leave us the power of rewarding
him by that kindness which we can after death do to other friends who die in the
profession of the Christian faith, in commending their souls to God, since the
poor fellow by his own hand cast his soul into hell, where there is
no redemption.”[cdxii]
THE OBJECTIVE-SUBJECTIVE HERESY
OBJECTION- Objectively speaking, there is absolutely no salvation outside the
Catholic Church. But subjectively speaking, we just don’t
know.
ANSWER- This is similar to the “You Can’t Judge”
heresy. Those
who advance this heresy deny dogmatic truth; for the Objective-Subjective Heresy
means that the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation is only true
“objectively,” which necessarily means that non-Catholics can be saved
“subjectively,” which means that the end
result is a denial of the defined dogma.
The Objective-Subjective Heresy is just a
clever way of saying that the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation
might not mean what it says. It’s
diabolical double-talk. It is
equivalent to asserting:
“Jesus Christ
is objectively the Son of God.”
Could a Catholic hold that? No, he
could not, because Jesus Christ is not just
objectively
the Son of God; He is the Son of God – period! But this is exactly what those who hold
the Objective-Subjective heresy are saying!
For to say that one dogma (Outside the Church There is No Salvation) is
only true objectively is to say that
any other dogma (e.g., Jesus Christ is the Son of God) is only true objectively.
There is no way around this. The
Objective-Subjective Heresy asserts the heresy that dogmas are not
really divinely revealed truths, but only presumptions or policies that we
go by, and this is condemned Modernism.
Pope 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[cdxiii]
Pope Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the
Modernists, July 3, 1907, #26: “The
dogmas of faith are to be held only according to a practical sense, that is,
as preceptive norms for action, but not as norms for believing.”-
Condemned[cdxiv]
The idea
that we can preach that there is no salvation outside the Church while we
believe in our hearts that there is salvation outside the Church or may
be salvation outside the Church is heretical.
That only Catholics can be saved is a truth revealed from heaven which every
Catholic must believe first, and profess second.
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...”[cdxv]
Since dogmas are truths fallen from heaven,
to say that any dogma (e.g., the dogma that all who die as non-Catholics are
lost)
may have a “subjective” reality that is
different
from the revealed truth is heresy – it is a denial of that truth. Therefore, the idea that subjectively non-Catholics can be saved is blatant heresy; it is a
denial of the revealed truth that all who die as non-Catholics are necessarily
lost.
The same Objective-Subjective heresy is taught in the book The Devil’s Final Battle, which is promoted by a number of
“traditionalist” organizations.
The Devil’s Final Battle, compiled and
edited by “Fr.” Paul Kramer, p. 69: “This
teaching must not be understood to preclude the possibility of salvation for
those who do not become formal members of the Church if, through no fault of
their own, they do not know of their
objective
obligation to do so… only God knows whom
He will save (in some extraordinary manner) from among the great mass of
humanity which has not exteriorly professed the Catholic religion.”[cdxvi]
This is completely heretical. It is
particularly pernicious, in fact, because this book pretends to uphold the dogma
Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation and it will be read in
“traditional circles” – all the while rejecting the dogma.
The above statement is a denial of Papal Infallibility and a repudiation
of the divinely revealed truth that God will only save Catholics and
those who become Catholics. The
heretical statement above literally means that we just don’t know if what God has revealed is true or not. And it shows again how prevalent and
virulent the Objective-Subjective heresy is, finagling its way into all kinds of
places. The truth remains, however,
that the Catholic Church teaches that Church membership is necessary for
salvation. It nowhere teaches what
the modern heretics love to say: that
Church membership is objectively necessary for salvation.
THE “WITHIN BUT NOT A MEMBER” OBJECTION OF MSGR. FENTON
OBJECTION- In his book The Catholic Church and
Salvation, Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton points out that, while only the
baptized are actual members of the Church, one can be “within” or “inside” the
Church without being a member. Thus,
the unbaptized can be saved without being members of the Catholic Church because
they can still be “inside.”
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 and profess the true faith.”[cdxvii]
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The
Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 10: “Furthermore, they [the Fathers
of the Fourth Lateran Council] knew that
there is no such thing as real membership in the Church militant of the New
Testament, the true and only ecclesia
fidelium [Church of the faithful], apart from the reception of the sacrament
of baptism.”[cdxviii]
FENTON’S “CLEVER” EXPLANATION
►Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The
Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, pp. 9-10: “It is not, and it has never been, the teaching of the Catholic Church
that only actual members of the Church can attain eternal salvation. According to the teaching of the Church’s
own magisterium, salvation can be attained and, as a matter of fact, has been
attained by persons who, at the moment of their death, were not members of this
Church. The Church has thus never confused the notion of being ‘outside the
Church’ with that of being a non-member of this society.”[cdxix]
ANSWER- As the objection says, Msgr. Fenton admits that one cannot be a “member” of
the Catholic Church without having received the Sacrament of Baptism, but he
“cleverly” asserts that being “inside/within” the Church (which everyone must to
be saved) is not the same thing as being a “member.”
The Catholic Church has
never taught what Fenton says about non-members being inside the Catholic
Church. This is precisely why he can quote
nothing from the Traditional Catholic Magisterium to back it up. He also asserts the blatant falsehood
that the Church’s Magisterium has declared that salvation can be and has been
attained by persons who were not members
of the Church. This is simply
not true.
Pope Pius XII crushes
Fenton’s argument and his entire book by teaching that the Church is the members!
FENTON CONTRADICTED BY POPE PIUS XII
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis
Christi (#30), June 29, 1943: “…it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His
Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would
not have been united to this Mystical Body through the waters of Baptism except
by the salutary virtue of the Cross, by which they had already been under the
complete sway of Christ.”[cdxx]
Notice that Pope Pius XII equates the Church with “all the members of His
Mystical Body”! Therefore, only the
members are in the Church! Since the Church is THE MEMBERS, and there is no salvation outside
the Church, there is no salvation outside being a member. Msgr. Fenton is simply wrong.
To further prove the
point, let’s look at the Council of Trent’s Decree on Justification, Chap. 7.
FENTON CONTRADICTED BY THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 7 on
Justification: “Hence man through Jesus Christ, into whom he is ingrafted, receives in the said justification
together with the remission of sins all these gifts infused at the same time:
faith, hope and charity. For
faith, unless hope and charity be added to it, neither unites one
perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of his body.”[cdxxi]
The justified man is
ingrafted into Christ. The concept
of being “ingrafted” is again that of membership: all the justified are
ingrafted into Christ as members.
This is proven by the council’s declaration that becoming a living
member of the Church doesn’t happen “unless”
(”nisi“) hope and charity are added to
faith. That means that if and when
hope and charity are added to faith, one is made a living member of the
Church. Well, hope and charity
are added to faith in every justified person.
A person
simultaneously receives faith, hope and charity infused into his soul at the
moment of justification, as Trent says above. Therefore, every person who is justified, since they all have faith,
hope and charity, is made a living
member
(“vivum membrum”) of the Church. This totally contradicts the teaching of
Msgr. Fenton and Suprema haec sacra,
which is that one can be justified by baptism of desire (and thus have faith,
hope and charity) without being a “member” of Christ’s Body. Msgr. Fenton is simply wrong.
FENTON CONTRADICTED BY VATICAN I
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I,
Sess. 4, Chap. 2: “For this reason ‘it has always been necessary because of
mightier preeminence for every Church to come to the Church of Rome, that is
those who are the faithful everywhere’,
so that in this See, from which the laws of ‘venerable communion’ emanate
over all, they as MEMBERS
associated in one head, coalesce into one bodily structure.”[cdxxii]
Vatican I infallibly
defines that from the See of Rome communion emanates over
“all.” “All” what?
“All” in the Church, of course.
Vatican I: “all… as members associated in one
head” form one bodily structure. All
in the Church are “members”! In the
face of this infallible teaching from Vatican I, the baptism of desire advocate
who is advancing the Fenton argument is forced to argue that communion doesn’t
emanate from the See of Peter over “all” in the Church, but only over those in
the Church who are members! – not over the “others” supposedly inside the Church
without being members! This is so
ridiculous and patently absurd that it doesn’t require further comment except to
say: Msgr. Fenton is proven wrong again.
Other texts and points
could be brought up to further disprove Fenton, as I have done in a lengthy
article on our website. (That
particular article also shows that Fenton’s own definition of “member” as “part”
serves to refute his claim that one can be inside something without being a
“part” of it.) The fact is that Fenton’s argument is
thoroughly false and contrary to the teaching of these Magisterial Decrees.
This also proves that the teaching of
Suprema haec sacra (the 1949 Letter against Fr. Feeney, which is adhered to
by the SSPX, SSPV and CMRI) which Fenton defends (and which is covered in depth
later in this book) is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, for it teaches the same thing on
membership in the Church as Fenton.
“Cardinal” Marchetti-Selvaggini, Suprema haec sacra, “Protocol 122/49,”
Aug. 8, 1949: “Therefore, that one may
obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated
into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at
least he be united to her by desire and longing.”
BAYSIDE, MEDJUGORJE AND OTHER FALSE APPARITIONS
OBJECTION- Our Lady herself revealed at Bayside and Medjugorje that non-Catholics
can be saved, so you are wrong.
“Our Lady” of Bayside, August 14, 1979: “Do not judge your brothers and
sisters who have not been converted.
For My Father’s House, My Son has
repeated over and over, remember always – that in My Father’s House, there are
many rooms in the Mansion, signifying faiths and creeds.”[cdxxiii]
ANSWER- Our Lady does not contradict infallible dogma
and the Chair of St. Peter. To say
otherwise is blasphemous heresy. The
statement above allegedly from “Our Lady of Bayside,” that in the Father’s House
there are many mansions representing
many faiths and creeds, is blatantly heretical.
It contradicts Catholic dogma, which is the teaching of Jesus Christ. This heresy in Bayside totally gives away
the Bayside Message as a false apparition of the Devil.
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.”[cdxxiv]
The Bayside Message contradicts what Catholics must hold by divine faith, that
there is only one faith that leads to Heaven, the Catholic Faith, outside of
which there is no salvation. The many mansions in the Father’s house that
Our Lord refers to in the Gospel represent different rewards for Catholics who
die in the state of grace. Those who
continue to believe in Bayside and dismiss these facts are following the
deception of the Devil; they are rejecting the Catholic Faith and leaving the
Catholic Church. They are choosing
to follow the “Message” of Bayside over the teaching of the Catholic Church. Those who are aware of this heresy and
continue to believe in Bayside are not Catholics and not followers of Our Lady,
but rather are followers of the deception the Devil has set up for them.
And it is sad to say, but for many followers of false apparitions such as
Bayside, the false messages become their “dogma” and replace the real dogma
defined by the popes.
What Does Medjugorje Say?
"The Madonna always stresses that there is but one God and that people
have enforced unnatural separation. One
cannot truly believe, be a true Christian, if he does not respect other
religions as well."[cdxxv]
– "Seer" Ivanka Ivankovic
"The Madonna said that religions are separated in the earth, but the people of all religions are accepted
by her Son."[cdxxvi] – "Seer" Ivanka Ivankovic
Question: "Is the Blessed Mother calling all people
to be Catholic?" Answer: "No. The Blessed Mother says all religions are dear
to her and her Son."[cdxxvii] – "Seer" Vicka Ivankovic
This is total apostasy. It is a
total rejection of Catholic dogma; it is a total rejection of the dogma Outside
the Catholic Church There is No Salvation; and it is a total rejection of the
clear teaching of the Gospel on the necessity of believing in Jesus Christ, the
Son of God, for salvation. This
proves that Medjugorje, like the rest of the false modern apparitions, is a
deception of the Devil. Those who
are aware of these facts and refuse to reject it as a false apparition are
rejecting the Catholic Faith.
THE BROWN SCAPULAR
OBJECTION- Our Lady said that whoever dies wearing the Brown Scapular will not go to
Hell. This means that you are wrong:
non-Catholics and the unbaptized can be saved who die wearing the Scapular.
ANSWER- Everyone should wear the Brown Scapular; it is
a sign of devotion to Our Lady and a powerful sacramental. And we too originally believed that
whoever dies wearing the Brown Scapular could not go to Hell. We were convinced that God would make
sure that only baptized Catholics in the state of grace died with it on. But in researching the history behind the
Brown Scapular promise, one will discover that the Catholic Church has never
stated that Our Lady promised that whoever dies wearing the Brown Scapular will
not suffer eternal fire. I refer
the reader to the articles in The Catholic
Encyclopedia (Volume 13) on “Scapular” and the “Sabbatine Privilege.” The
Catholic Encyclopedia points out that the promise that has been declared by
the Church relating to the Brown Scapular is the Sabbatine Privilege, which has
various requirements attached, one of which is to be a baptized Catholic who
dies in the state of grace. The
authors of The Catholic Encyclopedia
note that nowhere has a pope authoritatively stated that whoever dies with the Scapular will be saved.
In
The Glories of Mary, St. Alphonsus tells us about the Scapular.
St. Alphonsus, The Glories of Mary,
p. 272: “… the sacred scapular of
St. Alphonsus here
lists the promises of the Sabbatine Privilege; he mentions nothing about the
alleged promise that “whoever dies wearing this scapular shall not suffer
eternal fire.” He points out that one must be in the
state of grace (which presupposes the Catholic Faith and Baptism); one must
be a member of the confraternity, etc.
So it is possible for a person to die with the Brown Scapular on and
still go to Hell, if the person is a non-Catholic or a Catholic in the state of
mortal sin. This is the teaching of
the Catholic Church. Those who say
otherwise are simply mistaken.
18. The Soul of the Church
Heresy
OBJECTION- It’s possible
to belong to the “Soul” of the Church without belonging to her Body. In this way those who die as members of
non-Catholic religions can be joined to the Church and saved, as the Baltimore
Catechism (1921) explains:
Q. 512 How are such persons
said to belong to the Church?
A. Such persons are said to
belong to the “Soul of the Church”; that is, they are really members of the
Church without knowing it. Those who
share in its sacraments are said to belong to the body or visible part of the
Church.
ANSWER- The Soul of the Church heresy is crushed by an examination of Catholic
teaching. The Soul of the Church
heresy is that which teaches that one can be saved in another religion or
without the Catholic Faith by being united to the Soul of the Church, but not
the Body. (This heresy is rampant and is held by
multitudes of “traditionalists” and “traditional” priests.) The purveyors of this heresy are forced
to admit that belonging to the Body of the Church only comes with the Sacrament
of Baptism.
The “Soul of the Church Heresy” will now be soundly refuted by a study of
various magisterial pronouncements.
First, this heresy stems from a misunderstanding of the true meaning of the
term “Soul of the Church.” The Soul
of the Church is the Holy Ghost.
It is not
an invisible extension of the mystical body which includes the unbaptized.
Pope Pius XII,
Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943:
“… Leo XIII, of immortal memory in the Encyclical, “Divinum illud,”
[expressed it] in these words: ‘Let it suffice to state this, that, as Christ
is the Head of the Church, the Holy Spirit is her soul.’”[cdxxviii]
Second, the Church is essentially (i.e., in its essence) a Mystical Body.
Pope Leo X,
Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516: “… the mystical body,
the Church (corpore mystico)…”[cdxxix]
Pope St. Pius X, Editae saepe (# 8), May 26, 1910: “… the
Church, the Mystical Body of Christ…”[cdxxx]
Pope Leo XII, Quod Hoc Ineunte (# 1), May 24, 1824: “… His
mystical Body.”[cdxxxi]
Therefore, to teach that one can be saved without belonging to the Body
is to teach that one can be saved without belonging to the Church, since the
Church is a Body. And this is
without question HERETICAL.
A man can be either inside the Church or outside the Church. He can be either inside or outside the
Body. There isn’t a third realm
in which the Church exists – an invisible Soul of the Church. Those who say that one can be saved by
belonging to the Soul of the Church, while not belonging to her Body, deny the
undivided unity of the Church’s Body and Soul, which is parallel to denying the
undivided unity of Christ’s Divine and Human natures.
Pope Leo XIII,
Satis Cognitum (# 3), June 29, 1896: “For this reason the Church is
so often called in Holy Writ a body, and even the body of Christ… From this it
follows that those who arbitrarily conjure up and picture to
themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error...
It is assuredly impossible that the
The denial of the union of the Church’s Body and Soul leads to the heresy that
the Church is invisible, which was condemned by Popes Leo XIII (above), Pius XI[cdxxxiii]
and Pius XII.[cdxxxiv]
Third, the most powerful proof against the “Soul of the Church” heresy
logically follows from the first two already discussed.
The third proof is that the infallible magisterium of the Catholic
Church has defined that belonging to the Body of the Church is necessary
for salvation!
Pope Eugene IV, in his famous Bull Cantate Domino, defined that the unity
of the ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) is so
strong that no one can be saved outside of it, even if he sheds his blood in the
name of Christ. This destroys
the idea that one can be saved by belonging to the Soul of the Church without
belonging to its Body.
Pope Eugene
IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes,
professes, and proclaims that none of those existing outside the Catholic
Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics and schismatics can become
participants in eternal life, but they will depart ‘into everlasting fire which
was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end
of life they have been added to the flock; and that the unity of this
ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) is so strong
that only for those who abide in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit
for salvation, and do fasts, almsgiving, and other functions of piety
and exercises of a Christian soldier produce eternal rewards. 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.”[cdxxxv]
This definition of Pope Eugene IV demolishes the “Soul of the Church Heresy.” Pope Pius XI destroys it as well.
Pope Pius XI,
Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “For since the mystical body of
Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly
joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical
body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad:
whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither
is he in communion with Christ its head.”[cdxxxvi]
So much for the “Soul of the Church Heresy.”
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.
That is why it is fitting that, belonging to the one same body,
they also have the one same will…”[cdxxxvii]
Pope Clement XIV, Cum Summi (# 3), Dec. 12,
1769: “One is the body of the Church, whose head is Christ, and all
cohere in it.”[cdxxxviii]
Recently, an article was published by Fr. Anthony Cekada called Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles. Fr. Cekada is a “traditionalist” priest
who rightly rejects Vatican II but yet holds the heresy common to almost all
today: that those who die as non-Catholics can be saved. Fr. Cekada is, therefore, a person who
rejects the Catholic dogma that the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation. Not surprisingly, Fr. Cekada is also a
fierce advocate of baptism of desire (although, as I just said, Fr. Cekada holds
that members of false religions who don’t
even desire baptism can be saved).
When I asked him via e-mail whether he agreed with the common teaching of
heretical, 20th century pre-Vatican II theologians (see the “Heresy
before Vatican II Section”) that souls can be saved “outside the Church” by
“invincible ignorance,” he conveniently chose not to respond. That is simply because he does
believe that those who die in non-Catholic religions can be saved and he rejects
the defined dogma which declares that they cannot.
In his article, Baptism of Desire and
Theological Principles, Fr. Cekada attempts to prove that Catholics are
bound by the “common” teaching of theologians, according to Pope Pius IX in Tuas Libenter. He further argues that baptism of
desire was the “common” teaching of theologians before Vatican II; and he
concludes that Catholics are, therefore, bound to believe in baptism of desire
under pain of mortal sin. Since his
article has had some influence on traditional Catholics, and the subject matter
ties in directly to a central point under discussion in this document (namely,
the universal and constant teaching on the
necessity of rebirth of water and the Spirit based on John 3:5), I feel it
necessary to show how Fr. Cekada has completely perverted the very principles he
applies, has misled his readership and is contradicted by the authorities he
quotes.
In his letter
to the Archbishop of Munich (Tuas Libenter),
upon which Fr. Cekada bases his argument, Pope Pius IX says that Catholic
writers are bound by those matters which, though not taught by express decree of
the Roman See, are nevertheless taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium
as divinely revealed and held by theologians in universal and constant agreement.
Pope Pius IX,
Tuas Libenter, Letter to the Archbishop of
“For, even if it were a matter concerning that
subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it
would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express
decrees of ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but
would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as
divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread
throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and constant
[universali et constanti] consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong
to faith.”[cdxxxix]
As referenced at the
beginning of this document, it was defined as a dogma by the First Vatican Council that the ordinary and universal magisterium
is infallible. In
his letter to the Archbishop of Munich, Pope Pius IX teaches that Catholic
writers are bound by those matters which “are handed down as divinely
revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread
throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are
held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.”
Notice, the obligation to the opinion of the theologians only arises from the
fact that these matters were already taught as divinely revealed by the
ordinary teaching power of the Church and therefore also held by universal
and constant agreement. In
his application of this teaching in his article, Fr. Cekada conveniently skips over the “universal” requirement. Fr. Cekada also uses the word
“common” instead of the properly translated, “universal and constant.”
Fr. Anthony
Cekada, Baptism of Desire and Theological
Principles, 1. General Principle: “All Catholics are obliged to adhere to a
teaching if Catholic theologians hold it by common consent, or hold it as
de fide, or Catholic doctrine, or theologically certain.”
Notice how Fr.
Cekada conveniently ignores the requirement stipulated by Pope Pius IX that the
theologians must be in “universal and constant agreement”! If he had faithfully applied the
“universal” part of it throughout his article, the attentive and sincere reader
would easily have picked up the flaw in his feeble argumentation. And is baptism of desire something that
has been held by universal and
constant agreement? Most
certainly not; in fact, it is just the opposite.
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.”[cdxl]
As we can see, exactly the opposite of baptism of desire is what is taught in
universal and constant agreement! It is the universal and constant teaching
of Catholic Fathers and theologians since the beginning that absolutely no one
can be saved without water baptism.
Thus, the very principle that Fr. Cekada attempts to apply in favor of
baptism of desire is used against it.
Fr. Anthony
Cekada, Baptism of Desire and Theological
Principles, 2. Particular Fact: “But, Catholic theologians do hold
the teaching on baptism of desire and baptism of blood by common consent,
or hold it as de fide, or Catholic doctrine, or theologically certain. 3. Conclusion (1 + 2): Therefore, all Catholics are obliged to
adhere to the teaching on baptism of desire and baptism of blood.”
The fact that baptism of desire did become a common and almost unanimous error
among 20th
century “theologians” means nothing, which is why Pope Pius IX included that
important word “universal” in Tuas
Libenter, which Fr. Cekada conveniently ignores.
The Catholic
Encyclopedia, Vol. 9, “Limbo,” p. 257: “After
enjoying several centuries of undisputed supremacy,
The
Catholic Encyclopedia is saying here that basically from the time of Augustine (4th
century) to Abelard (12th century) it was the common and
almost unanimous teaching of theologians that unbaptized infants suffer the
fires of Hell after death, a position that was later condemned by Pope Pius VI.
This proves that the “common” error of one period (or even for hundreds of
years) is not the universal and constant teaching of
the Church from the beginning.
This point alone totally blows Fr. Cekada’s thesis away.
Furthermore, the heresy that one can be saved “outside” the Church by
“invincible ignorance” was also the common and almost unanimous teaching
at the beginning of the 20th Century, thus proving again that the common teaching (or common error) at any particular time does not
replace the universal and constant
teaching of all Catholic theologians throughout history on the absolute
necessity of water baptism for salvation.
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.”[cdxlii]
Notice here that the Catechism of Trent
is inculcating that the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation is the
unanimous
teaching of theologians. But that is
the very position which Fr. Cekada’s article – in the name of the “common”
consent of theologians – says is a mortal sin to hold!
One can easily see from these
facts that Fr. Cekada has erred in a major way and is actually completely wrong:
the universal and constant
teaching of theologians, as Fr. Jurgens and the Catechism of
Archbishop
Patrick Kenrick (19th Century),
Treatise on Baptism: “Hence, all
the illustrious writers of antiquity proclaimed in unqualified terms its (Baptism’s) absolute necessity.”[cdxliii]
In fact, if the “common” error of theologians at a particular time constituted a
teaching of the Church that one is bound to follow, then all Catholics would be
bound by the heresy of religious liberty (besides all the others) taught at
Vatican II, since this has been accepted by “common” consent of the so-called
“Catholic theologians” since Vatican II.
And this is why Fr. Cekada offers the following pitiful response to that
very objection to his quite obviously false thesis.
Fr. Anthony
Cekada, Baptism of Desire and Theological
Principles, Answering the Objection
about Vatican II – D. Theologians and
Vatican II: “The group of European modernist theologians
primarily responsible for the Vatican II errors were enemies of traditional
scholastic theology and had been censured or silenced by church authority:
Murray, Schillebeeckx, Congar, de Lubac, Teilhard, etc. When the strictures were
removed under John XXIII, they were able to spread their errors freely. If
anything, the fact that they had been previously silenced demonstrates the
Church’s vigilance against error in the writings of her theologians.”
Oh, I see, because Fr. Cekada deems that the “theologians” who were “primarily
responsible” for Vatican II were “European Modernists” and “enemies of
traditional scholastic theology,” he is free to dump his entire thesis that a
Catholic is bound to follow the “common” consent of theologians under pain of
mortal sin. How convenient! The reader should easily see that by such
a statement Fr. Cekada is arguing hypocritically and completely refuting
himself. Fr. Cekada must be quite
dedicated to his heresy to argue in such a contradictory fashion. Furthermore, his claim that because a few
of the more radical of the Vatican II theologians were silenced, he is therefore
free to reject the common consent of “theologians” after Vatican II, is a
hopeless argument; for the fact remains
that the “common” consent of purported “Catholic” theologians since Vatican II
was to endorse Vatican II’s heretical documents, even if a few of the more
radical ones were timidly “silenced” before Vatican II.
Hence, as anyone with eyes to see can see, if one is free to reject the “common”
consent of Vatican II theologians because one deems them “enemies of traditional
scholastic theology,” then one can just as well dump the fallible,
contradictory
teaching of the pre-Vatican II theologians on baptism of desire, since it is
patently contrary to “traditional dogmatic theology” (viz., the defined dogma on the necessity of rebirth of water and the
Spirit), not to mention the universal Tradition of the Church from the
beginning on John 3:5.
Furthermore, if a Catholic were bound to
follow the “common” teaching of theologians at a particular time, and had lived
during the Arian period in the 4th century, then one would have been
bound by the Arian heresy (the denial of the Divinity of Jesus Christ),
since this was not only the “common” teaching of alleged “Catholic” theologians
and Bishops at the time, but almost the unanimous teaching.
Fr. William
Jurgens: “At one point in the Church’s history, only a few years before
Gregory’s [Nazianz] present preaching (+380 A.D.), perhaps the number of
Catholic bishops in possession of sees, as opposed to Arian bishops in
possession of sees, was no greater than something between 1% and 3% of the total. Had doctrine been determined by popularity, today we should all be
deniers of Christ and opponents of the Spirit.”[cdxliv]
Fr. William
Jurgens: “In the time of the Emperor Valens (4th century), Basil was
virtually the only orthodox Bishop in all the East who succeeded in retaining
charge of his see… If it has no other importance for modern man, a knowledge of the history of Arianism should demonstrate at least
that the Catholic Church takes no account of popularity and numbers in shaping
and maintaining doctrine: else, we should long since have had to abandon
Basil and Hilary and Athanasius and Liberius and Ossius and call ourselves after
Arius.”[cdxlv]
Fr. Cekada’s argument, in fact, would rule out the possibility of a Great
Apostasy, and would render Our Lord’s words in Luke 18:8 (When the Son of Man returns do you think He will find faith on earth?)
impossible, since all Catholics would always be bound to follow what the
majority of “Catholic” theologians say, no matter how heretical it is. Needless to say, Fr. Cekada’s argument is
completely absurd, as is obvious to the sincere Catholic with common sense.
Fr. Anthony
Cekada, Baptism of Desire and Theological
Principles, B. Proof of the Thesis. “1.
Major Premise. The consent of theologians in matters of faith and morals is
so intimately connected with the teaching Church that an error in the
consensus of theologians would necessarily lead the whole Church into error.
2.
Minor Premise. But the whole Church cannot err in faith and morals. (The
Church is infallible) 3. Conclusion. The consensus of theologians in matters
of faith and morals is a certain criteria of divine Tradition.”
We have seen how this claim of Fr. Cekada, in his attempt to apply it to
“baptism of desire,” is false, illogical, historically ridiculous and easily
refuted. I will quote Pope Pius XII again, who
himself contradicts the above assertion.
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.’”[cdxlvi]
And what is ironic and very important is that the fallible theologians Fr.
Cekada references in his article not only disagree among themselves about
whether this so-called “baptism of desire” is of the Faith or merely close to
the Faith, but the “theologians” he cites actually
prove the position of those who reject the false doctrine of baptism of desire.
THE VERY “THEOLOGIANS” HE BRINGS FORWARD ALSO DISPROVE HIS POSITION
One of the 25 pre-Vatican II theologians that Fr. Cekada references in
his article on Baptism of Desire and
Theological Principles is the German theologian Dr. Ludwig Ott, whose book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is
somewhat popular in traditional Catholic circles. Dr. Ott was a modernist heretic who
believed in baptism of desire and salvation “outside” the Church, as is stated
clearly
in his book (See the “Heresy Before Vatican II Section”). But despite this, in his
quarter-million-word compendium (Fundamentals
of Catholic Dogma), Dr. Ott is forced to admit the following based on the
overwhelming testimony of Catholic Tradition and defined dogma.
Dr. Ludwig
Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,
The Necessity of Baptism, p. 354: “1. Necessity of Baptism for Salvation- Baptism by water (Baptismus Fluminis)
is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all
men without exception, for salvation. (de fide.)”[cdxlvii]
Excuse me, but this de fide (i.e., of
the Faith) teaching of the Catholic Church on the absolute necessity of water
baptism for all without exception for salvation is precisely why
Catholics must reject the false doctrine of “baptism of desire”! Baptism of desire is directly contrary to
the above de fide teaching of the
Church: baptism of desire is the idea that
baptism of water is not necessary for all men without exception for salvation!
But Fr. Cekada, the illogical heretic, would have us believe that based on the
testimony of Ludwig Ott (and others) we are supposed to accept baptism of desire under pain of mortal sin, when Dr.
Ludwig Ott himself is affirming that the absolute necessity of water baptism for
all without exception is de fide – the
very truth which compels one to reject baptism of desire! Thus, Fr. Cekada is simply refuted and
condemned by the testimony of the very authorities he brings forward.
The fact that Dr. Ludwig Ott immediately proceeds to contradict the above
statement on the absolute necessity of water baptism
without exception in his book, and proceeds to teach baptism of desire and
blood on the very same page – which ideas he interestingly does not term de fide (of the Faith) but close to the
Faith – simply shows that the common error of baptism of desire, that became
almost unanimous among “theologians” such as Ott in the late 19th
and early 20th century, is simply not in harmony with the universal,
constant (and de fide) teaching of the
Church on the absolute necessity of water baptism without exception for
salvation.
Another example would be the famous book, The Catechism Explained, by
Fr. Spirago and Fr. Clarke. Like
Dr. Ott’s book, The Catechism Explained
taught baptism of desire and that there is salvation “outside” the Church. Yet despite this fact, these
“theologians” (Frs. Spirago and Clarke) were compelled to admit the following
truth, which is confessed universally by all purported Catholic theologians.
Fr. Francis
Spirago and Fr. Richard Clarke, The
Catechism Explained, 1899, Baptism: “3.
BAPTISM IS INDISPENSABLY
NECESSARY TO SALVATION.
Hence children who die unbaptized cannot enter heaven. Our Lord says: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of heaven’ (John 3:5).
He makes no exception, not even in the case of infants… Baptism is no less
indispensable in the spiritual order than water in the natural order…”[cdxlviii]
This shows, again, how the universal teaching of theologians is that baptism of
water is absolutely necessary for salvation, and that Our Lord’s words in John
3:5 have no exceptions. The fact
that Frs. Spirago and Clarke proceed to contradict this statement and teach
baptism of desire (and the heresy of salvation “outside” the Church) just shows
their own inconsistency – and the inconsistency of all who favor baptism of
desire.
Fr. Francis
Spirago and Fr. Richard Clarke, The
Catechism Explained, 1899, Baptism: “… for adults the simple desire is
sufficient, if actual baptism is impossible.”[cdxlix]
How can water baptism be indispensably necessary for salvation (as they just
told us), if the simple desire for it is sufficient in its place? That is a direct contradiction. And anyone who says that it is not
simply denies the law of non-contradiction.
One cannot say that:
·
Water Baptism is indispensably necessary for
salvation
And at the same time….
·
Water Baptism is not indispensably necessary for
salvation (desire can replace it)
These two statements are contradictory, but this is exactly what people were
being taught all over the world in catechisms since the late 1800’s. They were being taught the truth (1st
proposition), while simultaneously they were taught the opposite of that truth
(2nd proposition). This
shows that even in the time of growing apostasy, heresy and modernism that was
the period from approximately 1850 to 1950, all theologians and catechisms
still affirmed the universally taught truth on the absolute necessity of water
baptism for salvation, even though they did not remain consistent with it.
THEOLOGIANS ARE ALSO UNANIMOUS THAT ONLY THE WATER BAPTIZED ARE PART OF
THE
Additionally devastating to Fr. Cekada’s article is the fact that even
the theologians that he references in
favor of baptism of desire affirm that
it is of the Faith that only the water baptized are part of the Catholic
Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
I quote Dr. Ludwig Ott again, in his
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.
Dr. Ludwig
Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,
Membership in the Church, p. 309: “3.
Among the members of the Church are not to be counted: a) The unbaptized…
The so-called blood Baptism and the Baptism of desire, it is true, replace
Baptism by water (sic) in so far as the communication of grace is concerned, but do not effect incorporation into the
Church… Catechumens are not to be counted among the members of the Church…
The Church claims no jurisdiction over them (D 895). The Fathers draw a sharp line of
separation between Catechumens and ‘the faithful.’”[cdl]
Here we see Dr. Ludwig Ott, one of the “theologians” cited by Fr. Cekada to
“prove” baptism of desire, clearly affirming the universal Catholic teaching
that only water baptized persons are inside the Church.
Dr. Ott has no problem admitting this since he believes in salvation
“outside” the Church (see “Heresy Before Vatican II Section”).
But there are three very important admissions here by Dr. Ott, each
relating, ironically, to the three most famous dogmatic definitions on Outside the Church There is No Salvation.
1) The
most expansive definition on Outside the Church There is No Salvation was from
Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence.
In this definition, Pope Eugene IV defined infallibly that it is necessary to be
inside the unity of the ecclesiastical body, which means that it is necessary to
be incorporated into the ecclesiastical
body (ecclesiastici corporis).
Pope Eugene
IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes,
professes, and proclaims that none of those existing outside the Catholic
Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics and schismatics can become
participants in eternal life, but they will depart ‘into everlasting fire which
was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end
of life they have been added to the flock; and that the unity of this
ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) is so strong
that only for those who abide in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit
for salvation, and do fasts, almsgiving, and other functions of piety
and exercises of a Christian soldier produce eternal rewards. 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.”[cdli]
Please focus on the necessity of
incorporation
into the ecclesiastici corporis
(the ecclesiastical body). Then
notice that in the quotation above from Dr. Ott, he admits that “baptism of
desire” and “baptism of blood” do not effect incorporation – that is to
say, they do not bring one into the
Mystici Corporis
(the Mystical Body)!
Dr. Ludwig
Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,
Membership in the Church, p. 309: “3. The so-called blood Baptism and the
Baptism of desire, it is true, replace Baptism by water (sic) in so far as the
communication of grace is concerned, but
do not effect incorporation into the Church…’”[cdlii]
By this statement, Dr. Ott is admitting that “baptism of desire” and “baptism of
blood” are not compatible with Pope Eugene IV’s infallible definition on the
absolute necessity of incorporation into the ecclesiastical Body (ecclesiastici corporis) for salvation.
Thus, Dr. Ott proves that baptism of desire/blood cannot be true and is actually
contrary to dogma.
2) The
second infallible definition on Outside the Church There is No Salvation was
from Pope Boniface VIII in the Bull Unam
Sanctam. In this definition,
Pope Boniface VIII defined infallibly that it is necessary for every human
creature to be entirely subject
to the Roman Pontiff (and therefore the Catholic Church) for salvation.
Pope Boniface
VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“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.”[cdliii]
I pointed
out the fact that without water baptism no one is a subject of the Church or
the Roman Pontiff. I quoted the Council of Trent to prove
the point.
Pope Julius
III, Council of Trent, On the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance,
Sess. 14, Chap. 2, ex cathedra: “… 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).”[cdliv]
(Denz. 895)
Now, notice how Dr. Ott admits that “baptism of desire” and “baptism of blood”
neither make one a subject nor place one under the jurisdiction of the Church!
Dr. Ludwig
Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,
Membership in the Church, p. 309: “3. Among the members of the Church are not to
be counted: a) The unbaptized…
Catechumens are not to be counted among the members of the Church… The Church claims no jurisdiction over them (D 895).’”[cdlv]
By this statement, Dr. Ott is admitting that “baptism of desire” and “baptism of
blood” are not compatible with Pope Boniface VIII’s infallible definition on
the absolute necessity of subjection to the Church and the Roman Pontiff for
salvation! Dr. Ott is showing us
that baptism of desire/blood cannot be true (and that it is, in fact, contrary
to dogma), and he is even referencing the very decree that I referenced (D. 895
from
3) The
first infallible definition on Outside the Church There is No Salvation was from
Pope Innocent III at the Fourth Lateran
Council. In this definition,
Pope Innocent III defined infallibly that the Catholic Church is a Church of
“the faithful” and that outside of this “faithful” no one at all is saved.
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…”[cdlvi]
I pointed out how Catholic Tradition, Catholic Liturgy and all of the fathers
teach that only the water baptized are part of the faithful. Now, notice how in the quotation cited
above from Dr. Ott, he admits that “baptism of desire” and “baptism of blood”
do not make one part of the faithful!
I quote it again:
Dr. Ludwig
Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,
Membership in the Church, p. 309: “3. Catechumens are not to be counted among
the members of the Church… The Church claims no jurisdiction over them (D 895). The Fathers draw a sharp line of separation between Catechumens and ‘the
faithful.’”[cdlvii]
By this statement, Dr. Ott is admitting that “baptism of desire” and “baptism of
blood” are not compatible with Pope Innocent III’s infallible definition on the
absolute necessity of belonging to “the faithful” for salvation!
Therefore, in just one paragraph, Dr. Ott makes at least three
admissions, based on defined Catholic dogma, which show that baptism of desire
and baptism of blood are not compatible with Catholic teaching; and he makes these admissions on points that are
central to the three most famous
infallible definitions on Outside the Church There is No Salvation!
And this rather crucial series of admissions by Dr. Ott – quite
devastating to the theory of baptism of desire – brings me to my next point: the theologians, based on the testimony of
Tradition and Catholic teaching, all define the Catholic Church the same way
– a union of faith and sacraments.
THEOLOGIANS UNANIMOUSLY DEFINE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS A UNION OF SACRAMENTS – THE TESTIMONY OF ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE, ST. FRANCIS
DE SALES, THE CATECHISM OF TRENT AND ALL THEOLOGIANS
Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, has given a famous definition of
the Catholic Church. St. Robert
Bellarmine’s formula is recognized by many as the most precise scholastic
definition of the Church to this day.
St. Robert
Bellarmine (16th century):"The
Church is one, not twofold, and this one true [Catholic] Church is the assembly of men united in the
profession of the same Christian faith and in the communion of the same
sacraments, under the rule of legitimate pastors, and in particular,
that of the one Vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman Pontiff. The first part excludes all infidels,
those who were never in the Church such as Jews, Turks, and pagans, or those who
once were in it and later fell away, like the heretics and apostates.
The second part excludes the catechumens and excommunicated, since the former are not admitted to the
sacraments and the latter are excluded from them…"[cdlviii]
Here we see the definition of the Church which is accepted by all theologians:
a union of faith and sacraments. According to this definition of the
Church, there can be no baptism of desire because
those who have not received any of the sacraments (the unbaptized, including
unbaptized catechumens) don’t share in the unity of the sacraments and therefore
are not part of the Catholic Church. Could anything be more simple and clear?
But it is a fact, which may surprise some, that St. Robert Bellarmine did not
remain consistent with his definition of the Church above. He actually adopted the false idea of
baptism of desire, which became somewhat widespread among theologians in the
late middle ages, as I discussed in the section on the history of baptism of
desire. But in adopting the false
idea of baptism of desire, St. Robert simply failed to remain consistent with
his own definition of the Church above, as well as the unanimous definition of
theologians on the Church.
But this was not the only issue on which St. Robert did not remain entirely
consistent; he failed to remain consistent in his struggle with the true
teaching on Limbo, as The Catholic
Encyclopedia points out.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 9,
1910, “Limbo,” p. 258: “It is clear that
Bellarmine found the situation [on Limbo] embarrassing, being unwilling, as he
was, to admit that St. Thomas and the Schoolmen generally were in
conflict with what St. Augustine and other Fathers considered to be de fide [on Limbo], and what the Council of Florence seemed to have taught
definitively.”[cdlix]
Here we see again that the fathers, doctors and saints, including Robert
Bellarmine, actually contradicted themselves on Limbo, even what some of them
held to be de fide.
This again shows us why Catholics don’t form definite doctrinal
conclusions from the teaching of saints, including St. Robert Bellarmine. Catholics form definite doctrinal
conclusions from Catholic dogma, and the teaching of saints only when it is
in line with dogma. And St.
Robert Bellarmine’s definition of the Church above, which excludes all
unbaptized persons from the Catholic Church, is consistent with dogma;
his statements on baptism of desire are not.
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“… the one mystical body … And in this, ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5). Certainly Noe had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one
Church… outside which we read that all living things on the earth were destroyed…
which body he called the ‘Only one’ namely, the Church, because of the unity of the spouse, the faith, the sacraments, and the charity of the Church. ”[cdlx]
Here we see that Pope Boniface VIII defined as a dogma that the Church is a
union of sacraments. The Catholic
Church is infallibly defined as a union of sacraments also by Pope Eugene IV.
Pope Eugene
IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes,
professes, and proclaims… that the unity of
this ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) is so strong that only for those who abide in it are the sacraments of the Church of
benefit for salvation, and
do fasts, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of a Christian
soldier produce eternal rewards. 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.”[cdlxi]
The obvious meaning and sense of this dogmatic text is that the Catholic Church
is an ecclesiastical Body and a union of sacraments, a union “so strong.”
This is the truth confessed by all theologians.
St. Francis De Sales teaches the exact same truth.
St. Francis De
Sales, Doctor of the Church: “The Church
is a holy university or general company of men united and collected together
in the profession of one same Christian faith; in the participation of the same
sacraments…”[cdlxii]
Here we see
that St. Francis De Sales repeats the same truth and defines the Church the same
way. This is how everybody defines the Church!
The Catechism of the Council of
Trent affirms the same teaching:
Catechism of the Council of Trent, The Members of the Church Militant,
pp. 99-100: “The Church militant is
composed of two classes of persons, the good and the bad, both professing the same faith and
partaking of the same sacraments…”[cdlxiii]
Is any
teaching more consistent? The
Catechism of Trent concludes:
Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. 159: “In the character impressed by
Baptism, both effects are exemplified. By it we are qualified to receive the
other Sacraments, and the Christian is distinguished from those who do not
profess the faith.”[cdlxiv]
So again, we see how baptism of desire advocates, such as Fr. Cekada, are
completely wrong and actually pervert the truth when they assert that the
teaching of theologians binds one to “baptism of desire.”
It is exactly the opposite.
The unanimous teaching of theologians contradicts the false doctrine of
baptism of desire, by defining the Church as only those who have received
the sacraments, which definition is also a dogma (Eugene IV; Boniface VIII, de fide).
Catholics are not bound, and in fact must reject, the fallible
statements and speculations of men, however great, such as St. Robert
Bellarmine, when they are not in harmony with Catholic dogma, not to mention
when they contradict the very principles they elsewhere affirm.
And this is precisely why St. Robert Bellarmine was at a complete loss to
cogently explain the idea of “baptism of desire” when he had already defined the
Catholic Church as a body excluding all the unbaptized. He failed miserably in attempting to
explain how catechumens can be saved when only baptized persons are part of the
Catholic Church.
St. Robert
Bellarmine, De Ecclesia Militante: “Concerning catechumens there is a greater
difficulty, because they are faithful [have the faith] and can be saved if
they die in this state, and yet outside the Church no one is saved…
the catechumens are in the Church, though
not in actual fact, yet at least
in resolution, therefore they can be saved…”[cdlxv]
Notice the difficulty
St. Robert
Bellarmine (16th century): "The Church is one, not twofold, and this one true [Catholic] Church
is the assembly of men united in the
profession of the same Christian faith and in the communion of the same
sacraments, under the rule of legitimate pastors, and in particular,
that of the one Vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman Pontiff. First part excludes all infidels, those
who were never in the Church such as Jews, Turks, and pagans, or those who once
were in it and later fell away, like the heretics and apostates.
The second part excludes the catechumens and excommunicated, since the former are not admitted to the
sacraments and the latter are excluded from them…"[cdlxvi]
First, St. Robert’s “difficulty” in attempting to explain his (fallible)
position that catechumens can be saved, when catechumens are excluded from the
Church by his own definition, is simply because the idea that an unbaptized
person can be part of the Church is found nowhere in any council or statement
from the Papal Magisterium. The Catholic Church has exclusively held and taught
that only those who have received the Sacrament of
Baptism are part of the Church and no dogmatic decree has ever taught
anything else.
And this is why St. Robert is constrained to admit that catechumens are not
actually inside the Church, but he argues that they can be saved by being in
it in resolution, but not in fact.
(Note: St. Robert was only applying this idea to catechumens, not pagans,
heretics and schismatics, as our Modernists today love to assert). But contrary to St. Robert’s fallible and
false assertion that catechumens can be saved by being in the Church “not in actual fact, yet at least in resolution,” it is defined that one must be in
actual fact part of the Church. It
is defined that one must be “in the bosom and unity” (Eugene IV); that one must
be incorporated into the “ecclesiastical body” (Eugene IV); that one must be
“entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff” (Boniface VIII); that one must be in the
union of “sacraments” and “the faithful” (Eugene VI; Boniface VIII; Innocent
III). And these things only come
with water baptism, as attested to by St. Robert’s own definition of the Church.
But in trying to explain the unexplainable (how baptism of desire is compatible
with Catholic dogma), and in trying to defend the indefensible (how unbaptized
catechumens can be in a Church which is defined by a union of sacraments), St.
Robert contradicted these principles and made a mistake.
Second, in attempting to substantiate his erroneous belief in baptism of
desire, St. Robert says that catechumens are “faithful.”
This is contrary to the fathers and the teaching of Traditional Catholic
Liturgy since apostolic times, which excluded catechumens from “the faithful”
(as discussed in the Section on “The One Church of the Faithful”). It is also contrary to the ready
admissions of baptism of desire advocates such as Ludwig Ott, which I’ve already
quoted.
Dr. Ludwig
Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,
Membership in the Church, p. 309: “3. Catechumens are not to be counted among
the members of the Church… The Church claims no jurisdiction over them (D 895). The Fathers draw a sharp line of separation between Catechumens and
‘the faithful.’”[cdlxvii]
By
now the reader should again be discovering the theme which I’ve been showing
throughout this extensive examination of the history of the baptism of desire
issue: that baptism of desire is a fallible, erroneous tradition of man, which
has never been taught by the Papal Magisterium, which has gained momentum based
on the fallible and flawed passages of some nevertheless great men, who
contradicted themselves and violated their own principles in trying to explain
it, while almost always making other errors in the same documents.
In fact, St. Robert’s statement that catechumens are “faithful” also contradicts
the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Communion of Sacraments, p.
110: “The fruit of all the sacraments
is common to all the faithful, and these sacraments, particularly baptism, the door, as it
were, by which we are admitted into the Church, are so many sacred bonds which
bind them and unite them to Christ.”[cdlxviii]
This means that those who haven’t received the sacraments are not part of the
“faithful,” again contrary to what Bellarmine asserted in his admittedly
“difficult” attempt to reconcile the false idea of baptism of desire with his
own definition of the Catholic Church, which excluded all the unbaptized. When saints enter into “difficult”
attempts to explain speculative things that are not clearly taught by the Church
they are bound to make mistakes. And
so Catholics must not follow St. Robert in this “difficult” (or rather,
impossible) attempt to explain baptism of desire, but rather they should follow
St. Gregory Nazianz (Doctor of the Church), who stated regarding the idea that
one can reckon as baptized him who desired
baptism but did not receive it, “I cannot see it.”[cdlxix]
St. Robert indeed erred on the subject of baptism of desire, just as he did on
Limbo; but what is most important to remember, as stated already, is this: while
the principle of Papal infallibility was always believed in the Church
(expressed from the earliest times by such phrases as in the apostolic see
the Catholic religion has always been preserved untainted and holy doctrine
celebrated), there is no doubt that after the definition of Papal
infallibility at the First Vatican Council in 1870 there is much more
clarity about which documents are infallible and which are not. St. Robert Bellarmine and others who
lived before 1870 did not necessarily have this degree of clarity, which caused
many of them to lessen the distinction, in certain cases, between the infallible
decrees of popes and the fallible teaching of theologians. It also caused them to not look quite
as literally at what the dogma actually declares, but rather at what they
thought the dogma might mean in light of the opinion of popular theologians of
the time.
Catholics
who live today can say that they understand more about Papal Infallibility than
the theologians and doctors in the middle ages all the way down to 1870, and
that they possess an advantage in evaluating this issue not only because they
live after the definition of Papal Infallibility, but also because they can
review the entire history of papal pronouncements of the Church on this issue and see the harmony among them on the
absolute necessity of water baptism.
UNIVERSAL TRADITION ON BAPTISM AFFIRMED EVEN BY HERETICAL MODERN
CATECHISMS
To further illustrate the point that the absolute necessity of water baptism for
salvation is the universal and constant teaching of all theologians even
during the time of the apostasy and even by those same persons who proceeded to
deny this truth, let’s take, for example, a recent edition of the Baltimore
Catechism and the Catechism attributed to Pope St. Pius X.
The New
St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism, No. 2, Q. 320- “Why is Baptism necessary for the
salvation of all men? A.
Baptism is necessary for the salvation of all men because Christ has said: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the
Spirit, he cannot enter into the
Notice how this edition of the Baltimore Catechism, which taught the error of
baptism of desire to multitudes (as we will see),
reiterates the universal and constant teaching of the Catholic Church, based
on the words of Jesus Christ in John 3:5, that Baptism of water is necessary
for the salvation of all men.
The Baltimore Catechism, therefore, teaches the exact same truth of Faith that
has been a constant echo in Catholic Tradition since the beginning.
Hermas, 140 A.D., quoting Jesus in John 3:5: “They had need to come up
through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the
St. Justin the Martyr, 155 A.D.: “… 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.”[cdlxxii]
So, contrary to popular belief, those who reject “baptism of desire” actually
follow the teaching of the
The New St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism, No.
2, Q. 321- “How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have not
received the Sacrament of Baptism.
A. Those who through no fault of their own have
not received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what is called
baptism of blood or baptism of desire.”[cdlxxiii]
This statement blatantly contradicts the truth taught in Q. 320, that baptism of water is absolutely necessary
for all men to be saved.
In the Baltimore Catechism the people have been taught two directly
contradictory notions one after the other:
·
Baptism of water is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all;
and…
·
Baptism of water is not absolutely necessary for the salvation of all.
Can both be true at the same time?
No, they cannot. As a Catholic, one
must follow the first statement, which is in accord with defined dogma and the
universal Tradition since the beginning of the Church, and is based on the
declaration of Christ Himself.
Furthermore, the edition of the
The New St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism, No.
2, Q. 321- “However, only baptism of
water actually makes a person a member of the Church. It (baptism of blood/desire) might be
compared to a ladder up which one climbs into the Bark of Peter, as the Church
is often called. Baptism of blood or desire makes a person a member of the Church in
desire. These are the two lifelines trailing from the sides of the Church to
save those who are outside the Church through no fault of their own.”[cdlxxiv]
Here we see this edition of the Baltimore Catechism teaching that: 1) Baptism of
desire doesn’t make one a member of the Church; 2) Baptism of desire does make
one a member of the Church in desire; 3) there is salvation outside the
Church
by baptism of desire and blood.
The first two statements contradict each other, while the third is direct
heresy
against the dogma that Outside the Church
no one at all is saved (Pope Innocent III, de fide). Thus, this
edition of the Baltimore Catechism’s explanation of “baptism of desire” is not
only fallible, but directly heretical.
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.”[cdlxxv]
But having taught that baptism of desire “saves” people “outside” the Church,
this version of the Baltimore Catechism proves the point again that baptism of
desire is incompatible with defined dogma – not to mention its own teaching on
the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation.
THE CATECHISM ATTRIBUTED TO ST. PIUS X
The Catechism attributed to Pope St. Pius X repeats for us the same de fide teaching of the Catholic Church
on the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation.
The Catechism
of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments,
“Baptism,” Q. 16: “Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for Our Lord has
expressly said: ‘Unless a man be born
again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the
So, contrary to popular belief, those who reject “baptism of desire” actually
follow the teaching of the Catechism attributed to Pope St. Pius X on the
absolute necessity of water baptism.
They don’t follow, however, the teaching of this fallible Catechism when it proceeds to contradict this truth on the
absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation.
The Catechism
of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments,
“Baptism,” Q. 17: “Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A.
The absence of Baptism can be
supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of
perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit,
of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.”[cdlxxvii]
This again is a total contradiction to what is stated in Question 16. It should be noted that this catechism (which is
sometimes called the Catechism of Pius X) is actually called
the Catechismo Della Dottrina
Cristiana (1912).
It is one that liberals and modernists love to cite. It was not infallible or universally
binding. A pope
is only infallible when speaking magisterially.
This catechism was only approved for use in
Italy, and it actually contains a heresy.
Popes are not infallible or flawless when approving general works
in a non-infallible or non-universal
capacity. For instance, numerous
popes gave a general approbation to St. Thomas’ Summa Theologiae. That
does not mean that the Church endorsed St. Thomas’ error in the Summa Theologiae on the
Immaculate Conception.
Further, this catechism is proven not to be infallible by the fact that it
teaches the abominable heresy that there is salvation “outside” the Church (as I
will show)!
Certain statements in this catechism are, sadly, an example of the heresy that
was percolating before Vatican II.
I will first quote where the catechism affirms the dogma.
The Catechism
of Pope St. Pius X, The Apostles’ Creed,
“The Church in Particular,” Q. 27: “Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic,
Apostolic and Roman Church? A.
No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church,
just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was
a figure of the Church.”[cdlxxviii]
Here the Catechism attributed to Pope St. Pius X reaffirms the defined dogma. But it proceeds to deny this dogma just
two questions later!
The Catechism
of Pope St. Pius X, The Apostles’ Creed,
“The Church in Particular,” Q. 29: “Q. But if a man through no fault of his own
is outside the Church, can he
be saved? A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if
he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the
implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and
does God’s will as best as he can, such a man is indeed separated from the
body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently
is on the way of salvation.”[cdlxxix]
Here we see this fallible Catechism word for word denying the dogma
Outside the Church There is No Salvation!
It teaches that there can be salvation “outside” the Church, which directly
denies the truth it taught to the people in Question 27. This statement is so heretical, in fact, that it would be repudiated even by most of
the crafty heretics of our day, who know that they cannot say that people are
saved “outside,” so they argue that non-Catholics are not “outside” but are
“inside” somehow. So even those
crafty heretics who reject the true meaning of Outside the Church There is No
Salvation would have to admit that the above statement is heretical!
Further, notice that the catechism attributed to St. Pius X teaches the heresy
that persons can be united to the “Soul” of the Church, but not the Body. As proven already, the Catholic Church is
a Mystical Body. Those who
are not part of the Body are no part at all.
Pope Pius XI,
Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “For since the mystical body of
Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly
joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical
body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad:
whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither
is he in communion with Christ its head.”[cdlxxx]
This discussion on the catechisms should demonstrate to the reader how the
rampant denial of Outside the Church There is No Salvation and the necessity of
Water Baptism has been perpetuated through fallible texts with imprimaturs
and why it has been imbibed today by almost all who profess to be Catholic. It has been perpetuated by fallible
documents and texts which contradict themselves, which contradict defined dogma,
and which teach heresy, and which – all the while – elsewhere affirm the
immutable truths of the absolute necessity of the Catholic Church and water
baptism for salvation. And this is
why Catholics are bound to adhere to infallibly defined dogma, not
fallible catechisms or theologians.
Pope Pius IX,
Singulari Quadam: “For, in truth,
when released from these corporeal chains, ‘we shall see God as He is’ (1
John 3:2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond
divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed
down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that,
in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is ‘one God, one faith, one
baptism’ [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.”[cdlxxxi]
Pope Paul III,
The Council of Trent, 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.”[cdlxxxii]
20.
Exultate Deo also ends the debate
I have discussed the teaching of the Council of Florence on Baptism in
earlier sections; but, due to the fact that the teaching of Exultate Deo
from the Council of Florence excludes the possibility of baptism of desire and
baptism of blood, I want to show clearly that it is infallible and cannot be
contradicted.
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.”[cdlxxxiii]
It is
important to point out that not everything in the Bull
Exultate Deo (the Decree for the Armenians) deals with faith and morals to
be believed by the universal Church.
Those areas are not necessarily taught ex cathedra (from the Chair of
Peter) or infallibly. But this
quotation above most certainly does deal with faith and morals to be believed by
the universal Church and is therefore taught ex cathedra. Some people point out the fact that Exultate Deo does not have the same
solemn language as Cantate Domino
from the Council of Florence, which everyone agrees is infallible. Some
conclude, therefore, that it’s possible that Exultate Deo might not be
infallible in faith and morals. But
this argument is easily refuted. Not
only was the Bull Exultate Deo
approved by Pope Eugene IV and included in the decrees of the Council, but it
was required for the Armenians as a profession of faith, as the true doctrine of
the Catholic religion. This proves
that it is infallible.
Pope Leo XIII, Paterna caritas (# 2), July 25, 1888: “Then the
Constitution of the Council, Exultate Deo, was published by the
pope, in which he taught them all that he considered to be necessary for the
right knowledge of Catholic truth; and upon this, the Legates, in the name
of their Patriarch, and of the whole Armenian race, declared that they
received the Constitution in entire submission and readiness to obey,
‘promising in the same name, as true sons of obedience, loyally to obey the
behests and commands of the Apostolic See.”[cdlxxxiv]
Furthermore, Exultate Deo
(the Decree for the Armenians) was solemnly confirmed by a number of other
infallible Bulls in the same Council, including Cantate Domino.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” Sess. 11,
Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church embraces,
approves and accepts all other universal synods which were legitimately
summoned, celebrated and confirmed by the authority of a Roman Pontiff, and
especially this holy synod of Florence, in which, among other things, most
holy unions with the Greeks and the Armenians have been achieved and many
most salutary definitions in respect of each of these unions have been issued,
as is contained in full in the decrees previously promulgated, which are as
follows: Letentur coeli; Exultate Deo…”[cdlxxxv]
In Sess.
13 of the Council of Florence, Pope Eugene IV issued another Bull – this one on
union with the Syrians – in which he again infallibly approves of the doctrine
contained in Exultate Deo (the Decree for the Armenians).
The Bull ends with Pope Eugene IV invoking the wrath of God upon anyone
who would contradict it. Here is the
pertinent portion of the text.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Bull of Union with the
Syrians, Sess. 13, Nov. 30, 1444: “Eugenius, bishop, servant of the servants
of God, for an everlasting record… we ordain and decree that he (the
archbishop Abdala) ought to receive and embrace, in the name of the above
persons, whatever has been defined and established at various times by the
holy Roman Church, especially the decrees on the Greeks and the
Armenians (Exultate Deo) and the Jacobites, which were issued in
the sacred ecumenical council of Florence…”[cdlxxxvi]
In addition, Exultate Deo itself begins its section on the
sacraments – in which the quote on the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism is
contained – with authoritative language which proves that it is the infallible
teaching of the Catholic Church.
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22,
1439: “Eugenius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting
record… for the easier instruction of the Armenians today and in the future
we reduce the truth about the sacraments of the Church to the following
brief scheme.”[cdlxxxvii]
Therefore, the teaching contained in Exultate Deo, concerning
points of faith and morals to be believed by the universal Church, is
infallible and dogmatic. It cannot
contain error. Thus, when
Exultate Deo defines that unless we are born again of water and the Holy
Ghost, we cannot, as the Truth says, enter into the
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 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.”[cdlxxxviii]
To hold that one can enter into the kingdom of heaven without being born
again of water and the Spirit is to contradict this infallible teaching.
21. The New Testament is clear that the
Sacrament of Baptism is Indispensable for Salvation
I have already discussed John 3:5, so I
will now look at some of the other New Testament passages which affirm the
absolute necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation.
THE
GREAT COMMISSION – MATTHEW 28 AND MARK 16
Matthew 28:19-20-
“And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and
in earth. Going, therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; Teaching
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you...”
In the very last scene
recorded in St. Matthew’s Gospel, known as the Great Commission – THE VERY LAST
INSTRUCTION THAT JESUS CHRIST GIVES THE APOSTLES BEFORE LEAVING THIS WORLD –
Jesus Christ gives His Apostles two commands: to teach all nations and to
baptize. Since this is Christ’s very last command
to His Apostles, these words carry a special significance. This should tell everyone something about
the importance of Baptism. The
Sacrament of Baptism is inextricably bound up, by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself,
with the very command to teach all nations the Christian faith. St. Mark’s Gospel reveals the same truth
in his version of the Ascension scene, the last scene in his Gospel.
Mark 16:15-16-
“And he (Jesus) said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that
believeth not shall be condemned.”
Here we see
Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself saying that those who are baptized will be saved, clearly indicating that those who are not baptized will not be
saved. But some ask, why didn’t
Our Lord say, “he that believeth not and
is not baptized shall be condemned,” after saying he that believeth and
is baptized shall be saved. The
answer is that those who don’t
believe are not going to get baptized, so it is not necessary to mention
baptism again. Besides, Our Lord
says that very thing (that those who are not baptized will not be saved) in John
3:5.
So we see
that, in the very last command of Our Lord to the
Apostles, the notion of belief and receiving baptism are wrapped up; they are
one and the same formula which is
necessary for salvation. To
believe and to receive the Sacrament of Baptism are one and the same saving
event.
St. Francis
Xavier, Dec. 31, 1543: “After all this he [one of the heathen] asked me in my
turn to explain the principal mysteries of the Christian religion, promising to
keep them a secret. I replied, that
I would not tell him a word about them unless he promised beforehand to publish
them abroad [to tell everyone] what I should tell him of the religion of Jesus
Christ. He made the promise, and
then I carefully explained to him those
words of Jesus Christ in which our religion is summed up: ‘He who believes
and is baptized shall be saved’ (Mark 16:16).”[cdlxxxix]
In Romans chapters 5 and 6 we find St.
Paul explaining how men are born in the state of original sin, because the sin
of the first man, Adam, has caused his descendants to be born bankrupt of the
state of grace.
Romans 6:3-4 “Know you not that all we, who are baptized
in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death? For we are buried together with him by
baptism unto death.”
In this very strong language,
THE COUNCIL OF
In accordance with the
infallible declaration of
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “For unless a man be
born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God
[John 3:5]… For in those who are born again, God hates nothing, because ‘there is no condemnation, to those
who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism unto death’ (Rom. 6:4)…”[cdxc]
And here is another regional council which,
though not dogmatic, teaches the same truth as the dogmatic statement above:
namely, that only by being buried by the
Sacrament of Baptism unto death, can one hope to have remission of sin,
incorporation with Christ and salvation.
St. Remigius, Bishop of Lyons, Council of Valence III, 855, Can. 5:
“Likewise we believe that we must hold most firmly that all the multitude of the faithful, regenerated ‘from
water and the Holy Spirit’ (John 3:5), and through this truly incorporated
into the Church, and according to the apostolic doctrine baptized in the death of Christ (Rom.
6:3), in His blood has been absolved from its sins…”[cdxci]
1 CORINTHIANS 12:13
1 Corinthians
12:13- “For in one Spirit were we all
baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free;
and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink.”
Here we see
THE COUNCIL OF
Based on this very text
[“For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body”], the Catholic
Church infallibly teaches that only through the Sacrament of Baptism is one
incorporated into the Body of the Church.
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, on the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance,
Sess. 14, Chap. 2, ex cathedra: “…
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).”[cdxcii]
It is a dogma, based on
1 Corinthians, that those who have not received the laver of baptism are “without” the Church; they are not “members of His body”; they are not “of the household of the faith”; and the Church exercises no “judgment” over them. I have already discussed the profound
significance of this dogmatic statement in section 7 on “Subjection to the Roman
Pontiff,” but I will very briefly repeat that here for the reader’s sake.
It is de fide that every human creature must be subject to the Church to
be saved, because every human creature must be subject to the Roman Pontiff to
be saved.
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“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.”[cdxciii]
And if the definition
of Trent above on 1 Cor. 12:13 proves that no one can be subject to the Church
without water baptism (as it does), this means that no one can be saved
without water baptism. All
persons are made subject to the Church (and therefore the Roman Pontiff) only by
receiving the Sacrament of Baptism.
GALATIANS 3 – FAITH IS BAPTISM
In Galatians 3 we find one of the most
famous parts of
In Galatians 3:23
he says: “But before the faith
came…”
In verse 24 he
says: “that we may be justified by faith…”
In verse 25 he
says: “But after the faith is come…”
In verse 26 he
says: “For you are all the children of God
by faith, in Christ Jesus.”
But what does
Galatians 3:27: “For
as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ.
There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is
neither male nor female. For you are
all one in Christ Jesus.”
This very interesting chapter of
Scripture should give a message to Protestants and Catholics alike.
St. Ambrose,
(4th Century) Bishop and Doctor of the Church:
“… for in
the Christian what comes first is faith.
And at
Thus,
THE COUNCIL OF
Pope Paul III,
Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 7 on Justification, ex cathedra:
“… the instrumental cause [of Justification] is the Sacrament of Baptism,
which is the ‘Sacrament of Faith,’ without faith no one is ever justified…
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.
In Titus 3:5 we find one of the strongest
of all the passages in Sacred Scripture on the necessity of the Sacrament of
Baptism.
Titus 3:5- “Not by the works of justice, which we have
done, but according to his mercy,
he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost…”
Here,
What is very
interesting about this passage is that the word of God tells us that it is not
“by the works of justice which we
have done” that we are saved. In
other words, it is not by our desire
or our blood or our contrition that we are saved, but by the Sacrament itself that
Christ instituted (the laver of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Ghost).
THE FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL DEFINES THE TRUTH OF TITUS 3:5
Pope Innocent
III, Fourth Lateran Council, 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.”[cdxcviii]
St. Fulgence (+512): “For he is saved by the
Sacrament of Baptism…”[d]
EPHESIANS 4:5 –
One Spirit – One Body – One Faith – One Lord –
One Baptism.
Ephesians 4:4-6:
“Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. One body and one Spirit; as you are
called in the hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one
baptism.
One God
and Father of all…”
Here
What’s interesting about this quotation from
St. Jerome is that he is pointing out that the “one baptism” shared by all in
the Church (according to Ephesians 4:5) is not simply one in terms of the number
of baptisms, but it is “one” in regard to the manner in which all have
been baptized: all have been baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son
and of the Holy Ghost in the Sacrament.
And so essential and inextricably bound up with
the Christian Faith is the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism that St.
Aphraates, the oldest of the Syrian Fathers, wrote in 336:
“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.”[dii]
THE COUNCIL OF
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312,
ex cathedra:
“… one
universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one
faith, and one baptism…”[diii]
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.”[div]
We see that all who are part of the Catholic Church have the one Baptism of
water.
ACTS 2 AND THE FIRST PAPAL SERMON
In Acts Chapter 2 we
find the Pentecost scene, the birthday of the New Testament Church. And there we find many extraordinary
events recorded, including the first sermon in the
Acts 2:37-38-
“Now when they had heard these things they had compunction in their heart, and
said to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and
brethren? But Peter said to them: Do
penance, and be baptized every one of
you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
Here we see the word of
God and the first pope teaching the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for
the remission of sins, as proclaimed in the very first sermon in the Catholic
Church.
THE NICENE-CONSTANTINOPLE
CREED CONFIRMS ACTS 2
In accordance with this infallible
declaration of the word of God, that one must receive the Sacrament of Baptism
for the remission of sins, the Catholic Church has defined that there is one
baptism given for the remission of sins.
The
Nicene-Constantinople Creed, ex cathedra:
“We confess one baptism for the remission of sins.”[dv]
Acts 16:26-33: “And suddenly there
was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken.
And immediately all the doors were opened, and the bands of all were loosed.
And the keeper of the prison, awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the
doors of the prison open, drawing his sword, would have killed himself,
supposing that the prisoners had fled.
“But Paul cried out
with a loud voice, saying: Do thyself no harm, for we are all here. Then calling for a light, he went in, and
trembling, fell down at the feet of Paul and Silas. And bringing them out, he said: Masters, what must I do, that I may be
saved? But they said: Believe
in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they preached the word of the Lord to
him and to all that were in his house.
And he, taking them the same hour of the night, washed their stripes, and himself was baptized, and all his
house immediately.”
What’s interesting
about this chapter is what the author of the Acts of the Apostles, St. Luke,
decided to include. In giving the account of the jailer who
was miraculously converted after the earthquake in the prison, St. Luke gives
just the briefest of details – the most necessary parts of the story. St. Luke records that the jailer asked
Paul and Silas what he must do to be saved. St. Luke records their very brief answer:
“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” But notice that St. Luke, before moving
on to a different topic, makes sure to mention that the jailer and his entire
house were baptized immediately.
This shows us once again how receiving baptism is necessary for all for
salvation. The fact that the jailer
and his family were baptized immediately was a detail which St. Luke viewed as
critical to include in a story about the essential things the jailer and his
family had to do to be saved.
1 PETER 3:20-21 – WATER BAPTISM AND THE ARK
1 Peter 3:20-21:
“… when they waited for the patience of
God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is,
eight souls were saved by water. Whereunto baptism being of the like form,
now saveth you also…”
This is also one of the
strongest passages in all of Sacred Scripture on the necessity of the Sacrament
of Baptism. Notice the force of St. Peter’s assertion
here. Baptism now saves you. And he is talking about Water Baptism
(the Sacrament), of course, because he draws an analogy between the baptismal
waters
and the Flood waters! St. Peter
compares receiving the Sacrament of Water Baptism to being on the ark of Noe. As no one escaped physical death outside
the ark of Noe during the time of the Flood (only eight souls survived the Flood
by being firmly planted on the ark), likewise now no one avoids spiritual death
or is saved from original sin without the Sacrament of Baptism!
POPE BONIFACE VIII CONFIRMS THE ARK –
WATER BAPTISM – FLOOD – CHURCH
CONNECTION OF 1 PET. 3
As St. Peter says in 1 Peter 3:20-21,
that in the days of Noe eight souls were saved from the water by getting into
the ark, and now the Sacrament of Baptism being of the like form (that is, of
water) now saves us also, so too has the Catholic Church defined as a dogma
that entering the Church is as necessary for salvation as being on the ark
was necessary in being saved from death.
And the only way to enter the Church is through the one baptism of water.
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“… the one mystical body … And in this, ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5). Certainly Noe had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one
Church… outside which we read that all living things on the earth were destroyed…
which body he called the ‘Only one’ namely, the Church, because of the unity
of the spouse, the faith, the sacraments, and the charity of the Church.”[dvi]
Notice how Pope Boniface VIII defines the unity of the Church as the
unity of “the sacraments,” which means that no one can be inside the Church
without having received at least the first of the sacraments: Baptism.
St. Maximus the Confessor (+ c. 620): “The
flood of those days was, as I say, a Figure of baptism. For that was then prefigured which is now
fulfilled; that is, just as when the fountains of water overflowed, iniquity
was imperiled, and justness alone reigned: sin was swept into the abyss, and
holiness upraised to heaven.
Then, as I said, that was prefigured which now is fulfilled in Christ’s
Church. For as Noe was saved in
the Ark, while the iniquity of men was drowned in the Flood, so by the waters of
baptism the Church is carried close to heaven…”[dvii]
22. Other Scriptural Considerations
Besides the infallible teaching of the Catholic Magisterium, there are a
few other things from Sacred Scripture that are interesting to consider in
regard to the topic at hand.
John 1:12-13-“But
as many as received Him, to them He gave power to become the sons of God: to
them that believe in His name: WHO ARE BORN, NOT OF BLOOD,
NOR OF THE WILL OF THE FLESH, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, BUT OF GOD.”
The context of the passage is dealing with “becoming the sons of God,”
that which
Pope St. Leo
the Great, Sermon 63: On the Passion
(+ c. 460 A.D.): “… from the birth of
baptism
an unending multitude are born to God, of whom it is said: Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will
of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (Jn. 1:15).”[dix]
So as God, through St. John, is describing man’s being “born again” to the state
of grace in Baptism, He speaks of those who are born, “NOT OF BLOOD,
NOR OF THE WILL OF THE FLESH, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, BUT OF
GOD”! The “will of the flesh” is
desire. The “will of man” is desire.
“Blood” is blood. In my opinion, what God is saying here in
this very verse is that in order to become a son of God – in order to be
justified – it does not suffice to be born again of blood or desire (i.e.,
baptism of blood or desire). One
must be born again of God. The only
way to be born again of God is to be baptized with water in the name of God: in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Mt. 28:19).
Some writers have tried to refute a literal interpretation of John 3:5 by
appealing to the words of Our Lord in John 6:54: “Amen, amen I say to you:
Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not
have life in you.” They argue
that the language in this verse is the same as in John 3:5, and yet the Church
doesn’t take Jn. 6:54 literally – for infants don’t need to receive the
Eucharist to be saved. But the
argument falters because the proponents of this argument have missed a crucial
difference in the wording of these two verses.
John 6:54-
“Amen, amen I say to you: EXCEPT YOU eat the flesh of the Son of man, and
drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.”
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
Our Lord Jesus Christ, when speaking on the necessity of receiving the
Eucharist in John 6:54, does not say: “unless a man eat the flesh of the
Son of man…” He says: “Except you…”
His words, therefore, are clearly intended for the people to whom He was
speaking, not every man. Since the people to whom He was speaking
could eventually receive the Eucharist, they had to in order to be saved. This applies to all who can receive the
Eucharist, that is, all who hear that command and can fulfill it, which is what
the Church teaches. But in John 3:5,
Our Lord unequivocally speaks of every man.
This is why the Catholic Church’s magisterial teaching, in
every single instance it has dealt with John 3:5, has taken it as it is
written.
The difference in the wording of these two verses actually shows the
supernatural inspiration of the Bible and the absolute necessity of water
baptism for every man.
23. All
True Justice and the Causes of Justification
ALL TRUE JUSTICE
MEETS UP WITH THE SACRAMENTS (de fide)
In the Foreword to Sess. 7 of the Council
of Trent’s Decree on the Sacraments there is a very important statement.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Foreword, ex cathedra: “For the completion of the salutary doctrine of
Justification… it has seemed fitting to treat of the most holy sacraments of the Church, through which all true
justice either begins, or being begun is increased or being lost is restored.”[dx]
The Council of Trent here defines that
all true justice (sanctifying grace) either begins or is increased or is
restored at the sacraments. I
repeat, all true justice either begins or is increased or is restored at the
sacraments.
This means that all true justice must be at least one of the three: begun
at the sacraments, increased at the sacraments or restored at the sacraments. But the baptism of desire theory is that
some persons can have a true justice (sanctifying grace) that is none of the
above three! They argue that some
persons can have true justice that is: 1) not begun at the sacraments, but
before; and also 2) not increased at the sacraments (since the person dies
before getting to the sacraments); and 3) not restored at the sacraments (for
the same reason as # 2). Thus, the
“baptism of desire” theory posits a true justice which is neither begun nor
increased nor restored at the sacraments.
But such an idea is contrary to the above teaching of
St. Ambrose (+ 390): “… when the Lord
Jesus Christ was about to give us the form of baptism, He came to John, and John
said to Him: I ought to be baptized by
thee, and comest thou to me? And
Jesus answering said: Suffer it to be so for now. For so it becometh us to fulfill all
justice (Mt. 3:14-15). See how all justice rests on baptism.”[dxi]
THE INSTRUMENTAL AND
EFFICIENT CAUSES OF JUSTIFICATION
We have seen how the
Council of Trent defines that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for
salvation. We have seen how, in every single instance
(that is, four), the Council of Trent infallibly declares that John 3:5 applies
literally and to every man. We have
seen how even the passage that baptism of desire advocates mistakenly think
favors their position (Sess. 6, Chap. 4), actually excludes baptism of desire by
declaring that John 3:5 is to be understood
as it is written. I will now
briefly discuss two other points in this venerable Council.
In Sess. 6, Chap. 7,
the Council of Trent defines what the causes of Justification are in the
impious. Justification is the term for the state
of sanctifying grace. If desire or
blood were a cause for Justification, as the baptism of desire advocates argue,
then you would think that they would be mentioned in the chapter on the
Causes of Justification, wouldn’t you?
Why isn’t either mentioned in Chapter 7 on the causes of Justification?
What we do find mentioned is that the
Sacrament of Baptism is the instrumental cause of Justification.
Pope Paul III,
Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 7, ex cathedra:“… the
instrumental cause [of Justification] is the Sacrament of Baptism, which
is ‘the Sacrament of Faith,’ without
faith no one is ever justified…”[dxii]
In this Chapter, the Council of Trent
listed in all 5 causes of Justification, four of which are God or the attributes
of God, and one of which (the instrument of that Justice) is the Sacrament of
Baptism.
If there were
exceptions to the truth that the Sacrament of Baptism is the cause of
Justification in the impious, as the baptism of desire advocates claim, then the
exceptions would have been included by the council, just like the council
specifically declared in its decree on Original Sin that Mary was not included
in its definition on Original Sin.
Council of Trent, Sess. 5, #6: “This holy
Synod declares nevertheless that it is
not its intention to include in this decree, where original sin is treated of,
the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary…”[dxiii]
The Virgin Mary is also excluded in Sess.
6 of Trent by the context, because the entire decree in Sess. 6 deals with the
Justification of the impious/sinner. The context of the “impious,” therefore,
does not include Mary since she was never impious – she was always in a state of
perfect sanctification. But the
point is that the council needed to specify that Mary was not
included in its definition on Original Sin in Sess. 5 and it did so, thus demonstrating that if there are any
exceptions to a dogmatic statement they will always be mentioned in the decree;
for an infallible statement cannot declare that which is false.
Furthermore, look at
what the Council of Trent says about the efficient cause of Justification in the
impious.
Pope Paul III,
Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 7, ex cathedra: “… the
efficient cause [of Justification] is a truly merciful God who gratuitously
‘washes and sanctifies’, ‘signing and anointing with the Holy Spirit…”[dxiv]
This is very interesting.
Fr. Francois
Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic, p. 9:
“Baptism of Desire is not a sacrament... it does not produce the sacramental
character.”
Therefore, if
Another very important aspect to this issue is the Dogmatic Profession of
Faith issued by the Council of Trent and by Vatican Council I. Both councils infallibly declared that
the sacramental system as a whole is necessary for salvation, and this truth
must be professed and believed by all Catholics and by converts.
Pope Pius IV, “Iniunctum nobis,” Nov. 13, 1565,
ex cathedra: “I also profess that there are truly and properly seven
sacraments of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and
necessary for the salvation of mankind, although all are not necessary for
each individual…”[dxv]
Notice that Pope Pius IV in “Iniunctum nobis,” the Profession of Faith of
the Council of Trent, declares that “the sacraments” as such (i.e., the sacramental system as a whole) are
necessary for man’s salvation, but it adds that all are not necessary for
each individual. This is very
interesting and it proves two points:
1) It proves that every man must receive
at least one sacrament to be saved; otherwise, “the sacraments” as such
(i.e. the sacramental system) couldn’t be said to be necessary for salvation. Hence, this definition (besides the
others) shows that each man must at least receive the Sacrament of Baptism in
order to be saved.
2) Notice that the Council of Trent (and
But nothing about salvation being possible without the sacraments was taught in
these dogmatic professions of Faith.
Rather, the truth that the sacraments are necessary for salvation
was defined, with the necessary and correct qualification that all 7 of
the sacraments are not necessary for each person.
The First Vatican Council repeated the same Profession of Faith, which is a
dogma. It made this Profession in the very first
statement on Faith at
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 2, Profession of Faith, ex cathedra: “I profess also that
there are seven sacraments of the new law, truly and properly so called,
instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ and necessary for salvation, though
each person need not receive them all.”[dxvi]
No matter how hard one tries to avoid it, “baptism of desire” is incompatible
with this truth, a truth which must be professed and believed by Catholics and
by converts from heresy. In fact,
this dogma blows away the theory of baptism of desire.
Fr. Francois
Laisney (Believer in Baptism of Desire),
Is Feeneyism Catholic, p. 9: “Baptism of Desire is not a sacrament... it
does not produce the sacramental character.”
25. St.
Isaac Jogues and
In this work on Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation and the
necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism, I could not leave out a section on the
incredible lives of two of the most illustrious missionaries in Church history,
St. Isaac Jogues (17th century missionary to the North American
Savages) and St. Francis Xavier (16th century missionary to the Far
East). The trials of St. Isaac
Jogues in bringing the Gospel to the North American heathen, and the incredible
success of St. Francis Xavier in bringing the Gospel to
In their lives we also find remarkable occurrences relating to people receiving
the Sacrament of Baptism, occurrences which demonstrate again the truth of the
dogma received from Jesus Christ Himself:
Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the
Kingdom of God (John 3:5). We
will now look at some different occurrences and quotes from their lives.
ST. ISAAC JOGUES AGAINST INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE
St. Isaac Jogues and his companions were preaching the Gospel to the most savage
of the North American heathen in the areas of
The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, pp. 219,221: “The executioners
chose Rene Goupil as the next victim. They sawed off the thumb of his
right hand with an oyster shell. So much blood spurted out that they
feared he would die [they wanted to torture him more or trade him]… Then
they turned to Couture… They pricked him with awls and pointed stakes, carved
off shreds of his flesh, burned him with firebrands and glowing irons, until he
fell lifeless under their cruelties… One of them discovered [later] that two
of Couture’s fingers had been left intact… Towering with rage…
he began to saw off the index finger of
his right hand with the ragged edge of a shell. He pressed down with
all his might on the flesh and tore it, but he could not sever the tendons…
Frenzied, he gripped the finger and twisted it until he tore it out, dragging
with it a tendon as long as the palm.”[dxvii]
But why
did St. Isaac Jogues and his companions feel compelled to subject themselves to
the possibility of falling into the hands of these savages? What was the
point? The answer is that they knew that there was no such thing as
“salvation for the invincibly ignorant.” They knew that if these savages
didn’t come to know Jesus Christ and the Trinity (the Catholic Faith) and get
baptized they would be eternally lost without any doubt.
The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, p. 197: “They tore Ondessonk [St. Isaac Jogues] away and beat him with insane
fury, with clubs and muskets, about the head and shoulders, until he sank to the
earth. They kicked him and jumped
on him till he was insensible. The
four Iroquois passed on, but others took up the bloody revenge. Two younger men, especially, grasped his
arms and clenched the nails of his forefingers in their teeth.
They tugged and yanked till they drew the fingernails from their sockets. They took each of his forefingers in
their mouths and ground and crushed them with their teeth until the fingers were
a jelly of blood and flesh and splinters of bone.”[dxviii]
St. Isaac Jogues and his companions were subjected to many other things,
including mind-boggling cold:
St. Isaac Jogues: “Indeed,
under the influence of that terrific hate of the savages, I suffered beyond
telling from the cold, from the contempt of the basest of them, from the
furious ill temper of the women… Great hunger, also, I had to endure.
Since nearly all the venison, and on the hunt they eat scarcely anything else,
was offered in sacrifice to the demons, I spent many days without eating… I
suffered greatly from the cold, in the midst of the deep snows,
with nothing to wear but a short and threadbare cloak…Though they had
plenty of deerskins, many of which they were not using, they would give me none.
Sometimes, on an extremely bitter night, shivering from the cold, I would take
one of the skins secretly; as soon as they discovered it, they would rise up and
take it away from me. That shows how terribly much they hated me… My
skin was split open with the cold, all over my body, and caused me intense
pain.”[dxix]
Yet, after all this, St. Isaac Jogues still refused to escape from
these savages when at first he had the opportunity! He wanted to stay and baptize infants who
were dying, and instruct and baptize the heathen adults who would listen. Why?
If he had left the people, surely those who were sincere would have been
saved for being ignorant “through no fault
of their own,” right? After all,
it wouldn’t have been their fault if Isaac Jogues said that he couldn’t endure
this any longer. No! St. Isaac knew that there was no
salvation for them without the presence of the baptizing Church and knowledge of
the Catholic Faith. The following
quote is one of the most interesting that one will ever see against the
heretical idea of salvation for the “invincibly ignorant.”
St. Isaac Jogues: “Although, in all probability, I could escape [from the
Iroquois] either through the Europeans or through the other savages living
around us, if I should wish it, I decided to live on this cross on which Our
Lord had fixed me in company with Himself, and to die with His grace helping me…
Who could instruct the prisoners who were being constantly brought in?
Who could baptize them when they were dying, and strengthen them in their
torments? Who could pour the sacred
waters on the heads of the children?
Who could look after the salvation of the adults who were dying, and after the
instruction of those in good health?
Indeed, I believe that it happened not without a singular providence of the
Divine Goodness, that I should have fallen into the hands of these very savages… These savages, I must confess, unwillingly
and reluctantly have thus far spared me, by the will of God, so that thus through me, although
unworthy, they might be instructed, they might believe, and be baptized,
as many of them as are preordained for
eternal life.”[dxx]
Could any statement from a Saint refute the heresy of salvation for the
“invincibly ignorant” better? St.
Isaac knew that those heathen who did not come to know the Catholic Faith and
get baptized simply were not preordained for eternal life.
Romans 8:29-30- “For whom He foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to
the image of his Son: that he might be the first-born amongst many
brethren. And whom he predestinated, them he also called: and whom he
called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”
As Catholics, of course, we don’t believe as the heretic John Calvin, who
held a predestination according to which no matter what one does he is either
predestined for heaven or hell.
That is a wicked heresy.
Rather, as Catholics we believe in the true understanding of predestination,
which is expressed by St. Isaac Jogues and Romans 8 above. This true understanding of predestination
simply means that God’s foreknowledge from all eternity makes sure that those
who are of good will and are sincere will be brought to the Catholic faith and
come to know what they must – and that those who are not brought to the Catholic
faith and don’t know what they must were not among the elect.
There is another interesting story in Jogues’ life which confirms this.
After having much success in converting people in various places, he and his
companions began to be shut out from all the villages in a certain section of
the heathen savages. The Devil had convinced the heathen
savages in this area – and the idea was spreading – that the presence of the
missionaries was the reason why there were famine and disease among them. So, being totally exhausted and shut out
from every hut in the area, and freezing from the cold and dying for a place to
rest and warm themselves, we pick up the story:
The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, pp. 145-146: “…wandering about from place to place, and everywhere meeting with blows
and threats and hatred, Jogues and Garnier came to a little cluster of cabins in
the heart of the hills. They were both exhausted by the terrible
exposure to the cold and by the lack of food.
They forced themselves upon one of the cabins and were grudgingly
received. Jogues felt feverish
and sick through all his body. He could not move from his mat. Then came a messenger from one of the
villages in which they had been welcomed on their entry into the Petun land.
The runner told them that some of the people who were sick were begging them to
return.
“It was a call from
God. They could not but heed it. In
order to complete the journey of
thirty-five miles by daylight, they started out about three o’clock in the
morning. All the country was pale
with snow in the dawn, and the mountain air was painfully cold. Jogues was still gripped by the fever and
unsteady on his legs. They slid
their snowshoes laboriously over the crackling crust of the icy snow. Frequently, they stopped for breath in
deadly exhaustion.
“But they had to
shorten their rests, for fear lest they die of the cold. Their only food, a lump of corn bread about
the size of the fist, was hard as ice. They arrived at the village late at night,
covered with sweat and yet half-frozen, they said.
The sick persons were still alive.
They were baptized. ‘Some souls gone astray here and there, who are placed on the road to
heaven when they are just about to be swallowed up in hell,’ was their
comment, ‘deserve a thousand times more than these labors, since these souls
have cost the Savior of the world much more than that.’”[dxxi]
As St. Isaac Jogues says, he knew that if he did not reach these people,
instruct them and baptize them they would be “swallowed up in hell.” That is why he forced himself at the very
moment he had just found a bit of rest and warmth to make the thirty-five mile
trip, though he was starving, freezing and exhausted – a trip which almost
killed him. There is another
interesting story which illustrates the same truth.
“When dawn
trickled through the firs, they [Jogues and Garnier] struck out along the trail,
now blanketed with snow. Some
distance on, beyond a clear field, they noticed a few cabins. The families, they found, were just
abandoning their huts and were going to the nearest Petun village, for they had
neither corn nor any other food… They
[Jogues and Garnier] attached themselves to the band and traveled all the day…
‘We had no special plan to go to this
village [which we named] St. Thomas rather than to any other,’ they remarked ‘but since we had accepted
what company the savages offered, and since we followed them there, there is no doubt but that we arrived
where God was leading us for the salvation of a predestined soul which awaited
nothing but our arrival in order to die to its earthly miseries.’ They had finished their supper and were
conversing with their hosts, when a young man entered and asked the Blackrobes
to visit his mother who was sick.
‘We go there,’ they exclaim, ‘and find the poor woman in her last extremities.
She was instructed, and happily received, with the Faith, the grace of Baptism.
Shortly after that, she [died and] beheld herself in the glory of heaven.
In that whole village there was only that one who had need of our help.”[dxxii]
ST. FRANCIS XAVIER AGAINST
INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE
St. Francis Xavier was arguably the greatest missionary in Church history after
the apostle Paul. He was responsible
for the baptism of millions in the
St. Francis
Xavier, Dec. 31, 1543: “There is now in
these parts [of India] a very large number
of persons who have only one reason for not becoming Christians, and that is
that there is no one to make them Christians. It often comes into my mind to go round
all the Universities of Europe, and especially that of Paris, crying out
everywhere like a madman, and saying to all the learned men there whose learning
is so much greater than their charity, ‘Ah!
What a multitude of souls is through your fault shut out of heaven and falling
into hell!’… They labor
night and day in acquiring knowledge… but if they would spend as much time in
that which is the fruit of all solid learning, and be as diligent in teaching
the ignorant the things necessary to salvation, they would be far better
prepared to give an account of themselves to our Lord when He shall say to them:
‘Give an account of thy stewardship.’”[dxxiii]
Here we see that St. Francis Xavier is saying that these ignorant heathen
in India would easily become Christians if there were someone to instruct them,
and yet they are still going to go to Hell if they don’t hear about the Faith!
This totally eliminates the idea of salvation for the “invincibly ignorant” or
salvation by “implicit baptism of desire.”
St. Francis
Xavier, Jan. 20, 1545: “Since your Highness [King John III of Portugal] well
understands that God will require of you an account of the salvation of so many nations, who are ready to follow the better path if any one will show them it,
but meanwhile, for want of a teacher,
lie in blind darkness, and the filth of the most grievous sins, offending
their Creator, and casting their own
souls headlong into the misery of eternal death.”[dxxiv]
Here again we see St. Francis Xavier eliminating any idea of salvation
for “the invincibly ignorant,” excluding from salvation even those ignorant
souls whom he thought would embrace the Faith if they were taught it!
St. Francis
Xavier, May, 1546: “In this
St. Francis
Xavier, Jan. 28, 1549: “I intend to write what I have found, not only to India,
but to the Universities of Portugal, of Italy, and above all of Paris, and
admonish them, while they are devoting themselves heart and soul to learned
studies, not to think themselves so free and disengaged from responsibility as to take no trouble at all about the
ignorance of the heathen and the loss of their immortal souls.”[dxxvi]
St. Francis
Xavier, Jan. 29, 1552: “Nothing leads me
to suppose that there are any Christians there [in
In all of these quotes we again see that St. Francis Xavier, like St. Isaac
Jogues and all of the saints, totally rejected the heretical idea that
souls who are ignorant of the Gospel can be saved.
ST. ISAAC JOGUES ON THE
NECESSITY OF WATER BAPTISM
In the life of these extraordinary missionaries, we also find many quotes and
instances which confirm the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation.
As in the life of the great missionary Fr. De Smet, both men saw the
remarkable occurrence that many of the people that they would reach to baptize
would die almost immediately after. They clearly saw this as a sign that God
had preserved the lives of these people until they were able to receive that
most necessary sacrament.
The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, p. 92:
“Then, most of all [the heathens concluded], the Blackrobes caused people to die
by pouring water on their heads;
practically everyone they baptized died soon after.”[dxxviii]
The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, p. 136: “Fr.
Lalemant [one of Jogues companions and superiors] confesses: ‘It happened very often, and has been
remarked more than a hundred times, that in those places where we were
most welcome, where we baptized most people, there it was, in fact, where they
died most. On the contrary,
in the cabins to which we were denied entrance, although they were sick to the
extremity, at the end of a few days one saw every person prosperously cured.’”[dxxix]
The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, pp. 97-98: “[
The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, p. 142:
“There is hardly any corn in this
The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, p. 279: “… in
February he walked the six miles to the nearer town, where the Mohawks were
holding their winter festival and games…
he wandered through the cabins, searching for the sick and for those affably
inclined. In one lodge he discovered
five babies, all dangerously ill. He
baptized them, without attracting notice, and three days later, says Fr.
Lalemant, ‘he heard that these little innocents were no longer in the land of
the dying [they were dead]. What an admirable stroke of
predestination for those little angels.”[dxxxii]
The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, p. 199: “Rene called Father Jogues’ attention to one
of the old men [an Indian who was captured with them]… The man had not yet been
baptized, and it might possibly happen that he would be the victim chosen by
the Iroquois as a blood sacrifice before they left the camp. Ondessonk [Fr. Jogues] persuaded the old
man to accept baptism… The Mohawks finished their council and the division of
the booty... The old man whom Fr. Jogues had just before baptized refused to
stir from where he was sitting… Scarcely
had he [the old man] finished speaking [refusing to move] when one of the braves
smashed his skull and scalped him.
Father Jogues rejoiced in the sorrow, for the waters of baptism had scarce dried on his head.”[dxxxiii]
The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, pp. 122-123:
“At Teanaustayae, Jogues witnessed a torture and a conversion that surpassed
anything human. A chief belonging to
the
The missionaries were convinced that it was only because Peter had received the
Sacrament of Baptism that he had the miraculous strength to undergo all of these
incredible tortures, survive and still move against his persecutors.
The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, pp. 298-299: “Once, when he had entered a cabin in one of the villages to inquire
about the sick, Jogues heard his name
called from the darkness of a corner.
Going over, he found a young man desperately ill. ‘Ondessonk,’ the sick young man
exclaimed, ‘do you not know me?’
‘I do not
remember ever having seen you before,’ Fr. Jogues replied.
‘Do you not
remember well the favor I did you at your entrance into the country of the
Iroquois?’ the man questioned.
‘But what
favor did you do me?’ asked Jogues, puzzled.
‘Don’t you
remember the man who cut your bonds, in the third village of the Agnieronon
Iroquois, when you were at the end of your strength?’ he continued.
‘Of course I
remember that very well. That man
put me in his debt very, very much.
I have never been able to thank him.
I beg you, give me some news of him, if you are acquainted with him.’
‘It was I,
myself, who did it. I who took pity
on you and loosed you.’…
Father Jogues
told the dying man about God, of the happiness in the next life with God for
those who believed, of what it was necessary to believe in order to be baptized
and be made happy forever after death.
The man listened with attention.
With deep sincerity, he begged for baptism and for the happiness
Ondessonk promised him. Father Jogues poured on his head the water
of salvation. While he prayed beside
the mat, a few hours later, the man died peacefully.”[dxxxv]
AMAZING BAPTISMS
Especially in the life of St. Isaac Jogues, we find incredible stories
about his baptizing people under amazing and/or miraculous circumstances. These stories also show the truth of the
dogma, Unless a man is born again of water
and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5).
The Life of St. Isaac Jogues [while captive
among the Iroquois Mohawks], p. 272: “The camps at night were in the open, in a
hollow of the snow. He had no furs, like the others, to protect
him, and he could not move the hearts of any of the party to lend him any
covering, though they carried several skins back as their spoils of the
chase…
“Along
the way, they had to cross a gorge of a swift mountain stream.
The bridge was a tree trunk stretched a few feet above the swirling, deep waters. It was unsteady with slippery moss. One of the party was a pregnant woman,
who also carried a baby in the basket on her back and was otherwise burdened
with the camp utensils. The strap of
the cradle was across her forehead, and the bundles were fastened to her
shoulders. The squaw [Indian woman] started to climb across the tree, while Father
Jogues waited to follow her. She
lost her balance and toppled over into the tumbling rapids. The baggage strapped to her shoulders
weighed her to the bottom, the thong that held the cradle slipped from her
forehead to her neck and was strangling her.
“In
an instant, Father Jogues leaped into the gorge and the icy current. Wading and swimming, he fought his way to
the woman, unstrapped the bundles and the cradle, and dragged her and the baby
back to the bank. He took good care to baptize the baby before he lifted it out of the
water. The Mohawks made a
roaring fire and revived the woman, who was numbed almost to death. They allowed Ondessonk [Fr. Jogues] to
warm himself and even commended him, for they realized that the woman would have
been drowned except for his aid. She recovered, but the newly baptized child
died within a few days.”[dxxxvi]
This fascinating story shows us how the Almighty can and does get any
soul that He wants to baptism. If
the woman hadn’t fallen into the icy waters, St. Isaac wouldn’t have had the
opportunity to baptize her baby.
It’s quite obvious that God arranged it so that this little child received the
sacrament just before He took it from the earth.
The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, p. 225: “Two of the Hurons, Jogues learned, were to be burned
to death that night at Tionontoguen.
He stayed with them on the platform and concentrated his appeals on them.
Finally they consented. About that moment, the Mohawks threw the prisoners some raw
corn that had been freshly plucked.
The sheaths [of the corn] were wet from the recent rains.
Father Jogues carefully gathered the precious drops of water on a leaf and
poured them over the heads of the two neophytes [new converts], baptizing
them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Mohawks understood that his [Jogues’]
act meant to bring happiness to these hated victims. They raged at his audacity and beat him
down, threatening to slaughter him with the Hurons… That night the two Hurons
[whom he had baptized] were burned over the fire.”[dxxxvii]
If the sheaths of corn had not been thrown at that very moment, Jogues wouldn’t
have had the water with which to baptize the two Indians. And, as noted in his life, St. Isaac Jogues
always instructed the heathen in the essentials they had to know for baptism
(e.g., the Trinity and the Incarnation).
John 3:5,7 – “[Jesus saith] 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… wonder not, that I said to thee, you must be
born again.”
OTHER QUOTES FROM JOGUES AND XAVIER ON BAPTISM
In the life of St. Isaac Jogues, there is a fascinating account of his party’s
capture by the Iroquois savages. In
it we find the description of Jogues’ focus on baptizing an unbaptized Huron
Indian who was accompanying them.
Here is the account of when their party was suddenly and unexpectedly attacked
by the Iroquois savages, who wanted to capture and torture them:
The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, p. 205: “The
most devoted of all was Atieronhonk, whom
Jogues had baptized at the first volley.
The man could not get over his astonishment. [Atieronhonk said]: ‘It
must be admitted that these people who come to instruct us have no doubt
whatever of the truths they teach us.
It must be that God alone is their reward.
There is Ondessonk [Isaac Jogues].
He forgot himself at the moment of danger. He thought only of me, and spoke to me of
becoming a Christian. The musket balls whisked past our ears,
death was before our very eyes. He
thought only of baptizing me, and not of saving himself. He did not fear death.
But he [Jogues] did think that I would be lost forever if I died without baptism.”[dxxxviii]
Below is another interesting account of an Indian named Ahatsistari, who was
converted by St. Isaac Jogues and his companions. Ahatsistari addressed St. Isaac Jogues
and St. John De Brebeuf as follows:
The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, p. 168: “I
have the faith deep down in my heart, and my actions during the past winter have
proved it sufficiently. In two days
I am departing on the warpath. If I
am killed in battle, tell me: where will my soul go if you refuse me baptism? If you saw into my heart as clearly as
the great Master of our lives, I would already be numbered among the Christians;
and the fear of the flames of hell would not accompany me, now that I am about
to face death. I cannot baptize
myself.
All that I can do is to declare with utmost honesty the desire that I have for
it. After I do that, if my soul be
burned in hell, you will bear the guilt of it. Whatever you may decide to do, however, I
will always pray to God, since I know Him.
Perhaps He will have mercy on me, for you say that He is wiser than you
are.”[dxxxix]
It is obvious that Ahatsistari hadn’t been taught “baptism of desire.” He understood that he would go to Hell if
he died without the Sacrament of Baptism.
Shortly after this speech, Ahatsistari was solemnly baptized.
St. Francis
Xavier, May, 1546: “Here there are altogether seven towns of Christians, all of
which I went through and baptized all the newborn infants and the children not
yet baptized. A great many of them died soon after their baptism, so that it was
clear enough that their life had only been preserved by God until the entrance
to eternal life should be opened to them.”[dxl]
St. Francis
Xavier, Feb, 1548: “The thing which I wish to commend to you above everything
else is that you should employ special diligence and watchfulness in the baptism
of little children, so as not to leave any lately born child not regenerated in
the saving laver of Christ in any of the villages… Make search and inquiry for yourselves, and baptize with your own hands
all those whom you find in want of that most necessary Sacrament.”[dxli]
The Life of St. Isaac Jogues, p. 94: “On one occasion, Father Jogues found a
savage named Sonoresk favorably disposed and sufficiently instructed, who
was grasping his last breath. All
through the night the man kept repeating ‘Rihouiosta’ (I believe).
Ondessonk [St. Isaac Jogues] baptized him, and the man suddenly recovered. He announced that baptism cured him:
the water that had been poured on his head by Ondessonk [Jogues] had flowed down
through his throat, so that he felt no more pains.
His rejoicing in this life was not for long, however, for he died the next day.”[dxlii]
Heretics
and modernists resist the truth, just as they resist Him who is the Truth (Jn.
14:6). And because they resist the truth they
resist facts, because facts report truth without any error. One of the facts that the modernists and
heretics resist most of all is the fact that the Catholic Church has infallibly
taught that Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation and that John 3:5
is to be taken as it is written and that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary
for salvation (Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament).
So what do
these people do with these facts staring them in the face?
They resort to attacking the reporter of these facts (argumentum ad
hominem), which enables them to ignore the facts themselves. The episode of Father Leonard Feeney,
S.J. is a case in point.
The dogma
Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation really has nothing to do with
Father Leonard Feeney. (In fact, I
had never heard of Fr. Feeney when I came to the same conclusion – based upon
Catholic dogma – that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for
salvation and that all those who die as non-Catholics are lost.) It has to do with the teaching of the
Chair of St. Peter, as I have shown, which is the authentic and infallible
teaching of Christ. To reject this
Catholic dogma is to reject Christ Himself.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 5), June 29, 1896: “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.”[dxliii]
Father Feeney
became famous for his public stand for the dogma Outside the Catholic Church
There is No Salvation in the 1940’s and 1950’s.
Most people fail to realize that, at that time, the world’s bishops were by no
means staunch traditionalists. Most
of the world’s bishops had already embraced the heresy of indifferentism, which
explains why almost all of them signed the heretical Vatican II documents just a
short time later. They had embraced
the heretical idea that “invincible ignorance” saves those who die as
non-Catholics, as I’ve discussed in certain previous sections. This is why one can easily detect heresy
against the dogma in most theology manuals and texts beginning as early
as the late 19th century.
In fact, during his time, Father Feeney wrote to all of the bishops of the world
about the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation and received only three
positive responses. In other words,
only three of the world’s bishops at that time manifested a positive belief in
the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No salvation as it had been
defined. It is no wonder that
Vatican II went through with virtually no resistance from the Episcopate.
Father
Feeney believed
and preached the dogma – as it had been defined – publicly in
One of his
main enemies was the Archbishop of Boston, Richard Cushing, a B’nai Brith
(Jewish Freemasons) man of the year, and someone who called the dogma Outside
the Catholic Church There is No Salvation “nonsense.”
In April of 1949, Cushing silenced Fr. Feeney and interdicted
Cushing had
allies with other heretical clergymen in
Right from the start, these fallen clergymen fused the issue with Father Feeney
rather than the real source from which it came.
This enabled them to focus on Father Feeney,
and ignore Jesus Christ, whose doctrine this was.
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).”[dxlvii]
These
heretics failed to realize that to belittle a defined dogma to something of
Father Feeney’s invention is blasphemous and severely dishonest. But God is not mocked. We see the same thing today, especially
rampant among so-called traditionalists.
But I will return to this point.
On
December 2, 1948, the President of Boston College, Father William L. Keleher,
S.J., held an interview with Dr. Maluf, who was an ally of Father Feeney in the
stand for the dogma. Fr. Keleher stated:
“Father Feeney came to me at the beginning of this situation and I
would have liked to do something except that I could not agree with his
doctrine on salvation… He (Fr. Feeney) kept repeating such phrases as ‘There
is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.’”[dxlviii]
When
Maluf (a member of the
“the theologians at
So
there you have the case of Father Feeney in a nutshell.
Father Feeney held, as it had been defined, that there is no salvation
for those who die as non-Catholics.
Those against him, including Fr. Keleher (President of Boston College),
the Archbishop of Boston, the priests at
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.”[dl]
A Jesuit
priest of the new Vatican II religion skillfully describes what the scene was
like when “the Boston Heresy Case” (i.e., whether only those who die as
Catholics can be saved) erupted into public view during Holy Week 1949.
Mark S. Massa,
“S.J.”, Catholics and American Culture, p. 31: “The
On April
13, 1949, Fr. Keleher (the President of Boston College) fired Dr. Maluf, James
R. Walsh and Charles Ewaskio from the faculty at
“They continued to speak in class and out of class on matters contrary to
the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church, ideas leading to bigotry and
intolerance. Their doctrine is
erroneous and as such could not be tolerated at
One cannot
help but notice Fr. Keleher’s double-tongue: these men were dismissed for ideas
leading to intolerance, which could not be tolerated.
If intolerance is the false doctrine here, as Fr. Keleher indicates, then he is
condemned by his own mouth.
Furthermore, one cannot pass over Fr. Keleher’s brazen assertion that “Their
doctrine [i.e., the solemnly defined dogma that those who die as non-Catholics
cannot be saved] is erroneous.” By
this statement Keleher is asserting that the Church’s doctrine (on no salvation
outside the Church) is erroneous and in no way his own.
This was the type of heretical, anti-Catholic character in league with
Archbishop Richard Cushing in the quest to crush Fr. Feeney’s preaching of the
dogma.
This was
the beginning of the end, so to speak, as will be seen when we look at what has
resulted in
27.
Protocol 122/49 (Suprema haec sacra)
About four
months after the silencing of Fr. Feeney in April by Richard Cushing, the
apostate Archbishop of Boston, the Holy Office issued a document on August 8,
1949. Actually, the document was a letter
addressed to Bishop Cushing, and signed by Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani, known
to most as Protocol No. 122/49. It
is also called Suprema haec sacra and
the Marchetti-Selvaggiani letter. It
is one of the most crucial documents in regard to the modern apostasy from the
faith. Protocol 122/49 was
not published in the Acts of the Apostolic See (Acta Apostolicae Sedis)
but in The Pilot, the news organ for the Archdiocese of Boston. Keep in mind that this letter was
published in
The
absence of Protocol 122/49 from the Acts of the Apostolic See proves that it has
no binding character; that is to say, Protocol 122/49 is not an infallible or
binding teaching of the Catholic Church.
Protocol 122/49 was not signed by Pope Pius XII either, and has the
authority of a correspondence of two Cardinals (Marchetti-Selvaggiani who wrote
the letter, and Cardinal Ottaviani who also signed it) to one archbishop – which
is none. The letter, in fact,
and to put it simply, is fraught with heresy, deceit, ambiguity and betrayal.
Immediately after the publication of Protocol 122/49, The Worcester Telegram
ran a typical headline:
This was the impression given to almost the entire Catholic world by
Protocol 122/49 – the Marchetti-Selvaggiani letter. Protocol 122/49, as the above headline
bluntly said, held the “No Salvation Outside the Church Doctrine” to be false. By this fateful letter, the enemies of
the dogma and the Church appeared to have been vindicated and the defenders of
the dogma seemed to have been vanquished.
The problem for the apparent victors, however, was that this document was
nothing more than a letter from two heretical cardinals of the Holy Office, who
had already embraced the heresy later adopted by Vatican II, to one apostate
archbishop in
It’s
interesting that even Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, the well known editor of The American Ecclesiastical Review before Vatican II, who was
unfortunately a defender of Protocol 122/49, was forced to admit that it’s not
infallible:
Msgr. Joseph
Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and
Salvation, 1958, p. 103: “This letter, known as Suprema haec sacra [Protocol 122/49]… is an authoritative [sic],
though obviously not infallible,
document. That is to say, the teachings contained in Suprema haec sacra are not to be accepted
as infallibly true on the authority of this particular document.”[dliv]
In other words, according to Fenton, the teaching of
Suprema haec sacra is not infallible and must be found in earlier documents;
but it isn’t, as we will see. Fenton
is simply wrong when he says that Suprema
haec sacra is nevertheless authoritative.
Suprema haec sacra is neither
authoritative nor infallible, but heretical and false.
Since
almost the entire public was (and is) given the impression that Protocol 122/49
represented the official teaching of the Catholic Church, it constituted the
selling out of Jesus Christ, His doctrine and His Church to the world, a selling
out that had to take place before the wholesale apostasy of Vatican II. By Protocol 122/49 and the persecution of
Fr. Feeney, the public was given the impression that the Catholic Church had now
overturned a 20 centuries’ old dogma of the faith: that the Catholic Faith is
definitely necessary for salvation.
And even to this day, if one were to ask almost every so-called Catholic priest
in the world about the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation,
he would be answered with a reference to the Father Feeney controversy and
Protocol 122/49, even if the priest is unable to identify or recall the specific
names and dates. Try it, I know from
experience. Basically all of the
Novus Ordo priests who know anything about the issue will use Protocol 122/49
and the “condemnation” of Fr. Feeney to justify their heretical, anti-Catholic,
antichrist, anti-magisterial belief that men can be saved in non-Catholic
religions and without the Catholic Faith.
These are the fruits of the infamous Protocol 122/49. And
by their fruits you shall know them (Mt. 7:16).
Now let’s
take a look at a few excerpts from the Protocol:
Suprema haec sacra, Protocol 122/49, Aug. 8, 1949: “Now, among those things which the Church
has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that
infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside
the Church.
“However,
this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself
understands it.”[dlv]
Let’s stop
it right there. Already it’s clear
that the author of the Protocol is preparing the reader’s mind to accept
something different than simply “that infallible statement by which we are
taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.”
The author is clearly easing into an explanation of the phrase “Outside
the Church There is No Salvation” other than what the words themselves state and
declare. If the author were not
preparing the reader to accept an understanding other than what the words of the
dogma themselves state and declare, then he would have simply written: “This
dogma must be understood as the Church has defined it, exactly as the words
state and declare.”
Compare the Protocol’s attempt to explain the dogma away with Pope Gregory XVI’s
treatment of the same issue in his encyclical Summo Iugiter Studio.
Pope Gregory
XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832, on no salvation outside the
Church: “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… You know how zealously Our predecessors
taught that article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the
necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation… Omitting other
appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the
Fathers, We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that
THIS IS INDEED THE TEACHING OF THE
Pope Gregory
XVI does not say, “However, this dogma must be understood in that
sense in which the Church herself understands it,” as does the heretical
Protocol 122/49. No, he
unequivocally affirms that THIS IS INDEED THE TEACHING OF THE
Also,
notice that Pope Gregory XVI makes reference to the dogmatic definition
of the Fourth Lateran Council to substantiate his position and literal
understanding of the formula Outside the Church There is No Salvation. Throughout the whole document,
Protocol 122/49 makes no reference to any of the dogmatic
definitions
on this topic. This is because Pope
Gregory XVI, being a Catholic, knew that the only understanding of a dogma that
exists is that which
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 4, On Faith
and Reason: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be
perpetually retained, which
If the
understanding of the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation was not
clear from the teaching of the Chair of Peter (the infallible definitions on the
topic), then a 1949 letter of Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani is certainly not
going to give it to us! And if no exceptions or qualifications to
this dogma were understood at the time of the definitions – nor at the time of
Pope Gregory XVI – then it is impossible for exceptions to come into our
understanding of the dogma after that point (e.g., in 1949), because the dogma
had already been defined and taught long before. Discovery of a new understanding
of the dogma in 1949 is a denial of the understanding of the dogma as it
had been defined. But define new
dogma is indeed what the Protocol tried to do.
I continue with the Protocol.
Suprema haec sacra, Protocol 122/49, Aug. 8, 1949: “Now, among the commandments of Christ,
that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated
by Baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain
united to Christ and to His Vicar... Therefore, no one will be saved who,
knowing
the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless
refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff,
the Vicar of Christ on earth.”[dlviii]
Here the
Protocol begins to enter into its new explanation of the dogma Outside
the Catholic Church There is No Salvation, but in a diabolically clever manner. The ambiguity lies in the fact that this
statement is true: no one who, knowing
the Church to have been divinely established, nevertheless refuses to submit
to Her and the Roman Pontiff will be saved. But everyone reading this document is
also given the clear impression by this language that some people, who have
unknowingly
failed to submit to the Church and the Roman Pontiff, can be saved. This is heretical and would actually make
it counterproductive to convince people that the Catholic Church is divinely
established!
Compare
the dogmatic definition of the Catholic Church with the addition to the dogma by
Protocol 122/49.
The Dogma:
Pope Boniface
VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“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.”[dlix]
The Addition by Protocol 122/49:
Suprema haec sacra, Protocol 122/49, Aug. 8, 1949: “Therefore, no one will be saved who,
knowing the Church to have
been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the
Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on
earth.”[dlx]
The reader can
easily see that the intended meaning of Protocol 122/49 is a departure from
the understanding of the dogma which
Suprema haec sacra, Protocol 122/49, Aug. 8, 1949: “In his infinite mercy God has willed
that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation
which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only
by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those
helps are used only in desire and longing...
“The same
in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the
general help to salvation.
Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always
required that he be incorporated
into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be
united to her by desire and longing.”[dlxi]
Here one
detects another denial of the dogma as it was defined, and a departure from the
understanding of the dogma that
The Dogma:
Pope Eugene
IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes,
professes, and proclaims that none of those existing outside the Catholic
Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics and schismatics can become
participants in eternal life, but they will depart ‘into everlasting fire which
was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end
of life they have been added to the flock; and that the unity of this
ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) is so strong
that only for those who abide in it are the sacraments of the Church of
benefit for salvation, and do fasts, almsgiving, and other functions of
piety and exercises of a Christian soldier produce eternal rewards. 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.”[dlxii]
We see
that Protocol 122/49 (quoted above) is denying the necessity of
incorporation
into the ecclesiastici corporis,
which is heresy!
It was
necessary to be in the Church’s “bosom and unity” (Eugene IV), but now
it is “not always required to be incorporated into the Church actually
as a member” (Protocol 122/49).
The defined dogma of INCORPORATION and actually abiding in the
ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) has been denied. This is heresy!
There is no way on earth that the teaching of Protocol 122/49 is compatible with
the teaching of Pope Eugene IV and Pope Boniface VIII. To accept, believe or promote the
Protocol is to act contrary to these definitions.
I continue with the Protocol:
Suprema haec sacra, Protocol 122/49, Aug. 8,
1949: “However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in
catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God
accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that
good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the
will of God.”[dlxiii]
Here the heresy comes out quite bluntly.
People who don’t hold the Catholic Faith – who are “involved in invincible
ignorance” – can also be united by “implicit” desire, as long as “a person
wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.” And I remind the reader that Protocol 122/49
was written in specific contradistinction to Fr. Feeney’s statement that all who
die as non-Catholics are lost.
That is to say, the Protocol was written to specifically distinguish its
own teaching from Fr. Feeney’s affirmation that all who die as non-Catholics are
lost, which shows that the Protocol was teaching that people who die as
non-Catholics and in false religions can be saved. Thus, the Protocol’s statement above is
quite obviously, and nothing other than, the heresy that one can be saved in any
religion or in no religion, as long as morality is maintained.
Fr. Michael
Muller, C.SS.R., The Catholic Dogma, pp. 217-218: “Inculpable or
invincible ignorance has never been and will never be a means of salvation. To be saved, it is necessary to be
justified, or to be in the state of grace.
In order to obtain sanctifying grace, it is necessary to have the proper
dispositions for justification; that is, true divine faith in at least the
necessary truths of salvation, confident hope in the divine Savior, sincere
sorrow for sin, together with the firm purpose of doing all that God has
commanded, etc. Now, these supernatural acts of faith,
hope, charity, contrition, etc., which prepare the soul for receiving
sanctifying grace, can never be supplied by invincible ignorance; and if
invincible ignorance cannot supply the preparation for receiving sanctifying
grace, much less can it bestow sanctifying grace itself. ‘Invincible ignorance,’ says
Compare the above passage from the Protocol with the
following dogmatic definitions.
The Dogma:
Pope Eugene
IV, Council of Florence, Session 8, Nov. 22, 1439, “The Athanasian
Creed”, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, before
all things it is necessary that he holds the Catholic faith. Unless a person keeps this faith
whole and undefiled, without a doubt he shall perish eternally.”[dlxv]
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…”[dlxvi]
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…”[dlxvii]
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2,
Profession of Faith: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which
none
can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”[dlxviii]
I continue with the Protocol:
Suprema haec sacra, “Protocol 122/49,” Aug. 8, 1949: “Towards the end of the same
encyclical letter, when most
affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the
Catholic Church (qui ad Ecclesiae
Catholicae compagnem non pertinent),
he mentions those who are ‘ordered to the Redeemer’s Mystical Body by a sort of
unconscious desire and intention,’ and
these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but, on the
contrary, asserts that they are in a condition in which, ‘they cannot be secure
about their own eternal salvation,’ since ‘they still lack so many and such
great heavenly helps to salvation that can be enjoyed only in the Catholic
Church.’”[dlxix]
In the process of giving its false analysis of Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Mystici Corporis, Suprema haec sacra teaches that people who “do not belong” to the
Body of the Church can be saved.
What’s interesting about this heretical passage in Protocol 122/49 is
that even Msgr. Fenton (one of its greatest defenders) admits that one cannot say that the Soul of the Church
is more extensive than the Body.
Msgr. Joseph
Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and
Salvation, 1958, p. 127: “By all means
the most important and the most widely employed of all the inadequate
explanations of the Church’s necessity for salvation was the one that centered
around a distinction between the ‘body’ and the ‘soul’ of the Catholic Church. The individual who tried to explain the
dogma in this fashion generally designated the visible Church itself as the
‘body’ of the Church and applied the term ‘soul of the Church’ either to grace
and the supernatural virtues or some fancied ‘invisible Church.’…there were
several books and articles claiming that,
while the ‘soul’ of the Church was in some way not separated from the ‘body,’ it
was actually more extensive than this ‘body.’
Explanations of the Church’s necessity drawn up in terms of this
distinction were at best inadequate and confusing and all too frequently
infected with serious error.”
Hence, to say that it is not necessary to belong to the Body, as Suprema haec sacra (the Protocol) does,
is to say that it is not necessary to belong to the Church. Therefore, by its statement above,
Protocol 122/49 taught the heresy that it
is not necessary to belong to the Catholic Church to be saved, the
very thing denounced by Pius XII.
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis (#27), 1950: “Some say they are not bound by the
doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on
the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and
the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the
necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.”
[dlxx]
This is extremely significant, for it
proves that the teaching of Suprema haec
sacra
– and therefore the teaching of Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton who defended it –
is heretical. They both deny the
necessity of “belonging” to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.
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. That is why it is fitting
that, belonging to the one same body,
they also have the one same will…”[dlxxi]
Less than
three months after the Marchetti-Selvaggianni letter was published in part in
The Pilot, Father Feeney was expelled from the Jesuit Order on October 28,
1949. Father Feeney stood strong
against the heretics’ attempts to beat him down and get him to submit to the
heresy that non-Catholics can be saved.
Referring to the August 8th letter of Marchetti-Selvaggiani
(Protocol 122/49), Father Feeney rightly stated: “it can be considered as having
established a two-sided policy in order to propagate error.”
The
reality was that Father Feeney’s expulsion from the Jesuit Order had no
validity. The men who expelled him and the clerics
who were against him were automatically expelled from the Catholic Church for
adhering to the heresy that those who die as non-Catholics can be saved. This is similar to the situation in the 5th
century, when the Patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius, began to preach the
heresy that Mary was not the Mother of God.
The faithful reacted, accused Nestorius of heresy and denounced him as a
heretic who was outside the Catholic Church.
And Nestorius was later condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431. Here is what Pope St. Celestine I stated
about those who had been excommunicated by Nestorius after he began to preach
heresy.
Pope St.
Celestine I, 5th Century:
“The
authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or
simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his
followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be
considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith
with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.”[dlxxii]
Pope St. Celestine authoritatively confirms the principle that a public heretic
is a person with no authority to depose, excommunicate or expel. The quote is found in De
Romano Pontifice, the work of St. Robert Bellarmine. This explains why all of the persecution
against Father Feeney (expulsion, interdiction, etc.) had no validity, because
he was right and those who were against him were wrong. He defended the dogma that there is no
salvation outside the Church, while his opponents defended the heresy that there
is salvation outside the Church.
St. Robert Bellarmine (1610), Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice:
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just
as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.
Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church.
This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest
heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
Things
between Father Feeney and the heretics in
During
their meeting, Fr. Feeney asked “Archbishop” Cushing if he was in agreement with
the Aug. 8, 1949 letter of Marchetti-Selvaggiani.
Cushing responded, “I am not a theologian.
All that I know is what I am told.”
This evasive and non-committal answer shows the true colors of Cushing, this
heretic, false pastor and enemy of Jesus Christ. If Cushing believed that one was bound to
the letter, then he should have responded without hesitation that he agreed with
it. But because he didn’t want to
defend the letter in any of its details, especially its denials of dogma, he
responded by evading the question.
This evasion prohibited Fr. Feeney from putting him on the spot and convicting
him with the dogma that was being denied.
Father Feeney accused Cushing of failing in his duty and left.
28. Heresy before
To fully appreciate the Father Feeney controversy one must understand
that the denial of the Faith that Father Feeney was combating was well in place
in the years before Vatican II. Most
people considering themselves to be “traditional Catholics” have the false
impression that, “if we could only go back
to what people believed in the 1950’s, everything would be fine.” No, it wouldn’t. Most of the priests and bishops in the
1940’s and 1950’s had already lost the Faith and had completely rejected the
solemnly defined dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. It is simply a fact that heresy against
the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation was being taught in most
seminaries in the 1940’s and 50’s.
In fact, the breakdown of the Faith began much earlier than the 1940’s or 50’s.
Our Lady of La Salette,
As I said
earlier in this document, St. Anthony Mary Claret, the only canonized saint at
the First Vatican Council, had a stroke because of the false doctrines that were
being proposed even then, which never made their way into the council.
The step-by-step dismantling of the Catholic Faith by Lucifer began, not in
1964, but in 1864, long before Vatican II.
Let’s take a look at some examples of blatant heresy in pre-Vatican II books
with Imprimaturs (i.e., the approval of a bishop).
1.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, “Church,” 1908,
G. H. Joyce: “The doctrine is summed up in the phrase, Extra Ecclesiam nulla
salus (Outside the Church there is no salvation)… It certainly does not
mean that none can be saved except those who are in visible communion with the
Catholic Church. The Catholic
Church has ever taught that nothing else is needed to obtain justification than
an act of perfect charity and of contrition… Many are kept from the Church by
ignorance. Such may be the case
of numbers among those who have been brought up in heresy… Thus, even in the case in which God saves
men apart from the Church, He does so through the Church’s actual
graces… In the expression of theologians, they belong to the soul of the
Church, though not to its body.”[dlxxiii]
What we
have here, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, in the year 1908, in a book with
the Imprimatur of John Farley, the Archbishop of New York, is blatant heresy. The author, G.H. Joyce, completely
rejects the dogma as it has been defined.
He even employs the “Soul of the Church Heresy” which is completely heretical
(as I showed in “The Soul of the Church Heresy” section). The defined dogma which declared that
only those in the Catholic Church can be saved, has given way to the heresy that
God saves men “apart from the Church.”
Pope Leo XIII,
Tametsi futura prospicientibus (# 7), Nov. 1, 1900: “Hence all who would find salvation apart from the Church, are led astray
and strive in vain.”[dlxxiv]
But
to these heretics, no longer does this dogma mean that outside the Church there
is no salvation, but rather that non-Catholics are saved in their false
religions but by
the Catholic Church. The necessity
of Catholic faith and unity for salvation has been utterly repudiated.
Pope Gregory
XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, 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…
You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that article of
faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic
faith and of unity for salvation.”[dlxxv]
And this
proves that the dogma that those who die as non-Catholics cannot be saved was
being denied publicly even as early as 1908.
2.
My Catholic Faith, a Catechism by Bishop Louis LaRavoire, 1949: “Holy Mass may be offered
for the living of whatever creed. It
may be offered for departed Catholics.
The priest may not offer Mass publicly for departed non-Catholics, but the
persons hearing the Mass may do so.”[dlxxvi]
Here we
find more clear heresy in a catechism written by the Bishop of Krishnager, Louis
LaRavoire. This Catechism is still
promoted today by many so-called “traditional Catholics.” By permitting prayer for departed
non-Catholics, Louis LaRavoire denies the dogma that all who depart life as
non-Catholics are lost.
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.”[dlxxvii]
3.
Here we find blatant heresy in the Baltimore Catechism, imprimatured and
published in 1921. The authors of
this heretical catechism are bold enough to assert that salvation for a
non-Catholic is not only possible, but dependent upon whether the non-Catholic “firmly
believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion.”
So if you’re firmly convinced that Mormonism is the true religion, then
you’ve got a good shot at salvation, according to the Baltimore Catechism; but
if you’re not firmly convinced of this then your chances are less.
This makes an absolute mockery of the dogma: one Lord, one faith and one
baptism (Eph. 4:5).
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).[dlxxviii]
The words
of Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos could have been written specifically to the
authors of the Baltimore Catechism; and indeed they were addressed to other
heretics in his day who proposed the same thing.
Notice how far the Baltimore Catechism has come from the dogmatic Athanasian
Creed, which Gregory XVI affirmed, which states that whoever wishes to be
saved must hold the Catholic Faith.
The authors of the Baltimore Catechism could not have, in their wildest
imagination, pretended to believe in that dogmatic profession of faith.
The reader
should also note that Pope Gregory XVI teaches that those who have never been
Catholic are lost, as well as Catholics who leave the Church.
The
Baltimore Catechism rejects the words of Jesus Christ, who declared that “he
that believeth not shall be condemned” (Mk. 16:16).
The revised edition of the Scriptures by the authors of the Baltimore Catechism
would have to read: “he that believeth firmly in false religions shall not be
condemned.”
4.
Fundamentals of Catholic
Dogma, by Ludwig Ott, Imprimatur 1954, p. 310: “The
necessity for belonging to the Church is not merely a necessity of precept, but
also of means, as the comparison with the
It’s a
pity that the Catholic Church was stupid enough to define more than seven times
that outside the Catholic Church no one at all is saved, because (as the “great”
Ludwig Ott reveals) “those who are in point of fact outside the
Catholic Church can achieve salvation.”
It’s a shame that the Church didn’t possess this profound enlightenment, that it
didn’t know that what it had been teaching “infallibly” for all of these years
was actually just the opposite of the truth.
In truth,
what Ludwig Ott says above is equivalent to declaring that the Blessed Virgin
Mary was conceived in Original Sin.
There is no difference whatsoever.
If the Church defines that outside the Church no one at all is saved (Pope
Innocent III, etc.), and I assert that “those who are in point of fact
outside the Catholic Church can achieve salvation,” then I am doing the
exact same thing as if I were to declare that the Virgin Mary was conceived in
some sin, when the Church said she had no sin.
I would be stating exactly the opposite of what the Church had infallibly
defined, and this is precisely what Ludwig Ott does.
But
shortly after explicitly denying the dogma that no one can be saved outside the
Church, notice what Ludwig Ott says:
Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 311: “It is the
unanimous conviction of the Fathers that salvation cannot be achieved outside
the Church.”[dlxxx]
“But
let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is
of evil” (Mt. 5:37). From one
page to the next, Ludwig Ott contradicts himself on whether those who are
outside the Catholic Church can achieve salvation!
He even uses the exact same verb – “achieve” – in both sentences, but with the
opposite meaning from one to the next: 1) those “outside the Church can
achieve salvation”; 2) “salvation cannot be achieved outside
the Church.” His speech is not of God, but of the
Devil. Black is white and white is
black; good is evil and evil is good; truth is error and error is truth;
salvation can be achieved outside the Church and salvation cannot be achieved
outside the Church.
For the
pre-Vatican II heretics who condemned Father Feeney and despised the dogma
Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation, it is no problem believing
that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church, while simultaneously
believing that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. It is no problem for these people because
they are of evil (Mt. 5:37).
Pope Clement
V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
“… one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation,
for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”[dlxxxi]
Those who
obstinately accept the heresy that is contained in these pre-Vatican II books –
such as Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma – should rightly
fear, as Pope Gregory XVI says, because they will without a doubt inherit a
place in Hell if they do not repent and convert.
5. The Catechism Explained, Rev.
Spirago and Rev. Clark, 1898: “If, however, a man, through no fault of his
own, remains outside the Church, he may be saved if he lead a God-fearing
life; for such a one is to all intents and purposes a member of the Catholic
Church.”[dlxxxii]
According to this, it’s not only possible to be saved outside the Church
(which is a direct denial of the dogma), but it’s actually possible to be, “for
all intents and purposes,” a member of the Catholic Church while still outside
of Her! This is so heretical and
contradictory that it’s not worthy of further comment, except to say that what
The Catechism Explained proposes here – that a man can be saved outside the
Church as long as he leads “a God-fearing life” – is exactly what Pope Gregory
XVI condemned in Mirari Vos: that a man may be saved in any religion
whatsoever, so long as morality is maintained.
Pope Gregory
XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832:
“This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the
wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul
by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained…
without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith
whole and inviolate
(Athanasian Creed).”[dlxxxiii]
I could continue with examples of pre-Vatican II imprimatured texts which
contain heresy, but the point should be obvious: the denial of the dogma Outside
the Catholic Church There is No Salvation was well in place in the minds of most
priests and bishops before Vatican II, so the opposition Father Feeney
experienced in defending this truth in the late 1940’s and 1950’s comes as no
surprise. The Great Apostasy was
well in place in the 1940’s and 50’s, having actually begun in the mid to late
1800’s, and Father Feeney was attempting to stifle this tide of apostasy by
cutting away at its root cause: the denial of the necessity of the Catholic
Church for salvation.
Some have
the false impression that the horrific pre-Vatican II heresy, which was
catalogued above, was also taught by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Mystici
Corporis. This is not true. The passage that the heretics love to
quote from Mystici Corporis is weak, but not heretical. It is accurately translated as follows:
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943, Speaking of
non-Catholics: “[We wish] every one
of them to co-operate generously and willingly with the inward impulses of
divine grace and to take care to extricate themselves from that condition in
which they cannot be secure about their own eternal salvation. For even though they may be directed [or
ordained] toward the Redeemer’s Mystical Body by a sort of unconscious desire
and intention, they still lack so many and such great heavenly helps and aids
that can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church.”[dlxxxiv]
First of
all, this passage from Mystici Corporis has been incorrectly translated
by many to further weaken and to pervert the actual words of Pius XII. The phrase (ab eo statu se eripere
studeant, in quo de sempiterna cuiusque propria salute securi esse non possunt)
which is correctly translated as “…extricate themselves from that condition in
which they cannot be secure about their own eternal salvation,” has been
mistranslated as “look to withdrawing from that state in which they cannot be
sure of their salvation.”[dlxxxv] This mistranslation gives the clear
impression that non-Catholics have an outside chance at gaining salvation where
they are.
It’s very
interesting that even a heretical defender of Protocol 122/49, Msgr. Fenton,
admits that “sure” is a seriously misleading translation.
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The
Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 88: “Many of the published
translations of the Mystici Corporis
Christi employ the expression ‘in which they cannot be sure of their
salvation’ in rendering this clause into English. This terminology is both inexact and
seriously misleading.”[dlxxxvi]
Fenton
goes on to point out that the mistranslation gives the impression that Catholics
can be sure of their salvation, which is a heresy condemned by the Council of
Trent (Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 9).
The
other part of Mystici Corporis that has been incorrectly translated by
many to further weaken and to pervert the actual words of Pius XII is the
phrase, in Latin: “quandoquidem, etiamsi inscio quodam desiderio ac voto ad
mysticum Redemptoris Corpus ordinentur”
has been mistranslated by many to read: “For even though unsuspectingly they
are related in desire and resolution to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer…” This is a deliberate mistranslation which
alters the meaning of Pius XII’s words.
I will quote Bro. Robert Mary in Father Feeney and the Truth About
Salvation to explain why this is an incorrect translation.
“The abused word is ordinentur. The book, A Latin-English Dictionary of
St. Thomas Aquinas, by Roy J. Deferrari, gives us the following meanings for the
Latin verb ordino: ‘Ordino, are, avi, atum – (1) to order, to set in order, to
arrange, to adjust, to dispose, (2) to ordain…”
“Since the
Pope uses the subjunctive mood to express a contingency of uncertainty, not a
fact, the translation should read:
‘For, even
though they may be disposed toward (or ordained toward) the mystic Body of the
Redeemer, by a certain unknowing desire and resolution…’
“In
other words, the only thing this ‘certain unknowing desire and resolution’
(inscio quodam desiderio ac voto) may be doing for these non-Catholics is
setting them in order for entrance into, or return to, the Church.
In no way does the Pope say, as fact, that they are ‘related’ to the
Mystical Body of the Redeemer, much less ‘united to it.’”[dlxxxvii]
Bro.
Robert Mary has astutely pointed out how it is false to say that Pius XII taught
that some non-Catholics are “related” to the Church by unknowing desire, and
that Pius XII certainly did not teach that some non-Catholics are “united” to
the Church. But this is how one finds Mystici
Corporis
translated in many papers, especially those written by priests who deny the
dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.
While the
important observation above shows how wrong the modern heretics’ treatment of
Mystici Corporis is, there is no doubt that Pius XII’s statement in the
above passage – even correctly translated – is still pathetically weak,
and opens the door for liberal heretics to claim that he endorsed the heresy
that non-Catholics can be saved by their unknowing desire for the Catholic
faith. Its weakness displays the mindset of a
man who allowed heresy against the dogma Outside the Church There is No
Salvation to run rampant in the seminaries, theology texts and Catechisms during
his reign, even if not explicitly taught by him.
Pius XII had no business talking about the supposed unknowing desire and
resolution of non-Catholics, even if he didn’t assert that such could be saved. Everyone knows that even the mention of
such a thing causes modernists to salivate like dogs over a tasty meal. Pius XII should have addressed
non-Catholics in the manner of Pope Leo XII, and he should have reaffirmed that
non-Catholics will surely perish if they don’t hold the Catholic faith in the
manner of Gregory XVI.
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.”[dlxxxviii]
Pope Gregory
XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832:
“Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they
hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate” (Athanasian Creed).[dlxxxix]
A strong
reaffirmation of Catholic teaching such as this by Pius XII would have
eliminated all of the heretics’ claims against the dogma by referencing his
encyclical. Nevertheless, here are a few other
statements from Pope Pius XII which are worthy of note.
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 and profess the true faith.”[dxc]
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.”[dxci]
These two
statements exclude the idea that one can be saved by even an explicit desire for
baptism, since they affirm that those who have not received the Sacrament of
Baptism are not Christians or members of the Church or members of Christ. (Those who are not Christians or members of the
Church or members of Christ cannot be saved.)
John 15:6- “If anyone abide 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.”
Actually,
if one admits that the above quote from Mediator Dei is magisterial (and
therefore infallible), it alone eliminates any theory of baptism of
desire,
because it asserts that the differentiation between those who have received the
mark of baptism (and are members of Christ) and those who have not received the
mark of baptism (and consequently are not members of Christ) is as pronounced as
those who have been made priests by ordination and those who have not. In other words, according to the
pronouncement of Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei, to assert that one could
be a Christian or a member of Christ without the mark of baptism (which
is what the theory of baptism of desire asserts) is akin to asserting that one
can be a priest without ordination.
Furthermore, as quoted already, in Humani
Generis in 1950 Pope Pius XII actually put his finger directly on the heresy
at work against Outside the Church There is No Salvation.
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis (#27), 1950: “Some say they are not bound by the
doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on
the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and
the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same.
Some reduce to a meaningless
formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal
salvation.”[dxcii]
Pope Pius
XII is here condemning the exact heresy common to all the modern day
heretics who deny this dogma. They
reduce the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation to a meaningless
formula by saying that it doesn’t mean what it says!
It should
also be noted that even though Pope Pius XII did not teach that
non-Catholics could be united to the Church and saved by a “certain unknowing
desire and resolution,” if
he had, he would have been teaching heresy – a heresy refuted by
his own statements above. As
30. Pope
Pius XII, Father Feeney and the dogma
One of the reasons that the heretical and deadly Protocol 122/49 gained
such momentum in the minds of so many bishops and priests, and was literally
able to wipe out belief in the dogma (that those who die as non-Catholics are
lost) in almost the entire Catholic world, was because they thought that it had
at least the tacit approval of Pope Pius XII.
Indeed the document claims that he did approve of it. The bottom-line is that he didn’t sign
it, nor did he promulgate it in any manner that would have affected
infallibility. It wasn’t even
published officially. And obviously
no pope could have signed the Protocol because it is quite heretical, as I have
shown.
If Pope
Pius XII agreed with the Protocol and the persecution of Father Feeney for
preaching the dogma, then he was just simply a mortal sinner against the Faith. If he had come out in favor of the
Protocol and against Fr. Feeney then he would have been a heretic. If Pope Pius XII had denied the dogma –
as did the priests at Boston College, for example – and assented to the stifling
of Father Feeney’s apostolic preaching of it, then Pius XII would have become a
heretic and an enemy of the Faith.
If
Pope Pius XII thought that Father Feeney was preaching his own doctrine
for asserting exactly what Pope Gregory XVI asserted in Summo Iugiter Studio
and what the Chair of Peter has dogmatically defined (that all those who die as
non-Catholics are lost), then he didn’t understand the first thing about the
Catholic Faith – and indeed he did not possess it.
People need to remember that not every decision by a pope is infallible.
In studying papal errors throughout history in preparation for its declaration
of papal infallibility, the theologians at
Perhaps the clearest
case of papal error in Church history is the “Synod of the Corpse” of 897. This was where the dead body of Pope
Formosus – who by all accounts was a holy and devoted pope – was condemned after
his death by Pope Stephen VII for a number of supposed violations of canon law.[dxciv] This condemnation of Pope Formosus
by Pope Stephen VII was overturned by Pope Theodore II and Pope John IX, but
favored by Pope Sergius III.[dxcv] This should show us very clearly that not
every decision, speech, opinion or judgment of a pope is infallible. A pope is infallible when speaking from
the Chair of Peter or reiterating what the Church has always taught in her
ordinary and universal Magisterium.
Pope Honorius I was condemned by the
III Council of Constantinople for at least furthering the monothelite heresy
(the belief that Christ had only one will) in two letters to the Patriarch Sergius.
So, just as Pope Honorius I (625-638) was condemned for furthering
heresy by the III Council of Constantinople and other ecumenical Councils[dxcvi],
so too would Pope Pius XII have fallen into heresy if he held that non-Catholics
could be saved and supported the persecution of Father Feeney for affirming that
they could not.
Remember,
Pius XII was by no means a staunch traditionalist.
His reforms, omissions and failures paved the way for Vatican II. Just a few things that Pius XII did are:
·
He promoted Annibale Bugnini, the author of the New
Mass, and began the liturgical reform with his allowance of reforms in the Holy
Week Rites. A good number of
liturgical scholars think that the reforms of Holy Week were terrible. One example is the allowance of
distribution of Holy Communion on Good Friday.
The decree of the Holy Office under Pope Pius X On Frequent Communion cites Pope
Innocent XI who condemned such a practice.
·
He promoted men like Giovanni Montini (later Paul
VI) and Angelo Roncalli (later John XXIII), without which promotions these men
could never have had the influence or caused the immeasurable destruction that
they did.
·
He said that theistic evolution could be taught in
Catholic schools (Humani Generis, 1950), which is nothing short of
ludicrous – and arguably heretical.
·
He taught that birth control could be used by
couples by means of the rhythm method (or Natural Family Planning), which is a
frustration and a subordination of the primary purpose of the marriage
act – conception.
·
He allowed the persecution and subsequent
excommunication of Father Leonard Feeney, whether through willful complicity or
neglect, for doing what every Catholic priest should do: preach the Gospel,
defend the faith and adhere to defined dogma.
This last
offense was the most serious. With
the persecution of Father Feeney, the “authorities” in
It was on
September 24, 1952 that Father Feeney addressed a long, detailed letter to Pius
XII. The letter went unanswered. But one month later (in a letter dated
Oct. 25, 1952) Cardinal Pizzardo of the Holy Office summoned him to
“Your letter of 30th October clearly shows that you are
evading the issue… You are to come to
On Dec. 2, 1952, Father Feeney responded:
“Your Eminence seems to have misconstrued my motives in replying to your
letter of October 25, 1952. I had
presumed that your first letter was to serve as a canonical citation to appear
before Your Sacred Tribunal. As a
citation, however, it is fatally defective under the norms of Canon 1715
especially in that it did not inform me of the charges against me. This canon requires that the citation
contain at least a general statement of the charges. Under the norms of Canon 1723 any
proceedings based on a citation so substantially defective are subject to a
complaint of nullity.”[dxcix]
This
exchange of letters between Father Feeney and Pizzardo is very interesting and
valuable for our discussion. First
of all, it shows that Father Feeney’s desire was to operate within the
confines of law, whereas Pizzardo and those at the
On Jan. 9,
1953, Pizzardo responded to the Dec. 2, 1952 letter of Fr. Feeney:
(Jan. 9, 1953) “In reply to your letter of the 2nd Dec. 1952
asking for further explanations… the Holy Office communicates to you herewith
the orders received from His Holiness, that you are to present yourself to this
Congregation before the 31st January 1953, under pain of
excommunication incurred automatically (ipso facto) in case of failure to
present yourself on the date indicated.
This decision of His Holiness has been made after the arrival of the latest
documents from
Once
again, the canonical laws requiring a reason for the summons were completely
ignored. But this was just par for
the course in the case of Father Feeney: Justice, dogma and Christ’s mandate to
preach the Gospel and baptize were ignored and trampled upon. One cannot help but notice the annoyed
tone of the cardinal’s letter. There
is almost no doubt that Pizzardo also believed that non-Catholics could be saved
as non-Catholics, and thus was not at all concerned that the case of Father
Feeney was not handled in a just fashion.
Without
having been given a reason for his summons to
a)
Violation of the ‘secrecy
of the Holy Office’ in leaking their correspondence to the public press.
b)
The cardinal’s repeated
threats of imposing penalties without either accusations or proceedings, as
required by the canons.
c)
The dissemination of Protocol 122/49 as a doctrinal
pronouncement of the Holy See, knowing that it was never published in the
Acta Apostolicae Sedis (Acts of the Apostolic See).[dci]
Father
Feeney ended this last communication to Cardinal Pizzardo with a statement of
righteous indignation:
“I very seriously question both the good faith and the validity of any
attempt to excommunicate me because I dared to call the substance of this decree
to your attention, and because I dared to insist on my rights under it in both
my letters of October 30 and December 2, 1952.”[dcii]
On
February 13, 1953, the Holy Office issued a decree declaring Father Feeney
“excommunicated.” It read as follows:
“Since the priest Leonard Feeney, a resident of Boston (Saint Benedict
Center), who for a long time has been suspended from his priestly duties on
account of grave disobedience of Church Authority, being unmoved by repeated
warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, has not submitted,
the Most Eminent and Reverent Fathers, charged with safeguarding matters of
faith and morals, in a Plenary Session held on Wednesday, 4 February 1953,
declared him excommunicated with all the effects of the law.
“On Thursday, 12 February 1953, Our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, by Divine
Providence Pope, approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers,
and ordered that it be made a matter of public law.
“Given at
Marius Crovini, Notary
AAS (February 16, 1953) Vol. XXXXV, Page 100
In light of the
above facts, this excommunication is an outrage and is worthless. Father Feeney was guilty of nothing: He
denied no doctrine, and he operated strictly in accordance with the law. It was those who persecuted Father Feeney
for teaching that all who die as non-Catholics cannot be saved who were
excommunicated ipso facto.
One should
also keep in mind that, although the “excommunication” originated from heretical
clergymen opposing Fr. Feeney’s preaching of the dogma, the “excommunication”
itself mentions nothing of doctrine.
It only mentions “grave disobedience of Church Authority.” This is an important point, because we hear
many today, who are ignorant of the facts of the case, erroneously assert that
Father Feeney was excommunicated for teaching that non-Catholics cannot be
saved. Such individuals don’t know
what they are talking about. There
is no doubt that the dogma that those who die as non-Catholics cannot be saved
was the reason why the Father Feeney controversy erupted – which culminated in
his “excommunication” – but the excommunication itself mentions nothing of
doctrine. Therefore, even if one believed that this
“excommunication” was valid (which is absurd), it would constitute no argument
against the teaching that those who die as non-Catholics can’t be saved because:
1) doctrine is not mentioned at all in the excommunication, and 2) this teaching
is a defined dogma. So let those who
are going to discuss this issue get the facts straight.
But the
teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church was definitely
excommunicated from the mind of the public as a result of the 1953
“excommunication” of Father Leonard Feeney, S.J.
With this, Jesus Christ was publicly sold out to the world by giving the entire
world the impression that it was not necessary to belong to the one Church He
established – and indeed it was punishable to promote the contrary!
I recently
called about 15 Vatican II/Novus Ordo churches and asked them whether they
accepted the Catholic dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. All of them flatly rejected it or hung up
the telephone. The few priests who gave a coherent response to my question about
the dogma immediately stated “that’s heresy” or words to that effect (meaning
Outside the Church There is No Salvation is heresy); and they all referred to
the “excommunication” of Fr. Leonard Feeney, S.J. to “substantiate” their point.
I could have called 200 of these Vatican II churches and I would have received
the same responses. This is simply because it is a fact
that basically every Vatican II/Novus Ordo priest today, as well as almost every
“traditionalist” priest today, believes that souls can be saved in any religion,
including Jews who reject Christ.
There is
no doubt that the role Pope Pius XII played in the case of Father Feeney was
crucial: crucial to the very core of the Catholic Faith, crucial to what would
shortly thereafter transpire at Vatican II, and crucial to the salvation of
millions of souls. It was crucial
because if Pope Pius XII had come to the defense of Father Feeney in the early
1950’s, and reasserted that all who die as non-Catholics are lost (and therefore
must be converted), there would never have been a
Without
the clear indication that it is wrong to hold that
all who die as non-Catholics are lost (which is Catholic dogma), Vatican II,
the liturgical reform and all the other horrors that we now see would not have
been possible.
Unfortunately, Pius XII was the man who performed this task.
Pius XII was the man during whose reign the world began to believe that it was
wrong to believe that only Catholics can be saved.
He served, whether knowingly or not, as the Judas who sold out Christ to
the Jews so that they could crucify Him.
The dogma was sold out to the world so that the Devil could crucify the
entire framework of the Faith at Vatican II.
So when
people look at barren churches; empty confession lines; almost zero Mass
attendance; homo-priests in the Novus Ordo church; less than 25% belief in the
Eucharist; rampant sex-scandals; clown masses, kiddie masses, balloon masses;
50% of “Catholics” voting pro-abortion; consistent interreligious syncretism in
the Vatican; topless girls at “Papal Masses”; voodoo high-priests preaching in
the Church of St. Francis; Buddha on top of “Catholic altars”; almost universal
ignorance about the teaching of the Church; almost universal immorality and
perversion; sex-education in “Catholic” schools;
“Catholic” universities denying the inerrancy of Scripture; “Catholic”
universities promoting pro-aborts; the greatest widespread apostasy from the
teaching of Christ of all-time; and an almost universal paganism, they can
thank the condemnation of Father Feeney, which was a necessary component in
bringing it all about.
The
“condemnation” of Fr. Feeney – combined with Protocol 122/49 – assured that not
one seminary in the world after 1953 taught the dogma that only Catholics can be
saved. And with the idea that those who die as
non-Catholics can be saved deep-seated and universal, it was only a short time
before the world started to figure out that believing the Catholic religion and
practicing Catholic morality are pretty much worthless, since members of other
religions have salvation too. The
precious gift of the true Faith was broken down, and the Catholic Church’s claim
that it is the only true religion was killed in the minds of the public, since
people could be saved in other religions.
It was only logical that a short time after the “excommunication” of
Father Feeney, Catholic teaching gave way to a universal apostasy among
Catholics – with Vatican II being the vehicle to perpetuate it.
Those who deplore some, most or all of the things mentioned above, yet
who condemn, despise or hate Father Feeney, are blind. They complain about the flames and the
smoke, but do not realize that their very attitude is what started the fire. They cannot understand the simple effects
of the breakdown of the Faith, and the denial of that most crucial dogma that
only Catholics can be saved. And
this issue does not merely involve the many practical consequences of denying
the dogma that only Catholics can be saved.
It primarily involves the consequences for the Faith, because the dogma Outside
the Catholic Church There is No Salvation is not just something Catholics must
live by, but something that they must primarily believe. Pope St. Pius X condemned the
following Modernist proposition on July 3, 1907 in “Lamentabili Sane”:
“The dogmas of
faith are to be held only according to a practical sense, that is, as preceptive
norms for action, but not as norms for believing.”- Condemned[dciii]
The idea
that we can preach that there is no salvation outside the Church, while we
believe in our hearts that there is salvation outside the Church, is heretical. That only Catholics can be saved is a
truth revealed from heaven which every Catholic must believe first,
and profess second.
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.”[dciv]
This truth
was ripped from the hearts and minds of almost the entire Catholic world with
the condemnation of Father Feeney, who was its most public proponent. And it was allowed to happen by the
negligence and weakness of Pius XII.
31. The
Verdict is in:
Novus Ordo
Priest Fr. Mark S. Massa, “S.J.”, Catholics and American Culture, p. 31,
DESCRIBING WHEN THE CONTROVERSY ERUPTED IN BOSTON OVER THE DOGMA, OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION:
“The Boston Heresy Case erupted into
public view during Holy Week 1949. The
firings of Feeney’s disciples from
As I have
documented in the foregoing sections, it was in
|
|
|
To help pay the $85 million
settlement reached with more than 500 victims of child-molesting priests, the archdiocese has mortgaged its very seat of power -- the
Cathedral of the Holy Cross -- and is putting up for sale the archbishop's
residence, an Italian Renaissance-style mansion that was a symbol of the
church's grandeur and authority. Dozens of churches are also expected to be
closed in a move at least accelerated by the scandal. (Dec. 18, 2003) |
“And I will accomplish in my
fury, and will cause my indignation to rest upon them, and I will be
comforted: and they shall know that I the Lord have spoken it in my zeal, when I
shall have accomplished my indignation in them.
“And I will make thee
desolate, and a reproach amongst the nations that are round about thee,
in the sight of every one that passeth by.
And thou shalt be a reproach, and a scoff, an example, and an astonishment
amongst the nations that are round about thee, when I shall have executed
judgments in thee in anger, and in indignation, and in wrathful rebukes. I the Lord have spoken it…” (Ezechiel 5:13-16)
|
CBS News - Clergy
members and others in the Boston Archdiocese likely sexually abused more than
1,000 people over a period of six decades, Massachusetts' attorney general
said Wednesday, calling the scandal so massive it "borders on the unbelievable." … The sheer number of
abuse allegations documented by investigators in |
ABC NEWS,
Sept. 9— The Boston Archdiocese and lawyers for
victims of sex abuse by priests announced today that they reached a settlement
of $85 million, the largest known
payout in the child molestation
scandal that has rocked the Roman Catholic Church. (ABCNews.com, Sept. 9, 2003)
The people and the clergy of
The heretics in
This should actually strike fear into the hearts of
those – especially many of the “traditionalists” – who claim to oppose this
apostasy and yet hate this dogma, despise and mock Fr. Leonard Feeney, and
others who faithfully hold Church teaching on this issue. Such people make themselves hateful to
God and were one of the primary causes for this apostasy, an apostasy which is
manifested by the incredible scandal among the non-Catholic, counterfeit Vatican
II priests. The fact that the Archdiocese of Boston had to mortgage its
very cathedral and the archbishop’s residence because of the sexual abuse of its
priests is highly symbolic. It is not an accident. It shows how those who deny the Catholic
dogma on salvation forfeit their place in the
DID FR. FEENEY PREDICT THE LOSS OF THE POPE?
Before I get into this point, I must remind the reader that we are not
“Feeneyites” and that I had never heard of Fr. Leonard Feeney when I came
to the same conclusion on the absolute necessity of water baptism based on the
dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church.
We don’t agree with some of Fr. Feeney’s conclusions on Justification (we
believe he was mistaken in good faith on these points).
In the following passages from Fr. Feeney’s book,
Bread of Life—which is made up of
Fr. Feeney’s sermons before Vatican II—he connects the eventual loss of
the pope (i.e., what we have experienced with the reign of the Vatican II
antipopes) to the denial of the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No
Salvation. As I have shown, heretics
who denied this dogma were entrenched in high positions of the Church before
Vatican II, and were teaching that men could be saved in false religions. Fr. Feeney seemed to prophesy that it is
because of this heresy that God will allow the Great Apostasy and the loss of
the pope (i.e., what we have experienced with the reign of the Vatican II
antipopes) to come to pass.
Fr. Leonard Feeney S.J., Bread of Life, pp. 32-33:
“We have Protestants in an arrangement-religion that never knows what to
call itself from one week to another, that never knows what its new minister is
going to tell it from chapter to chapter of Holy Scripture. We have Unitarians who have no faith in
the assured Jesus, getting more indefinite about what Christianity meant to say.
And, of course, we have Jews evading the Faith, running away from it, pretending
they do not hear the name of Jesus – pretending Christmas is not the birth of
Jesus Christ, and getting civic leaders to remove ‘Merry Christmas’ from in
front of City Hall and to substitute for it ‘Seasons Greetings,’ because the
word ‘Christ’ in ‘Christmas’ annoys them.
All this, horrible as it is, I am prepared to cope with.
“But imagine a priest in the Holy Roman Catholic Church, ordained by the
successors of the Apostles – dedicated to the Name and purpose and Blood and
robes of Jesus – sitting at
Fr. Feeney, writing the above passage before the Second Vatican Council,
predicted the eventual loss of the pope because of
the great number of heretics within the structures of the Church who denied the
necessity of the Church for salvation.
This is an amazing insight!
Fr. Feeney also notes
that this heresy against the salvation dogma and the necessity of Baptism leads
to “Good Friday without any God bleeding.”
Just take a look at the Novus Ordo churches to see if that has been fulfilled. Fr. Feeney goes on to say in the same
chapter:
Fr. Feeney S.J., Bread of Life, p. 42:
“When the Vatican Council reconvenes, I humbly plead with our Holy Father,
the Pope (Pius XII), that he will immediately gather his plenipotentiary powers
of infallible pronouncement to clear up the wild confusion of visible orating
(on the part of his priests and bishops) about an invisible Church – or else the
gates of Hell will have all but prevailed against us. The most visible ruler in the world, our Holy Father, in his white robe
and white zuchetto, may as well take
off his triple tiara and get down from his golden throne, and leave
Christianity to the kind of committee arrangements to which it is committed in
the present-day America, if we keep on preaching ‘Baptism of Desire.’”
As can be seen on our video
Vatican II: Council of Apostasy, this
statement underlined above—the loss of the papal tiara—actually took place
when Antipope Paul VI happily surrendered the papal tiara and papal pectoral
cross to the representatives of the United Nations who in turn sold it to a
Jewish merchant!
When
Antipope Paul VI gave away the Papal Tiara, it was symbolic of the giving away
of Papal authority (although he had none to give away since he was an antipope). But it was
symbolic of how the enemies of the Church, and the non-Catholic heretics, had
been allowed to take over the Church’s physical structures and create a
counterfeit, non-Catholic sect (the Vatican II sect). This insight of Fr. Feeney on the Papal Tiara
is so accurate that God must have put these words into his mouth. But it just demonstrates again that once
the necessity of the Church is denied the rest of the Faith becomes meaningless.
This is why those who think that the Mass issue is the main issue, and where the
battle really lies, are mistaken.
The battle begins and is centered around this dogma, because once the necessity
of the Catholic Faith is denied then everything else becomes meaningless.
In warning of the dire punishments and fatal
results that would arise from denial of this dogma, Fr. Feeney was only
repeating the warnings of past popes such as Pope Gregory XVI.
Pope Gregory
XVI, Mirari Vos (#14), Aug. 15, 1832:
“This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and
erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained
for everyone.”[dcvi]
A certain writer who considers himself a “traditional Catholic,” but denies the
true meaning of the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation, has stated that the teaching on invincible ignorance didn’t kill the missions; Vatican
II’s teaching on ecumenism and religious liberty did. What this heretic fails to realize is
that the heresy of salvation for non-Catholics through “invincible ignorance”
gave rise to the heretical teaching of freedom of religion and conscience,
as Pope Gregory XVI points out above.
Vatican II’s heretical documents on religious liberty, ecumenism and
freedom of conscience were not the beginning of the heresy, but the result
of the denial of the true meaning of the salvation dogma.
But whereas Pope Gregory XVI had warned of this, Fr. Feeney was living through
the beginning stages of its fulfillment, the latter stages culminating with,
among other things, the massive priestly scandal documented above in the
counterfeit Vatican II sect. Fr.
Feeney was the person that God used to announce to the world before the Vatican
II revolution that this issue was central and that if it continued to be denied,
the end would be at hand and the Great Apostasy would come to pass. Fr. Feeney added the following foreword
to the 1974 printing of his book Bread of Life.
Fr. Feeney S.J., Bread of Life: FOREWORD TO THE 1974 PRINTING: “The sad situation of the Faith in
America and in the whole world is breaking the hearts of true Catholics. The
gates of hell have all but prevailed against the Church. It is because
Catholics have let go of the Church’s doctrine on salvation that all else is
being taken away from us. This is what is causing the sickness of the world,
and it is even more true to say so today than when I said so twenty-five years
ago.
“My message today is
identically the same as the one I have been giving for the past quarter of a
century. It is perpetually part of the infallible teaching of the Roman Catholic
Church, against which Our Lord has promised the gates of hell will never
prevail.”
Fr. Feeney, in
1974, sees all these things being taken away from Catholics, primarily because
they denied the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation and didn’t care
about the divinely revealed truths of the Faith. We see this today not only in the Vatican
II sect, but in the traditional Catholic movement.
Many of the people attending the Latin Mass today don’t care about what
the priest actually believes; they only care that he says a valid Mass and not
the invalid Novus Ordo. They don’t
care that the priest holds that Jews who reject Jesus Christ Himself can be
saved, while they pretend to have a great devotion to the Mass Christ
instituted. These persons are in grave disobedience
to God’s truth and their sacrifice at the Mass bears no fruit, since they are in
rebellion to His divinely revealed word.
1 Kings
15:22-23: “And Samuel said: Doth the Lord
desire holocausts and victims, and not rather that the voice of the Lord
should be obeyed? For obedience is better than sacrifices:
and to hearken rather than to offer the fat of rams.
Because it is like the sin of witchcraft to rebel: and like the crime of
idolatry, to refuse to obey. Forasmuch as thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, the Lord hath
also rejected thee from being king.”
This passage of scripture does not concern obedience to a reputed authority in
the Church; it concerns obedience to the
Word of God – Faith in His revealed word. And the chilling
admonition above in 1 Kings 15 was made by the prophet Samuel to King Saul, who
had offered sacrifice in direct violation of God’s word.
Saul had attempted to please God with his sacrifice, while he was simultaneously
contravening God’s spoken word. King
Saul’s sacrifice, therefore, was completely rejected by God and Saul himself was
cast off by the Lord. The words spoken by Samuel to King Saul
could be said to the multitude of phony “Catholics,” who reject God’s voice (His
revealed dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church).
And because they don’t accept His Word on this matter, while they think they can
please Him by offering sacrifice at the traditional Latin Mass, their
sacrifice at the Traditional Latin Mass will not profit them and will be
rejected by God. Because they reject the “voice of the
Lord” – the true and defined meaning of Outside the Church There is No Salvation
– God rejects their sacrifices and offerings.
And it is precisely for this reason that God allowed the Catholic buildings,
seminaries and schools to be taken away and confiscated by a counterfeit
non-Catholic sect (the Vatican II/Novus Ordo sect), with apostate priests,
perverts, a phony “Mass” (the New Mass) and an apostate antipope – who heads a
Vatican which considers all religions true; declares that Jews don’t need to
convert to Christ to be saved; that Eastern Schismatics should not be converted;
that the Council of Trent doesn’t condemn Lutherans anymore; that Islam should
be protected; etc., etc. etc. God
cast off the multitude of professing “Catholics” because they cast off and
condemned His truth on salvation; and He gave their possessions over to a legion
of devils, just as he cast off Saul from being King.
In the foregoing sections, I have traced out the history of the Fr.
Feeney controversy in the late 1940’s and 1950’s, which was preceded by an
apostasy from the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation which began in
the 19th century – on the heels of misinterpreted and fallible
statements of Pope Pius IX on “invincible ignorance” and the explosion of the
false doctrine of “baptism of desire.”
I have pointed out that this heresy (of salvation outside the Church/“invincible
ignorance” saving those who die as non-Catholics) is now held almost universally
by so-called Catholics and “traditionalists.” And this heresy is leading countless
souls to Hell. Below the reader will
find a few testimonies made by certain enemies of the Faith who readily admit
that the new, heretical “understanding” of Outside the Church There is No
Salvation that became widespread in the 20th century before Vatican
II was contrary to Catholic dogmatic teaching and 2000 years of Catholic
Tradition.
The following quote is from a Protestant author. Please note carefully how this Protestant
heretic links the ultimate success of false ecumenism with Pope Pius IX and what
he believes to be his teaching that there can be salvation outside the Catholic
Church. The Protestant also, of
course, praises John XXIII (the initiator of Vatican II) and Paul VI who brought
it to completion. Not surprisingly,
his ultimate praise goes to the manifest heretic John Paul II, who took the
heresies of Vatican II all over the world and exemplified apostasy with many
false religions.
John McManners, A Protestant Author, The
Here you have it
directly from the Protestant’s mouth.
He links the teaching that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church to the
future success of the false ecumenical movement (the movement to respect and
unite with false religions). This
Protestant heretic also commends Pope Pius IX, because he believes that Pope
Pius IX introduced the novel heresy of salvation outside the Catholic Church
into the minds and souls of Catholics.
(Remember, in the section on Pope Pius IX we pointed out how all the modern
heretics attempt to use his two fallible statements – which did not teach
that non-Catholics can be saved without the Catholic Faith – as the
justification for their complete denial of this dogma.)
Thus, even the Protestants can see that the allowance of the idea of
“invincible ignorance” was “a large concession” (a new idea contrary to
Traditional dogma) in the tradition of thought.
The
Jewish Week,
“Three Faiths and a Glimmer of Hope,” Gary Rosenblatt - Editor and Publisher,
8/29/2003: “During the interactive discussions I came to realize how painful and
difficult it has been for the Catholic Church, starting with Vatican II in the
early 1960s, to face up to its shameful treatment of the Jews and, as a result,
reverse a centuries-old position that salvation for mankind can only come
through Jesus.
“…In a lesser-known case,
Richard Cardinal Cushing excommunicated a
What follows is a quote from a heretical priest who is a member of the Vatican
II sect. His name is Fr. Mark Massa,
“S.J.” He is a so-called Jesuit of
the new Vatican II sect and he admits
that the new, heretical understanding of the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation, that became widespread
starting around 1900, is a new revelation that was not accepted as normal until
the twentieth century. Fr.
Massa’s testimony is particularly interesting simply because he is a blunt
heretic who believes that dogmas can change, so he has no problem giving a
fair account of what the Fr. Feeney controversy was about: the denial of the
traditional dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.
The other heretics who deny this dogma are forced into all kinds of
crafty explanations, since they claim
to believe that dogmas cannot change.
But Fr. Massa has no problem admitting what has really occurred with this
issue.
Fr. Mark S.
Massa, “S.J.”, Catholics and American Culture, p. 21: “‘The first sign of
your approaching damnation is that Notre Dame has Protestants on its football
team.’ - A Feeneyite at a Notre Dame
Football game, 1953 -
“On the afternoon of
September 4, 1952, the readers of the Boston Pilot—the voice of the Roman
Catholic archdiocese—found on the front page of their usually staid [sober]
weekly the text of the trenchant letter from the Holy Office in Rome. The text, dated August 8, addressed a group of Boston Catholics who had
kicked up quite a fuss over the ancient theological dictum extra ecclesiam
nulla salus (“outside the church there is no salvation”)—a phrase going
back to St. Cyprian in the third century and one of the pillars of orthodoxy
for Christian believers.
“The letter itself was actually an ambivalent affair… it allowed that a
person might be ‘in the church’ by a more than ‘implicit desire’—an
interpretation that had achieved almost normative status among Catholic
theologians by the mid-twentieth century, although it has never been officially
interpreted as such by
Fr. Massa is referring here to Protocol 122/49, the letter written against Fr.
Feeney in 1949, published in The Pilot,
and which I have discussed in detail.
Fr. Massa admits that Protocol 122/49 (which is the norm of belief of almost all
so-called “traditionalists” today) “was actually an ambivalent affair.” Ambivalent means having two contradictory meanings or notions. And he is quite correct. The letter claimed to affirm Outside the
Church There is No Salvation while completely denying it. Fr. Massa further admits that this
(heretical) understanding of Outside the Church There is No Salvation as
expressed in the Protocol (namely, that non-Catholics can be saved by
“invincible ignorance”), had achieved normative status in the minds of
“Catholic theologians” in the mid-twentieth century before Vatican II. I continue with his testimony.
Fr. Mark S. Massa, “S.J.”, Catholics and American Culture, p. 27:
“Feeney’s message—that the Catholic tradition stood over and against a bankrupt
post-Protestant culture teetering on the brink of intellectual anarchy and
physical annihilation—reached ready ears.
By the late 1940’s the center [Fr.
Feeney’s center] boasted two hundred converts…”[dcix]
Fr. Mark S. Massa, “S.J.”, Catholics and American Culture, pp.
32-33: “On strictly theological grounds,
Feeney’s teaching was not as outrageous or pathological as might appear from the
vantage of post-Vatican II Catholic reality. Catholic propagandists in
Counter-Reformation Europe had certainly believed their Protestant opponents, no
less than Moslem infidels, to be beyond the reach of grace [sanctifying grace],
and a rigorist interpretation of Cyprian’s phrase clearly uncovers the motives
undergirding much of the missionary activity between the sixteenth and twentieth
centuries. The urgency of ‘snatching souls’ from the jaws of hell inspired
Jesuit Francis Xavier in
“Long before 1965,
however—certainly by the end of the decade following the Second World War—most
North American Catholics had ceased to believe that their good Protestant and
Jewish neighbors were going to eternal ruin at death, invincibly ignorant or
not. Leonard Feeney had recognized as early as 1945 this quiet but quite
important revolution in Catholic thinking about boundaries between Catholics
and North American culture.
Indeed, Feeney’s insight saves the Boston Heresy Case from comic opera and makes
it an important episode in the North American experience.”[dcx]
Fr. Massa is admitting
here that most “Catholics” well before Vatican II had ceased believing
that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church (i.e., that those who die
as non-Catholics cannot be saved), and that this is why Fr. Feeney met with such
resistance in reaffirming this dogmatic truth.
Fr. Mark S. Massa, “S.J.”, Catholics and American Culture, p. 34:
“Feeney’s rigorist interpretation of
extra ecclesiam nulla salus [outside the Church there is no salvation]
arguably stood closer to its meaning held by Pope Innocent III in the thirteenth
and St. Francis Xavier in the sixteenth centuries than did that of his ‘liberal’
Catholic opponents who found his teaching abhorrent. Indeed, in the era
between the Reformation and
Here we see Fr. Massa
admitting that “Fr. Feeney’s teaching” was exactly what the Church had stated in
official dogmatic pronouncements.
Fr. Mark S. Massa, “S.J.”, Catholics and American Culture, p. 35:
“The church found itself in a no win situation, trying to hold on to its claims
to unequivocal truth even while censuring one who had proclaimed that truth a
little too literally… The boundary line marking those saved from those
condemned had moved (or perhaps been moved) to include others (that is,
most Americans) who had no desire, implicit or otherwise, to join the Roman
communion.”[dcxii]
Fr. Massa
admits here that the boundary line of those who could be part of the Church (and
therefore could be saved) had been moved; he further admits that the new
(heretical) boundary definition (of Protocol 122/49, etc.) included people who
had no desire or intention to become Roman Catholics (i.e., non-Catholics).
Fr. Mark S. Massa, “S.J.”, Catholics and American
Culture, p. 35: “…Doctrinal positions
that had been considered rigorous but nonetheless orthodox at an earlier moment
in North American Catholic history were now perceived to be beyond the pale—beliefs
that the collective now declared to be deviant and even dangerous to the
community. The collective conscience had changed, the boundary between what
constituted ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ had moved or been scaled down, and the
official interpretation of what it meant to be ‘outside the church’ had changed
with it. …”[dcxiii]
Fr. Mark S. Massa, “S.J.”, Catholics and American
Culture, p. 37: “The Boston Heresy Case foreshadowed a Catholic future that
would take the route charted by those whom Feeney termed ‘accommodationist
liberals.’ This may seem like a penetrating glimpse of the obvious today, now
safely on the other side of Vatican II, but it was not always so obvious.
There was a time, before Knute Rockne’s day, when one expected everyone on Notre
Dame’s football team to be a good Catholic.”[dcxiv]
Fr. Massa concludes his
chapter on the Fr. Feeney controversy by admitting that it foreshadowed a new
“Catholic future” that was fulfilled after Vatican II.
He is thus corroborating our point: that without the denial of this dogma
Vatican II could never have occurred.
33. A
Note to Those Who Believe in Baptism of Desire
In discussing
this crucial dogma of the faith, I felt that it was important to address
something to those of you who believe in baptism of desire, in order to sum up
certain points.
First,
when the facts are laid on the table, you must admit that baptism of desire has
never been infallibly taught. The
only two quotations from the infallible Magisterium that you even try to
bring forward (Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent and Sess. 7, Can. 4 of Trent) do not
favor the theory of baptism of desire, as I have shown in this document. And that leaves you with nothing. In fact, your “best” piece of evidence
(Sess. 6, Chap. 4) actually contradicts the theory of baptism of desire, by
defining that John 3:5 is to be understood as it is written.
Yet,
despite this fact, many of you (in fact, most of you “traditional” priests)
continue to affirm that baptism of desire is something that every Catholic must
believe. Many of you even withhold the sacraments
from those who don’t accept it. Now
that you know that you cannot prove that baptism of desire is a dogma, you must
stop making this false assertion.
You must cease condemning the Church’s understanding that John 3:5 is to be
taken as it is written, and that there is only one baptism of water, or you will
surely go to Hell.
And those who continue to make statements or publish books or tracts on
baptism of desire, obstinately telling people that men can be saved without
the Sacrament of Baptism, are heretically contradicting dogma and can feel
the brunt of the anathema of Can. 5.
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.”[dcxv]
Secondly,
almost all of you who believe in baptism of desire hold that it applies to those
who don’t know Christ, the Trinity or the Catholic Church.
Most of you come right out and admit that this “baptism of desire”
saves members of non-Catholic religions, including Protestants. This is completely heretical and to
continue to hold it or preach it is a mortal sin.
This
perverted version of baptism of desire was never held by any saint, which is why
you cannot quote saints who taught that members of non-Catholic religions can be
saved or that baptism of desire applies to those who don’t know Christ and the
Trinity. This perverted version of baptism of
desire is totally heretical and was an invention of liberal heretics of the 19th
and 20th century. It has
been perpetuated by heretical catechisms and Protocol 122/49, which have been
exposed in this document.
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.”[dcxvi]
Finally, I address all who believe in baptism of desire, both the version held
by saints and the version invented by modernists.
The teaching of Pope St. Leo the Great, the Council of Florence, the Canons on
the Sacrament of Baptism, and the Church’s understanding of John 3:5 prove that
the theory of baptism of desire cannot be squared with Catholic dogma and
therefore should not be taught under any form.
Since obstinacy is the key to heresy, there is no doubt that belief in
the saints’ version of baptism of desire (for catechumens only) has been
held in good faith by many of you, as well as many other clerics and laypeople
throughout history, as we have addressed in Section 17. But once the facts are shown to be clear
and undeniable, as they are, so that the theory of baptism of desire can
be shown to be undeniably at variance with Catholic dogma, one cannot continue
to hold it and teach it in good faith.
Pope St. Leo
the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:
“Let him
heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit
is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2)… It is He,
Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in
water and blood. And because the
Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies.
For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood.
And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF
SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF
BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND
REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM
IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”[dcxvii]
As stated
already, this is the famous dogmatic letter of Leo the Great to Flavian that was
accepted by the dogmatic Council of Chalcedon, and received by the
fathers of this great council with the famous cry: “This is the faith of the
Fathers, the faith of the Apostles; Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo.” It teaches that Justification from sin
(the Spirit of Sanctification) is inseparable from water baptism. But to cling to “baptism of desire” is to
hold the opposite: that sanctification is separable from the water of baptism.
To hold to baptism of desire, therefore, is to contradict the dogmatic
pronouncement of Pope Leo the Great.
And those who obstinately contradict Leo’s pronouncement, even in regard to one
iota, will become anathematized heretics.
Pope St.
Gelasius, Decretal, 495: “Also the epistle of blessed Leo the Pope to
Flavian… if anyone argues concerning the text of this one even in regard to one
iota, and does not receive it in all respects reverently, let him be
anathema.”[dcxviii]
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 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.”[dcxix]
The
following twelve arguments from the infallible teaching of the Chair of
St. Peter (besides others) have been presented in this document. Every single one of the following points
is a divinely revealed truth of Faith (a dogma), not a fallible opinion of some
theologian. These points refute the
idea of baptism of desire. And not
one baptism of desire advocate can answer any of them.
1) The Catholic Church teaches that the Sacrament of Baptism is
necessary for salvation (de fide,
2) Unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot enter
heaven (de fide,
3) The Church understands John 3:5 literally every time, as it is written (de fide, Trent Sess. 6,
Chap. 4), and with no exceptions (de
fide,
4) The Spirit of Sanctification, the Water of Baptism and the Blood of
Redemption are inseparable (de fide, Pope
St. Leo the Great).
5) All Catholics must profess only one baptism of water (de fide, Clement V, Council of
6) There is absolutely no salvation outside the one Church of the faithful (de fide, Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council), which only includes the water
baptized.
7) Every human creature must be subject to the Roman Pontiff to be saved
(de fide, Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam),
and it is impossible to be subject to the Roman Pontiff without the Sacrament of
Baptism (de fide, Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 2).
8) One must
belong to the Body of the Church to be saved (de fide, Eugene IV and Pius XI), and only the water baptized belong
to the Body of the Church.
9) Pope
Benedict XII solemnly defined that all martyrs, virgins, confessors, faithful,
etc. in Heaven have been baptized (Benedictus
Deus, 1336, ex cathedra).
10) The Church
is defined as a union of sacraments (de
fide, Eugene IV, Cantate Domino; Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam), which means
that only those who have received the Sacrament of Baptism can be inside the
unity of the Church.
11) All true
Justification meets up with the Sacraments (de
fide, Sess. 7, Foreword to the Decree on the Sacraments).
12) The
Sacraments as such are necessary for salvation though all are not
necessary for each individual (de fide,
Profession of Faith at Trent and Vatican I; and the Profession of Faith for
converts), which means that one must at least receive one Sacrament
(Baptism) to be saved but one doesn’t need to receive them all.
34. The
Degenerate Result of Heresy against this Dogma
The heresy that “invincible ignorance” saves
those who die as non-Catholics and that non-Catholics can be saved by “baptism
of desire” often quickly results in an apostasy from Christ Himself. The famous Irish priest, Fr. Denis Fahey,
is a case in point.
Here we see the famous Irish priest Fr. Denis Fahey, whose writings are praised
by many who call themselves “traditional Catholics,” teaching that Jews who
reject Our Lord Jesus Christ may “have the supernatural life which God wants
to see in every soul” (i.e., the state of grace) and therefore can be saved. This is truly an abomination. Notice how Fr. Fahey’s statement directly
contradicts the word of God.
1 John 5:11-12: “And this is the testimony, that God
hath given to us eternal life. And this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son, hath life. He that hath not the Son, hath not
life.”
The word of God tells us that he that hath not the Son hath not life. Fr. Denis
Fahey tells us that a Jew who rejects the Son hath life: “a member of
the Jewish Nation, who rejects Our Lord, may have the supernatural life…”
By making such a statement, Fr. Fahey reveals (unfortunately) that he wasn’t a
Catholic, but a blatant heretic.
Perhaps if Fr. Fahey had spent more time getting to know the truth of Jesus
Christ, His Gospel and His dogmas, rather than writing large volumes on “the
forces of organized naturalism,” he would have discovered that the core focus of
the entire Gospel – and the very central truth of the universe along with the
dogma of the Trinity – is that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that you
must believe in Him to have eternal life.
“For God so loved the world, as to give His only
begotten Son: that whosoever believeth
in Him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.” (John 3:16)
“He that believeth in the Son hath life everlasting:
but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of
God abideth on him.” (John 3:36)
To assert that one can attain salvation while rejecting Jesus Christ is to say
that one can attain salvation while rejecting salvation itself. It is one of the worst heresies that one
could utter.
“Now this
is life everlasting, that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus
Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:3)
“And he said
to them [the Jews]: You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this
world. Therefore, I said to you,
that you shall die in your sins: for if you believe not that I am he, you
shall die in your sin.” (John 8:23-24)
“Amen, Amen, I
say to you: he that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth
up another way, the same is a thief and a robber… I am the door.” (John
10:1, 9)
“Jesus saith
to them: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.”
(John 14:6)
“And when he
[the Paraclete] is come, he will convince the world of sin, and of justice, and
of judgment. Of sin indeed:
because they have not believed in me.” (John 15:8-9)
“For this was
I born, and for this came I into the world, that I should give testimony to the
truth: every one who is of the truth, heareth my voice.” (John 18:37)
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “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... 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.”
But Fr. Fahey had imbibed the heresy that those who die as non-Catholics can be
saved, which was rampant at the turn of the century, as I have shown. He had already imbibed the heresy that
Outside the Church There is No Salvation doesn’t actually mean outside the
Church there is no salvation. By
rejecting the true meaning of the dogma, and by holding that non-Catholics can
be saved, it was only a short time before Fr. Fahey concluded (as he did above)
that persons can be saved in any religion whatsoever – including Jews who reject
the Savior Himself. This
demonstrates that those who see this dogma and believe that even one pagan,
Buddhist, Muslim, Jew, etc. can be saved without conversion to Christ actually
hold that a non-Catholic can possibly be saved in any religion whatsoever, as the following statement of Archbishop
Lefebvre confirms.
Archbishop
Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies,
p. 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the
Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our
Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit
to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is
equivalent to baptism of desire. It
is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”[dcxx]
Notice the “etc.” The word
“etc.” means “and the rest, and so on”! Bishop Lefebvre is saying that there are many other religions in which
people can be saved. This is
complete and utter heresy.
Bishop Lefebvre believed that men can be saved while worshipping false gods and
many gods (Buddhism, Hinduism). But
this simply illustrates that all those who believe that salvation is
possible for members of non-Christian religions without the principal mysteries
of the Catholic Faith (the Trinity and Incarnation) are admitting that a soul
can be saved in any religion whatsoever: Islam, Buddhism, etc. It shows how those who reject the true
meaning of Outside the Church There is No Salvation and the necessity of faith
in Christ and the Trinity reject
all faith and actually have no faith.
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… 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.”[dcxxi]
Fr. Fahey and Bishop Lefebvre couldn’t tell you that one who dies a Satanist is
definitely lost. They clearly held
that it is possible for anyone else (including Jews who reject the Savior
Himself) to be saved without the Catholic Faith and in false religions. If Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims
can be saved in their false religions and without the Catholic Faith – as they
say – then, according to them, a Satanist
could
also be saved without the Catholic Faith and in his false religion; they
would have to admit that we just don’t know since he could be in good faith
also.
Thus, by holding that salvation is possible for those who die as members
of non-Catholic religions, Fr. Fahey, Bishop Lefebvre and every other person who
clings to this heresy believes that salvation is possible in any and
every religion.
Pope Pius IX,
Qui Pluribus (# 15), Nov. 9, 1846:
"Also perverse is that shocking theory that it makes no difference to which
religion one belongs, a theory greatly at variance even with reason. By
means of this theory, those crafty men remove all distinction between virtue and
vice, truth and error, honorable and vile action. They pretend that men
can gain eternal salvation by the practice of any religion, as if there
could ever be any sharing between justice and iniquity, any collaboration
between light and darkness, or any agreement between Christ and Belial."[dcxxii]
Pope Pius IX-
Syllabus of Modern Errors- Proposition 16, Dec. 8, 1854: “Man may, in
the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal
salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.”[dcxxiii]
– Condemned
Bishop Lefebvre, Address given at Rennes,
France: “If men are saved in Protestantism, Buddhism or Islam, they are
saved by the Catholic Church, by the grace of Our Lord, by the prayers of those
in the Church, by the blood of Our Lord as individuals, perhaps through the practice of their religion, perhaps of
what they understand in their religion, but not by their religion…”[dcxxiv]
This should give a message to those who call this issue merely “academic.” This issue is not merely “academic”; it
influences a person’s spiritual life in countless ways. The denial of this dogma corrupts one’s
faith to the core, and totally perverts a person’s belief in Jesus Christ
Himself as the savior of the world.
It corrupts the entire way one views the supernatural world.
(Acts 4:12): “… 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.”
BY THEIR FRUITS YOU SHALL KNOW THEM – THE FRUITS OF BAPTISM OF DESIRE
At Most Holy Family Monastery, we have personally conversed with hundreds of
people on the issue of baptism of desire and
Outside the Church There is No Salvation and we’ve been contacted by
thousands. Out of the many hundreds
of people with whom we’ve spoken on the issue of baptism of desire, I can
honestly say that approximately 5 to 10 actually affirmed that it only
applies to those who desire water baptism (catechumens).
The rest (almost 100%) believed that “baptism of desire” saves Jews,
Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, pagans and even non-Catholics who reject Christ.
Why is it that basically every person who believes in baptism of desire rejects
the Catholic Church’s teaching (Pope Eugene IV,
Council of Florence, de fide) that all who die as non-Catholics are not
saved?
And out of the approximately 5 to 10 people that I can recall believing in
baptism of desire only for catechumens, basically all of those people were
forced to admit that unbaptized catechumens are “outside the Church.” So, even those 5 to 10 persons were
embracing a position that there is salvation “outside” the Church or salvation
for persons who are not in the Church’s “bosom and unity,” which is heretical. This shows that any good-willed person,
who is faithful to Catholic dogmatic teaching, will see that the Catholic Church
does not teach baptism of desire at all when all the facts are presented to him.
In fact, a person
who attends the Society of St. Pius X recently called us and told me that his
Methodist Grandmother was saved by “baptism of desire.” I told the man that even if baptism of
desire were true (which it isn’t), it wouldn’t save Methodists (heretics) who
are already baptized. But he did
not agree, and he fought even more vigorously for his heresy. He then proceeded to tell me that I was
in heresy for asserting that there is no salvation outside the Church! And the heretical position of this man
only reflects the common position of many heretical “traditionalists” who
frequent the Latin Masses around the world, as well as basically every member of
the Novus Ordo.
Recently,
there have been a number of specific attacks against the teaching of the
Catholic Church on the necessity of baptism and the Catholic Faith for
salvation. A refutation of the arguments put forward
in these attacks, as well as the relevant dogmas to which these attacks are
opposed, are found in this document.
However, I felt that it was important to discuss a few groups in
particular, and their errors regarding this topic.
THE ERRORS OF THE CURRENT ST. BENEDICT CENTER
The
Father Feeney,
Bread of Life, p. 137:
“Q. Can anyone
now be saved without Baptism of Water?
A. No one can
be saved without Baptism of Water.
Q. Are the
souls of those who die in the state of justification saved, if they have not
received Baptism of Water?
A. No. They
are not saved.
Q. Where do
these souls go if they die in the state of justification but have not received
Baptism of Water?
A. I do not know.
Q. Do they go
to Hell?
A. No.
Q. Do they go
to Heaven?
A. No.
Q. Are there
any such souls?
A. I do not
know! Neither do you!
Q. What are we
to say to those who believe there are such souls?
A. We must say
to them that they are making reason prevail over Faith, and the laws of
probability over the Providence of God.”
Fr. Feeney
was caught in an insoluble dilemma because of his mistaken and incorrect
position that a catechumen can be justified without water baptism. And the liberal heretics have a field day
with this passage of his book, and they literally spill pages worth of ink
gleefully pointing out that Fr. Feeney was inconsistent on this point. By doing so, however, they only
demonstrate their profound bad will and; for whereas Fr. Feeney did make a
mistake on this point of Justification (I believe in good faith), the liberal
heretics who feign concern for doctrinal integrity in pointing out this mistake don’t even believe that one needs to be a
Catholic or believe in Christ to be saved!
They hold that Jews, pagans, heretics, schismatics can all be saved
without baptism or the Catholic Faith.
Thus, to put it simply: the liberal heretics try to cover up for their
own heretical belief that non-Catholics can be saved by focusing page after page
after page after page on this one mistake of Fr. Feeney, while they dishonestly
fail to address Fr. Feeney’s main point, which was that they are denying the
dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation and are complete heretics and
doctrinal perverts.
So, don’t
be fooled by the heretical priests and bishops who pretend to give an entire
course on Fr. Feeney’s Justification error without addressing their own
beliefs on whether non-Catholics can be saved; they are just covering up for
their own horrible heresy. Bishop
Clarence Kelly of the Society of St. Pius V, for example, produced a long
document and gave a lengthy presentation focusing only on the Justification
error of Fr. Feeney, while never once addressing his own abominable and
heretical belief that Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and Protestants can be
saved without the Catholic Faith (but more on the SSPV later)!
Fr.
Feeney’s error on Justification, however, has become a major problem for some;
namely, the current members of the
In May of
1999, 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
What’s
amazing about this is that the
This
means that the St. Benedict Center holds that, by the mere desire for baptism,
one can: be born again; be adopted as a son of God; be regenerated; have his
original sin remitted; have his actual sins remitted; be united with Christ;
possess the infused virtues of faith, hope and charity; receive the application
of the Blood of Christ; and receive the Spirit of Sanctification. This is what Justification brings about
in a soul, according to the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. And all of this can occur by the mere
desire for baptism, according to the
As stated
already, there is no doubt that many members of the
Even
though this erroneous position may have been a sincere attempt to uphold the
Church’s teaching on the necessity of Baptism for salvation (in the face
of what they mistakenly thought was the Church’s teaching on desire being
sufficient for justification), there are many problems with this
explanation.
1)
2) In Justification, the Spirit of
Sanctification and the Blood of Redemption cannot be separated from the water of
baptism (de fide). As has
been shown already, Pope St. Leo the Great eliminates the
Pope St. Leo
the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:
“Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter
preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of
Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2)… It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come
through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is
the Spirit who testifies. For there
are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF
SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF
BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND
REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM
IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”[dcxxvi]
It is
defined dogma that no one can be Justified without the Blood of Redemption (
The
3) Outside the Church there is no remission of sins (de fide). The
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…”[dcxxvii]
Some of the defenders of the St. Benedict Center have argued that only
the end of the Bull Unam Sanctam is solemn (and therefore infallible),
not the part quoted above. This is a
desperate attempt to defend their false position on Justification, and it is
proven wrong by Pope Pius XII.
Pope Pius XII,
Mystici Corporis Christi (# 40), June 29, 1943: “That Christ and His
Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor
of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam;
and his predecessors have never ceased to repeat the same.”[dcxxviii]
Pope Pius XII is referring to the part of Unam Sanctam which the
defenders of the
4) The Justified are heirs
according to hope of life everlasting (de fide). The Church teaches that one
who is justified is an heir to heaven.
This means that if one dies in a state of Justification he will go to heaven. The
Pope Paul III,
Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 7 on Justification, ex cathedra:
“Justification … is not merely remission of sins, but also the sanctification and
renewal of the interior man through the voluntary reception of the grace and
gifts, whereby an unjust man becomes a
just man, and from being an enemy
becomes a friend, that he may be ‘an heir according to hope of life
everlasting’ [Tit. 3:7].”[dcxxix]
The true position is that every truly justified person is indeed an heir
to heaven (de fide) and will go to heaven if he dies in that state,
because only the baptized are truly justified from sin.
5) The Justified have fully satisfied the divine law and have merited
heaven according to their state in life (de fide). This one really crushes the
Pope Paul III,
Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 16: “… hence IT MUST BE BELIEVED THAT
NOTHING MORE IS NEEDED FOR THE JUSTIFIED TO BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE FULLY
SATISFIED THE DIVINE LAW, according to this state in life, by the deeds they
have wrought in him and to have truly merited eternal life to be obtained in
its own time (if they shall have departed this life in grace)…”[dcxxx]
The
6) The possession of faith, hope
and charity makes one a member of Christ’s Body (de fide). From
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 7 on
Justification: “Hence man through Jesus Christ, into whom he is ingrafted,
receives in the said justification together with the remission of sins all these
gifts infused at the same time: faith, hope and charity. For faith, unless hope and
charity be added to it, neither unites one perfectly with Christ, nor makes him
a living member of his body.”[dcxxxi]
This means
that if
hope and charity are added to faith, faith does unite one perfectly with Christ
and make him a living member of Christ’s body. This is not consistent with the
Since
these errors that I have described deal with finer points of this issue, there
is no doubt that many supporters of the
THE SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X
OBJECTION- The Society of
Saint Pius X has published numerous books and articles which show that baptism
of desire is the teaching of the Catholic Church, such as Baptism of Desire
by Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau and Is Feeneyism Catholic? by Fr. Francois
Laisney.
ANSWER- I have already shown that the teaching of Pope St. Leo the Great, the
Council of Florence on John 3:5, and the Council of Trent on John 3:5 and the
Sacrament of Baptism (among many other things) disprove any claim that salvation
can be attained without water baptism. But I will address the books of the
Society of St. Pius X in this regard.
The Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), founded by the late Archbishop Marcel
Lefebvre, has spread heresy publicly on the necessity of the Catholic Church for
salvation, and has attacked with heretical tenacity Catholics who defend the
Church’s infallible teaching on the necessity of Baptism. The arguments that the Society of St.
Pius X brings forward are refuted in this book.
But to fully expose the heresy – and shocking dishonesty – which is
easily detected in their works, I will examine a few of their books in detail.
I will
give a brief overview of the heresies present in the writings of Archbishop
Lefebvre, followed by a more in-depth exposé of the SSPX’s
recent works.
· Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
1. Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the
Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this
religion. There may be souls
who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good
interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act
of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they
are able to be saved.”[dcxxxii]
2.
Page 217: “One cannot say, then, that no one
is saved in these religions…”[dcxxxiii]
3. Pages 217-218: “This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned.
It is necessary to
understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the
Church: ‘Outside the Church there is
no salvation.’ When we say that,
it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the
Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic
Church go to hell. Now, I repeat, it
is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved
by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This must be preached.”[dcxxxiv]
What we see here from the founder of the
Society of St. Pius X is blatant heresy.
He directly contradicts the solemnly defined dogma that Outside the
Catholic Church There is No Salvation.
Some adherents of the Society of St. Pius X have tried to defend these
heretical words of Archbishop Lefebvre by pointing out that, although he did say
that men can be saved in other religions, he emphasized that it is
by
the Catholic Church.
This
response is a pathetic attempt to defend the indefensible.
In fact, those who attempt to defend Lefebvre in this way actually mock God. I could say that all men go to heaven
(universal salvation), but all men go to heaven “by the Catholic Church.” Does this change the heresy? No, of course not. Thus, it doesn’t matter how Lefebvre
tried to explain away or justify his heresy; he was still teaching that souls
can be saved in non-Catholic religions, which is heresy!
The dogma
of the Catholic Church does not merely affirm that “no one is saved except
by the Catholic Church”; it states that no one is saved outside
the Catholic Church and that no one is saved without the Catholic Faith. This means that no one can be saved
inside non-Catholic religions. The
defenders of the SSPX need to get that through their heads.
The dogma of the Catholic Church excludes the idea that anyone is
saved in another religion.
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.”[dcxxxv]
Since he
was teaching that people can be saved in another religion, Lefebvre’s
emphasis that everyone is saved by the Catholic Church has no
relevance. The words of Pope Gregory XVI in Summo
Iugiter Studio cited above could have been addressed specifically to Bishop
Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X.
Bishop
Lefebvre, Sermon at first Mass of a newly ordained priest (Geneva: 1976): “We
are Catholics; we affirm our faith in the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ; we
affirm our faith in the divinity of the Holy Catholic Church; we think
that Jesus Christ is the sole way, the sole truth, the sole life, and that one
cannot be saved outside Our Lord Jesus Christ and consequently outside His
Mystical Spouse, the Holy Catholic Church.
No doubt, the graces of God are distributed outside the Catholic Church,
but those who are saved, even outside the Catholic Church,
are saved by the Catholic Church, by Our Lord Jesus Christ, even if they do not
know it, even if they are unaware of it...”[dcxxxvi]
Here
Lefebvre denies the dogma word for word.
Bishop Lefebvre, Address given at Rennes,
France: “If men are saved in Protestantism, Buddhism or Islam, they are
saved by the Catholic Church, by the grace of Our Lord, by the prayers of those
in the Church, by the blood of Our Lord as individuals, perhaps through the practice of their religion, perhaps of
what they understand in their religion, but not by their religion…”[dcxxxvii]
Notice again, in fact, how Bishop Lefebvre stated that men can be saved
by the practice of false religions.
Pope Pius IX,
Qui Pluribus (# 15), Nov. 9, 1846:
"Also perverse is that shocking theory that it makes no difference to which
religion one belongs, a theory greatly at variance even with reason. By
means of this theory, those crafty men remove all distinction between virtue and
vice, truth and error, honorable and vile action. They pretend that men can
gain eternal salvation by the practice of any religion, as if there could
ever be any sharing between justice and iniquity, any collaboration between
light and darkness, or any agreement between Christ and Belial."[dcxxxviii]
· Open Letter to Confused Catholics, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
Pages 73-74: “Does this mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no
Buddhist or animist will be saved?
No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in
interpreting St. Cyprian’s formula Outside the Church there is no salvation,
also reject the Creed, “I accept one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are
insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the
baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of martyrs who confessed their
faith while still catechumens); and baptism of desire. Baptism can be explicit. Many times in
Here we find
more heresy against the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation
from Bishop Lefebvre.
· Time Bombs of the Second Vatican Council, by Fr. Schmidberger of the SSPX:
Fr. Schmidberger (SSPX), Time Bombs of the
Second Vatican Council, 2005, p. 10: “Ladies and gentlemen, it is clear that the followers of other
religions can be saved under certain conditions, that is to say, if they are
in invincible error.”[dcxl]
Fr.
Schmidberger says “it’s clear” that the followers of non-Catholic religions can
be saved! No, what is clear is how directly the
above statement denies Catholic dogma! This is more blatant heresy taught
in a widely-circulated pamphlet of the SSPX.
• Bishop Fellay says Hindus can be saved:
Bishop Bernard
Fellay, Superior General of SSPX,
Conference in Denver,
This is more blatant
heresy. Hindus, by the way, worship many false
gods; they are not only without the Catholic Faith necessary for salvation, but
idolaters.
• Baptism of
Desire, by Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau (SSPX):
Recently, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX – Lefebvrists) published two
books attacking the teaching of the Church on Baptism. They spend their time trying to figure
out ways for people to be saved without baptism – but to no avail. Baptism of Desire by Fr. Jean-Marc
Rulleau was published by the SSPX in 1999, while Is Feeneyism
Catholic? by Fr. Francois Laisney was published in 2001. I will examine both of these books in
detail. I will break up the
examination of these books into separate topics of omissions, lies,
contradictions and heresies. This
will enable the reader to identify the dishonesty and unorthodoxy of these
authors and the group they represent.
I will begin with the book Baptism of Desire by Fr. Rulleau.
OMISSIONS:
·
The book Baptism of Desire by Fr. Jean-Marc
Rulleau pretends to be an examination of the Church’s teaching on what is
necessary for salvation: the necessity of baptism, the necessity of faith in
Jesus Christ, etc. Yet amazingly,
in the entire book, the author does not quote one (I repeat, not one) of the
ex cathedra (infallible) Papal statements on Outside the Church There is No
Salvation! I guess he
didn’t feel they were relevant?
He probably didn’t feel that they were relevant because he does not believe in
them.
·
Despite having an entire section on the necessity of
explicit vs. implicit faith in Jesus Christ (pp. 53-62), Fr. Rulleau fails to
quote, in the entire book, the Athanasian Creed, the dogmatic symbol of
faith which defined that faith in Jesus Christ and the Trinity is necessary for
all who wish to be saved. If he had
simply quoted this creed, Fr. Rulleau could have settled the whole issue which
he spends pages examining.
Unfortunately, he does not quote the creed, probably because he does not
believe in it.
·
Canons 2 and 5 from the Council of Trent’s Canons on
the Sacrament of Baptism are not quoted anywhere in the book. This is interesting, because one would
think that what the Council of
Notice that the major omissions of Father Rulleau concern the Church’s
dogmatic
teaching: on no salvation outside the Church, on faith in Jesus Christ and the
Trinity, on the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism. The Society of St. Pius X, unfortunately,
is not interested in what the Church teaches dogmatically.
HERESIES:
While failing to quote key dogmas, Fr. Rulleau did feel it important to
mention that:
·
it is an error to
attribute infallibility to every document of the Magisterium (p. 9). – heresy.
·
justifying faith can come
from the Christian elements present in false religions (p. 61).- heresy.
·
it is difficult to say
whether belief in God who rewards is all that is necessary to be saved (p. 63) – heresy.
·
it cannot be granted that
justifying faith occurs normally in every religious tradition (p. 63),
which implies that it can occur in every religious tradition, just not
normally. – heresy.
·
Baptism of Desire can
occur among paganism (p. 64). – heresy.
LIES:
·
Fr. Rulleau, 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.”[dcxlii]
This is an utter lie! As I have
shown, the whole early Church rejected the idea that an unbaptized catechumen could be saved
by his desire for baptism, including the 1 or 2 fathers who seemed to contradict
themselves on the matter.
This is why, throughout the whole early Church, prayer, sacrifice and
Christian burial were not allowed for catechumens who died without baptism.
To assert, in the face of these facts, that “no theologian has contested it” is
outrageous – as proven in the large section on “Baptism of Desire and Baptism of
Blood: Erroneous Traditions of Man.”
·
On page 39, Fr. Rulleau misquotes the crucial
passage from the fourth chapter of the Council of Trent’s Decree on
Justification: “and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot
be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a
desire for it…”[dcxliii] The Latin original of this passage from
Trent does not translate to, “except through the laver of regeneration or a
desire for it...” It translates to, “…
without
the laver of regeneration or a desire for it…”
Introducing “except through” in the place of “without” changes the entire
meaning of the passage to favor baptism of desire (as shown in the Section on
Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of the Council of Trent). To do it deliberately is a mortal sin. Fr. Rulleau may have made an innocent
mistake (by quoting this horribly misleading translation from Denzinger), but
the point is that the Society of St. Pius X as a whole continues to use this
horribly misleading translation all the time to deceive their readers even after
they have been made aware of it. Fr.
Peter Scott, former United States District Superior of the SSPX, in a recent
Regina Coeli Report, misquoted this passage again in the same way to favor
baptism of desire. This type of
obstinate misrepresentation of Church teaching is mortally sinful.
CONTRADICTIONS:
Fr. Rulleau’s treatment of St. Thomas Aquinas is where his dishonesty
really begins to shine through.
·
On page 11, Fr. Rulleau makes the absurd statement:
“Quite simply, to refuse St. Thomas Aquinas is to refuse the Magisterium
of the Church.”[dcxliv]
·
Fr. Rulleau, Baptism of Desire, pp. 56-57: “From
this survey it appears that
In this paragraph, Fr.
Rulleau is analyzing St. Thomas’s clear teaching that no one can be saved
without explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Trinity – in other words, no
salvation for the invincibly ignorant and no salvation for those of non-Catholic
religions.
In regard to the objection about one who had never heard of Christ,
St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. II, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4: “If a man,
born among barbarian nations, does what he can, God himself will show him
what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or by sending a teacher
to him.”[dcxlviii]
St. Thomas
Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solut. 2: “If a man should have no
one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to
remain where he is.”[dcxlix]
St. Thomas
Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, A. 11, ad 1: objection- “It is possible that
someone may be brought up in the forest, or among wolves; such a man cannot
explicitly know anything about the faith. Reply- It is the characteristic of
Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation…
provided on his part there is no hindrance.
In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural
reason, God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had
to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him…”[dcl]
“How
should this doctrine of
So much for “to refuse St. Thomas Aquinas is to refuse the Magisterium of the
Church”! Fr. Rulleau quickly abandons this
position when presented with a doctrine from
·
Is Feeneyism Catholic?, by Fr.
Francois Laisney (SSPX)
Published in 2001, Fr. Laisney’s book was a masterpiece in deceit. There are startling and shockingly
dishonest things in his book, which will be exposed in the “Lies” section.
HERESY:
·
On page 21, Fr. Laisney comments on the necessity of
explicit faith in Jesus Christ: “… how much is exactly necessary to know
explicitly has not been settled.”
This statement clearly implies that it has not been settled whether it is
necessary for salvation to believe in the Most Holy Trinity and that Jesus
Christ is God and man, which is a denial of the Athanasian Creed, not to mention
the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas which they claim to love so much.
LIES:
·
Fr. Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 47: “Moreover,
the very Council of
·
As if his horrible lie above weren’t bad enough, Fr.
Laisney commits another equally horrendous lie on the next page regarding the
Council of Florence: “Thus far from being against Baptism of Desire, the very
Council of Florence, the very bull Cantate Domino, teaches it as being ‘another
remedy’ permitting a delay for adult catechumens for the reasons given by St.
Thomas.”[dcliii] This borders on a sin that cries to
heaven. Not only does Laisney again assert the
blatant untruth that baptism of desire is taught by the Council of Florence,
but he even adds that
·
After quoting the document Quanto Conficiamur
Moerore of Pope Pius IX (treated in the section “The Dogma, Pope Pius IX and
Invincible Ignorance”), Fr. Laisney writes: “This passage of Pope Pius IX
shows clearly: 1) baptism of desire is not opposed to the dogma
outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation, 2) baptism of desire is not
without divine light and grace… 3) baptism of desire is incompatible with
indifference to God…”[dcliv] The document Quanto Conficiamur
Moerore mentions nothing at all about baptism of desire. It mentions neither the concept nor the
term. Yet Laisney, having no shame
(and apparently not much of a conscience), does not hesitate to lie on three
different counts, by asserting that Pius IX reveals three different aspects of
baptism of desire. This type of
lying has truly diabolical effects, because the lax readers of Fr. Laisney’s
books, who don’t possess the resources to check his sources, will come away with
the impression that Fr. Laisney must be right. This is how heretics kill souls.
·
On page 38, Fr. Laisney says: “Ex ipso voto,
the very term used by the Council of
Fr. Laisney’s argument here is that the Council of Trent used the same term that
As they are used in their respective contexts, the terms that
·
Similar to the last lie, on page 49, Fr. Laisney
writes: “The very famous expression ‘re aut voto – in deed or in desire’
was used twice by the Council of
In the last lie that we exposed, Fr. Laisney was claiming that the term used by
Is it “re aut voto” or “ex ipso voto”?
I guess the answer is: whatever is more convenient for Fr. Laisney. The problem for Fr. Laisney – and this
seems to be a consistent problem – is that
·
On pages 85-86, Fr. Laisney writes: “The
doctrine of baptism of blood and baptism of desire is inseparably linked by the
Church to the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation. It belongs to the very proper
understanding of that dogma, so much that if one denies it, he no longer holds
that dogma in the same sense and the same words as the Church holds it.”[dclvii]
First of all, it’s ironic that Fr. Laisney uses the term “inseparably linked,”
because it was Pope St. Leo the Great who defined that the sanctification of a
sinner is inseparably linked to water baptism!
Pope St. Leo
the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:
“For there
are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF
SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF
BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND
REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM
IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”[dclviii]
So while Fr. Laisney raves about how inseparably linked baptism of desire and
baptism of blood are to the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation,
he actually uses the same language that the pronouncement of Pope St. Leo did,
but with precisely the opposite meaning.
He asserts that the idea that the Spirit of Sanctification can be
separated from the water of baptism is “inseparably linked” to Catholic
dogma; whereas Pope St. Leo defines dogmatically that the Spirit of
Sanctification is inseparably linked to water baptism.
Besides this, what else can be said about the assertion, “The doctrine of
baptism of blood and baptism of desire is inseparably linked by the Church to
the dogma
outside the Church there is no salvation”? The only thing that I can think of is,
“Oh really?” Is that why in no
fewer than seven ex cathedra pronouncements on “the dogma outside the
Church there is no salvation,” the “doctrine of baptism of desire/blood” is not
mentioned even once? Is that why in
all the councils in the history of the Church not one mention is made of either
term? Yes, the “doctrines” of
baptism of desire and baptism of blood are so inseparably linked to the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No
Salvation that none of the many popes who defined this dogma bothered to
mention them. Fr. Laisney's
statement is just another lie.
·
On page 87, Laisney asserts that “not a single
one” opposed baptism of desire, apparently referring to saints and popes.
In other
words, according to Fr. Laisney, not a single saint or pope in the history of
the Church denied the existence of baptism of desire!
This is the same lie that Fr. Rulleau asserted in his book. So my question is: Do these men have
consciences? Fr. Laisney knows
that St. Gregory Nazianz specifically denied the concept of baptism of desire
(See “Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood: Erroneous Traditions of Man”),
which makes his statement another lie.
And we know for a fact that Fr. Laisney knows this, because the
passage from St. Gregory is quoted on pages 64-65 of his book!
CONTRADICTIONS:
Father Laisney
justifies his belief in baptism of desire exclusively on the teaching of saints.
It is on this same authority that he attempts to justify binding others to
baptism of desire.
·
In his book (pp. 58-60), Fr. Laisney asserts that to
deny St. Cyprian’s acceptance of baptism of blood is to distort the dogma
Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation. Hence, he quotes St. Cyprian to “prove”
his position. Yet, as I have shown
in the section on the Fathers, in the same document of St. Cyprian, which
Laisney quotes to justify his claim, St. Cyprian teaches that baptisms
performed by heretics are invalid – an idea that has been infallibly condemned.
Hence, if
Fr. Laisney were logical, he must teach that Catholics are bound to believe that
baptisms performed by heretics are invalid, since St. Cyprian teaches this in
the same document in which he teaches baptism of blood.
But no, Fr. Laisney does not teach this and therefore contradicts his own
line of reasoning. In fact,
Cyprian’s rejection of the validity of baptisms performed by heretics is not the
only error that he makes in the aforementioned document. He also teaches that baptism of blood is
a sacrament,[dclix]
a position that is denied universally by all modern baptism of desire
apologists, including Laisney himself.[dclx]
·
On page 68, Fr. Laisney quotes St. Bernard to
justify baptism of desire. But, as I
have shown, in the same document quoted by Laisney, St. Bernard not only admits
that he may be wrong, but says this: “This intimated that sometimes faith
alone would suffice for salvation, and that without it, nothing would be
sufficient.”[dclxi]
But being
the remarkable hypocrite that he is, Fr. Laisney does not dogmatize St.
Bernard’s erroneous statement above, but only those passages from St. Bernard
which he likes: the few on baptism of desire.
And Laisney cuts out of the quotation the part
where St. Bernard admitted that he may have been wrong (see section on St.
Bernard in this document for the full discussion). Likewise, when the incredibly
dishonest Fr. Laisney quotes St. Alphonsus,
he does not include St. Alphonsus’s erroneous reference to Sess. 14, Chap. 4
because he knows that St. Alphonsus was dead wrong on this point.[dclxii] Further, when he quotes St. Robert
Bellarmine on the Church, Laisney does
not include
where St. Robert Bellarmine says that catechumens are not part of the
Church![dclxiii]
As I’ve said, in studying the quotations from
saints and theologians which Laisney brings forward as “proof texts” for baptism
of desire, I have found that in almost every single instance, the same saint
or theologian makes another significant error in the same document. For example:
·
On page 34 of his book, Fr. Laisney quotes Cornelius
a Lapide’s commentary on John 3:5: “He who is contrite over his sins, wants
baptism, and cannot receive it because of lack of water or minister, is reborn
through resolution and desire of baptism. The Council of
Here
Cornelius a Lapide makes a major error.
He says that the Council of Trent “expressly” explains John 3:5 in Sess. 7, Can.
4 to favor the idea of baptism of desire. But Sess. 7,
But this
instance is very useful for this discussion for this reason: If Lapide makes a
major blunder
about
I believe
that there is a reason why God allowed these saints and theologians to err
repeatedly and on various matters when explaining baptism of desire: to let
people know that they are not infallible.
Fr. Laisney and the SSPX most certainly do not get this message.
They continue on in their diabolical campaign to denounce those who
understand John 3:5 “as it is written” (Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4) and that the
Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation (Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the
Sacrament of Baptism).
AMAZING
CONTRADICTIONS:
Besides
the contradictions already exposed, there are others that must be considered in
the SSPX book Is Feeneyism Catholic? The fact that a self-proclaimed
“traditional Catholic priest,” Fr. Laisney, can lie about the Council of
Florence the way that he does, makes it not that surprising when we find him
contradicting himself all over the place.
·
On page 22, Laisney states the following: “Note
that an infant, not having yet the use of his reason, has no other possibility
to be saved than through the actual reception of the sacrament of baptism, i.e.,
baptism of water.”[dclxvi]
This
statement is quite true, founded on solemnly defined dogma (See the section
“Infants Cannot Be Saved Without Baptism”).
But look at this:
·
Fr. Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 77: “He
interestingly exposes at length the common teaching that baptism of blood
applies also to infants (e.g., those who are martyred with their parents).”[dclxvii]
Need I say
more to prove that Fr. Laisney is a liar and an astounding hypocrite, who
contradicts himself blatantly within just a few pages?
Page 22 of his book says that there is “no other possibility” for infants’
salvation than through water baptism.
Page 77 teaches quite clearly that “baptism of blood” applies to infants. So much for his statement on page 22! But it gets worse when we consider
what Laisney had to say about the definition from the Council of Florence which
declares that no infant can possibly be justified without the Sacrament of
Baptism.
·
On page 47, Fr. Laisney quotes the dogmatic
definition from the Council of Florence: “Regarding children, indeed,
because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can
be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism,
through which they are snatched from the
domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that
holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time
according to the observance of certain people…”[dclxviii]
A
number of things are significant about Fr. Laisney’s treatment of this dogmatic
definition. First is the fact that Fr. Laisney makes
it a special point to note that
This fact should make Fr. Laisney think.
Why did the Holy Ghost only allow Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence to
incorporate the passage from
But
what actually appears in the Council of Florence and what doesn’t
is not a concern to Fr. Laisney, because when he finds that something is
not in a Council which he wants to be there, he just adds it himself.
In this case, Laisney decides to create his own definition by adding the
paragraph of
·
Fr. Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 47: “Moreover,
the very Council of
·
Fr. Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 48: “Thus
far from being against Baptism of Desire, the very Council of
Sorry Fr.
Laisney, but the Council of Florence did not mention baptism of desire, and it
did not permit a delay for catechumens for the reasons given by
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.”[dclxxi]
So, let’s
reconsider Fr. Laisney’s astounding contradictions on whether an infant can be
saved without the Sacrament of Baptism.
If Fr. Laisney made it a special point to lie that
Florence taught that there is another remedy for adults, based (albeit
illogically) on the fact that Florence did teach that there is
no other remedy
for infants, then at least one would expect that Fr. Laisney is going to be
consistent with the fact that there is no other remedy for infants than the
Sacrament of Baptism, right? In
other words, there is no way in the world that Fr. Laisney, if he is
honest, could teach that there is another remedy for infants other than the
Sacrament of Baptism. After all, this fact (that infants
have no other remedy other than the Sacrament) is the basis upon which his lie
(that there is another remedy for adults) is founded. But no!
Fr. Laisney doesn’t even believe that infants have no other remedy, but
rather holds that infants can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism,
according to page 77 of his book.
This
proves that Fr. Laisney’s emphasis (on pages 47-48 of his book) that
·
Fr. Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 48: “Thus
far from being against Baptism of Desire, the very Council of
“Woe to
you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites… Wherefore you are witnesses against
yourselves… You serpents, generations of vipers, how will you flee from the
judgment of hell?” (Mt. 23: 23,31,33).
Fr. Laisney’s activity is that of a serpent, the same serpent who is responsible
for the appalling deception in his book.
Fr. Laisney is condemned by his own words.
He contradicts that to which he admits he is bound, and which he took
great pains to emphasize. But the
pains taken to emphasize this dogma – that infants have no other remedy than
water baptism – were not taken out of a spirit of fidelity to the teaching of
the Church, but only in the hopeless endeavor of trying to prove the false
doctrine of baptism of desire.
And
ironically, while Laisney claims his false position as the teaching of
Tradition, it is Tradition which shows that water baptism is the only help
(i.e., the only remedy) to salvation for everyone, even adults who desire it.
Pope St.
Siricius, Letter to Himerius, 385:
“As we
maintain that the observance of the holy Paschal time should in no way be
relaxed, in the same way we desire that infants who, on account of their age,
cannot yet speak, or those who, in any necessity, are in want of the water of holy baptism, be succored with all
possible speed, for fear that, if those who leave this world should be
deprived of the life of the Kingdom for having been refused the source of
salvation which they desired, this may lead to the ruin of our
souls. If those threatened with
shipwreck, or the attack of enemies, or the uncertainties of a siege, or those
put in a hopeless condition due to some bodily sickness, ASK FOR WHAT IN
THEIR FAITH IS THEIR ONLY HELP, let them receive at the very moment
of their request the reward of regeneration they beg for. Enough of past mistakes! From now on, let all the priests observe
the aforesaid rule if they do not want to be separated from the solid apostolic
rock on which Christ has built his universal Church.”[dclxxiii]
One could
go on exposing the books of the Society of St. Pius X, but what has been shown
thus far should suffice to establish that they do not uphold Church teaching, to
put it nicely. No one can give a
penny of financial support to this heretical Society or the St. Benedict Center
or any other priest or group who does not uphold the Church’s teaching on the
absolute necessity of baptism and the absolute necessity of the Catholic Faith
for salvation, which unfortunately includes almost every priest today. One who would obstinately support
such a priest, after becoming aware of his heretical position, would partake in
his heresy and place himself on the road to Hell.
Furthermore, in light of Pope St. Leo the Great’s dogmatic pronouncement against
the concepts of baptism of desire and baptism of blood, the teaching of the
Council of Florence on John 3:5, and the teaching of the Council of Trent that
the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation (Sess. 7, Can. 5), no one
could even support a priest who believes in the theory of explicit baptism
of desire (even if that priest may be in good faith until the Church’s
teaching is pointed out to him).
The first duty of any Catholic is to uphold the faith.
One cannot compromise any point of the faith by supporting a priest who does not
hold the faith whole and undefiled.
Unfortunately, the Society of St. Pius X is not alone among heretical
“traditionalists”. It is a fact that almost every priest in
the world today, including almost every “traditional” priest, denies the
necessity of baptism for salvation, and holds that people who die as
non-Catholics can attain salvation.
This lack of faith is explained by the fact that we are living in the last days
of the world, the times of the Great Apostasy predicted in Sacred Scripture.
THE SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS V
In our previous magazines we have pointed out the unfortunate fact that
the priests of the Society of St. Pius V hold to the heresy that non-Catholics
can be saved without the Catholic Faith.
For instance, they endorsed the following blatantly heretical question and
answer in their publication:
The Society of
The SSPV adheres to the same heresy as expressed by Archbishop Lefebvre and the
books of the SSPX, as well as the heresy articulated in the 1949 Protocol 122/49
against Fr. Leonard Feeney (exposed already in this document). The SSPV’s priests are also vigorous
defenders of the false doctrine of baptism of desire. They consider baptism of desire to be a
defined dogma. Fr. Baumberger of the
Society of St. Pius V (SSPV) stated in the presence of the superior of our
Monastery that Buddhists can be united to the Catholic Church. This is what their priests obstinately
hold and believe; it is unfortunate, yet undeniably true. And because of this, we have pointed out
that no Catholic aware of this can financially contribute to them under pain of
mortal sin.
It had been our
position in the past (a position rooted in the principle of Epieikeia and
St. Thomas, among other things) that, despite the grave problems with the SSPV,
a Catholic could avail himself of the sacraments of the SSPV if the Catholic
did not agree with them (of course) or support them in any way (of course). However, this is no longer an option.
The SSPV Masses should no longer be attended even when one doesn't give them any
support because beginning some time in 2003 the priests of the SSPV
consistently began making announcements before their traditional Masses (and it
seems to be occurring at all of their chapels almost every week!) that no one
who holds to the "errors of Fr. Feeney" should receive Holy Communion.
They are referring to Fr. Feeney's belief, which is the infallible teaching of
the Roman Catholic Church, that no one can be saved without the Sacrament of
Baptism.
Pope Paul III,
The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, 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.”[dclxxiv]
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.”[dclxxv]
The SSPV is therefore publicly and notoriously announcing to everyone
that if they believe in the above infallible dogma of the Catholic Faith that
they are not Catholic and cannot receive Holy Communion. When priests make
public announcements that are heretical, which impose the heretical belief
upon the people attending the Mass, then a Catholic must not attend the Mass
or receive Holy Communion from such a priest. To do so would be a denial
of the Catholic Faith. By receiving Communion from an SSPV priest who has
made such an announcement, one would be tacitly (silently) indicating that he or
she agrees with the priest's heretical position.
This is not
necessarily the case with other heretical independent “traditionalist” priests
who have not made announcements such as this and hold to their heretical
positions more privately; and in fact, many of the heretical independent
“traditionalist” priests are not notorious about their heresies, so that
receiving Communion from them (as long as one does not support them or agree
with them) is not a denial or a compromise of the Faith. But the SSPV
has placed itself in another category – the category of notorious heretics who
impose their heresy upon the people attending their Masses – which puts their
Masses and their sacraments off limits.
We posted this warning about the SSPV in the Summer of 2003 and they responded
in the Fall 2003 issue of their magazine.
Their response was very revealing and confirmed exactly what we said about them.
THE SSPV RESPONDS
The SSPV responded to us in
the Fall, 2003 edition of their publication. Referring to Brother Michael
Dimond and myself as “Brothers Grim” on the introductory page of their issue,
Fr. Jenkins of the SSPV writes:
The SSPV, The
Roman Catholic, Fall, 2003, introductory page: “The controversy surrounds the
Church’s teaching regarding ‘Baptism of Desire.’
The Brothers Grim try to make it look as though traditional Catholic priests are
denying the Catholic doctrine that outside of the Church there is no salvation,
but no traditional Catholic priest is disputing the necessity of membership
in the Church for salvation.”
Oh really? Remember that claim (“no traditional Catholic priest is disputing
the necessity of membership in the Church for salvation”) dear reader. And remember how I have pointed out that
the thing which most characterizes the denial of Outside the Church There is No Salvation is dishonesty. Remember how we have seen that the
heretics on this issue speak out of both sides of their mouth with a satanic
double-tongue: one minute they tell you that the Church is necessary and the
next they deny it; one minute they tell you that there is no salvation outside
the Church and the next they explain it away.
So now watch the heretics at work.
Watch how the heretics of the SSPV teach on page 1 of their Fall, 2003
issue the exact thing they deny on the introductory page. On pages 1-8 of this same issue,
the SSPV carries an article by Francis Fenton explaining what they consider the
real meaning of Outside the Church There
is No Salvation.
The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fenton Article, Fall,
2003, p. 1: “It is a doctrine of our faith that ‘outside the Church there is no
salvation.’ This does not mean, however, either that an individual is
assured eternal salvation simply because he is a member of the Roman Catholic
Church or that he cannot be saved
because he is not an actual member of the body of the Church.”
Did you get that? Outside the Church There is No Salvation “does not mean… that he cannot be saved because he is not an actual
member of the body of the Church.”
But on the introductory page of this issue, Fr. Jenkins told us on
behalf of the SSPV that no traditional priest “is disputing the necessity of
membership in the Church for salvation”!
They assert here the exact heresy – word for word – which they claimed to
reject on the introductory page! The
statement here on page 1 of their publication (that persons who are not members
of the Church can be saved) thus proves that their statement on the
introductory page (that no one is
disputing the necessity of membership in the Church for salvation) was a
complete lie! It confirms what we
have been saying all along about these dishonest heretics. The heretical Society of St. Pius V
priests are so blinded by their denial of this truth that they cannot see that
they are word for word contradicting themselves, in a matter of a few pages and
in the very issue in which they purport to clarify their belief as in accord
with Catholic teaching.
Thus, as I have said, it is a fact that the SSPV rejects the dogma Outside the
Catholic Church There is No Salvation and they lie every time they say they
uphold Catholic teaching on the necessity of Church membership for salvation. They indeed believe and obstinately hold
that Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, etc. can be saved without the Catholic
Faith. In fact, the same article in
their Fall, 2003 issue proceeds to deny the dogma in bold fashion over and
over again.
The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fenton Article, Fall
2003, p. 5: “A non-Catholic, then, who,
through no grave fault of his own, is not a formal member of the Church at the
moment of death, is certainly not going to lose his soul on that score.”
The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fenton Article, Fall
2003, p. 6: “So, is it true and an
article of faith that ‘outside the Church there is no salvation’? Yes, it is.
Does this mean that a person, no matter how praiseworthy a life
he may have led, will be eternally lost who, through no grave fault of
his own, is not an actual member of the Church at the moment of death?
No, it does not.”
Here again they assert word for word the heresy they claimed to reject on the
introductory page. It is most
appropriate here, in view of this horribly heretical statement, to quote the
teaching of Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos
to condemn this awful and widespread heresy.
Pope Gregory
XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832:
“Now we consider another abundant source of the evils with which the
Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism.
This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the
wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul
by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained.
Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the
people committed to your care. 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).”[dclxxvi]
But the SSPV’s Fall, 2003 issue is not yet finished
denying this dogma.
The SSPV, The Roman Catholic, Fenton Article, Fall
2003, p. 7: “With the strict, literal interpretation of this doctrine,
however, I must take issue, for if I read and understand the strict
interpreters correctly, nowhere is allowance made for invincible ignorance,
conscience, or good faith on the part of those who are not actual or formal
members of the Church at the moment of death.
It is inconceivable to me that, of all the billions of non-Catholics
who have died in the past nineteen and one-half centuries, none of them were in
good faith in this matter and, if they were, I simply refuse to believe that
hell is their eternal destiny.”
This is brazen heresy against the dogma Outside the Church There is No
Salvation.
Allow me to briefly summarize, therefore, their Fall
2003 issue on this point:
·
In response to our warning about them, the SSPV
asserts on the introductory page that they have been misrepresented and that no
one is “disputing the necessity of Church membership for salvation,” while in
the very same issue of their magazine they run an article which proceeds to
explicitly assert no less than 3 times that people can be saved who are not
members of the Catholic Church.
·
The SSPV, according to page 5 of the Fenton Article
in their publication, holds that non-Catholics can be saved.
·
They find it “inconceivable” and “refuse to believe”
that all who die as non-Catholics go to Hell (p. 7), which is exactly what the
Catholic Church has infallibly defined.
·
They “take issue” with the “strict, literal”
interpretation of this dogma (p. 7), which is to say, they reject the dogma as
holy Mother Church has declared it (Vatican I).
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
For these reasons only, we are glad that the SSPV attempted to respond to our
charges of heresy against them; for in doing so they proved that our charges are
100% accurate and condemned themselves out of their own mouth.
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.”[dclxxviii]
Bishop Kelly (the leader of the SSPV), who also
holds that members of non-Catholic religions (Protestants, Buddhists, Jews,
etc.) can be saved without the Catholic Faith, is so heretical, in fact,
that he wrote the following to someone we know on Sept. 25, 2003.
Bishop Clarence Kelly of the SSPV, Letter to Tim Whalen, Sept. 25, 2003:
“Contrary to what many think, the controversy stirred up by Fr. Feeney and now
by the Diamonds (sic) is really not about the dogma that outside the Church
there is no salvation. That is the
cover for what they are really teaching which is their own dogma that
outside Baptism of Water there is no Salvation.”
Bishop Kelly calls the dogma that one must be baptized with water for
salvation our own dogma!
John 3:5,7 – “[Jesus saith] 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… wonder not, that I said to thee, you must be
born again.”
Bishop Kelly is such a heretic that he is refuted even by Dr. Ludwig Ott,
as quoted already.
Dr. Ludwig
Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,
p. 354: “1. Necessity of Baptism for Salvation- Baptism by water (Baptismus Fluminis) is, since the
promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception,
for salvation. (de fide.)”[dclxxix]
Bishop Kelly is an abomination.
Pope Paul III,
The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for
salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”[dclxxx]
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 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.”[dclxxxi]
Since the SSPV priests notoriously preach
and impose their heresy by way of announcements at their chapels, no
Catholic should receive any sacraments from them or attend their Masses at all
(and of course no one can support them in any way under pain of grave sin).
Unfortunately,
the priests of the CMRI (Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen) also reject the
true meaning of the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. They also adhere to and promote the
heretical Protocol 122/49 and hold that those who die as non-Catholics can be
saved.
The CMRI
recently published a pamphlet defending “baptism of desire” which implements
arguments which have all been thoroughly refuted in this book.
They use a combination of fallible texts (which don’t prove the point),
misunderstood texts (which don’t state what they claim) and mistranslated texts
to inculcate their false position.
In fact, they outrageously still use the “except through” mistranslation of
Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent that has been discussed in this book. They also don’t tell you in their easily
refuted and dishonest pamphlet that they hold that it’s possible for Jews,
Muslims, Buddhists, etc. to be united to the Church and saved.
In the
Winter 1992 issue of The Reign of Mary (the CMRI’s
publication), the CMRI ran an article called “The Salvation of Those Outside the
Church.”[dclxxxii] This is a word for word denial of the
dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.
It is equivalent to publishing an article called “The Original Sin Mary
Had.” The article, of course,
inculcates the heresy that non-Catholics can be saved without the Catholic
Faith. And this is their position to this day.
In the
Winter of 1996, The Reign of Mary (publication of the
CMRI) featured another heretical article called “The Boston Snare,” by Bishop
Robert McKenna.[dclxxxiii] Bishop McKenna believes that souls who
die as non-Catholics can be saved; he
also believes that it is not heretical to believe that Jews who reject Christ
can be in the state of grace, as confirmed in an exchange of letters that I
had with him in the Spring of 2004.
Ironically, Bishop McKenna’s thesis in the article is that this “heresy”
of denying “baptism of desire” and “invincible ignorance” was the Devil’s snare
which was sown in Boston, when the truth is actually just the opposite. Bishop McKenna and the CMRI (who printed
his heretical article because they believe just as he does) are eating their
words [“the Boston Snare”] right now by the scandal in
Bishop Robert
McKenna, “The Boston Snare,” printed in the CMRI’s Magazine The Reign of Mary, Vol. XXVI, No. 83: “The doctrine, then, of no salvation outside
the Church is to be understood in the sense of knowingly outside the Church… But, they may object, if
such be the sense of the dogma in question, why is the word ‘knowingly’ not part
of the formula, ‘Outside the Church no salvation’?
For the simple reason that the addition is unnecessary. How could anyone know of the dogma and not be
knowingly outside the Church? The ‘dogma’ is not so much a doctrine
intended for the instruction of Catholics, since it is but a logical
consequence of the Church’s claim to be the true Church, but rather a solemn and material warning or declaration for the
benefit of those outside the one ark of salvation.”
[dclxxxiv]
Frankly, this has to be one of the more heretical statements ever made by a
person purporting to be a traditional Catholic bishop.
As can be seen clearly from these words, Bishop McKenna (like almost
every modern priest) rejects the true meaning of this dogma and holds that
non-Catholics can be saved without the Catholic Faith. In a desperate attempt to defend his
heretical version of Outside the Church There is No Salvation, McKenna admittedly must change the
understanding of the dogmatic formula proclaimed by the popes. He tells us that the “true” meaning of
the dogma is that only those who are “knowingly”
outside the Church cannot be saved.
Oh really? Where was that
qualification ever mentioned in the dogmatic definitions on this topic? Nowhere!
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.”[dclxxxv]
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.”[dclxxxvi]
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…”[dclxxxvii]
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.”[dclxxxviii]
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.”[dclxxxix]
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.”[dcxc]
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…”[dcxci]
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…”[dcxcii]
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…”[dcxciii]
Recognizing that his
understanding runs contrary to the clear words of the dogmatic definitions on
the topic – none of which ever mentioned “knowingly” and all of which
eliminated all exceptions
– Bishop McKenna attempts to explain away the problem.
Bishop Robert
McKenna, “The Boston Snare,” printed in the CMRI’s Magazine The Reign of Mary, Vol. XXVI, No. 83: “The ‘dogma’ is not so much a
doctrine intended for the instruction of Catholics… but rather a solemn and material warning or declaration for the
benefit of those outside the one ark of salvation.”[dcxciv]
The dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation, according to
McKenna and the heretical CMRI which printed this article in their magazine
(Vol. XXIV, No. 83), is not a truth from heaven, but a warning or admonition
written for non-Catholics! This is
nonsense and flat out heresy.
Pope 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.”[dcxcv]-
Condemned
Dogmas are truths fallen from heaven
which cannot possibly contain error.
They are not merely human statements, written to warn non-Catholics,
which are subject to correction and qualification. Dogmas are infallible definitions of the
truth which can never be changed or corrected, and have no need to be changed or
corrected since they cannot possibly contain error. Dogmas are defined so that Catholics must
know what they must believe as true from divine revelation without any
possibility of error, which is exactly the opposite of what McKenna and the CMRI
assert.
And this is perhaps what is most important about the heresy of Bishop McKenna
and the CMRI: the dogma deniers are revealing by such ridiculous argumentation
that their “version” of this dogma is
incompatible with the words of the dogmatic definitions; for if their
version were compatible with the dogmatic definitions they would never be
forced into heretical statements such as those above.
OTHER “TRADITIONALIST” PRIESTS DENYING THE DOGMA
It’s simply a fact that almost all of even the “traditionalist” priests reject
the truth of this dogma, just like Bishop McKenna and the CMRI. For example, Bishop Donald Sanborn is
considered by some to be a staunch defender of the traditional Catholic Faith.
But he vigorously attacks those who hold to the absolute necessity of water
baptism, and explicitly says that pagans and idolaters can be saved.
Bishop Donald Sanborn, Sacerdotium V, p. 24: “Vatican II’s idea
of the Church is heretical, since it identifies organized religions of pagans
and idolaters with the Mystical Body of Christ.
The truth is that in no way are
pagans and idolaters, as pagans and idolaters, united to the Mystical Body
of Christ. If, by some mystery of
Bishop Donald
Sanborn is an obstinate heretic who rejects the dogma that the Catholic Faith is
necessary for all for salvation. His
words above prove that he rejects the dogma.
He bluntly indicates that it’s possible for pagans and idolaters to be
united to the Church and be saved. This
is clear-cut heresy.
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.”
1 Corinthians 6:9- “Know you not that the
unjust shall not possess the
Sanborn even
informed a friend of ours (whom he kicked out of his chapel for believing in the
necessity of water baptism) that he (i.e. Sanborn) believes that a Jew who hates
Christ could be saved while hating Christ. Sanborn’s colleague, Fr. Anthony Cekada,
who is mentioned earlier in this book and believes similarly, even said that the
Catholic dogma on salvation doesn’t exclude the idea that non-Catholic
“individuals” are saved, but only that their sects are means of salvation. (Closing statement in a debate in The Remnant, March 31, 2002.) This is a heretical rejection of the
dogma, of course; for the definitions on salvation declare just the opposite:
they declare that all individuals who die
as non-Catholics are lost. The
definitions don’t merely say that
their non-Catholic religions are not means of salvation.
Another example of a heretical “traditionalist” priest would be the heretic Fr.
Kevin Vaillancourt.
Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt, I Baptize With Water, p. 18, quoting from
Fr. Tanquery with approval: “Necessity of means, however, is not an absolute
necessity, but a hypothetical one.
In certain particular circumstances, for example, in the case of the
invincible ignorance or of incapability, actual membership in the Church can be
supplied by the desire for this membership.
It is not necessary that this be explicitly present; it can be included
in a willingness and readiness to fulfill the will of God. In
this way those who are outside the Catholic Church can achieve salvation.”
(Catholic Research Institute)
This is a word for word
denial of the dogma from one who purports to be a staunch, pre-Vatican II
traditional Catholic priest.
Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt, I Baptize With Water, p. 17: “Are there any more ‘good faith’ pagans in
existence? Is it possible for
the Communists of China or the faithful adherents of Buddhism and Mohammedism of
the Near and Far East to either have never heard the Gospel, or else had the
Gospel presented to them in an erroneous light?... Can the Chinese Communist, or the Indian Buddhist or the Pakistani
Muslim be included in such a consideration [of invincible ignorance]?
Only God knows, and it is not up to me to decide for Him. I write here merely to uphold the
dogmatic principle of the possibility of such cases today, without admitting
that all, or even a significant number of those who are in such
circumstances will achieve salvation through justification.”
This is bold heresy. First, Fr.
Vaillancourt quotes approvingly from a person who word for word denies the
dogma; and then he writes to uphold the heresy that Muslims and Buddhists can be
saved without the Catholic Faith. He
is a rejecter and an enemy of Catholic dogma.
I could give many similar examples of heresy from other “traditionalist”
priests; but they all try to hide or justify their heresy by “baptism of
desire.”
I’ve spoken to priests and nuns of the CMRI who told me that they believe that
members of non-Catholic religions, including Jews, can be saved. Thus, it’s ironic that the priests
of the CMRI don’t actually believe in baptism of desire because they don’t
believe that one must desire baptism to be saved.
It is a demonstrable fact, easily ascertained by just asking any of their
priests, that the priests of the CMRI adhere to the heretical Protocol 122/49
and believe that invincible ignorance can save members of false, non-Catholic
religions and persons who don’t believe in Jesus Christ. They are unfortunately complete heretics. This heresy is held by almost all priests
today.
36. Conclusion
In this
document I have shown that it is the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church
– and therefore the true teaching of Jesus Christ – that only those who die as
baptized Catholics can be saved.
Anyone who refuses to accept this teaching is not
a Catholic. The fact that most of
the world refuses to accept this teaching must not get us discouraged. This has been predicted and God is still
with His Church, even though it has been reduced to a remnant of faithful
Catholics.
Fr. William
Jurgens: “At one point in the Church’s history, only a few years before
Gregory’s [Nazianz] present preaching (+380 A.D.), perhaps the number of
Catholic bishops in possession of sees, as opposed to Arian bishops in
possession of sees, was no greater than something between 1% and 3% of the total. Had doctrine been determined by popularity, today we should all be
deniers of Christ and opponents of the Spirit.”[dcxcvi]
Fr. William
Jurgens: “In the time of the Emperor Valens (4th century), Basil was
virtually the only orthodox Bishop in all the East who succeeded in retaining
charge of his see… If it has no other importance for modern man, a knowledge of the history of Arianism
should demonstrate at least that the Catholic Church takes no account of
popularity and numbers in shaping and maintaining doctrine: else, we
should long since have had to abandon Basil and Hilary and Athanasius and
Liberius and Ossius and call ourselves after Arius.”[dcxcvii]
If the
Arian heresy in the 4th
century was so bad that approximately 1% of the jurisdictional bishops remained
Catholic and 99% became Arian, and the Great Apostasy preceding the Second
Coming of Christ is predicted to be even worse – the worst apostasy of
all time (2 Thess. 2) – then one should not be incredulous at the fact that
there are barely any authentically Catholic priests in the world today who
believe in the true meaning of Outside the Church There is No Salvation and the
necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism.
Luke 18:8 “But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think
you, faith on earth?”
We must surge
forward in defense of this faith and preserve it undefiled. We must inform in charity those
non-Catholics whom God puts on our path that they must embrace the Catholic
Faith – the traditional, historical Catholic Faith – if they want to be saved. And we must inform those professing to be
Catholic, but who don’t believe in these dogmas, how they are in error so that
they can be corrected.
We believe
in this dogma only because it is the truth of Jesus Christ.
And because we love non-Catholics and have true concern for their eternal
happiness as their true friends, we tell them that they cannot obtain eternal
happiness except in the Catholic Church (the traditional Catholic Church, not
the Novus Ordo/Vatican II sect).
Luke 12:4-5:
“[Jesus saith] And I say to you, my friends: Be not afraid of them who kill the body, and after that have no more
that they can do. But I will shew
you whom you shall fear: fear ye him, who after he hath killed, hath power to
cast into hell. Yea, I say to you,
fear him.”
Finally,
one cannot compromise this faith at any cost.
One cannot financially support any priest who does not hold that only
baptized Catholics can be saved, which includes almost every priest today.
One cannot financially support or give Mass stipends to any priest who accepts
baptism of desire or the heresy of salvation for the “invincibly ignorant.”
One cannot join or be affiliated with any religious society which does not
preserve and publicly defend this dogma and all the teachings of the
Church.
A Catholic
should not attend funerals of deceased non-Catholics, since this implies that
non-Catholics can be saved, which is heresy.
A Catholic also should not attend the funerals of “Catholics” who were known to
deny this dogma or who were known to obstinately support those who denied it. Further, a Catholic should not attend the
Weddings of non-Catholics or members of the Novus Ordo, since this gives scandal
and it gives the non-Catholics getting married the impression that you approve
of them where they are. Nor should a
Catholic attend the wedding of a person who claims to be a “traditional
Catholic” yet obstinately supports the heretical positions or heretical groups
exposed in this document.
To do so would be a scandal and a compromise of the Faith.
On
Judgment Day, God will separate those who have preserved the true Faith and the
state of grace from those who have not.
Those who have defiled this faith will have to line up with the reprobate. So those who, knowing these facts,
continue to financially support, even in the slightest way, groups which believe
in baptism of desire or salvation for the “invincibly ignorant” or which deny
any other teaching of the Church, can expect to line up behind the reprobate who
have defiled the Faith on Judgment Day.
The Church
teaches that in a necessity such as the one we are dealing with now, one may
receive the sacraments from a validly ordained priest who holds a heretical
position (if the priest does not notoriously preach or impose that heresy), but
one may not support him financially or compromise the Faith. To put money in the collection basket
of a priest or a group who does not uphold the Faith is to deny the Faith. To give them donations is to deny the
Faith. Obviously, the Catholic Faith
does not forbid us to buy Catholic books (etc.) from a group which may be
heretical, but one must not donate to such a group or even give them Mass
stipends. If it comes down to
compromising the faith or attending Mass and receiving Communion, one must stop
attending Mass and receiving Communion, because one can be saved without
attending Mass and receiving Communion, especially in a state of necessity; but
one cannot ever be saved without the true faith.
Apoc. 2:10 “Be
thou faithful until death: and I will give thee the crown of life.”
Apoc. 14:12 “Here is the patience of the saints, who
keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.”
Apoc. 3:11 “Behold, I come quickly: hold fast that
which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.”
THE FORM OF BAPTISM
AND THE PROFESSION OF FAITH FOR CONVERTS TO THE CATHOLIC FAITH
Baptism and Conditional Baptism: The form of baptism is: “I baptize you in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Water should be poured on the person’s
forehead as this form is being pronounced.
If there is some doubt
about the validity of your baptism, the conditional form of baptism is: “If you are baptized, I do not baptize you again, but if you are not yet
baptized [pour water on the head, making sure it touches the skin] I baptize you
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Since there are barely any true Catholic
priests left, you can have a Catholic friend perform a conditional baptism, and
you can baptize your own children.
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.”[dcxcviii]
In addition to being baptized, those who want to convert to the Catholic Faith
need to make the profession of Faith for converts below. If there is a specific sect to which you
belonged, add at the end that you also reject that heretical sect.
If you are a person who
has been involved in the Vatican II/Novus Ordo apostasy, you should also make
that same profession of Faith from the Council of Trent.
If there were particular dogmas that you denied (such as Outside the
Church There is No Salvation), then add at the end of the profession that you
reject anything contrary to that particular dogma. People leaving the Novus Ordo (the New
Mass) also need to make a confession (to a validly ordained priest, who was
ordained in the traditional rite of ordination) that they attended a
non-Catholic service and for however long they attended.
If they participated in other things at the New Mass (e.g. were a
lay-minister, dressed immodestly, etc.) or accepted false ecumenism or denied
some other dogma, these things should also be mentioned in Confession. This must be done before receiving
Communion at the Traditional Mass (if there is an acceptable one for you to
attend in your area).
A baptized convert
would need to make a confession to a validly ordained priest mentioning all
mortal sins that he has committed, including his belonging to and/or spreading a
non-Catholic sect. Contact us for
more information about this matter.
Promulgated solemnly by Pope Pius IV and the Council
of Trent
● I, Name., with firm faith believe and profess each
and every article contained in the symbol of faith which the holy Roman Church
uses; namely:
● I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker
of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; and in
● one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of
God, born of the Father before all ages; God from God, light from light, true
God from true God; begotten not made, of one substance (consubstantial) with the
Father, through whom all things were made;
● who for us men and for our salvation came down
from heaven, and was made incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and
was made man.
● He was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate,
died, and was buried; and
● He rose again the third day according to the
Scriptures, and ascended into heaven;
● He sits at the right hand of the Father, and He
shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and of His kingdom
there will be no end.
● And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, and
giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who equally with the
Father and the Son is adored and glorified; who spoke through the prophets.
● And I believe that there is one, holy, Catholic,
and apostolic Church.
● I confess one baptism for the remission of sins;
and I hope for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
Amen.
● I resolutely accept and embrace the apostolic and
ecclesiastical traditions and the other practices and regulations of that same
Church.
● In like manner I accept Sacred Scripture according
to the meaning which has been held by holy Mother Church and which she now
holds. It is Her prerogative to pass
judgment on the true meaning and interpretation of Sacred Scripture. And I will never accept or interpret it in a
manner different from the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.
● I also acknowledge that there are truly and
properly seven sacraments of the New Law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord,
and that they are necessary for the salvation of the human race, although it is
not necessary for each individual to receive them all.
● I acknowledge that the seven sacraments are:
Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and
Matrimony; and that they confer grace; and that of the seven, Baptism,
Confirmation, and Holy Orders cannot be repeated without committing a sacrilege.
● I also accept and acknowledge the customary and
approved rites of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of these
sacraments.
● I embrace and accept each and every article on
Original Sin and Justification declared and defined in the most holy Council of
Trent.
● I likewise profess that in Mass a true, proper,
and propitiatory sacrifice is offered to God on behalf of the living and the
dead, and that the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our
Lord Jesus Christ is truly, really, and substantially present in the most holy
Sacrament of the Eucharist, and that there is a change of the whole substance of
the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood;
and this change the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation.
● I also profess that the whole and entire Christ
and a true Sacrament is received under each separate species.
● I firmly hold that there is a purgatory, and that
the souls detained there are helped by the prayers of the faithful.
● I likewise hold that the saints reigning together
with Christ should be honored and invoked, that they offer prayers to God on our
behalf, and that their relics should be venerated.
● I firmly assert that images of Christ, of the
Mother of God ever Virgin, and of the other saints should be owned and kept, and
that due honor and veneration should be given to them.
● I affirm that the power of indulgences was left in
the keeping of the Church by Christ, and that the use of indulgences is very
beneficial to Christians.
● I acknowledge the holy, Catholic, and apostolic
Roman Church as the mother and teacher of all churches; and…
● I unhesitatingly accept and profess all the
doctrines (especially those concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his
infallible teaching authority) handed down, defined, and explained by the sacred
canons and ecumenical councils and especially those of this most holy Council of
Trent (and by the ecumenical Vatican Council I). And at the same time:
● I condemn,
reject, and anathematize everything that is contrary to those propositions, and
all heresies without exception that have been condemned, rejected, and
anathematized by the Church.
● I, Name., promise, vow, and swear that, with God’s
help, I shall most constantly hold and profess this true Catholic faith, outside
which no one can be saved and which I now freely profess and truly hold.
With the help of God, I shall profess it whole and unblemished to my dying
breath; and, to the best of my ability, I shall see to it that my subjects or
those entrusted to me by virtue of my office hold it, teach it, and preach it.
So help me God and His holy Gospel.[dcxcix]
I believe
in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ,
His only Son, our Lord; Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the
Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell; the third day He arose again from the dead; He ascended
into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty; from thence
He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the
Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the
resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.
Permission is granted to make copies of this book or
to quote sections from it, but the author’s name must be given.
Extra copies of this book are available from Most
Holy Family Monastery.
Copyright
© Most Holy Family Monastery:
first edition, 2004; second edition, 2006.
Most Holy Family Monastery
(800) 275-1126
(585) 567-4433
www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com
* The first time any source is cited in these
endnotes, its complete information is given, including publisher, year, etc. The second and following times a given
source is cited, only the title and page number are given.
[i] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Sheed & Ward and
[ii] Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, B. Herder Book.
[iii] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 386.
[iv] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, pp. 550-553;
Denzinger 39-40.
[v] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 578; Denzinger
714.
[vi] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 646.
[vii] Denzinger 1000.
[viii] Denzinger 1473.
[ix] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 803.
[x] Denzinger 1837.
[xi] Denzinger 1836.
[xii] Denzinger 163.
[xiii] Denzinger 1839.
[xiv] The Papal Encyclicals, by Claudia Carlen,
[xv] Denzinger 2021.
[xvi] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2
(1878-1903), p. 394.
[xvii] Fr. Christopher Rengers, The 33
Doctors of the Church,
[xviii] Denzinger 1800.
[xix] Denzinger 2022.
[xx] Denzinger 2054.
[xxi] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p.
236.
[xxii] Denzinger 1792.
[xxiii] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 230.
[xxiv] Denzinger 423.
[xxv] Denzinger 570b.
[xxvi] Quoted by Rev.
Dr. Nicholas Sander, The Rise and Growth
of the Anglican Schism,
[xxvii] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 201.
[xxviii] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 207.
[xxix] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), pp. 237-238.
[xxx] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 229.
[xxxi] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 289.
[xxxii] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 297 and footnote 4.
[xxxiii] Denzinger 1716.
[xxxiv] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 474.
[xxxv] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 22.
[xxxvi] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), pp. 121-122.
[xxxvii] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 318.
[xxxviii] Denzinger 895; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p.
704.
[xxxix] Denzinger 696; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p.
542.
[xl] Denzinger 2286.
[xli] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 4 (1939-1958), p. 42.
[xlii] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 4 (1939-1958), p. 127.
[xliii] Denzinger 430.
[xliv] Fr. Casimir Kucharek, The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of
[xlv] Fr. Casimir Kucharek, The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of
[xlvi] Fr. Casimir Kucharek, The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of
[xlvii] The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Faithful,” Volume 5, Robert Appleton
Company, 1909, p. 769.
[xlviii] The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Catechumen,” Volume 3, 1908, p. 430.
[xlix] Fr. Casimir Kucharek, The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of
[l] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 273.
[li] The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, Regnery, Co:
[lii] Catechism of the Council of
[liii] Catechism of the Council of
[liv] Denzinger 570a.
[lv] Denzinger 799-800.
[lvi] Denzinger 468-469.
[lvii] Denzinger 895; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p.
704.
[lviii] Denzinger 861; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p.
685.
[lix] Denzinger 792.
[lx] Denzinger 696; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p.
542.
[lxi] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 230; Denzinger
430.
[lxii] Denzinger 1470.
[lxiii] Denzinger 2195; The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p.
274.
[lxiv] Denzinger 1788.
[lxv] Denzinger 696; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p.
542.
[lxvi] Denzinger 858.
[lxvii] Denzinger 861; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p.
685.
[lxviii] Denzinger 791; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, pp.
666-667.
[lxix] Denzinger 102, authentic addition to Can. 3.
[lxx] Denzinger 447.
[lxxi] Denzinger 712; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p.
576.
[lxxii] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 422.
[lxxiii] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, pp. 421-422.
[lxxiv] Denzinger 102, authentic addition to Can. 2.
[lxxv] Denzinger 791.
[lxxvi] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 528; Denzinger
693.
[lxxvii] Denzinger 1526.
[lxxviii] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 530.
[lxxix] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 273.
[lxxx] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 24.
[lxxxi] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 70.
[lxxxii] Denzinger 347.
[lxxxiii] Denzinger 468.
[lxxxiv] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 386.
[lxxxv] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 174.
[lxxxvi] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 201.
[lxxxvii] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 222.
[lxxxviii] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), pp. 237-238.
[lxxxix] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 481.
[xc] Denzinger 482.
[xci] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, pp. 550-553;
Denzinger 39-40.
[xcii] Denzinger 1349a.
[xciii] Denzinger 1349b.
[xciv] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 2., A. 7.
[xcv] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 2., A. 8.
[xcvi] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 45.
[xcvii] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 46.
[xcviii] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 30.
[xcix] Denzinger 712.
[c] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1
(1740-1878), p. 98.
[ci] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 4
(1939-1958), p. 42.
[cii]
Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 479.
[ciii] Von Pastor, History of the Popes, II, 346; quoted by
Warren H. Carroll, A History of
Christendom, Vol. 3 (The Glory of
Christendom), Front Royal, VA: Christendom Press, p. 571.
[civ] Decrees of the Ecumenical
Councils, Vol. 1, p. 380.
[cv] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p.
115.
[cvi] New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia,
newadvent.org, “Anathema.”
[cvii] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p.
242.
[cviii] Denzinger 883.
[cix] Denzinger 913.
[cx] Denzinger 910.
[cxi] Denzinger 810.
[cxii] Denzinger
1826-1827.
[cxiii] Denzinger 696.
[cxiv] Denzinger 869.
[cxv] Denzinger 570b.
[cxvi] Tixeront, Handbook of Patrology,
[cxvii] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers,
[cxviii] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 1: 92.
[cxix] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 1: 126.
[cxx] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 1: 135a.
[cxxi] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 1: 219; 220.
[cxxii] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 1: 181.
[cxxiii] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 1: 306.
[cxxiv] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 1: 302
[cxxv] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 1: 92.
[cxxvi] Apostolic Fathers, translation by
[cxxvii] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 1: 712.
[cxxviii] Patrologiae Cursus Completus:
Series Graecae, 46:417b, Fr. J.P. Migne, Paris: 1866; quoted in Michael Malone,
The Only-Begotten,
[cxxix] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 1: 407.
[cxxx] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 1: 501.
[cxxxi] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 1: 681.
[cxxxii] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 1: 683.
[cxxxiii] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 1: 810a.
[cxxxiv] The Sunday Sermons of the Great
Fathers, Vol. 3, p. 10.
[cxxxv] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 1: 899.
[cxxxvi] The Sunday Sermons of the Great
Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 51.
[cxxxvii] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 1: 910r.
[cxxxviii] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 2: 1323.
[cxxxix] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 2: 1324.
[cxl] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 2: 1330.
[cxli] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 2: 1206; The Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1905, Vol. XIII, p.
197.
[cxlii] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 3: 1536.
[cxliii] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.
[cxliv] The Sunday Sermons of the Great
Fathers, Vol. 1, p. 89.
[cxlv] The Sunday Sermons of the Great
Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 412.
[cxlvi] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 3, pp. 14-15 footnote 31.
[cxlvii] Denzinger 861; Decrees of the
Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 685.
[cxlviii] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 1, p. 413.
[cxlix] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 2: 940 .
[cl] Denzinger 1526.
[cli] The Catholic Encyclopedia,
Volume 9, “Limbo,” 1910, p. 257.
[clii] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1
(1740-1878), p. 29.
[cliii] Denzinger 1320.
[cliv] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 4
(1939-1958), pp. 178-179.
[clv] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 1: 811.
[clvi] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 3: 2269.
[clvii] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 3: 2251a.
[clviii] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 3: 2275.
[clix] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 3: 2271.
[clx] Denzinger 1526.
[clxi] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 2: 1139.
[clxii] Barlam and Josaphat, Woodward & Heineman, trans., pp. 169-171.
[clxiii] Denzinger 714.
[clxiv] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 1: 598
[clxv] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 1: 593 .
[clxvi] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 1: 591 .
[clxvii] Denzinger 1837.
[clxviii] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 1: 309 .
[clxix] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 1: 310a .
[clxx] Denzinger 712; Decrees of the
Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 576.
[clxxi] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 1: 306.
[clxxii] Bro. Robert Mary, Father Feeney and The Truth About Salvation, p.
176.
[clxxiii] Denzinger 165.
[clxxiv] Abbot Giuseppe
Ricciotti, The Age of Martyrs –
Christianity from Diocletian to Constantine, Tan Books, Originally published
1959, reprinted 1999, p. 90.
[clxxv] The Roman Martyrology,
[clxxvi] Denzinger 696; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p.
542.
[clxxvii] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 6.
[clxxviii] The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Baptism,” Volume 2, 1907, p. 265.
[clxxix] Donald Attwater,
A Catholic Dictionary, Tan Books,
1997, p. 310.
[clxxx] Dom Prosper
Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, Loreto
Publications, 2000, Vol. 8, p. 315.
[clxxxi] Dom Prosper
Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, Vol.
8, p. 521.
[clxxxii] Denzinger 861; Decrees of the
Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 685.
[clxxxiii] Quoted by Bro. Robert Mary, Father Feeney and The Truth About
Salvation,
[clxxxiv] Denzinger 714.
[clxxxv] Denzinger 895; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p.
704.
[clxxxvi] Denzinger 2286.
[clxxxvii] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 4 (1939-1958), p. 127.
[clxxxviii] Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau, Baptism of
Desire,
[clxxxix] Father Albert J. Herbert, Raised
From The Dead,
[cxc] Michael Malone, The Only-Begotten,
p. 384.
[cxci] Michael Malone, The Only-Begotten,
p. 385.
[cxcii] Michael Malone, The Only-Begotten,
p. 386.
[cxciii] Fr. E. Laveille, S.J., The Life of
Fr. De Smet,
[cxciv] Fr. E. Laveille, S.J., The Life of
Fr. De Smet, p. 172.
[cxcv] Quoted by Michael Malone, The
Only-Begotten, p. 364; Malone is quoting The Catechist, by Rev. Canon Howe, cf. 9th ed., London:
Burns, Oates, and Washbourne, 1922, vol. 1, p. 63.
[cxcvi] Fr. E. Laveille, S.J., The Life of
Fr. De Smet, pp. 165-166, footnote 7.
[cxcvii] Introduction to The Catholic
Controversy
by St. Francis De Sales, Tan Books, 1989, p. lv.
[cxcviii] St. Francis De Sales, The Catholic
Controversy, pp. 156-157.
[cxcix] Quoted by Michael
Malone, The Only-Begotten, p. 386;
taken from Rev. Canon Howe, The Catechist,
[cc] Denzinger 1784.
[cci] Denzinger 530
[ccii] Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau, Baptism of
Desire, p. 63.
[cciii] Fr. Francois
Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic?,
Angelus Press, 2001, p. 79.
[cciv] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 3: 1630.
[ccv] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 3: 69.
[ccvi] The Catechism of the Council of
[ccvii] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 3: 1536.
[ccviii] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 3: 1717.
[ccix] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 3: 1496.
[ccx] Quoted by Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau,
Baptism of Desire, p. 33.
[ccxi] Quoted by Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau,
Baptism of Desire, pp. 30-31; also by Fr. Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 61.
[ccxii] Bro. Robert Mary, Fr. Feeney and
the Truth About Salvation, p. 132.
[ccxiii] Bro. Robert Mary, Fr. Feeney and
the Truth About Salvation, p. 133.
[ccxiv] Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau, Baptism of
Desire, p. 37.
[ccxv] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers,
Vol. 2: 1330.
[ccxvi] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 2: 1323.
[ccxvii] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 2: 1324.
[ccxviii] Michael Malone, The Only-Begotten,
p. 404.
[ccxix] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 2: 1330.
[ccxx] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 3, pp. 14-15 footnote 31.
[ccxxi] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 2: 1012.
[ccxxii] Dom Prosper Gueranger, The Liturgical Year,
[ccxxiii] Dom Prosper Gueranger, The Liturgical Year, Vol. 8, p. 475.
[ccxxiv] Saint John Chrysostom, “The Consolation of Death,” Sunday Sermons of
the Great Fathers, vol. IV, p. 363.
[ccxxv] Saint John Chrysostom, “The Consolation of Death,” Sunday Sermons of
the Great Fathers, vol. IV, p. 363.
[ccxxvi] Hom. in Io. 25, 3 = PG 59 151-152; quoted by Fr. Jean-Marc
Rulleau, Baptism of Desire, p. 34.
[ccxxvii] The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. XIII, p. 197.
[ccxxviii] The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Baptism,” Volume 2, 1907, p. 265.
[ccxxix] J. Corblet, Histoire du sacrement de bapteme, (Paris: Palme,
1881), pp. 155-56; quoted by Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau, Baptism of Desire, p.
36.
[ccxxx] Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,
[ccxxxi] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 230.
[ccxxxii] Quoted by Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau,
Baptism of Desire, p. 37.
[ccxxxiii] Quoted by Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau,
Baptism of Desire, p. 37.
[ccxxxiv] Quoted by Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau,
Baptism of Desire, p. 37.
[ccxxxv] Denzinger 1784.
[ccxxxvi] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 3: 1496.
[ccxxxvii] Denzinger 696; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p.
542.
[ccxxxviii] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 14, Art. 3,
Reply to Obj. 1.
[ccxxxix] Michael Malone, The Only-Begotten,
p. 395.
[ccxl] Michael Malone, The Only-Begotten,
p. 70.
[ccxli] Denzinger 1837.
[ccxlii] St. Thomas
Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part III,
Q. 66, A. 11.
[ccxliii] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theologica, Part III, Q. 66, A. 11, Answer 2.
[ccxliv] Fr. Francois
Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 9.
[ccxlv] Denzinger 861; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p.
685.
[ccxlvi] Denzinger 861; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p.
685.
[ccxlvii] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theologica, Part III, Q. 66, A. 2, Obj. 3.
[ccxlviii] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1
(1740-1878), p. 29.
[ccxlix] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 4
(1939-1958), pp. 178-179.
[ccl] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3
(1903-1939), p. 92.
[ccli] Denzinger 858.
[cclii] Denzinger 482.
[ccliii] Quoted by Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau,
Baptism of Desire, pp. 55-56.
[ccliv] Quoted by Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau,
Baptism of Desire, p. 55.
[cclv] Quoted by Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau,
Baptism of Desire, p. 55.
[cclvi] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 2., A. 7.
[cclvii] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 2., A. 8.
[cclviii] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 81.
[cclix] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 112.
[cclx] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 127.
[cclxi] Denzinger 165.
[cclxii] Denzinger 246.
[cclxiii] Denzinger 1463.
[cclxiv] Denzinger 165.
[cclxv] Denzinger 790.
[cclxvi] Denzinger 795.
[cclxvii] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 81.
[cclxviii] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 81.
[cclxix] Denzinger 790.
[cclxx] Denzinger 696; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p.
542.
[cclxxi] Denzinger 791; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, pp.
666-667.
[cclxxii] Denzinger 858.
[cclxxiii] Denzinger 861; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p.
685.
[cclxxiv] Denzinger 808.
[cclxxv] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 230; Denzinger
430.
[cclxxvi] Denzinger 468-469.
[cclxxvii] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 386.
[cclxxviii] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, pp. 550-553;
Denzinger 39-40.
[cclxxix] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 578; Denzinger
714.
[cclxxx] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 646.
[cclxxxi] Denzinger 1000.
[cclxxxii] Denzinger 1473.
[cclxxxiii] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 803.
[cclxxxiv] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 229.
[cclxxxv] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 157.
[cclxxxvi] Denzinger 377.
[cclxxxvii] Denzinger 1647.
[cclxxxviii] St. Thomas
Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II,
Q. 10., A. 1.
[cclxxxix] Quoted by Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau,
Baptism of Desire, pp. 55-56.
[ccxc] Quoted by Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau,
Baptism of Desire, p. 55.
[ccxci] Quoted by Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau,
Baptism of Desire, p. 55.
[ccxcii] Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219.
[ccxciii] Michael Malone, The Apostolic Digest,
[ccxciv] Saint Alphonsus Maria De Liguori, Preparation for Death,
unabridged version, Redemptorist Fathers:
[ccxcv] Denzinger 1647.
[ccxcvi] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 369.
[ccxcvii] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 370.
[ccxcviii] Denzinger 1791.
[ccxcix] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 297 and footnote 4.
[ccc] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 289.
[ccci] Denzinger 1716.
[cccii] Fr. Michael Muller, C.SS.R., The Catholic Dogma,
[ccciii] Fr. Leonard Feeney, Bread of Life,
[ccciv] The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, Vol. 1, p. 42.
[cccv] De Indis et de Iure Belli Relectiones,
ed. E. Nys, tr. J.P. Bates (The Classics of International Law), Washington,
1917, p. 142. Quoted by Francis A.
Sullivan, Salvation Outside the Church?,
[cccvi] Denzinger 1806.
[cccvii] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 3: 1997.
[cccviii] Denzinger 2195; The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p.
274.
[cccix] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 3: 1946.
[cccx] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 3: 2047.
[cccxi] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 46.
[cccxii] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 30.
[cccxiii] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 260.
[cccxiv]
http://www.papalencyclicals.net
[cccxv] Fr. E. Laveille, S.J., The Life of
Fr. De Smet, p. 80.
[cccxvi] Fr. E. Laveille, S.J., The Life of
Fr. De Smet, pp. 139-140.
[cccxvii] Fr. E. Laveille, S.J., The Life of
Fr. De Smet, pp. 139-140.
[cccxviii]
[cccxix] Warren H.
Carroll, A History of Christendom,
Christendom Press, Vol. 2 (The
[cccxx] St. Francis De Sales, The Catholic
Controversy, p. 59.
[cccxxi] St. Francis De Sales, The Catholic
Controversy, p. 74.
[cccxxii] St. Francis De Sales, The Catholic
Controversy, p. 200.
[cccxxiii] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 285.
[cccxxiv] Denzinger 228a.
[cccxxv] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 1: 144a.
[cccxxvi] Michael Malone, The Only-Begotten,
p. 329.
[cccxxvii] Warren H.
Carroll, A History of Christendom,
Christendom Press, Vol. 1 (The Founding of
Christendom), p. 429, note 9.
[cccxxviii] Warren H.
Carroll, A History of Christendom,
Vol. 1 (The Founding of Christendom),
p. 435, note 47.
[cccxxix] Warren H.
Carroll, A History of Christendom
Vol. 1 (The Founding of Christendom),
p. 406.
[cccxxx] Warren H.
Carroll,
A History of Christendom, Vol. 1(The Founding of Christendom), p. 406.
[cccxxxi] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 1: 191-192.
[cccxxxii] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 1: 405.
[cccxxxiii] Denzinger 1793.
[cccxxxiv] Denzinger 1000.
[cccxxxv] The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Brendan,” Volume 2, 1907, p. 758.
[cccxxxvi] Francis Anson, Guadalupe: What Her Eyes Say,
[cccxxxvii] Wang Shanshan,
“Stones Indicate earlier Christian Link?”,
China Daily, http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-12/22/content_505587.htm
[cccxxxviii] http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-12/22/content_505587_4.htm
[cccxxxix] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 1: 320a.
[cccxl]
[cccxli] Denzinger 1800.
[cccxlii] Denzinger 960.
[cccxliii] St. Francis De Sales, The Catholic
Controversy, p. 228.
[cccxliv] The Devil’s Final Battle,
compiled by Paul Kramer, Good Counsel Publications, 2002, p. 183.
[cccxlv] Denzinger 2022.
[cccxlvi] Denzinger 2054.
[cccxlvii] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p.
236.
[cccxlviii] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 684; Denzinger
847.
[cccxlix] Denzinger 898.
[cccl] Denzinger 996.
[cccli] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol.
2, p. 803.
[ccclii] Denzinger 996.
[cccliii] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol.
2, p. 803.
[cccliv] Denzinger 847.
[ccclv] Denzinger 847.
[ccclvi] Denzinger 858.
[ccclvii] Denzinger 861.
[ccclviii] Denzinger 388.
[ccclix] Denzinger 413.
[ccclx] Denzinger 410.
[ccclxi] Denzinger 793.
[ccclxii] Denzinger 793.
[ccclxiii] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 230; Denzinger
430.
[ccclxiv] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 230; Denzinger
430.
[ccclxv] Denzinger 412.
[ccclxvi] Fr. Christopher Rengers, The 33
Doctors of the Church, p. 504.
[ccclxvii] The Catholic Encyclopedia,
Volume 9, “Limbo,” 1910, p. 258.
[ccclxviii] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 1: 591 .
[ccclxix] Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau, Baptism of Desire, p. 43.
[ccclxx] Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau, Baptism of Desire, p. 40.
[ccclxxi] Denzinger 898.
[ccclxxii] Fr. Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic, p. 77.
[ccclxxiii] Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219.
[ccclxxiv] Saint Alphonsus Marie De Liguori, Instructions On The Commandments
And Sacraments, G. P. Warren Co., 1846.
Trans. Fr. P. M’Auley,
[ccclxxv] Michael Malone, The Apostolic Digest, p. 159.
[ccclxxvi] Saint Alphonsus De Liguori, Preparation for Death, unabridged
version, p. 339.
[ccclxxvii] Denzinger 712; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p.
576.
[ccclxxviii] The Catechism of the Council of
[ccclxxix] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 422.
[ccclxxx] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, pp. 421-422.
[ccclxxxi] Fr. Christopher Rengers, The 33
Doctors of the Church, pp. 623-624.
[ccclxxxii] Denzinger 861; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p.
685.
[ccclxxxiii] Denzinger 861; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p.
685.
[ccclxxxiv] Denzinger 895.
[ccclxxxv] Denzinger 898.
[ccclxxxvi] Denzinger 807.
[ccclxxxvii] Denzinger 792.
[ccclxxxviii] Denzinger 861; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p.
685.
[ccclxxxix] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 14, A. 3, Reply
to Obj. 1.
[cccxc] The 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon
Law, translated by Dr. Edward Von Peters, Ignatius Press, 2001, Canon 1, p. 29.
[cccxci] Denzinger 1839.
[cccxcii] The 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon
Law, p. 451.
[cccxciii] The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Baptism,” Volume 2, 1907, p. 265.
[cccxciv] The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Baptism,” Volume 2, 1907, p. 267.
[cccxcv] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 4
(1939-1958), p. 50.
[cccxcvi] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol.
1, p. 74.
[cccxcvii] Denzinger 714.
[cccxcviii] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 229.
[cccxcix] Denzinger 861; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p.
685.
[cd] Denzinger 804.
[cdi] Denzinger 1031.
[cdii] Denzinger 1033.
[cdiii] Denzinger 799-800.
[cdiv] Denzinger 468-469.
[cdv] Denzinger 646.
[cdvi] Denzinger 423.
[cdvii] St. Francis De
Sales, The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306
[cdviii] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p.
401.
[cdix] Denzinger 253.
[cdx] The Catechism of the Council of
[cdxi] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 578; Denzinger
714.
[cdxii] The Life and Letters of St. Francis Xavier
by Henry James Coleridge, S.J. (Originally
published: London: Burns and Oates,
1874) Second Reprint,
[cdxiii] Denzinger 2022.
[cdxiv] Denzinger 2026.
[cdxv] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 578; Denzinger
714.
[cdxvi] The Devil’s Final Battle,
compiled and edited by Paul Kramer, p. 69.
[cdxvii] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 4 (1939-1958), p.
41.
[cdxviii] Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The
Catholic Church and Salvation,
[cdxix] Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The
Catholic Church and Salvation, pp. 9-10.
[cdxx] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 4 (1939-1958), p.
43.
[cdxxi] Denzinger 800.
[cdxxii] Denzinger 1824.
[cdxxiii] Our Lady of the Roses (Blue Book), the
“messages” of Bayside, published by Apostles of Our Lady, Inc. Lansing, MI,
1993, p. 81.
[cdxxiv] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 201.
[cdxxv] The Apparitions of Our Lady of Medjugorje, Franciscan Herald Press, 1984.
[cdxxvi] The Apparitions of Our Lady of Medjugorje, Franciscan Herald Press, 1984.
[cdxxvii] Janice T. Connell, The Visions of the Children,
The Apparitions of the Blessed Mother at Medjugorje,
[cdxxviii] Denzinger 2288.
[cdxxix] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 639.
[cdxxx] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 117.
[cdxxxi] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 205.
[cdxxxii] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 388.
[cdxxxiii] Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928.
[cdxxxiv] Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 64), June 29, 1943.
[cdxxxv] Denzinger 714; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p.
578.
[cdxxxvi] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 317.
[cdxxxvii] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 646.
[cdxxxviii] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 160.
[cdxxxix] Denzinger 1683.
[cdxl] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 3, pp. 14-15 footnote 31.
[cdxli] The Catholic Encyclopedia,
Volume 9, “Limbo,” 1910, p. 257.
[cdxlii] The Catechism of the Council of
[cdxliii] Archbishop Patrick Kenrick,
Treatise on Baptism, Baltimore: Hedian and O’Brien, 1852, pp. 84-85; quoted
by Michael Malone, The Only-Begotten,
p. 394.
[cdxliv] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 39.
[cdxlv] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 3.
[cdxlvi] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 4
(1939-1958), pp. 178-179.
[cdxlvii] Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 354.
[cdxlviii] Fr. Francis Spirago and Fr. Richard Clarke, The Catechism Explained,
[cdxlix] Fr. Francis Spirago and Fr. Richard Clarke, The Catechism Explained, p. 579.
[cdl] Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 309.
[cdli] Denzinger 714; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p.
578.
[cdlii] Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 309.
[cdliii] Denzinger 468-469.
[cdliv] Denzinger 895; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p.
704.
[cdlv] Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 309.
[cdlvi] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 230; Denzinger
430.
[cdlvii] Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 309.
[cdlviii] De Ecclesia Militante, Book
III, Ch. 2, opera omnia, Naples 1872,
p. 75; partially quoted by Fr. Laisney, Is
Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 76.
[cdlix] The Catholic Encyclopedia,
Volume 9, “Limbo,” 1910, p. 258.
[cdlx] Denzinger 468.
[cdlxi] Denzinger 714; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p.
578.
[cdlxii] St. Francis De Sales, The Catholic
Controversy, p. 161.
[cdlxiii] The Catechism of the Council of
[cdlxiv] The Catechism of the Council of
[cdlxv] De Ecclesia Militante, Book
III, Ch. 3, opera omnia, Naples 1872,
p. 75; quoted by Fr. Laisney, Is Feeneyism
Catholic?, p. 76.
[cdlxvi] De Ecclesia Militante, Book
III, Ch. 2, opera omnia, Naples 1872,
p. 75; partially quoted by Fr. Laisney, Is
Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 76.
[cdlxvii] Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 309.
[cdlxviii] The Catechism of the Council of
[cdlxix] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 2: 1012.
[cdlxx] The New St. Joseph Baltimore
Catechism, No. 2, New York: Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1962-1969, p. 153.
[cdlxxi] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 1: 92.
[cdlxxii] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 1: 126.
[cdlxxiii] The New
[cdlxxiv] The New
[cdlxxv] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 230; Denzinger
430.
[cdlxxvi] The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, Angelus Press, 1993, p. 71.
[cdlxxvii] The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, Angelus Press, 1993, p. 71.
[cdlxxviii] The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, Angelus Press, 1993, p. 31.
[cdlxxix] The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, Angelus Press, 1993, pp. 31-32.
[cdlxxx] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 317.
[cdlxxxi] Denzinger 1647.
[cdlxxxii] Denzinger 861; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p.
685.
[cdlxxxiii] Denzinger 696; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p.
542.
[cdlxxxiv] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 188.
[cdlxxxv] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, pp. 580-581.
[cdlxxxvi] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 589.
[cdlxxxvii] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 541; Denzinger
695.
[cdlxxxviii] Denzinger 696; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p.
542.
[cdlxxxix] The Life and Letters of
[cdxc] Denzinger 791-792.
[cdxci] Denzinger 324.
[cdxcii] Denzinger 895; Decrees of the
Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 704.
[cdxciii] Denzinger 468-469.
[cdxciv] The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 5.
[cdxcv] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 3:1424.
[cdxcvi] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 3:1425.
[cdxcvii] Denzinger 799-800.
[cdxcviii] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils,
Vol. 1, p. 230; Denzinger 430.
[cdxcix] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 3:1717.
[d] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 3:2251a.
[di] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 2: 1368.
[dii] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 1: 681.
[diii] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 386.
[div] Denzinger 482.
[dv] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils,
Vol. 1, p. 24.
[dvi] Denzinger 468.
[dvii] The Sunday Sermons of the Great
Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 93.
[dviii] Denzinger 796.
[dix] The Sunday Sermons of the Great
Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 151.
[dx] Denzinger 843a.
[dxi] The Sunday Sermons of the Great
Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 8.
[dxii] Denzinger 799.
[dxiii] Denzinger 792.
[dxiv] Denzinger 799.
[dxv] Denzinger 996.
[dxvi] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 803.
[dxvii] Francis Talbot, Saint Among Savages: The Life of St. Isaac
Jogues (Original Edition: Harper and Brothers, New York and London, 1935),
New Edition,
[dxviii] Francis Talbot, Saint Among Savages: The Life of St. Isaac
Jogues, p. 197.
[dxix] Francis Talbot, Saint Among Savages: The Life of St. Isaac
Jogues, pp. 267-268.
[dxx] Francis Talbot, Saint Among Savages: The Life of St. Isaac
Jogues, p. 300.
[dxxi] Francis Talbot, Saint Among Savages: The Life of St. Isaac
Jogues, pp. 145-146.
[dxxii] Francis Talbot, Saint Among Savages: The Life of St. Isaac
Jogues, p. 141.
[dxxiii] The Life and Letters of
[dxxiv] The Life and Letters of
[dxxv] The Life and Letters of
[dxxvi] The Life and Letters of
[dxxvii] The Life and Letters of
[dxxviii] Francis Talbot, Saint Among Savages: The Life of St. Isaac
Jogues, p. 92.
[dxxix] Francis Talbot, Saint Among Savages: The Life of St. Isaac
Jogues, p. 136.
[dxxx] Francis Talbot, Saint Among Savages: The Life of St. Isaac
Jogues, pp. 97-98.
[dxxxi] Francis Talbot, Saint Among Savages: The Life of St. Isaac
Jogues, p. 142.
[dxxxii] Francis Talbot, Saint Among Savages: The Life of St. Isaac
Jogues, p. 279.
[dxxxiii] Francis Talbot, Saint Among Savages: The Life of St. Isaac
Jogues, p. 199.
[dxxxiv] Francis Talbot, Saint Among Savages: The Life of St. Isaac
Jogues, pp. 122-123.
[dxxxv] Francis Talbot, Saint Among Savages: The Life of St. Isaac
Jogues, pp. 298-299.
[dxxxvi] Francis Talbot, Saint Among Savages: The Life of St. Isaac
Jogues, p. 272.
[dxxxvii] Francis Talbot, Saint Among Savages: The Life of St. Isaac
Jogues, p. 225.
[dxxxviii] Francis Talbot, Saint Among Savages: The Life of St. Isaac
Jogues, p. 205.
[dxxxix] Francis Talbot, Saint Among Savages: The Life of St. Isaac
Jogues, p. 168.
[dxl] The Life and Letters of
[dxli] The Life and Letters of
[dxlii] Francis Talbot, Saint Among Savages: The Life of St. Isaac
Jogues, p. 94.
[dxliii] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 394.
[dxliv] Bro. Robert Mary, Father Feeney and The Truth About Salvation, p.
13.
[dxlv] Bro. Robert Mary, Father Feeney and The Truth About Salvation, p.
13.
[dxlvi] Bro. Robert Mary, Father Feeney and The Truth About Salvation, p.
14.
[dxlvii] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 297 and footnote 4.
[dxlviii] Bro. Robert Mary, Father Feeney and The Truth About Salvation, p.
16.
[dxlix] Bro. Robert Mary, Father Feeney and The Truth About Salvation, p.
16.
[dl] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 229.
[dli] Fr. Mark Massa, Catholics and
American Culture,
[dlii] Bro. Robert Mary, Father Feeney and The Truth About Salvation, p.
18.
[dliii] Bro. Robert Mary, Father Feeney and The Truth About Salvation, p.
21.
[dliv] Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The
Catholic Church and Salvation, p. 103
[dlv] The Official English Translation of Protocol 122/49, quoted by Fr.
Jean-Marc Rulleau, Baptism of Desire, p. 69.
[dlvi] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), pp. 229-230.
[dlvii] Denzinger 1800.
[dlviii] The Official English Translation of Protocol 122/49, quoted by Fr.
Jean-Marc Rulleau, Baptism of Desire, p. 70.
[dlix] Denzinger 468-469.
[dlx] The Official English Translation of Protocol 122/49, quoted by Fr.
Jean-Marc Rulleau, Baptism of Desire, p. 70.
[dlxi] The Official English Translation of Protocol 122/49, quoted by Fr.
Jean-Marc Rulleau, Baptism of Desire, p. 70.
[dlxii] Denzinger 714; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p.
578.
[dlxiii] The Official English Translation of Protocol 122/49, quoted by Fr.
Jean-Marc Rulleau, Baptism of Desire, p. 71.
[dlxiv] Fr. Michael Muller, C.SS.R., The Catholic Dogma, pp. 217-218.
[dlxv] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 551.
[dlxvi] Denzinger 1000.
[dlxvii] Denzinger 1473.
[dlxviii] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 803.
[dlxix] Quoted and translated by Msgr. Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, p. 102.
[dlxx] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 4 (1939-1958), p. 179; Denzinger
2319.
[dlxxi] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol.
1, p. 646.
[dlxxii] Quoted by St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30.
[dlxxiii] The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, 1908, “Church,” pp. 752-753.
[dlxxiv] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 474.
[dlxxv] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), pp. 229-230.
[dlxxvi] My Catholic Faith, a Catechism by Bishop Louis LaRavoire,
[dlxxvii] Denzinger 570b.
[dlxxviii] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), pp. 237-238.
[dlxxix] Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 310.
[dlxxx] Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pp. 310-311.
[dlxxxi] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 386.
[dlxxxii] Rev. Spirago and Rev. Clark, The Catechism Explained, p. 246.
[dlxxxiii] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), pp. 237-238.
[dlxxxiv] Translated by
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic
Church and Salvation, p. 85.
[dlxxxv] Bro. Robert Mary, Father Feeney and The Truth About Salvation, p.
153.
[dlxxxvi] Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The
Catholic Church and Salvation, p. 88.
[dlxxxvii] Bro. Robert Mary, Father Feeney and The Truth About Salvation, p.
154.
[dlxxxviii] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 207.
[dlxxxix] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 238.
[dxc] Denzinger 2286.
[dxci] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 4 (1939-1958), p. 127.
[dxcii] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 4 (1939-1958), p. 179; Denzinger
2319.
[dxciii] The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 8, p.
433.
[dxciv] Warren H.
Carroll, A History of Christendom,
Vol. 2 (The
[dxcv] Warren H.
Carroll, A History of Christendom,
Vol. 2 (The
[dxcvi] For example, Second Council of
[dxcvii] Bro. Robert Mary, Father Feeney and The Truth About Salvation, p.
37.
[dxcviii] Bro. Robert Mary, Father Feeney and The Truth About Salvation, p.
22.
[dxcix] Bro. Robert Mary, Father Feeney and The Truth About Salvation, p.
23.
[dc] Bro. Robert Mary, Father Feeney and The Truth About Salvation, p.
23.
[dci] Bro. Robert Mary, Father Feeney and The Truth About Salvation, p.
25.
[dcii] Bro. Robert Mary, Father Feeney and The Truth About Salvation, p.
25.
[dciii] Denzinger 2026.
[dciv] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 578; Denzinger
714.
[dcv] Fr. Mark Massa, Catholics and
American Culture, p. 31.
[dcvi] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), pp. 239.
[dcvii] The
[dcviii] Fr. Mark Massa, Catholics and
American Culture, p. 21.
[dcix] Fr. Mark Massa, Catholics and
American Culture, p. 27.
[dcx] Fr. Mark Massa, Catholics and
American Culture, pp. 32-33.
[dcxi] Fr. Mark Massa, Catholics and
American Culture, p. 34.
[dcxii] Fr. Mark Massa, Catholics and
American Culture, p. 35.
[dcxiii] Fr. Mark Massa, Catholics and
American Culture, p. 35.
[dcxiv] Fr. Mark Massa, Catholics and
American Culture, p. 38.
[dcxv] Denzinger 861; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p.
685.
[dcxvi] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, pp. 550-553;
Denzinger 39-40.
[dcxvii] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 81.
[dcxviii] Denzinger 165.
[dcxix] Denzinger 696; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p.
542.
[dcxx] Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Angelus Press,
1997, p. 216.
[dcxxi] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2
(1878-1903), p. 394.
[dcxxii] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1
(1740-1878), p. 280.
[dcxxiii] Denzinger 1716.
[dcxxiv] Quoted in Bro. Robert Mary, Fr.
Feeney and the Truth About Salvation, p. 213.
[dcxxv] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 2: 1330.
[dcxxvi] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 81.
[dcxxvii] Denzinger 468-469.
[dcxxviii] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 4 (1939-1958), p. 45.
[dcxxix] Denzinger 799.
[dcxxx] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 678; Denz. 809.
[dcxxxi] Denzinger 800.
[dcxxxii] Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, p. 216.
[dcxxxiii] Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, p. 217.
[dcxxxiv] Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, pp. 217-218.
[dcxxxv] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 229.
[dcxxxvi] Brother Robert Mary, Father Feeney and The Truth About Salvation,
pp. 213-214.
[dcxxxvii] Quoted in Bro. Robert Mary, Fr.
Feeney and the Truth About Salvation, p. 213.
[dcxxxviii] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1
(1740-1878), p. 280.
[dcxxxix] Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics,
Angelus Press, pp. 73-74.
[dcxl] Fr. Franz
Schmidberger, Time Bombs of the Second
[dcxli] The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the
World,” April, 2006, p. 5.
[dcxlii] Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau, Baptism of Desire, p. 63.
[dcxliii] Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau, Baptism of Desire, p. 39.
[dcxliv] Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau, Baptism of Desire, p. 11.
[dcxlv] Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau, Baptism of Desire, pp. 56-57.
[dcxlvi] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 2., A. 7.
[dcxlvii] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 2., A. 8.
[dcxlviii] St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. II, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4; quoted by Fr.
Jean-Marc Rulleau, Baptism of Desire, p. 55.
[dcxlix] St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solut. 2; quoted
by Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau, Baptism of Desire, p. 55.
[dcl] St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, A. 11, ad 1; quoted by Fr.
Jean-Marc Rulleau, Baptism of Desire, pp. 55-56.
[dcli] Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau, Baptism of Desire, pp. 56-57.
[dclii] Fr. Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic, p. 47.
[dcliii] Fr. Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic, p. 48.
[dcliv] Fr. Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic, p. 52.
[dclv] Fr. Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic, p. 38.
[dclvi] Fr. Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic, p. 49.
[dclvii] Fr. Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic, pp. 85-86.
[dclviii] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 81.
[dclix] Fr. Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic, p. 59.
[dclx] Fr. Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic, p. 9.
[dclxi] Fr. Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic, p. 68.
[dclxii] Fr. Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic, p. 77.
[dclxiii] Fr. Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic, p. 76.
[dclxiv] Fr. Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic, p. 34.
[dclxv] Fr. Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic, p. 34.
[dclxvi] Fr. Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic, p. 22.
[dclxvii] Fr. Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic, p. 77.
[dclxviii] Fr. Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic, p. 47.
[dclxix] Fr. Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic, p. 47.
[dclxx] Fr. Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic, p. 48.
[dclxxi] Denzinger 696; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p.
542.
[dclxxii] Fr. Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic, pp. 48-49.
[dclxxiii] Fr. Jacques Dupuis, S.J. and Fr. Josef Neuner, S.J., The Christian
Faith, p. 540.
[dclxxiv] Denzinger 861.
[dclxxv] Denzinger 696.
[dclxxvi] The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), pp.
237-238.
[dclxxvii] Denzinger 1800.
[dclxxviii] Denzinger 714.
[dclxxix] Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 354.
[dclxxx] Denzinger 861.
[dclxxxi] Denzinger 696.
[dclxxxii] The Reign of Mary, Vol. XXIV,
No. 70, Spokane, WA, Winter, 1992, p. 10 ff.
[dclxxxiii] The Reign of Mary, Vol. XXVI,
No. 83, pp. 4-5.
[dclxxxiv] The Reign of Mary, Vol. XXVI,
No. 83, pp. 4-5.
[dclxxxv] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 230; Denzinger
430.
[dclxxxvi] Denzinger 468-469.
[dclxxxvii] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 386.
[dclxxxviii] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, pp. 550-553;
Denzinger 39-40.
[dclxxxix] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 578; Denzinger
714.
[dcxc] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 646.
[dcxci] Denzinger 1000.
[dcxcii] Denzinger 1473.
[dcxciii] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 803.
[dcxciv] The Reign of Mary, Vol. XXVI, No. 83, pp.
4-5.
[dcxcv] Denzinger 2022.
[dcxcvi] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 39.
[dcxcvii] Jurgens, The Faith of the Early
Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 3.
[dcxcviii] Denzinger 696.
[dcxcix] Denzinger
994-1000.