Debates on the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation and the idea of “baptism of desire”

The Best Argument Against “Baptism of Desire” (Must-See 40 minute video)

"Baptism of Desire" Buried (video) *This is an important video that refutes ‘baptism of desire.’ It covers all the arguments and dogmatic proof with many crucial new points.*

“Baptism of Desire” Refuted – Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4 [This updated section contains some very important new points.]

St. Alphonsus’ Blatant Error on ‘Baptism of Desire’ [This is a very important article – a must-read for those interested in the details of this issue.]

Interesting new quotes and points on the salvation issue

These are some recent debates we had on Outside the Church There is No Salvation and “baptism of desire.” The following four were the only people confident enough to do a recorded phone conversation about the issue (3 “traditionalists” and 1 member of the Novus Ordo). Even though we had numerous sedevacantist priests on the phone and specifically asked them to have a recorded conversation about the issue, including Bishop McKenna, Fr. Collins, Fr. Adam C., none of them were confident enough to have a recorded discussion.

This is particularly revealing, especially when we consider that they claim to be correct and knowledgeable. If they claim to understand the Church’s teaching on this issue, why the reluctance? Why are they so afraid to simply discuss the issue in a recorded conversation? It’s because their positions would be refuted and exposed. We also had about five other outspoken lay-proponents of baptism of desire on the phone. Many of them even had time to discuss the issue, but wouldn’t have it recorded. It’s a shame that they did not give permission for the exchanges to be recorded because their false positions were refuted. If anyone is willing to debate the issue in a telephone conversation, contact us.

Justification Debate with a Reformed Protestant (Calvinist)  – video

Even though this debate was not on 'baptism of desire' strictly speaking, this is a very important debate that deals with the necessity of water baptism, the Bible's teaching on salvation, and the true doctrine on justification (which is directly relevant to the entire salvation issue).  This is one of our most important debates.

Debate on baptism of desire with sedevacantist Ken Bird [1 hr. 46 min. audio – Jan. 2009]

This Ken is a different Ken from the one below. This Ken, who originally liked our material, became very much opposed to us and to our material after being persuaded by arguments for baptism of desire which were made by other sedevacantist priests, bishops and groups. He became convinced that they had the truth on this issue and that we did not. The cordial tone of this conversation doesn’t really capture how very opposed Ken had become to our position. Coming into the conversation, Ken thought that we were completely wrong, heretical and theologically ignorant on the issue. He denounced us in no uncertain terms. To our pleasant surprise and to his credit, in the course of the conversation Ken couldn’t resist the arguments from dogmatic teaching which refute baptism of desire and he changed his position! Many angles to the baptism of desire controversy are discussed in this exchange, especially later on. However, we simply didn’t get to some other facets of this issue. (As an example, a passage in Sess. 7 of the Council of Trent is mentioned in passing but we simply never got to discussing it.)

Debate on baptism of desire with "traditionalist" Roger Owen [24 min. audio – Jan. 2009]

Roger claims to be a traditional Catholic. He wrote to us saying that we are wrong on the baptism of desire issue. He said that the Church teaches that people can be justified before baptism by desire. He agreed to call us and debate/discuss the issue. Unfortunately, this debate only lasted 24 minutes. Roger suddenly became unwilling to discuss the issue after his first few arguments were refuted. (Since Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of the Council of Trent is discussed here and in following conversations, it should be emphasized that the reason for the inclusion of the word “desire” in that passage is because it’s talking about justification of adults and it’s necessary for those above the age of reason to desire water baptism, in addition to being baptized, as the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches. That’s discussed more at length in the section on that decree in our book.)

Debate-exchange on baptism of desire with sedevacantist Ken G. [8 min. audio – Jan. 2009]

This is an interesting short telephone exchange with a sedevacantist supporter of baptism of desire named Ken G. He has strongly criticized and attacked people who don’t believe in “baptism of desire,” such as ourselves. We would characterize this individual as part of the vicious crowd of pro-baptism of desire heretics in our day. He purports to be a knowledgeable “Catholic” who understands the traditional faith. This conversation, although short, reveals that he doesn’t understand the Catholic faith. It exposes his bad will and his false position, even though we barely had any time at all to develop anything, but only to quickly refute the first two objections he raised.

He only stays on the telephone for eight minutes and barely gives us a chance to speak. In that short time, however, one of the myths that is central to his belief in baptism of desire (the false idea that a doctor of the Church cannot teach doctrinal error) is refuted. His false understanding of theology is further exposed. He asserts that we are wrong and that we don’t have the authority to denounce anyone as a heretic. When that is refuted by simply pointing out that, based on such an assertion, he could not denounce Benedict XVI as a heretic; and he should therefore submit to the Vatican II Church, we see that he gets flustered, contradicts himself, and runs from that fact which just refuted his false assertion. His assertion, that we don’t have the authority to say anyone is a heretic, undercuts his own rejection of the Vatican II sect and forces him to conclude that he cannot denounce Benedict XVI as a heretic. He thus proves that he is a complete modernist.

If he had stayed on the phone longer, all of his false arguments would have been refuted. That’s why he (in his bad will) had to skip out early and attempt to not let me speak for the duration of the time he stayed on the phone. This conversation shows us again that the baptism of desire advocates, including the most knowledgeable, have nothing to prove their position with except for a collection of fallible arguments and theological myths (such as that a doctor of the Church cannot make a doctrinal error) which crumble when put to the test. That’s why it’s so hard to get any of them to do this kind of thing. They prefer to hide behind their computers (where they cannot be put on the spot) and ignore and pervert the truth by specious argumentation. He also says that disputes on this issue are simply Satan’s attempt to divide “traditional Catholics.” On the contrary, it is the heresy that people don’t need to be baptized Catholics to be saved, which he and others accept and defend, which has been the key to the Vatican II apostasy and which divides them from the Catholic faith. In fact, this conversation reveals how his heresy on this point leads him into modernistic apostasy, that people don’t have the authority to denounce anyone as a heretic. Heretics such as this must be refuted and exposed.