The lies about “baptism of desire” continue, and coining a new phrase

Grant, this is simply nonsense.  It sounds like you’ve been reading the lying books of the SSPX on baptism of desire, which assert the same falsehood. 

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.” 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…”

These are grievous lies and mortally sinful misrepresentations of Tradition.  To give just one example (a detailed discussion of the teaching of the fathers on this point is found in the book Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation), here is St. Gregory Nazianz clearly rejecting that which you claimed “every Pope, Doctor and Saint without exception” believed:

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…      “Ifyou 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?”

So much for the claim that “the fathers are unanimous” and that every Saint and Doctor favored baptism of desire.  Do you wish to retract your statement?  When the priests of the SSPX, and individuals such as yourself, assert such they are stating exactly the opposite of the truth.  In fact, it is true that the entire early Church, including St. Augustine (the one who was on both sides of the issue at times) rejected the idea that catechumens could be saved by a desire for water baptism; but the dishonest defenders of baptism of desire won’t tell you that.  In your e-mail you also claimed that St. John Chrysostom believed that baptism of blood replaced water baptism.  Another individual e-mailed us as about this as well.

St. John Chrysostom, Panegyric on St. Lucian, 4th Century AD: “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.”

What you and many others fail to realize is that St. John is here describing the martyrdom of a priest St. Lucian, a person already baptized.  He is not saying that martyrdom replaces baptism.  St. John Damascene describes it the same way:

St. John Damascene: “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.”

But how many people have quoted the above from St. John Chrysostom and declared that he is teaching that people can be saved without baptism, when he is clearly not?  How many defenders of baptism of desire have misled people on this single point?  I’ve seen it in many articles and e-mails of those defending baptism of desire.  This is just one example of many that can be found in the avalanche of lies, distortions and misrepresentations that baptism of desire proponents pile up in defending this false teaching – this tradition of man that has never been taught by the Magisterium of the Church. I must also reiterate that almost 100% of these people who defend baptism of desire don’t even believe that one needs to desire baptism or believe in Christ for salvation.  I specifically asked you about this, Grant, and you didn’t answer the question in your response, probably because you also hold the same heresy as the SSPX, SSPV, and CMRI.  Since almost 100% of those who claim to believe in “baptism of desire” don’t even hold that one needs the desire for baptism or faith in Christ for salvation, I’m going to coin a new phrase to describe this position.  These people hold: BAPTISM WITHOUT WATER, DESIRE OR BLOOD.  This would apply to the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, etc., etc., etc.  They don’t believe in baptism of desire as taught by certain Saints (a definite error).  No, they believe in baptism without water, desire or blood; they believe in baptism by Judaism, Hinduism and Islam.

Archbishop Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, 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.”

The Catholic Church, however, only believes in one baptism OF WATER, not three: of desire, water and blood.

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.”

Here Pope Clement V defines as a dogma that ONE BAPTISM must be faithfully confessed by all, which is celebrated in water.  This statement is infallible and dogmatic.  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. [Note: this person included a whole series of arguments covering many pages in his e-mail, all of which are refuted in detail in the book: Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation. ]