http://www.catholicresponse.org/articles/bod_mhfm.htmBaptism of Desire
Is it a Catholic Teaching?
By Scott Windsor
http://www.catholicresponse.org The purpose of this article is to show the true Catholic teaching on this controversial matter between Catholics. I will primarily focus by means of refutation of a newsletter from A Voice Crying in the Wilderness, (newsletter #2). This article, by Bro. Dimond, can be found on their website at:
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Short_Refutation_of_the_Theory_of_Baptism_of_Desire.html My comments/refutations will be in black and Verdana font, Bro. Dimond’s original statements will be in maroon and Arial font.
A VOICE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS
newsletter#2
A Short Refutation of the Theory of Baptism of Desire
- by Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B. -
In many ways the dogma outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation is the most important dogma in the Catholic Church. Connected with this is the necessity of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism. But today both of these truths are almost universally denied by those calling themselves Catholic. They assert that the unbaptized can be united to the Church, justified (attain the state of grace) and saved by what is called baptism of desire. A tiny minority of those who believe in baptism of desire (less than 1%) limit it to those who actually desire baptism and believe in the Catholic religion (e.g., unbaptized catechumens). The vast majority of them (more than 99%) extend the possibility of salvation by baptism of desire to pagans, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. and people of no religion, who do not actually desire baptism or believe in the Catholic Faith. This majority group also somehow extends the "saving capability" of baptism of desire to Protestants, even though Protestants have already been baptized.
The problem with this logic lies with the fact that it doesn’t matter what even 99% of Catholics may believe, what does matter is what the Church actually teaches on a given topic. The introduction of this unsubstantiated “fact” seems nothing more than hyperbole to draw out an emotional response, primarily from “Traditional Catholics.”
In this newsletter we will show that the Catholic Church has infallibly taught that one cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost (i.e., actually receiving the Sacrament of Baptism). The discussion will focus mainly on baptism of desire as it is believed by the tiny minority (for those who actually desire baptism and believe in the Catholic religion), because the majority’s definition of baptism of desire (that baptism of desire saves those who don’t believe in the Catholic Faith or actually desire baptism) is directly contrary to many defined dogmas, was never held by any saint, and is a denial of the Athanasian Creed which defined that whoever wishes to be saved must believe in Jesus Christ, the Most Holy Trinity and the Catholic Faith.
But with all due respect, Bro. Dimond fails to acknowledge that what 99% of Catholics may believe is irrelevant if it disagrees with Catholic teaching. What he has just represented is NOT the Catholic teaching on Baptism of Desire, rather it is the view of this (undocuмented) 99% of Catholics. We will get to what the real teaching is here in just a bit, for he has put “Baptism of Desire – On the Witness Stand” and there he has provided the opportunity, not only to defend the real teaching, but he has presented it!
Baptism of Desire – On the Witness Stand
1) Are 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 the kingdom of God.") to be taken as they are written, or not as they are written?
All defenders of the theory of baptism of desire must admit that they believe that John 3:5 is not to be taken literally. They agree that baptism of desire cannot be true if John 3:5 is understood as it is written. So the question is: Does the Catholic Church understand John 3:5 as it is written or not?
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 BE BORN AGAIN OF WATER AND THE HOLY GHOST, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD (JOHN 3:5)."
The reader can see very clearly that the Council of Trent teaches that John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written (Latin: sicut scriptum est), thereby excluding any possibility of baptism of desire. Ironically, the Council defines this in Sess. 6, Chap. 4, the very passage which baptism of desire proponents quote all the time to favor their position. In fact, this passage is brought up by baptism of desire proponents as their single strongest – and perhaps only – argument from the Papal Magisterium. It is their "trump card". Why do they think this?
Let’s see, why do we think this? Well, let’s start out by reminding Bro. Dimond that the Council of Trent is an infallible and dogmatic council. What is declared and/or defined by this council cannot be dismissed by any true and faithful Catholic.
The baptism of desire people believe that the use of the word "or" (Latin: aut) in the above passage means that justification can take place by the water of baptism or the desire for it. But a careful look at the passage proves this to be false. The passage says that justification cannot take place without the laver of regeneration (water baptism) or the desire for it; in other words, both are necessary. Suppose I said, "This shower cannot take place without water or the desire to take one." Does this mean that the shower takes place by the desire to take a shower? Absolutely not. It means that both are necessary.
Bro. Dimond contradicts himself and levies a contradiction on the Council of Trent as well. First he states “that justification can take place,” then he says “that justification cannot take place.” Well, you cannot have an infallible council making both statements! Either it cannot happen, or it can – this is simple logic. The fact that the Latin word “aut” is used and means “or” – this is quite simply proof that it can happen. We must also keep in mind, the Church never declares a given individual is not justified and/or is condemned to hell. The Church does not play the role of God here – that is His job. It’s not Bro. Dimond’s, nor is it the job of the Benedictines at Most Holy Family Monastery. What is the job of the Church and the faithful is to teach that Baptism is a command of our Lord and no one can willfully refuse to be baptized and expect to be justified and/or saved.
Back to the word “or” here, in this context – “or” does not mean “and” so no matter how much one desires to force the meaning of “and” on this passage, we cannot, without rewriting the passage. As for the shower analogy, Bro. Dimond left out the key concept – it is not “baptism” that will take place in Baptism of Desire, rather it is justification that takes place. Therefore, in the shower analogy, Bro. Dimond missed a point and to make it a valid comparison we would have to add something like, “The mark of this shower cannot take place without the water or the desire for the shower.” In other words, the "mark" of the shower "may" take place whether one actually gets in the shower "or" at least desires to do so. In keeping with the Catholic teaching on "desire" - if one had the opportunity to get in the shower and willfully refused, then the "mark" would not be attained for if one's "desire" is pure, they would not pass up such an opportunity.
Disjunctive use of the word “or:” If you clean your room, you may watch television or go to the movies. You can do either of these things, but not both. In the context of the subject of this article, “Justification of the impious… …cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it.” Either works, but not both.
Conjunctive use of the word “or:” If you do not clean your room, you may not watch television or go to the movies. You cannot do either of these things. In the context of Trent, we’d have to reword to make it conjunctive. It would have to be worded something like, “Justification of the impious… …cannot take place without either the laver of regeneration or the desire of it.” Without both, neither works – but I reiterate, Trent did not word it this way!
In fact, the Latin word aut ("or") is used in the same way in other passages in the Council of Trent. In the introduction to the decree on Justification, the Council strictly forbids anyone to "believe, preach or teach" (credere, praedicare aut docere) other than as it is defined and declared in the decree on Justification.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Introduction: "... strictly forbidding that anyone henceforth may presume to believe, preach or teach, otherwise than is defined and declared by this present decree."
Does "or" (aut) in this passage mean that one is only forbidden to preach contrary to the Council’s decree on justification, but one is allowed to teach contrary to it? No, obviously "or"(aut) means that both preaching and teaching are forbidden, just like in chapter 4 above "or" means that justification cannot take place without both water and desire.
No, Bro. Dimond is missing the syntax of this sentence, the two instances do not use the word “or” in the same way. In the statement of “cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it” this is a disjunctive statement. This next statement, “believe, preach or teach,” the context tells us this use of “or” is a conjunctive statement, not a disjunctive one. So it is grammatically incorrect to say the use of “or” in these two passages is the same.
Another example of the use of aut to mean "and" (or "both") in Trent is found in Sess. 21, Chap. 2, the decree on Communion under both species (Denz. 931).
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 21, Chap. 2: "Therefore holy mother Church... has approved this custom of communicating under either species, and has decreed that it be considered as a law, which may not be repudiated or be changed at will without the authority of the Church."
Does aut in this declaration mean that the Council’s decree may not be repudiated, but it may be changed? No, obviously it means that both a repudiation and a change are forbidden. This is another clear example of how the Latin word aut can be used in contexts which render its meaning "and" or "both".
Yes, again the context of this passage relegates the meaning of “and” or “both” to this use of “or.” Ironically, it must be pointed out that you have used “or” to mean “either/or” here in your own explanation!
And these examples blow away the claim of baptism of desire supporters: that the meaning of aut in Chapter 4, Session 6 is one which favors baptism of desire.
Well, no, due to the lack of proper syntactical examination, the conclusion reached here is faulty.
But why does Trent define that the desire for Baptism, along with Baptism, is necessary for justification? In the past we did not answer this question as well as we could have, because we thought that Sess. 6, Chap. 4 was distinguishing between adults and infants. But further study of the passage reveals that in this chapter Trent is defining what is necessary for the iustificationis impii - the justification of the impious (see quote above). The "impious" cannot refer to infants - who are incapable of committing actual sins (Trent, Sess. V, Denz. 791). Therefore, in this chapter Trent is dealing exclusively with those above the age of reason who have committed actual sins, and for such persons the desire for baptism is necessary for justification. That is why the chapter defines that justification cannot take place without the water of baptism or the desire for it.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism - Dispositions for Baptism, Tan Books, p. 180:
"INTENTION - ... In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it…"
So, far from being in favor of baptism of desire, this chapter of the Council of Trent actually goes against it. It defines that justification of the impious cannot take place without the water of baptism or the desire for it.
The Council of Trent is anything but ambiguous – thus this use of “or” when contrasting two objects (the actual laver “or” the desire of it) is doing just that, “contrasting” the two objects. If the intended meaning was “and” then “and” would have been used, or other words would have been included to make the "or" a "conjunctive or."
We know this interpretation of this passage is correct, because if what baptism of desire proponents say were correct, 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 scriptumest)! But this passage is infallible and there is no contradiction contained therein. So let every baptism of desire supporter cease preaching that Sess. 6, Chap. 4 teaches that justification "can" be effected by water or desire, which is certainly not what the Council says. Let them cease preaching that John 3:5 is not to be taken AS IT IS WRITTEN.
The problem with the insistence on this thesis is that we do not take any one verse out of the context of the rest of Scripture. If Bro. Dimond’s argument were valid here, then one could go just a bit further in the same chapter and find that only “believing” is necessary:
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
In fact, if we look at the context of verse 5, the meaning of “born of water” can actually mean our physical birth. Let us look at the context:
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Recognizing the two part comparison in v.5 which is repeated in v.6 and then confirmed in v.7 – we see that the statement we must be “born of water and of the Spirit” is indicative of our physical birth and our spiritual birth. By our mother, we receive physical birth (which is literally a birth by water); through the Sacrament of Baptism we are “born again… of the Spirit.” To insist that being “born of water” is “water baptism” ignores the context of John 3.
Let them cease quoting the horrible mistranslation of this passage as it is found in Denzinger (which many of them continue obstinately to do after it has been pointed out to them).
Bro. Dimond has not established that “Denzinger” is a “horrible mistranslation.” In fact, this is the first mention that it is such. What is mistranslated? The word “or?” This cannot be, for even Bro. Dimond has acknowledged the use of this word and defended it, albeit through the use of faulty syntax, he still defends the fact that “or” is used.
And furthermore, let not these people think that they justify themselves before the all-knowing God by ignoring the above facts and continuing to obstinately assert that Sess. 6, Chap. 4 definitely teaches baptism of desire.
Here we see a false dilemma being presented. It is not the argument of those who support Baptism of Desire that one may “ignore” the command to be baptized.
They cannot be justified asserting this even by quoting famous Church theologians, who were mistaken in good faith; for God did not give the charism of infallibility to theologians, however great, but to Peter and his successors alone (Lk. 22:31-32).
It is not stated to whom Bro. Dimond is referring here, but since it is well known by anyone who has debated this topic previously, one can assume he is referring to St. Thomas Aquinas and the Summa Theologica, which makes several references to Baptism of Desire. The problem we would have here though is that the Summa Theologica has never been abrogated. In fact, if we were to accept Bro. Dimond’s argument here, then we’d have to assume that teaching Baptism of Desire is heresy. It would not make sense then that Aquinas is heralded as both a doctor and saint in the Catholic Church and not condemned a heretic.
It must also be noted, infallibility is not reserved to Peter and his successors alone – for the same authority given to Peter alone in Matthew 16:18-19 is also given to the rest of the Apostles, as a group, in Matthew 18:18. This is why we also attribute infallibility to ecuмenical councils of the Catholic Church. (And it must be noted that the “keys” mentioned in Matthew 16 are not mentioned in Matthew 18 – the keys represent a supremacy of authority which is only mentioned in the context of St. Peter).
Some baptism of desire supporters also bring forward Sess. 7, Can. 4 on the Sacraments to somehow try to prove baptism of desire. But it’s obvious that this canon does not teach that either the sacraments or the desire for them is sufficient for justification, as some claim, but that it condemns those who assert that neither the sacraments nor the desire for them is necessary for justification, and that faith alone suffices. It does not affirm that either is sufficient, but condemns those who assert that neither is necessary. For a full discussion of this canon we refer you to the section on it in issue #6 of our magazine.
Again, the problem with the above argument is lies in the fact that Trent mentions both. If the Sacrament itself is ALL that matters, then mentioning “desire” would obscure the Truth – and I do not think Bro. Dimond is asserting that Trent obscures the Truth.
It is also quite interesting to consider that whereas the Council of Trent never teaches baptism of desire, it teaches no less than three times (twice in Sess. 6, Chap. 14 and once in Sess. 14, Chap. 4) that the desire for the Sacrament of Penance (if a person has perfect contrition) can suffice for justification before Penance is actually received. This efficacy of the desire for the Sacrament of Penance is mentioned three times, but the supposed efficacy of the desire for baptism (baptism of desire) is not mentioned at all. This should indicate something to those who believe in baptism of desire: God didn’t allow it to be taught in the infallible Council of Trent or any other Council or even in any Papal encyclical in the history of the Church, because it is an erroneous theory.
Well here Bro. Dimond has issued an absolutely false statement. “The laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof” is clearly mentioned, so to say it is “not mentioned at all” is utterly false.
John 3:5 is true exactly as it is written (Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4).
This has already been acknowledged as true, but one must also look at the context! Verses 6 and 7 refute the thesis that Bro. Dimond is so earnestly defending.
If the concept of baptism of desire were a true teaching of the Church, then the Council of Trent definitely would have included it in the canons on Baptism or in the chapters on Justification. But it’s nowhere to be found.
It is not found, explicitly, in the canons on Baptism nor in the chapters on Justification for it is rather obscure and very limited in scope. Extremists on both sides of this matter seem to make a much bigger argument out of Baptism of Desire than is truly there. It must also be considered that every Church council had a focus. Trent focused on Protestants and its purpose was not to layout an exhaustive definition for every Sacrament, but rather to answer their challenges and revolts against the Church. Protestants did not make a point of protest against Baptism of Desire.
It’s also noteworthy that the terms baptism of desire and baptism of blood are not found anywhere even in The Catechism of the Council of Trent - contrary to what many assert. For a discussion of what The Catechism of the Council of Trent does and does not teach on Baptism, consult the section on it in issue #6 of our magazine.
We find Bro. Dimond in another false statement, below is a quote from the Catechism of Trent:
On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness. (
http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tsacr-b.htm)
2) Is there one baptism or are there three?
Is there only one baptism celebrated in water? Or do three baptisms exist: water, blood and desire? Let us quote the teaching of the Church: The Dogmatic Nicene Creed: "We confess one baptism for the remission of sins." Countless Popes have professed the dogma that there is only one baptism (see issue #6 of our magazine for quotes from no less than 9 other Popes). Did baptism of desire proponents ever wonder why countless Popes have professed that there is only one baptism, and not a single one of them bothered to define the so-called "other two" (desire and blood)? Why has not a single Pope ever used the terms "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood"? Why did two general councils of the Church – Lateran IV and Vienne – define ex cathedra only one baptism which is of water?
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."
If the sacrament of baptism brings salvation to children and adults (de fide), then without it there is no salvation!
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 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 reject Catholic dogma.
What we have here is a “common fallacy” in rhetoric. Bro. Dimond has levied a “straw man.” There is only one baptism, just as we confess in the Creed. This one baptism is generally manifested in baptism of water, but in a very limited scope – it may be manifest through either blood or desire. (Baptism by blood has not been a topic of this article until this point, but that would be the acceptance of martyrs for the Faith who may not have had the opportunity to receive water baptism prior to death). To assert that proponents of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are saying there are “three baptisms” is to be ignorant of the reality of the confession of one baptism. Is there is more than one Eucharist because there is Body AND Blood and one can receive either and still receive the wholeness of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ? By no means! Just as there is one Eucharist, wholly complete in either of two forms; there is one baptism, which may be wholly efficacious whether by water, blood or desire.
3) Are those who have not received the Sacrament of Baptism part of the faithful?
Who are the faithful? Can one who has not been baptized be considered part of the faithful? I have not, as yet, heard any believer in baptism of desire try to answer this question. The following facts explain why I have not yet gotten an answer to this question; it is because they cannot answer this question.
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."
As many of you know, the Catholic Mass is divided into two parts: the Mass of the catechumens (those training to be baptized) and the Mass of the faithful (those baptized). Need one say more? In the early Church, the unsacramentally baptized (i.e., those who had not been baptized with water) 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. 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."
St. John Chrysostom (Hom. in Io. 25, 3), Bishop and Doctor of the Church:
"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, though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble."
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. Rom., Ordo Baptismi) which without hope and charity faith cannot bestow."
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.
What Bro. Dimond appears to be overlooking here is that the Church of the Faithful refers to the Church Militant – that is, those still alive in the Church. For those whom Baptism of Desire (or blood) would be applicable would be among either the Church Suffering (those in Purgatory) or the Church Victorious (those in Heaven). In either case, Baptism of Desire is not for the Church Militant, but it MAY apply (again, it is God who is the Judge of this) to those who have died prior to receiving Water Baptism, but had an honest and earnest desire for it.
4) Is Our Lord’s command to be baptized impossible for some to fulfill?
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 to 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."
As proven above, God commanded all men to be baptized. The supporters of the theory of baptism of desire argue that for some people the command to be baptized is impossible to fulfill.
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…"
Bro. Dimond argues “the supporters of the theory of baptism of desire argue that for some people the command to be baptized is impossible to fulfill.” Again it must be stated, what individuals argue is really irrelevant if the Church has a teaching on this matter, and she does. No one can say, with certainty, that God does or does not provide a supernatural means of receiving the Sacrament for those who die with an honest desire to receive the Sacrament. It must also be reiterated that no man can speak for the Judgment of God. It is primarily up to us to teach and emphasize the need for Baptism to fulfill the Lord’s command, but for those limited few who may die while desiring the Sacrament we must leave their Judgment to God.
Is Lefebvrism Catholic?
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. The premise of these books - especially Is Feeneyism Catholic? - is that it is not Catholic to take John 3:5 as it is written. Such a premise not only condemns the teaching of the Council of Trent, that John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written (as we have shown), but it literally means that you are not Catholic if you believe exactly what the following Magisterial teaching declares:
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Exultate Deo, 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 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 Pius XI, Quas Primas (# 15), Dec. 11, 1925 (to all patriarchs, primates, archbishops, and bishops): "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."
Pope Pius XI is expressing the truth here, but he does not elaborate on the entire teaching on Baptism. He does not tell us what constitutes a valid baptism, nor the ordinary or extra-ordinary ministers who may validly administer the Sacrament. He doesn’t tell us what the matter, form and intent must be, he only mentions the necessity of Baptism, and those who support the teaching from Trent – which echoed (and certainly did not condemn) the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Here we see the Council of Florence authoritatively teaching that no one at all can be saved without water baptism, and Pope Pius XI teaching that no one can enter the kingdom of God without faith and the external rite of baptism (i.e., the sacrament administered in water).
The fact of the matter is, Quas Primas does not go into the details regarding the eternal rite.
The Society of St. Pius X’s books teach that these statements of Pope Eugene IV and Pope Pius XI are not Catholic. Anyone who obstinately promotes, defends or supports such a view (or the books) is a heretic, which unfortunately also includes the Society of St. Pius V, the C.M.R.I. and most other independent priests. One who would obstinately give financial support to such a group would also be a heretic, for then one would be supporting their heretical position, among others.
We have at least a couple problems with Bro. Dimond’s credibility here. First off, he does not quote nor cite anything from these books. Second, it must be reiterated that what anyone teaches, believes, etc., is irrelevant if the Church has already taught on this matter.
It must also be noted, Bro. Dimond sympathizes with the Society of St. Pius V and the C.M.R.I., and both organizations, as well as the Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM), are sedevacantists. That is, they believe the Chair of Peter is empty, that Pope John Paul II is not the real and valid pope – and argue that he is, in reality an “anti-pope,” or even The Antichrist. The purpose of this refutation/article is not to refute sedevacantism, so we will not go into details of that matter presently. Suffice it to say – these organizations have already separated themselves from valid Catholicism and articles, such as the one being refuted here, appear to be little more than rationalizations to justify in their minds their separation from the Church.
All of these groups also believe that people can be saved in non-Catholic religions, which totally rejects the dogma that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. The C.M.R.I. actually printed an article in their magazine, The Reign of Mary, entitled "The Salvation of Those Outside the Church." It is not possible to deny the dogma more directly.
It seems that the MHFM’s lifeboat is getting smaller and smaller. Bro. Dimond, while sympathizing with the sedevacantist views of the other two organizations he mentions, now appears to be outright condemning the C.M.R.I. organization. Is the Ark of the New Covenant restricted to adherents and supporters of the MHFM? (Rhetorical question).
The remainder of this section from Bro. Dimond’s article consists solely of attacks on the books presented by the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). Since it is not the goal of this article/refutation to defend SSPX nor books they have produced, we will skip to the next section.
Strange Heresy?
In May of 1999, the St. Benedict Center in Richmond, NH accused us in their newsletter of holding a "strange heresy".
This whole section is primarily a dispute between the two sedevacantist camps, thus rather than getting involved in their infighting, this section will also be skipped.
John 3:5 vs. John 6:54
Some writers, including Fr. Laisney in Is Feeneyism Catholic?, 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 kingdom of God."
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 receive the Eucharist, they had to in order to be saved. This applies to all who can receive the Eucharist, which is what the Church teaches.
Again, Bro. Dimond has a problem with context if he is trying to limit the teaching of John 6:53 (not 54, it is verse 54 with 51 and 58 which actually refute Bro. Dimond’s thesis) to just to whom Jesus was speaking and not “every man.” Let us look at the context:
Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Joh 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Joh 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
Joh 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Verse 51 clearly refers to “…if any man…” and verse 54 opens with “Whoso…” indicating no limitation; likewise verse 58 is not limiting in scope regarding “he that eateth…” In other words, the context utterly crushes Bro. Dimond’s thesis. Verse 53 actually states that those who do NOT “eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood… have no life in (them).” It would seem that in his zeal to disprove Baptism of Desire – Bro. Dimond is sacrificing one of the strongest support sections from Scripture to defend Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus (EENS), another tenant, actually defined dogma of the Catholic Faith, which MHFM fiercely (and rightly so) defends. It seems that Bro. Dimond is biting of his nose to spite his face?
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 (see Council of Carthage, Denz 102; Florence, Denz. 696; Trent, Sess. 5, no. 4, Denz. 791; Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4; Trent, Can. 2 and 5 on Baptism, Denz. 858 and 861.).
Earlier Bro. Dimond criticized Denzinger (Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, translated by Roy J. Deferrari) as a “horrible mistranslation” but now repeatedly cites the same source? For those following along in their own Denzinger, the reference that offends Bro. Dimond (“…or a desire for it…”) is found in D.796. Why is such a “horrible mistranslation” now seen as a source worth citing?
Aside from the inconsistency here, Bro. Dimond has a bigger problem. The word “you” can have ambiguous meaning here, but even if we grant him the way he uses it, in the case of the Eucharist, it is not limited just to those who understand Jesus’ words. Bro. Dimond relates it to Baptism, because everyone can receive Baptism – adults and infants, but so too can infants receive Eucharist! His statement is very Latin-centric, not recognizing that our Eastern brethren give all three rites of initiation to infants. We (Latins) have our reasons for waiting for a child to reach the age of reason, but this waiting does not preclude the “ability” for an infant to receive the Eucharist.
Also, one should note that Trent’s Canons on Baptism are Canons on the Sacrament (Canones de sacramento baptismi). This means that Can. 5 (see below) condemns anyone who says that the Sacrament of Baptism (i.e., water baptism) is not necessary for salvation. It also takes John 3:5 literally once again, as the Church always does.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, Can. 5: "IF ANYONE SHALL SAY THAT BAPTISM IS OPTIONAL, THAT IS, NOT NECESSARY FOR SALVATION (cf. John 3:5): let him be anathema."
John 3:5-7: "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 kingdom of God… WONDER NOT, that I said to thee, YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN."
Baptism is not optional, and I know of no supporter of Baptism of Desire that says so. Thus, we have another straw man argument.
In conclusion, it would seem those who oppose Baptism of Desire are making “much ado about nothing.” Baptism of Desire truly can only be applied in a very limited scope. If one “desires” baptism and, through not fault of their own, are not baptized prior to death, then God MAY judge their desire as sufficient for justification. There is also no definitive teaching that one IS justified through the “desire” for the Sacrament. Likewise, to put this in perspective, some seem to overly defend this “possibility” and may actually be doing damage to souls if such souls get a false sense of security that actual baptism is not a necessity to actually seek. Our focus, as faithful Catholics, should be to preach the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism, since it is commanded by God. IF there is an obscure chance that someone desires Baptism, but dies prior to receiving it – then we should leave the judgment of such a person’s soul to God. He alone knows the heart of anyone else and for us to presume condemnation on anyone is a usurpation of His role as Judge. I reiterate, it can be just as dangerous for an extremist who blindly defends Baptism of Desire as it is for an extremist who obstinately denies the teaching.
in medio stat virtus
(Virtue is in the middle)
Additional sources:
http://www.romancatholicism.org/lbod-thesis.htmlhttp://www.coomaraswamy-catholic-writings.com/Baptism%20of%20Desire.htmhttp://www.stthomasaquinas.net/baptism.htmlhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/summa/406611.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/summa/406612.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/summa/406802.htm
Topic: Baptism of Desire (Read 6877 times)