Implicit Faith - Defying the Law of Non-contradiction at Every Turn
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.”
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.
Archbishop Patrick Kenrick (19th Century), Treatise on Baptism:
“Hence, all the illustrious writers of antiquity proclaimed in
unqualified terms its (Baptism’s) absolute necessity.”
The Very Theologians Implict Faith’ers Bring Forward Also Disprove Their
Position
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.)”483
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 “salvation by an implict faith in a God that rewards”! Even Baptism of desire of the catechumen 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!
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!
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 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…”
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.”
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 CATHOLIC CHURCH!
It is of the Faith that only the water baptized are part of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
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.’”
Here we see Dr. Ludwig Ott clearly affirming the universal Catholic teaching that only water baptized persons are inside the Church. 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 (ecclesiasticicorporis).
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The HolyRoman 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.”
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…’”
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.”
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).” (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).’”
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 Trent) to prove the point!
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…”
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.’”493
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!
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 theCatholic 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):ʺThe 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…ʺ494
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?
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. ”496
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.”497
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…”498
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…”
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.”
So again, we see how baptism of desire advocates, 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, 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 (and all the other theologians) is 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…”501
Notice the difficulty St. Robert encounters in trying to explain baptism of desire; he immediately has to compromise and contradict his own definition of the Church.
St. Robert Bellarmine (16th century): ʺThe 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…ʺ
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”
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.’”
By now the reader should again be discovering the theme which I’ve been showing throughout this long examination of the contradiction in the theries of the so-called 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 docuмents.
Topic: Implicit Faith - Defying the Law of Non-contradiction at Every Turn (Read 23210 times)