So where did denials of BOB and BOD get their start? In the opening couple centuries of the Church this question seems to have never come up. And in the next several centuries several ancient Church Fathers mentioned both BOB and BOD, though there were some few who listed only the martyrs (BOB) as being any exception to the requirement to be baptized in water. And yet, through selective quotation many of them are made to seem as if they entertained a variety of different opinions about BOB and BOD among themselves. However, no useful quotes have been found (even out of context) to suggest that any of the most ancient Fathers were in any way aware of any such difference of opinion among themselves
   
One salient point that necessarily has to emerge from these facts is that there is little evidence that many of the ancients ever gave these questions much thought. By the time of Saint Augustine however, there had already been established a clear moral unanimity regarding the BOB, which was clearly in favor. Of the very most ancients, even what few could be quoted (or even misquoted) as being against either one of BOB or BOD never once invoked any of the official pronouncements (of the sort listed in my previous installment, or what equivalents to them must have existed in their own day) in defense of any such opinion, assuming any ever entertained such an opinion at all.

    If such official teachings as those cited in the previous installment were meant to be applicable to these particular cases, this kind of discussion would not have been permissible. One finds no further discussions on the question of BOB or BOD until the late 1120's when Peter Abélard, who had just recently put forth (but then had already withdrawn) some rather irregular ideas regarding the Holy Trinity, first began to deny that those ancient Church Fathers and Doctors, such as Augustine and Ambrose, could have been right about allowing for BOD.

    There is much about the whole situation regarding St. Bernard of Clairvaux and Peter Abélard which the Treatise quite dishonestly passes over in silence. The Catholic Encyclopedia brings out a number of salient historical points about these two men and how they related to each other with regards to the doctrinal differences between the two men, including the discussion about BOD. It states (as extracted from its articles about St. Bernard of Clairvaux and Peter Abélard):

    Abélard's treatise on the Trinity had been condemned in 1121, and he himself had thrown his book into the fire. But in 1139 he advocated new errors. Bernard, informed of this by William of St. Thierry, wrote to Abélard who answered in an insulting manner. Bernard then denounced him to the pope who caused a general council to be held at Sens. Abélard asked for a public discussion with Bernard; the latter showed his opponent's errors with such clearness and force of logic that he was unable to make any reply, and was obliged, after being condemned, to retire. The pope confirmed the judgment of the council, Abélard submitted without resistance, and retired to Cluny to live under Peter the Venerable, where he died two years later.

    There were admonitions on the one side and defiances on the other; St. Bernard, having first warned Abélard in private, proceeded to denounce him to the bishops of France; Abélard, underestimating the ability and influence of his adversary, requested a meeting, or council, of bishops, before whom Bernard and he should discuss the points in dispute.

    Accordingly, a council was held at Sens (the metropolitan see to which Paris was then suffragan) in 1141. On the eve of the council a meeting of bishops was held, at which Bernard was present, but not Abélard, and in that meeting a number of propositions were selected from Abélard's writings, and condemned. When, on the following morning, these propositions were read in solemn council, Abélard, informed, so it seems, of the proceedings of the evening before, refused to defend himself, declaring that he appealed to Rome. Accordingly, the propositions were condemned, but Abélard was allowed his freedom. St. Bernard now wrote to the members of the Roman Curia, with the result that Abélard had proceeded only as far as Cluny on his way to Rome when the decree of Innocent II confirming the sentence of the Council of Sens reached him.

   The Council of Sens condemned some 19 errors of Peter Abélard (Denzinger 368-387), of which the condemned proposition number 15 reads "That even chaste fear is excluded from future life." (Denzinger 382) This peculiar phrasing would be taken from Peter Abélard's own writings in which he had argued to the effect that even someone who dies with a chaste and holy fear of God, (but without being baptized in water) would still be excluded from Heaven. So, in review, Peter Abélard's unusual teachings, including his denial of BOD, were condemned in council (Sens) and then also by the Pope (Innocent II). Even Peter Abélard himself appears to have subsequently withdrawn his propositions.

    The denial of BOD would never arise again for just over 800 years, when Fr. Leonard Feeney,S.J. would begin championing Peter Abélard's unique opinion. But why is all of this history omitted? Pope Innocent II does get mentioned (page 144 of the Treatise), but only with regard to a rather strange docuмent pertaining to the situation of an unbaptized priest. Why is the council of Sens not mentioned? Even more germane to the question, why is Pope Innocent II's endorsement of the decision of the Council of Sens not mentioned? From the way this whole episode is written up in the Treatise, one gets the picture that it all went much like controversies go in the Church today (in view of the lack of anyone of sufficient authority willing to arbitrate between differing doctrinal opinions) - someone writes up some claim, another writes against the claim, each side gets its followers, no authority steps in to resolve the question so people just continue lining up with whatever side they individually choose to agree with. Occasionally one side or the other may convert some adherants to their side through some particularly brilliant preaching, but no permanent gains are made and no resolutions emerge, and thus it remains indefinitely. Ignoring the council of Sens and the Pope's endorsement of said council, one gets the idea that Peter Abélard just writes up one claim, Bernard of Clairvaux writes against that claim, and then it's up to you, the reader, to decide which side you agree with.

    At least, Saint Bernard IS mentioned, and even with regard to this episode (page 82), but only in that he had written a treatise (Tractatus de Baptismo) in which he affirmed his stand with Saints (and Doctors) Ambrose and Augustine, as two pillars, in BOD. St. Bernard's own treatise had been written in response to a number of comments of Peter Abélard's and was written in direct response to a letter from Hugh of Saint Victor who desired to prepare a response to Abélard (or any of his disciples) who had spread pernicious ideas including the notion that the law of baptism became law the moment Jesus spoke of it secretly to Nicodemus, and that the ancient Fathers had known as fully as could be known today the full details of God's plan of redemption including the Virgin Birth and Jesus' death on the Cross. And important also to note is that Peter Abélard was only critical of BOD. He plainly did not reject the all-too widely held belief in BOB.

    It is instructive to take a good look at how St. Bernard responded to these errors, for he did far more than merely state that he disagreed with them. He reasoned from Scripture and the Fathers and the love of God in a manner exactly consistent with how all the ancient Fathers defended the doctrines. The full text of his response is available in the book Bernard of Clairvaux: "On Baptism and the Office of Bishops" Translated by Pauline Matarasso, available as Cistercian Fathers Series #67 from Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN, web address litpress.org, and also available from Cistercian Publications. The relevant portion reads thus (from pages 157-162):

    Once the remedy of baptism was common knowledge, any adult still refusing to be baptized added to the general and original stain - and this time on his own account - the crime of pride, carrying with him a double cause of just damnation should he happen to leave the body in that state. If, however, he should have second thoughts before the end, and want and ask to be baptized, but, forestalled by death, fail in the obtaining, so long as true faith, devout hope, and unfeigned love are present and only water is lacking - may God forgive me - I am quite unable to despair of this man's salvation, nor will I believe his faith empty, crush his hope or prune away his charity: this on condition that he does not spurn the water, but is prevented by the impossibility I have just mentioned. If anyone takes a different view, I suggest he look at the grounds on which he bases what he advances, for I confess that I would grudge my assent unless a more powerful argument swayed my reason or a greater authority compelled my belief.

    But my amazement would pass all bounds if this new inventor of novel assertions and assertor of new inventions was able to find a supportive argument which escaped the notice of the holy Fathers Ambrose and Augustine, or indeed an authority weightier than theirs. For, in the case he does not know, each held exactly the same opinion - the very one I admit to sharing. He should make a point of reading - if he has not already done so - Ambrose's book On the Death of Valentinian. If he has read it, he should recall it to mind and, recalling it, not fail to register but positively note, that the saint confidently assumes the salvation of one who met death unbaptized, and has no hesitation in allowing good will to substitute for capacity. He should also read Augustine's On the One Baptism, Book IV, and either admit that he has let himself be led astray or prove himself brazenly stubborn. 'Blessed Cyprian', says Augustine, 'to show that suffering can sometimes stand in for baptism, adduces the weighty example of that unbaptized thief to whom Christ said: Today you shall be with me in paradise.' Augustine goes on: 'I found, on turning this over and over in my mind, that it is not only suffering for the name of Christ, but also faith and conversion of heart which can make good the loss borne by those who want of time robs of the benefits of the baptismal mystery'. 'That thief', he continues, 'exemplifies the Apostle's words on the value of the inner disposition in the absence of the visible sacrament, It is by believing with the heart that we are justified, by confessing with the lips that we are saved. But', adds Augustine, 'it is only when baptism is prevented, not by contempt for religion but by outward constraints, that the mystery is invisibly implemented.' And I am not unaware that [that Father] himself withdrew the example of the thief, which he had put forward, and acknowledged its inadmissibility as proof of his opinion, in that it cannot be known for certain whether or not the thief had been baptized. That does not stop him from pressing his view strongly and confirming it in various ways; nor, unless I am mistaken, will you find any instance of his having retracted it. Elsewhere Augustine, after bringing forward other figures whom Scripture records as having been invisibly rather than visibly sanctified, writes in conclusion: 'We may gather from these examples that some have experienced and profited from an invisible sanctification unaccompanied by visible sacraments, which latter have changed with changing times and differed then from now.' A little further on we read: 'Not, however, that the visible sacrament is to be contemned, for it is not possible for anyone acting thus to be invisibly sanctified.' In these passages he demonstrates clearly that the faithful person who turns to God in his heart is deprived of the fruit of baptism not by failing to be baptized, but by holding baptism in contempt.

    It would be hard, believe me, to tear me away from these two pillars - I mean Augustine and Ambrose. I own to going along with them in wisdom or in error, for I too believe that a person can be saved by faith alone, through the desire to receive the sacrament, but only if such a one is forestalled by death or prevented by some other insuperable force from implementing this devout desire. Perhaps this was why the Savior, when he said: Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, took care not to repeat 'whoever is not baptized', but only, whoever does not believe will be condemned, intimating strongly that faith is sometimes sufficient for salvation and that without it nothing suffices. And while it is conceded that martyrdom can stand in for baptism, it is clearly not the torment but the faith which is operative. For without faith what is martyrdom but torment? If faith, then, which gives to martyrdom an eminence that sets it on par with baptism, is so impotent and feeble of itself, how can it confer on something else what it is not potent enough to win on its own? To shed one's blood for Christ is without doubt a proof of great faith, but one given not to God, but to human beings. Supposing God, who has no need of tangible proofs, sees in the heart of someone dying in peace an equally great faith, a faith not put to the test of martyrdom but nonetheless meet for it; if that person, recalling that he has not yet received the mystery of salvation, longs for it with the fullness of a disconsolate and contrite heart, and if sudden death prevents him attaining it, will God condemn his faithful servant? Will he condemn, I ask you, someone who is ready to die for him? Paul says: No one is able to say 'Lord Jesus' save in the Holy Spirit. So what then of the person who at the hour of death not only invokes the Lord Jesus, but also longs for his sacrament with all the fullness of his heart, shall we say that he does not speak in the Holy Spirit, thus making a liar of the Apostle, or, alternatively, that even with the Spirit he will be condemned? He has the Savior dwelling in his heart through faith and in his mouth through avowal; with his Savior present will he be condemned? Since martyrdom earns from faith alone the exceptional privilege of being received in all security in place of baptism, I do not see why faith should not have the same sway with God, who does not need the proof of martyrdom to recognize it. I should certainly say that it is as efficacious for salvation, though not for the amassing of merit, where martyrdom undoubtedly takes precedence. We read that Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and again that If a man looks at a woman lustfully, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart. What is plainer than that the will is taken for the deed, when force of circuмstance prevents the doing? Unless perhaps it is thought that ill will carries a greater weight than good with the God who is love, and that the merciful and magnanimous Lord is quicker to avenge himself than to reward. Just as someone who calls to mind - it may be at the point of death - that he is pledged to a creditor and lacks the wherewithal to discharge his debt, is believed nonetheless to win remission and be let off any judgment by simple dint of repentance and genuine sorrow, even so will faith alone and the conversion of the mind to God, without the shedding of blood and pouring of water, assuredly win salvation for whomsoever wishes to be baptized but, waylaid by death, is unable to put that wish into effect. And just as no repentance can remit the sin of the debtor who, when he can, does not restore what he has taken, even so no faith will avail the other who fails to receive the sacrament when he is able. Indeed, neglecting to do so proves that his faith is not perfect. A true and full faith embraces all commands; and this is the very chief of commands. Anyone therefore who refuses to obey it will rightly be deemed, not faithful, but frankly rebellious and contemptuous. For how can one be faithful and hold God's sacrament in contempt?

Or that voice in CM's head.

I have yet to see anyone dissect these infallible statements and show how baptism of desire does not contradict them.

Yet another lie.

The first one that Prophecy Film quoted.

You just can't do it.  The words are obvious and plain as day.  NOBODY can do it, otherwise I would believe in baptism of desire.

But it is A DIRECT CONTRADICTION OF DOGMATIC DECREES.

Caminus, do you forget that I am not the only one on this board?  I have answered your mixed up 'theology', not for your benefit, because you are BLIND but for that of others who may actually have some good will.

You overstate your case.  Show me one pope who taught baptism of desire in his formal capacity, the only person you can propose is Pius XII, but this is a fallacy, since he was heretical on this point AND OTHERS.

Pius XII was a legitimate pope. Popes can err in fallible speeches and docuмents. No legitimate pope can err in dogmatic statements and docuмents addressed to the whole church, this is why we can trust in the church teachings definitely. Pope Pius XII never taught any heresy dogmatically, he did however, teach heresies in fallible speeches, such as nfp (natural family planning), and, as you said, if he did talk about baptism of desire, which of course, is another heresy.

It's a fact that no Pope in the history of the Catholic Church has taught dogmatically that one can be saved with baptism of blood or with baptism of desire. There are, however, numerous dogmatic definitions clarifying the fact that one is in need of the actual element of water for salvation, without exception.


Saints and Doctors of the Church can be wrong and have been wrong in much, teaching baptism of blood and baptism of desire. Saint Thomas Aquinas believed and wrote down that the blessed Virgin Mary was conceived in sin, (which was before the dogma of the immaculate conception was defined), further proving the fallibility of Saints and Doctors of the Church, yet again affirming the validity and infallibility of dogmatic definitions of popes.