THE BEST ARGUMENT AGAINST “BAPTISM OF DESIRE”
BRO. PETER DIMOND
POINT 1 – THE GRACE CONFERRED BY THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM IS DOGMATICALLY DEFINED TO BE: • A GRACE THAT REMITS EVERY SIN AND ALL THE TEMPORAL PUNISHMENT DUE TO SIN • IT IS A GRACE THAT LEAVES A PERSON IN A STATE IN WHICH HE WOULD GO IMMEDIATELY TO HEAVEN IF DYING AFTER HAVING RECEIVED IT
The grace of Baptism, which completely regenerates the soul, is also called regeneration or being ‘born again’. The effect of this grace is the remission of every sin and all temporal punishment due to sin (de fide definita: see Florence and Trent below). Since the grace of Baptism not only remits all sin, but also all the temporal punishment due to sin, thus making the person a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 4:24), it’s certain that someone who would die immediately after receiving the grace of Baptism would go straight to Heaven. Someone dying in that state would not need to go to Purgatory or suffer any punishment for past sins. That was explicitly defined by the Councils of Florence and Trent.
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life… The effect of this sacrament is the remission of every fault, original and actual, and also of every punishment which is owed for the fault itself. Therefore to the baptized no satisfaction is to be enjoined for past sins; but dying, before they commit any fault, they immediately (statim) attain the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God.”
Latin -“… sanctum baptisma, quod vitae spiritualis ianua est… Huius sacramenti effectus est remissio omnis culpae originalis et actualis, omnis quoque poenae, quae pro ipsa culpa debetur. Propterea baptizatis nulla pro peccatis praeteritis iniungenda est satisfactio: sed morientes antequam culpam aliquam committant, statim ad regnum coelorum et Dei visionem perveniunt.”
Council of Trent, Sess. 5, Original Sin, # 5, ex cathedra: “If any one denies, that, by the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only erased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. FOR, IN THOSE WHO ARE BORN AGAIN, there is nothing that God hates; because, there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; in such a manner that absolutely nothing may delay them from entry into heaven.”
As we can see, the Council of Florence declares that the grace of Baptism takes away all sin and all punishment due to sin, with the result that a person dying in such a state would immediately go to Heaven. He would not have to suffer at all for past sins.
Similarly, the Council of Trent’s Decree on Original Sin defines that all those who are ‘born again’ have all the guilt and all punishment due to sin remitted. This grace of being ‘born again’, which is conferred in Baptism, renders the recipients “immaculate”. After receiving this grace, they are in a state in which absolutely nothing could retard or delay their entrance into Heaven.
THOSE WHO ARE BORN AGAIN, there is nothing that God hates; because, there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; in such a manner that absolutely nothing may delay them from entry into heaven.”
As we can see, the Council of Florence declares that the grace of Baptism takes away all sin and all punishment due to sin, with the result that a person dying in such a state would immediately go to Heaven. He would not have to suffer at all for past sins.
Similarly, the Council of Trent’s Decree on Original Sin defines that all those who are ‘born again’ have all the guilt and all punishment due to sin remitted. This grace of being ‘born again’, which is conferred in Baptism, renders the recipients “immaculate”. After receiving this grace, they are in a state in which absolutely nothing could retard or delay their entrance into Heaven.
POINT 2 – ‘BAPTISM OF DESIRE,’ AS DEFINED BY THEOLOGIANS WHO TAUGHT IT: • DOES NOT REMOVE THE TEMPORAL PUNISHMENT DUE TO SIN • DOES NOT LEAVE A PERSON IN A STATE IN WHICH HE WOULD GO STRAIGHT TO HEAVEN IF HE DIED • AND THEREFORE DOES NOT GRANT THE GRACE OF REGENERATION/BAPTISM/BEING ‘BORN AGAIN’
In attempting to explain the idea of ‘baptism of desire’ (which the Magisterium has never taught), St. Thomas Aquinas taught that the unbaptized catechumen who dies with the so-called ‘baptism of desire’ might still need to suffer punishment for past sins (pro peccatis praeteritis). He also explicitly said that such a person does not immediately attain (non statim pervenit) eternal life. But we just showed that it’s a dogma that the grace of Baptism leaves a person in a state in which he would go immediately (statim) to Heaven and would certainly not need to suffer any punishment for past sins. It’s a fact, therefore, that according to St. Thomas’ teaching, ‘baptism of desire’ does not grant the grace of the Sacrament of Baptism. Indeed, notice the amazing specificity with which St. Thomas’ statement about the so-called ‘baptism of desire’ directly contradicts the Council of Florence’s dogmatic teaching on the effect or grace of Baptism. The specificity of the contradiction in the original Latin is striking: it’s basically word for word. I will provide a summary of that contradiction below.
St. Thomas Aquinas On ‘Baptism of Desire’ VS. Pope Eugene IV (at Florence) Defining the Grace of Baptism
Latin- “Si quis ergo catechumenus sit habens desiderium Baptismi… decedens non statim pervenit ad vitam aeternam, sed patietur poenam pro peccatis praeteritis, ipse tamen salvus erit sic quasi per ignem, ut dicitur I Cor. III.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Pt. III, Q. 68, A. 2, Reply to Obj. 2: “If therefore a catechumen has the desire for baptism… then such a one departing [or dying] does not immediately attain eternal life but will suffer punishment for past sins. Nevertheless he himself will be saved in this way as though through fire, as stated in 1 Cor. III.” Latin -“… sanctum baptisma, quod vitae spiritualis ianua est… Huius sacramenti effectus est remissio omnis culpae originalis et actualis, omnis quoque poenae, quae pro ipsa culpa debetur. Propterea baptizatis nulla pro peccatis praeteritis iniungenda est satisfactio: sed morientes antequam culpam aliquam committant, statim ad regnum coelorum et Dei visionem perveniunt.” Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life… The effect of this sacrament is the remission of every fault, original and actual, and also of every punishment which is owed for the fault itself. Therefore to the baptized no satisfaction is to be enjoined for past sins; but dying, before they commit any fault, they immediately (statim) attain the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God.”
In Latin, Florence and St. Thomas both use the exact same verb pervenire. That verb means ‘to attain’ or ‘to come through to’.
Florence used perveniunt, the third person plural of pervenire. Perveniunt means: “they attain”. Florence used perveniunt to declare that the recipients of the grace of Baptism immediately attain eternal life and the vision of God if dying in that state.
St. Thomas used pervenit, the third person singular of pervenire (the exact same verb Florence used). St. Thomas used pervenit to state that a person dying with the so-called ‘baptism of desire’ does not immediately attain or come through to eternal life.
In Latin, Florence used statim, which means “immediately”. Florence used statim to declare that the recipient of the grace of Baptism, if dying in that state, immediately (statim) attains the vision of God, without suffering Purgatory or any delay.
St. Thomas also used statim, the same word Florence used. However, St. Thomas put the word non before it. St. Thomas used the words non statim to emphasize that the person dying with the so-called ‘baptism of desire’ does not immediately (non statim) attain the vision of God without delay.
In Latin, Florence used the words pro peccatis praeteritis. Pro peccatis praeteritis means “for past sins”. Florence used pro peccatis praeteritis to declare that the recipient of the grace of Baptism, having been completely reborn and renewed, does not need to make any satisfaction or suffer any punishment for past sins. Such a person would go straight to Heaven if dying in that state.
St. Thomas also used pro peccatis praeteritis, the exact same words used by Florence. However, St. Thomas used the words pro peccatis praeteritis to state that the person dying with the so-called ‘baptism of desire’ will have to suffer punishment (patietur poenam) for past sins.
It is beyond all dispute: St. Thomas taught that the so-called ‘baptism of desire’ DOES NOT confer the grace of the Sacrament of Baptism. His teaching on what ‘baptism of desire’ supposedly confers is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what the Council of Florence and the Catholic Church declare the grace of Baptism to be. St. Thomas’ explanation of the supposed ‘baptism of desire’ contradicts the teaching of the Catholic Church on the grace of Baptism basically word for word. (Keep in mind that St. Thomas’ teaching is not infallible, while the teaching of the Magisterium is infallible.) The amazing specificity with which St. Thomas’ explanation of ‘baptism of desire’ contradicts Catholic teaching on the grace of Baptism is not just a coincidence. It was providential: God allowed the contradiction to be direct, and basically word for word, to demonstrate that the alleged ‘grace’ being put forward in theories for ‘baptism of desire’ is not the grace of Baptism. And therein lies its fatal flaw, as we will see.
ST. ALPHONSUS, FOLLOWING ST. THOMAS, ALSO TAUGHT THAT ‘BAPTISM OF DESIRE’ DOES NOT GRANT THE GRACE OF BAPTISM, AND THAT RECIPIENTS OF ‘BAPTISM OF DESIRE’ MIGHT HAVE TO SUFFER FOR PAST SINS
St. Alphonsus: “Baptism of blowing is perfect conversion to God through contrition or through the love of God above all things, with the explicit desire, or implicit desire of the true river of baptism whose place it supplies (iuxta Trid. Sess. 14, c. 4) with respect to the remission of the guilt, but not with respect to the character to be imprinted, nor with respect to the full liability of the punishment to be removed: it is called of blowing because it is made through the impulse of the Holy Spirit, who is called a blowing.” (St. Alphonsus, Moral Theology, Volume V, Book 6, n. 96)
Latin- “Baptismus flaminis est perfecta conversio ad Deum per contritionem, vel amorem Dei super omnia, cuм voto explicito, vel implicito, veri baptismi fluminis, cujus vicem supplet (iuxta Trid. Sess. 14, c. 4) quoad culpae remissionem, non autem quoad characterem imprimendum, nec quoad tollendum omnem reatum poenae: dicitur flaminis, quia fit per impulsum Spiritus Sancti, qui flamen nuncupatur.”
Notice, according to St. Alphonsus, the so-called baptism of desire does not remove the temporal punishment due to sin. Like St. Thomas, he held that someone who died with baptism of desire might have to go to Purgatory. According to him, ‘baptism of desire’ does not grant the grace of Baptism or spiritual rebirth.
LATER THEOLOGIANS, FOLLOWING THE AFOREMENTIONED MAN-MADE EXPLANATION OF ‘BAPTISM OF DESIRE’, CONSISTENTLY TAUGHT THAT ‘BAPTISM OF DESIRE’ DOES NOT GRANT THE GRACE OF BAPTISM OR REGENERATION • THEY THEREFORE TAUGHT THAT RECIPIENTS OF ‘BAPTISM OF DESIRE’ MIGHT HAVE TO SUFFER FOR PAST SINS
Following previous explanations of the theory, later theologians who accepted ‘baptism of desire’ also taught that it does not remit the temporal punishment due to sin. That proves that, according to their teaching, ‘baptism of desire’ DOES NOT confer the grace of Baptism/regeneration.
Adolphe Tanquerey (d. 1932), A Manual of Dogmatic Theology. Vol. II., New York: Desclee Company, 1959, pp. 227-229: “Perfect charity, together with the desire for Baptism, indeed remits original sin and actual sins, and in like manner infuses sanctifying grace; but it does not imprint the baptismal character, nor of itself does it remit the entire temporal punishment due to sin. Wherefore the obligation remains to receive Baptism of water when the opportunity is given.”
Fr. Benedict Henry Merkelbach, ‘O.P.’, Summa Theologiæ Moralis, Vol. III, no. 135, #2, 1954: “The Baptism of flame or desire is an act of perfect charity or contrition. It is not a sacrament, because it is not an external sign, and therefore does not imprint the character. Therefore, after such a baptism there remains the obligation of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism. It justifies ex opere operantis, and ordinarily does not remit all punishment for sin.”
As we’ve shown, a so-called ‘grace’ that does not remit the entire temporal punishment due to sin is not the grace of Baptism/regeneration/rebirth.
POINT 3 – IT’S A DOGMA (AND THE CLEAR TEACHING OF SCRIPTURE) THAT ONE MUST HAVE THE GRACE OF REGENERATION/BAPTISM/BEING ‘BORN AGAIN’ (WHICH REMITS ALL THE TEMPORAL PUNISHMENT DUE TO SIN) IN ORDER TO BE JUSTIFIED AND SAVED • THIS PROVES, BEYOND ALL DOUBT, THAT ‘BAPTISM OF DESIRE’ (AS DEFINED BY THEOLOGIANS WHO TAUGHT IT) CANNOT JUSTIFY • IT’S A FALSE, MAN-MADE DOCTRINE THAT CONTRADICTS DEFINED DOGMA AND CLEAR SCRIPTURAL TEACHING ON WHAT IS NECESSARY TO BE JUSTIFIED AND SAVED
The Council of Trent dogmatically defined that one must be born again in order to be justified.
Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3: “But though He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated; because as truly as men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own, SO UNLESS THEY WERE BORN AGAIN IN CHRIST THEY WOULD NEVER BE JUSTIFIED, since by that new birth through the merit of His passion the grace by which they become just is bestowed upon them.”
That means that you cannot even be put into the state of grace without receiving the rebirth of Jesus Christ. And the rebirth, as we’ve shown and the Council of Trent teaches repeatedly, takes away everything: the guilt of sin and all the punishment due to sin.
Council of Trent, Sess. 5, Original Sin, # 5, ex cathedra: “FOR, IN THOSE WHO ARE BORN AGAIN, there is nothing that God hates; because, there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; in such a manner that absolutely nothing may delay them from entry into heaven.”
Here are two other interesting statements on the necessity of regeneration (or being born again) for salvation.
The Catalog or the Authoritative Statements of the Past Bishops of the Holy See Concerning the Grace of God, under Pope St. Celestine: “… Pope INNOCENT of blessed memory proclaimed and said in his letter * to the Council of Carthage:* ‘For he [man], having once braved every consequence of free choice, while he used his goods too unadvisedly, fell and was overwhelmed in the depth of his transgression, and found no way by which he was able to rise from it; and beguiled forever by his own liberty he would have lain prostrate by the weight of this ruin, if the coming of Christ had not afterwards lifted him up by virtue of His grace, who through the purification of a new regeneration washed away in the bath of His baptism every past sin.’” (Denz. 130)
The Catalog or the Authoritative Statements of the Past Bishops of the Holy See Concerning the Grace of God, under Pope St. Celestine: “The same teacher [Pope Innocent] in the epistle to the council of Mileum * proclaims that no one uses his free will well, except through Christ, asserting: * ‘Note finally, O perverse doctrine of most distorted minds, that liberty itself so deceived the first man, that, while he used his bridle too indulgently, he fell into transgression by presumption. Nor would he have been able to be rescued from this, had not the coming of Christ the Lord reestablished for him the state of pristine liberty by the providence of regeneration.’” (Denz. 133)
According to the Catholic Church, man cannot be rescued from the state of Adam except “through the purification of a new regeneration” (per novae regenerationis purificationem) and “by the providence of regeneration” (providentia regenerationis). Trent defined this as a dogma.
THE POSITION THAT ONE CAN BE SAVED WITHOUT REGENERATION (I.E. ‘BAPTISM OF DESIRE’) ALSO STANDS IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THE TEACHING OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ON JUSTIFICATION AND SALVATION
It is the clear teaching of Scripture that man must be regenerated in order to be justified and saved.
John 3:3-5- “Jesus answered him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ Nicodemus said to him, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?’ Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’”
1 John 5:1- “Everyone believing [??? ? ???????? – present participle] that Jesus is the Christ has been born [?????????? – perfect tense verb] of God…”
This initial regeneration, which one must have to be justified, is a gift from God. It is not the result of our works. That means it can’t be brought about by one’s charity, contrition, desire, shedding of blood, etc., as ‘baptism of desire’ and ‘blood’ posit. In fact, Scripture explicitly teaches that the rebirth one must have is not of man’s will or blood (John 1:13)!
Titus 3:5- “He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.”
1 Peter 1:3-4- “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you.”
John 1:12-13- “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”
To teach that one can be saved without being reborn, as ‘baptism of desire’ does, is to teach false doctrine. It is to contradict the New Testament and the Church’s dogmatic teaching. As Jesus said: “Wonder not, that I said to thee, you must be born again” (John 3:7).
THE INSUPERABLE PROBLEM FOR ‘BAPTISM OF DESIRE’
Do you see the problem for baptism of desire?
The Council of Trent dogmatically teaches (based on Scripture and apostolic Tradition) that one cannot even be put into a state of grace without the rebirth in Christ, and the rebirth in Christ removes everything: the guilt of sin and the temporal punishment due to sin.
But according to the very definition of ‘baptism of desire’ supplied by its most celebrated defenders, and consistently explained by theologians in the 20th century who taught it, it doesn’t provide the grace of rebirth because it doesn’t take away the temporal punishment due to sin.
Baptism of desire is therefore infallibly false. It must be rejected. It’s a false theory of man. It denies Catholic and scriptural teaching on the absolute necessity of being born again to be saved. That’s why the Church never taught it. When people receive doctrines from God, as infallibly taught by the Church, those doctrines are true and consistent. However, when a theological view is the product of the opinions and speculations of men, as ‘baptism of desire’ was, it will have flaws and inconsistencies. In the case of baptism of desire, which is merely a doctrine of men, not a doctrine of the Church or of God, there is a huge, massive, gaping hole at the heart of the theory. It is the one we have just exposed.
For the idea of ‘baptism of desire’ to even begin to be in any way consistent with Catholic teaching, it would have to posit that baptism of desire grants the grace of Baptism and rebirth. But it doesn’t teach that, as the explanation of St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, and others on the matter proves. God allowed the false idea of baptism of desire to contain this massive problem and inconsistency at its core so that people could eventually see it for what it is: a false doctrine. The facts we’ve considered prove that the theory of baptism of desire is over. It’s false.
WITH THIS ARGUMENT, QUICKLY END ANY DEBATE ON ‘BAPTISM OF DESIRE’
So, here’s how you end any debate on baptism of desire within a minute or two, with one question. When I say “end any debate”, your opponent may indeed stick around spewing falsehood and nonsense; but, once this argument is employed, his core assumptions and arguments will be pulverized, his entire line of argumentation will disappear and will have to be altered, and he will be caught in a fundamental contradiction.
Simply ask the supporter of baptism of desire the following:
Question: Does the so-called ‘baptism of desire’ grant the grace of Baptism/spiritual rebirth, yes or no?
If they don’t know what the grace of Baptism/spiritual rebirth is, explain that according to Catholic teaching, it’s the grace which remits all sin, all punishment due to sin, and leaves a person in a state in which he or she goes straight to Heaven if dying in that state (no Purgatory is necessary). Does baptism of desire give a person that state, yes or no?
If they choose no, it does not provide the grace of Baptism/spiritual rebirth, but only the state of grace and the remission of the guilt of sin, but not the remission of the temporal punishment due to sin, they’ve just proved that baptism of desire is false and cannot save anyone. That’s because the Council of Trent declared that no one can even be justified (i.e. put into a state of grace) without being born again in Christ (Sess. 6, Chap. 3). In fact, throughout the decree on justification the state of first justification is identified as the state of rebirth or being born again. For example, in Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent, it declares that the transition to justification is not just a transition to the state of grace but to the state of grace and “adoption as sons”, in which a man is reborn. So, by answering “no, baptism of desire does not provide the grace of spiritual rebirth or Baptism”, they’ve just demolished the theory of baptism of desire. They’ve proven that no one could ever be justified or saved by it.
If, on the other hand, they answer yes, baptism of desire does provide the grace of Baptism/spiritual rebirth, they’ve rejected the entire theory of baptism of desire and proven that it’s false. That’s because baptism of desire is based on the teaching of St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, and other theologians. Those theologians teach that ‘baptism of desire’ does not provide the grace of rebirth. In fact, that definition and explanation of the theory is found in fallible theological manuals in the 19th and 20th centuries (as shown above). Supporters of baptism of desire enjoy quoting such books, wrongly believing they are infallible or definitive. But those theologians teach that the so-called baptism of desire does not take away the temporal punishment due to sin, and therefore it does not provide the grace of Baptism or spiritual rebirth. So, by answering “yes, baptism of desire does provide the grace of rebirth”, the supporter of baptism of desire has rejected the teaching of St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, and other theologians on the issue. He has declared their teaching wrong and false. In the process he has repudiated baptism of desire because arguments for baptism of desire are bound to, and based upon, the explanation given by the aforementioned individuals.
Hence, whether they answer the question with yes or with a no, they prove baptism of desire to be false. That’s because it’s simply a theory of man that was never taught by the Church. It’s inconsistent with itself and it’s inconsistent with Catholic teaching because it’s a false doctrine of man.
SOME ADDITIONAL POINTS
It’s interesting to note that the aforementioned theologians (including in theological manuals supporters of BOD like to cite) frequently teach that the so-called baptism of blood (which the Church also never taught) supposedly provides the grace of Baptism or rebirth, while the so-called baptism of desire does not provide that grace.
Fr. Benedict Henry Merkelbach, ‘O.P.’, Summa Theologiæ Moralis, Vol. III, no. 135, #s 2-3, 1954: “The Baptism of flame or desire is an act of perfect charity or contrition. It is not a sacrament, because it is not an external sign, and therefore does not imprint the character. Therefore, after such a baptism there remains the obligation of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism. It justifies ex opere operantis, and ordinarily does not remit all punishment for sin. 3. The Baptism of blood or martyrdom. It is not a sacrament, because it is not a ceremonial sign or a rite instituted by Christ, which is administered in His name in order that it be an instrument of sanctification. Therefore it does not imprint the character. It justifies in a manner like ex opere operato, not actively but passively, with only imperfect contrition, and in it all the punishment for sin is remitted. It is more eminent than the other two types of baptism since it gives a more perfect conformity with Christ, and therefore God grants a greater grace in it.
So, according to them, the so-called baptism of blood provides one grace, while the so-called baptism of desire provides a different grace. Where has the Church ever taught any of this? The answer is nowhere. The Church teaches that there’s one baptism of water, which all in the Church have. That one baptism of water, which all in the Church have, is what must be faithfully confessed by all (Council of Vienne).
Pope Clement V, The Council of Vienne, 1311-1312: “Besides, only one baptism regenerating 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 the perfect remedy for salvation for both adults and children.”
Latin- “Ad hoc baptisma unicuм baptizatos omnes in Christo regenerans est, sicut unus Deus ac fides unica ab omnibus fideliter confitendum, quod celebratum in aqua in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti credimus esse tam adultis quam parvulis communiter perfectum remedium ad salutem.”
Pope Clement V, The Council of Vienne, 1311-1312: “But since one is the universal Church, of regulars and seculars, of prelates and subjects, of exempt and non-exempt, outside of which absolutely (omnino) no one (nullus) is saved, one is the Lord, one is the Faith and one is the baptism of all.”
Also notice that in the first dogmatic passage above, the Council declares that this “one baptism” is “regenerating” (regenerans) all “baptized in Christ”. This is even more dogmatic proof that one must be regenerated to have the “one baptism”. A person must be regenerated to be in the unity of the Church and be saved. That further refutes ‘baptism of desire’, for ‘baptism of desire’ does not regenerate. Vienne’s proclamation demonstrates that only a baptism that regenerates is identified with the one baptism of Christ. Since ‘baptism of desire’ does not regenerate, it cannot be part of, or a kind of, the one baptism that all Christians have (Eph. 4:5). So much for the “three forms of the one baptism” argument. ‘Baptism of desire’ not only lacks the sacramental character of the one baptism of Christ; it lacks the very grace of the one baptism of Christ (regeneration).
It is also not “celebrated in water”, as the baptism of all baptized in Christ is celebrated. It is not compatible with the one baptism that all in the Church have.
When attempting to explain these false theories, theologians also contradict themselves within a few paragraphs. For example, if you read a fallible theological manual promoting these notions, in one paragraph they will tell you that the effect or grace of Baptism can be obtained without water baptism by baptism of blood and desire. But wait a second: they don’t believe that the so-called baptism of desire provides anyone with the grace of Baptism or rebirth because it doesn’t provide the remission of the temporal punishment due to sin, as we’ve shown. Nevertheless, oblivious to the details and facts of their own position, they will sometimes state that it does provide the grace of Baptism, but a few paragraphs later they will contradict themselves and acknowledge that it does not provide the grace of Baptism or rebirth because it does not take away the temporal punishment due to sin. They don’t even recognize the massive contradiction in their argument. That’s what happens when people attempt to defend and promote false doctrines never taught by the Church but only by fallible men.
THE AUTHORITY OF THE MAGISTERIUM MUST BE FOLLOWED, NOT THEOLOGIANS, SAINTS OR DOCTORS WHEN THEY CONTRADICT IT
Those who trust in man, even in a saintly man, over the teaching of the Church, always lose. The epic failure of the aforementioned definitions of ‘baptism of desire’ is a powerful example of that fact. God never promised infallibility to all the saints, theologians or doctors of the Church, but to St. Peter and his successors in their authoritative teaching office.
Luke 22:31-32- “And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have all of you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870: “SO, THIS GIFT OF TRUTH AND A NEVER FAILING FAITH WAS DIVINELY CONFERRED UPON PETER AND HIS SUCCESSORS IN THIS CHAIR…”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870: “… the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord the Savior made to the chief of His disciples: ‘I have prayed for thee [Peter], that thy faith fail not…’”
St. Peter and his successors were given the unfailing faith. It was not given to all members of the Church, all theologians, saints or doctors of the Church.
God allowed the false theory of baptism of desire to be taught by fallible theologians and in fallible organs because He allows errors to be circulated, but He protected the official declarations of the Church from teaching it. That’s why it doesn’t appear in any infallible decree. Moreover, while He allowed baptism of desire to be circulated in fallible sources, He left a massive and gaping hole at the heart of its explanation. This gaping hole proves that it cannot justify because it doesn’t provide spiritual rebirth.
To obstinately promote baptism of desire in the face of these facts is simply to be of bad will. It is to lie and to promote heresy. It is to promote a false doctrine. It is to believe and teach that people can be justified without being born again, contrary to the explicit teaching of the Catholic Church.
People need to understand that YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED to simply find an opinion, an expression or a teaching in the writing of a doctor of the Church or a saint and just hold it no matter what. That was condemned under Pope Alexander VIII in the Errors of the Jansenists:
“When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold it and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope.” – Condemned by Pope Alexander VIII, Errors of the Jansenists, Dec. 7, 1690
St. Augustine was a saint and doctor of the Church. He was not infallible. He wrote a book of Retractions. If you find a teaching in Augustine, you can’t just say, “It’s in Augustine. I’m going to hold it no matter what”, even if it doesn’t add up, even if it’s inconsistent with something of greater weight. No, you cannot just hold it. That’s a religion of man.
Not only is baptism of desire obviously false, as I’ve shown, but baptism of blood is false as well. It’s contrary to the dogmatic arguments we’ve covered in our material. That’s why baptism of blood was never taught by the Church. It’s literally nowhere to be found in the teaching of the infallible papal Magisterium. Moreover, I’ve shown that the view of St. Alphonsus, St. Thomas, etc. on baptism of desire is untenable and contrary to Catholic teaching. In attempting to explain his position on this issue, St. Alphonsus also misquoted the Council of Trent, as we proved in our article on the matter. He cited something the Council of Trent stated about the Sacrament of Penance, and the desire for the Sacrament of Penance, and he incorrectly applied it to water baptism. He was simply wrong. You are not permitted to hold his opinion or St. Thomas Aquinas’ opinion or any man’s opinion if it contradicts something of greater weight; and we know for a fact that their explanation of the theory is false. Indeed, the teaching that one must reject the views of doctors of the Church, if they prove to be incompatible with the Church’s declaration, is the very teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas himself.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Pt. II-II, Q. 10, A. 12: “The custom of the Church has very great authority and ought to be jealously observed in all things, since the very doctrine of Catholic doctors derives its authority from the Church. Hence we ought to abide by the authority of the Church rather than by that of an Augustine or a Jerome or of any doctor whatever.”
This is a very interesting passage because some people will argue that the Church endorses the theology of St. Thomas. Yes, it endorses his theology in general; but, even if applied specifically, the theology of St. Thomas is that his opinions are not infallible and they must be set aside when a teaching of the Magisterium shows them to be lacking. His erroneous view on the Immaculate Conception is an example of such an opinion. This principle applies to any theologian or doctor of the Church. In fact, when supporters of BOD obstinately advance the position of St. Thomas or St. Alphonsus on this matter, in the face of the facts we’ve covered, they embarrass themselves. They make fools out of themselves; for they are obstinately making an argument, in the face of the facts, that people can be saved by baptism of desire from sources whose explanation proves that no one could be saved by baptism of desire; for you must be reborn to be justified.
As Pope Benedict XIV declared in Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”
Those who obstinately promote ‘baptism of desire’ in the face of these facts are simply promoting false doctrine against the teaching of the Church and will lose their souls.
AN EVER-SHIFTING TERM FOR A MAN-MADE THEORY
BAPTISMUS FLAMINIS- An additional problem with the false doctrine of baptism of desire concerns the term, baptismus flaminis. That’s the term in Latin people frequently translate as ‘baptism of desire’. However, it doesn’t mean ‘baptism of desire’. Flaminis is the genitive form of the third declension neuter noun, flamen. Flamen actually means: a blowing, a breath, a gale or a gust of wind. It doesn’t mean ‘desire’. But if you read pro-baptism of desire materials, you will find flaminis typically translated as ‘of desire’, even though it doesn’t mean ‘of desire’. In fact, in their writings you will often find this so-called baptismus flaminis (which doesn’t exist) translated as ‘baptism of fire’ or ‘baptism of flame’ or ‘baptism of spirit’, in addition to, of course, ‘of desire’. However, it doesn’t mean any of those things. Baptism of flame would be baptismus flammae, not flaminis; and baptism of fire would be baptismus ignis, not baptismus flaminis. The point is that they cannot even figure out what this term means because it’s a false theory of man.
‘BAPTISM OF DESIRE’ AND ‘BLOOD’ NEVER FOUND THEIR WAY INTO AN INFALLIBLE DECREE OR COUNCIL BECAUSE THEY ARE FALSE
The fact that baptism of desire is false is precisely why it never found its way into any infallible decree or the teaching of an ecuмenical council. Think about that. There were many councils. They promulgated extensive decrees on the sacraments, Baptism, the Church, Outside the Church There is No Salvation, Church unity, and many other issues; yet amazingly baptism of desire and baptism of blood were never taught. And contrary to what some supporters of baptism of desire falsely say, the Council of Trent did not teach it at all, as our material on that matter clearly proves. The reason baptism of desire and blood were never taught in any infallible decree or a council is that they are false doctrines. The councils even promulgated numerous dogmatic decrees on Baptism, its necessity, its form, infant baptism vs. adult baptism, one baptism, etc.; yet never once was baptism of desire or blood taught. The Holy Ghost protected the infallible teaching of the Church from those errors.
THE TRUE APOSTOLIC TEACHING ON BAPTISM, WHICH WAS REVEALED BY JESUS (JOHN 3:5) AND DEFINED BY THE CHURCH, CONTINUED TO BE TAUGHT BY THE MAGISTERIUM EVEN INTO THE MODERN PERIOD, IN THE OFFICIAL TEACHING OF PAPAL ENCYCLICALS; AND ‘BAPTISM OF DESIRE’ WAS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND
It should also be noted that baptism of desire and blood not only were never taught in any infallible or magisterial proclamation of the Church, but even if you consider the centuries after the Council of Trent leading up to Vatican II, and you consult the official teaching of popes in papal encyclicals to the universal Church, you will discover that never once were the false ideas of baptism of desire and blood taught. Even though papal encyclicals to the entire Church frequently dealt with Baptism, the Church, its necessity, etc. during a period of time when theologians were advancing the false ideas of baptism of desire and blood left and right, the papal encyclicals to the entire Church never taught baptism of desire or blood. The Holy Ghost continued to protect the official teaching of the Church from these false doctrines, even though God permitted the false doctrines to be circulated in fallible sources: the teaching of theologians, catechisms, etc. God permitted these errors to be taught in fallible sources, and He allowed people to misunderstand this issue, simply because, as 1 Corinthians 11:19 says, there must be heresies.
Eventually belief in the false doctrine of baptism of desire grew and expanded to such an extent that everyone who accepted the idea also held that you don’t need to believe in Jesus Christ and the Catholic faith to be saved. That is the position embraced or endorsed by every single proponent of ‘baptism of desire’ in our day. They hold that souls can be saved in false religions by a so-called ‘baptism of desire’. That’s why the problem at the heart of the false doctrine, which we’ve exposed in this article, won’t matter to many of them. They don’t care if their position is inconsistent. They are only concerned with believing something/anything that allows for salvation outside of Jesus Christ, His Church, and His Baptism. They use the false doctrine of baptism of desire simply as a false Christ, which supposedly saves people outside of Him and His faith. That position is completely heretical. It is contrary to the infallible teaching of the Church (see the dogmatic bull Cantate Domino from the Council of Florence). All supporters of baptism of desire in our day either believe in the aforementioned heresy or accept as Catholics people who believe in that heresy. Indeed, the promotion of this false doctrine in our day is the source of countless evils.
PAPAL ENCYCLICALS IN THE MODERN PERIOD MAINTAIN AND TEACH THE TRUE DOCTRINE; THEY CONFIRM OUR POSITION
It’s interesting to note that God not only never allowed the Magisterium to teach baptism of desire or blood, even in the years leading to Vatican II, but the Magisterium in that post-Trent, post-Vatican I period officially taught the same doctrine. It repeated the true doctrine of the Church: that no one can be a member of the Church without the Sacrament of Baptism, and that no one can be saved without it.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22), June 29, 1943, addressed to the universal Church: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith…”
Pius XII officially teaches that if you have not received water baptism, you cannot be considered a member of the Catholic Church. That’s the exact same doctrine that we find in the infallible teaching of the councils. We see it repeated in the official teaching of the Magisterium after Trent and Vatican I. We don’t find baptism of desire or blood.
Pope Pius XII Mediator Dei (#47), Nov. 20, 1947, addressed to the universal Church, referring to the Sacrament of Baptism: “… the washing of baptism distinguishes and separates all Christians [christianos omnes] from the rest whom this stream of atonement has not washed and who are not members of Christ…”
Pius XII specifically teaches that the Sacrament of Baptism distinguishes and separates all Christians (christianos omnes) from the rest. It distinguishes the baptized from non-Christians in the same way that the priest is distinguished from the rest of the faithful by the reception of the Sacrament of Order. According to the Magisterium, you cannot be a Christian without the Sacrament of Baptism; and only Christians are saved, as the Church dogmatically teaches. Hence, the exact same doctrine that we find in the infallible teaching of the councils is repeated here, in the official teaching of the Magisterium after Trent and Vatican I. We don’t find baptism of desire or blood.
Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (#15), Dec. 11, 1925, addressed to the universal Church, concerning entrance into the Kingdom of God: “Which Kingdom indeed is set forth in the Gospels as one into which men prepare to enter by doing penance but are unable to enter except through faith and baptism, which, although it is an external rite, nevertheless signifies and effects an interior regeneration.”
Pius XI specifically teaches that men are unable to enter the Kingdom of God except through (nisi per) faith and baptism, which, he says, is an external rite. Since baptism of desire and blood are not external rites, he’s teaching that men are unable to enter Heaven without faith and the Sacrament or rite of Baptism. That’s the exact same doctrine that we find in the infallible teaching of the councils. We see it repeated in the official teaching of the Magisterium after Trent and Vatican I. We don’t find baptism of desire or blood.
The true doctrine on regeneration and Baptism, that no one at all can be saved without being born again of water and the Spirit, comes from the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself. We read Christ’s own words on this matter in John 3:5 and Mark 16:16. The truth is repeated throughout the epistles of St. Paul, in which, among other things, he declares that receiving water baptism is being saved ‘through the faith’ (Galatians 3:26; Ephesians 2:8-9; Colossians 2:12; etc.).
“… having been buried with him in baptism, by which you were also raised with him through the faith [??? ??? ???????]…” – Colossians 2:12
“For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through the faith [??? ??? ???????]. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” – Galatians 3:26-27
This true apostolic doctrine on the Sacrament of Baptism is contained in Scripture. It was taught by the fathers. It was infallibly declared by the ecuмenical councils; and, as we just saw, it was infallibly repeated in the official teaching of the popes and the Magisterium, even in the recent decades and centuries when errors and heresies on this matter were spreading and abounding.
BY THEIR FRUITS YOU SHALL KNOW THEM
“By their fruits you will know them” (Mt. 7:16). Those who pay attention to our material should also be able to recognize that properly understanding and adhering to the apostolic truth about regeneration (being born again) – the importance and necessity of which are explained in this article – is not only what gives one the key to recognizing the fatal flaw in the false doctrine of ‘baptism of desire’. It also gives one the key to understanding the best, most direct, and most powerful way to refute the salvation doctrine of the entire Protestant ‘Reformation’. That was proven in these videos: Docuмentary: Protestantism’s Big Justification Lie (video); ‘Born Again’ Refutes ‘Faith Alone’ & The Demonic Possession of James White.
Understanding this apostolic truth, that regeneration leaves a person in a state completely free from all sin and from all punishment due to sin (‘immaculate’), also gives one the key to understanding the best biblical proofs for Mary’s Immaculate Conception (and her singular manner of being graced with the benefits of New Testament Redemption), which God left in the New Testament and the Bible. That was covered here: Mary’s Sinlessness: A Biblical Docuмentary.
SEVEN OTHER DOGMATIC ARGUMENTS THAT REFUTE ‘BAPTISM OF DESIRE’
The argument explained above, that ‘baptism of desire’ does not regenerate, and that one must be regenerated to be justified, completely refutes ‘baptism of desire’. Here are seven other dogmatic arguments that refute both ‘baptism of desire’ and ‘baptism of blood’. They were summarized at the beginning of our video: The Best Argument Against “Baptism of Desire”. They are expanded upon in our material.
First, in every single dogmatic statement on the matter, the Catholic Church understands the words of Jesus Christ Himself in John 3:5 just as they are written. Jesus declared that unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. He prefaced His statement by saying, “Amen, Amen,” indicating that His words were extremely serious and solemn. By understanding those words of Jesus just as they are written, as it does in every dogmatic statement dealing with John 3:5, the Catholic Church infallibly teaches that no one can enter Heaven without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost, as Jesus Himself declared. That contradicts baptism of desire, which posits salvation without rebirth of water and the Holy Ghost.
Second, the Catholic Church infallibly teaches that it’s absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff (Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam). It also infallibly teaches that the Church and the Roman Pontiff do not and cannot exercise jurisdiction over those who have not received the Sacrament of Baptism (see the Council of Trent. Sess. 14, Chap. 2). Since it’s absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Church and the Roman Pontiff, and a human creature cannot be subject to the Church and the Roman Pontiff without receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, it follows that every human creature must receive the Sacrament of Baptism to be saved. There is simply no way around this argument.
Third, in the first dogmatic definition of Outside the Church There is No Salvation, Pope Innocent III at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 infallibly defined that: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved.” The Church is dogmatically defined as the faithful, and any salvation outside of the faithful is emphatically excluded with the words nullus omnino (no one at all). Well, only the water baptized are part of the faithful. That’s clear from Church teaching, Tradition and liturgy. The unbaptized, including unbaptized catechumens, were explicitly excluded from the category of the faithful. Consider, for example, the Mass of the Catechumens (the unbaptized) versus the Mass of the faithful (the baptized). Since only the water baptized are part of the faithful, as we learn from Church teaching, Tradition and liturgy, and it’s infallibly certain that there is no salvation whatsoever outside the faithful, as the Church has defined, it follows that there is absolutely no salvation for those not water baptized.
Fourth, the Catholic Church infallibly teaches that no one can be inside the Catholic Church (the Church outside of which no one is saved) without the Sacrament of Baptism. It also teaches that one cannot be a member of the Catholic Church or part of the Body of the Church without the Sacrament of Baptism (see Mystici Corporis, among other things). The teaching that only the baptized are in the Church or members of the Church presents such problems for supporters of baptism of desire that they’ve been forced to invent ridiculous theories, such as that one can supposedly be inside the Catholic Church without being a member of the Catholic Church, and that one can be part of the Soul of the Church without being part of the Body of the Church. Such theories were of course never taught by the Church, and they are indeed contradicted by its infallible decrees. For example, the Church infallibly teaches that all inside the Church are indeed members of the Catholic Church (see Vatican I, among other things, as covered in our video Baptism of Desire Buried). It is therefore false to assert that one can be inside the Church without being a member of the Church. The Church also teaches that only those in the Body of the Church can be saved (see Cantate Domino at the Council of Florence). It’s therefore incompatible with Catholic teaching to maintain that one who is supposedly in the Soul of the Church, but not in the Body of the Church, can be saved. Infallible Catholic teaching on the necessity of Church unity and membership, and how it is inextricably connected to receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, refutes the theory of ‘baptism of desire’ and related false doctrines.
Fifth, in its Creed and in many other magisterial pronouncements, the Catholic Church infallibly teaches that there is only one baptism, not three. It not only infallibly teaches that there is only one baptism, but that there is only one baptism which is celebrated in water. This argument was discussed above. The dogmatic Council of Vienne specifically declared that this one baptism, which is celebrated in water, is what the members of the Catholic Church must faithfully confess. There is no other baptism, according to infallible Catholic teaching. “Moreover, only one baptism regenerating all baptized in Christ – just as ‘one God and one faith’ – is to be faithfully confessed by all, which, celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, we believe to be the perfect remedy for salvation for both adults and children.” (Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312)
The same Council teaches that all in the Church have the same baptism: “… one is the universal Church… outside of which absolutely (omnino) no one (nullus) is saved, one is the Lord, one is the Faith and one is the baptism of all.” Consider the two dogmatic statements from The Council of Vienne on baptism as a unit, as points A and B. A. All in the Church (outside of which no one at all is saved) have one and the same baptism; and B. That one baptism (which all in the Church have) is of water. Baptism of desire is therefore false.
Sixth, Pope St. Leo the Great’s dogmatic tome to Flavian (dated to 449), repeated at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, declares that the water of baptism, the spirit of sanctification, and the blood of Redemption are inseparable in sanctification. The links between the water, the spirit and the blood are such that they cannot be separated in sanctification; whereas the very theories of baptism of desire and blood posit that one can have sanctification separately from water baptism, contradicting that dogmatic teaching of Leo the Great.
Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, The Council of Chalcedon, 451: “Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the same apostle’s words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot (1 Pet. 1:18). Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin (1 Jn. 1:7); and again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith. Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8)
IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”
Seventh, the bull Exultate Deo at the Council of Florence infallibly and explicitly taught that men cannot enter Heaven without rebirth of water and the Spirit, as the Truth (Jesus Christ Himself) says in John 3:5. The Council of Florence used its own words to present the teaching of John 3:5 as a truth of divine revelation. Therefore, no one enters Heaven without rebirth of water and the Spirit in the Sacrament of Baptism. That’s the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. That contradicts baptism of desire, which posits salvation without rebirth of water and the Spirit.
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 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 again 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.”
There is also the oldest surviving papal decree in existence. It is the decree of Pope St. Siricius to Himerius. It holds tremendous significance. It constitutes another crushing blow to the false doctrine of ‘baptism of desire’. In his decree, Siricius infallibly teaches that all those who desire water baptism, but die without receiving it, will not be saved. He thus directly denies the concept of ‘baptism of desire’. The pope even speaks of people in danger and necessity who desire water baptism. He teaches that they cannot be saved without water baptism, which he identifies as the unique help of faith. He teaches that being baptized is their only hope of salvation. Pope St. Siricius’ decree is infallible, as our article on it proves. His decree also demonstrates that the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, in addition to the Solemn Magisterium, directly contradicts the idea of ‘baptism of desire’.
Pope St. Siricius, Decree to Himerius, A.D. 385:
LATIN: “Sicut sacram ergo paschalem reverentiam in nullo dicimus esse minuendam, ita infantibus qui necdum loqui poterunt per aetatem vel his, quibus in qualibet necessitate opus fuerit sacra unda baptismatis, omni volumus celeritate succurri, ne ad nostrarum perniciem tendat animarum, si negato desiderantibus fonte salutari exiens unusquisque de saeculo et regnum perdat et vitam.
“Therefore just as we say that the holy paschal observance is in no way to be diminished, we also say that to infants who will not yet be able to speak on account of their age or to those who in any necessity will need the holy stream of baptism, we wish succor to be brought with all celerity, lest it should tend to the perdition of our souls if the saving font be denied to those desiring it and every single one of them exiting this world lose both the Kingdom and life.”
Quicuмque etiam discrimen naufragii, hostilitatis incursum, obsidionis ambiguum vel cuiuslibet corporalis aegritudinis desperationem inciderint, et sibi unico credulitatis auxilio poposcerint subveniri, eodem quo poscunt momento temporis expetitae regenerationis praemia consequantur. Hactenus erratum in hac parte sufficiat; nunc praefatam regulam omnes teneant sacerdotes, qui nolunt ab apostolicae petrae, super quam Christus universalem construxit Ecclesiam, soliditate divelli.”
Whoever should fall into the peril of shipwreck, the incursion of an enemy, the uncertainty of a siege or the desperation of any bodily sickness, and should beg to be relieved by the unique help of faith, let them obtain the rewards of the much sought-after regeneration in the same moment of time in which they beg for it. Let the previous error in this matter be enough; [but] now let all priests maintain the aforesaid rule, who do not want to be torn from the solidity of the apostolic rock upon which Christ constructed His universal Church.
Read or watch more about Pope St. Siricius’ decree here: The Oldest Surviving Papal Decree (of Pope St. Siricius) Refutes ‘Baptism of Desire’ (article and video)
Outside the Catholic Church There Is Absolutely No Salvation (this is our full book –it refutes all the objections people advance on this issue, and we update it with new points as time permits)
• As these facts prove to anyone of good will, the Catholic Church teaches that no one can be saved without the regeneration of water and the Spirit in the Sacrament of Baptism. To promote the false idea of ‘baptism of desire’ or ‘baptism of blood’ in the face of these facts is simply to deny Catholic teaching and be of bad will.
Pope Clement V, The Council of Vienne, 1311-1312: “Besides, only one baptism regenerating 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 the perfect remedy for salvation for both adults and children.”
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 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 again 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 Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547: “Si quis dixerit, aquam veram et naturalem non esse de necessitate baptismi, atque ideo verba illa Domini nostri Iesu Christi: ‘Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto’ [Io 3, 5] ad metaphoram aliquam detorserit: A.S.”
“If anyone should say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account should distort those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], into some metaphor: let him be anathema.”
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema.”
Topic: The Death Nole of Baptism of DesireBlood (Read 2474 times)