Argument Against Baptism of Desire based on the Council of Trent
First, a few Catholic premises:
1. If saints contradict a Catholic Council, who is the final authority? The obvious answer is: a true Council trumps the opinion of all the saints. All Catholics agree Trent was a true Council, so if any, or even if all the saints disagree with Trent, they are simply wrong. Only the Church, councils and pope can be infallible when there is a controversy. Catechisms, saints and theologians when opposed to Church teaching, are not infallible.
2. The Occult Law of Reversal is the first law, and the crux of Satanism. The action of writing, reading, thinking and doing things backwards serves a purpose as an action against truth. It is the written untruth, a pointed attack on The Word, which is Christ.
3. Modernism is a related attack on the Faith. By finesse of language and false notions of man as source of revelation by experience, modernism reverses Catholic truth through backward thinking while it gave birth to the Novus Ordo, the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr religion.
For the sake of brevity and clarity, after I provide the pertinent infallible statement from the Council of Trent, in its own words, I will prove baptism of desire (bod) to be false. Bod is a product of modernistic mistranslations, with purposeful change of meanings of words to instigate heretical notions in the minds of Catholics. Bod is a relatively new take (in its present form, about 200 years old) on an old idea that never flew until modern Catholics ran away with it.
At the heart of bod is clever Satanic reversal, an interpretation with the purpose of undermining the Faith whether proponents of bod know it or not. The Council of Trent already condemned baptism of desire unequivocally. So, if that condemnation can be proven, we must follow the Council of Trent, no matter who wrote what. The following statement in Trent is the focal point of the teaching of bod. So let’s start there.
The Council of Trent teaches infallibly:
…This justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof.
We will address the bod version of the argument in a moment, but firstly, this one:
The Trent statement (above) says one cannot have justification without laver of regeneration, or without desire thereof. So you have to ask the sentence:
Can one have justification without laver? The Trent sentence says you cannot.
Can one have justification without desire? The Trent sentence says you cannot.
This is not my imagination. It is not sophistry. Please stop and examine these two questions one at a time using the Trent sentence to answer them. Just for the moment, disregard anything contrary. What we are trying to do is establish not what people say it says, but what Trent is actually saying.
The word ‘without’ necessarily applies to both laver and desire because the sentence says, “This justification cannot be effected without….”
Without what? Without laver. Without desire. It does not say, without laver, but with desire. If one cannot have justification without laver, or without desire, then laver and desire are both necessary for justification, according to the sentence. The word ‘or’ acts as a delineator between laver and desire, showcasing each term, specifically highlighting what is necessary for justification to occur. Most importantly, the original Latin supports this interpretation.
Now, here’s the opposing argument:
Baptism of desire (bod) proponents insist the Trent statement says that either water or desire are sufficient for justification because the word “or,” specifically means either/or. One or the other, water (being baptism) or desire, are all that’s necessary for salvation.
If the bod interpretation is true, the “or” can only mean “either/or”, but that means that water is not necessary for justification since “desire” can do the job, and since “desire” can do the job on its own, water is not necessary for justification. That would mean that a person gets justification with desire only (bod), and conversely, one could get justification with laver only (baptism). Bod folks see nothing wrong with this, and would agree that it is what they believe. Unfortunately, there is plenty wrong as it makes the sentence read the opposite of what it says. Watch. Water is able to effect justification. Desire alone can get justification. So the statement in Trent is now rendered, “This justification CAN be effected without the laver of regeneration, or without the desire…” If you don’t see it, that’s the exact opposite of what the sentence actually says. Bod’s “or” interpretation reverses the meaning of Trent’s words and makes them backwards. It’s a mystery that those so keen on the crisis in the Church do not smell the stench of Satan in this.
If the sentence really works this ‘either/or’ way as many stubbornly insist (because folks who are way smarter than us have said so), individually, water and desire become less than necessary.
Now this is where the fun begins. As many traditionalists know, modernism subtly infects with lies before it takes full control from those who fell into the lure. Modernists pulled a mighty switcheroo at Vatican II using their own slippery terminology so everything could be interpreted wrongly, starting their trickery with something similarly as insignificant as an ‘or’ at first, but nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr sized after. Michael Davies called these seemingly unimportant changes and new interpretations “time bombs”. And indeed they were. He warned the world, but most didn’t listen. This is the exact same thing, but with Trent already established, no creature on earth could physically fiddle with any part of the sentence, so Evil proceeded to resort to the next best thing: foster a false interpretation of the source itself.
How can we believe something is a false interpretation if nearly every priest and prelate say otherwise? Not to mention, saints! Because truth is self-evident. Even if it takes coaxing out to see it. This same problem happened at Vatican II, and only a couple of bishops stood up and said, “NO!” How could those anti-VII bishops dare challenge a Council or Pope on so little evidence? How could their ideas override their authorities? Because the authorities were wrong and the two bishops were right. Truth was at stake. Indeed only two spoke out, but all had a duty to resist. Still, most missed it.
Back to the subject. If bod’ers insist they would never say desire and water are both not necessary, we will take them at their word. It won’t help tho’ because the statement has already been destroyed with their interpretation as the bod version flips the Trent statement upside down and backwards.
When the culprits start to expand this reformulated notion that has been so subtly changed while they laud the actual words, the trouble really begins. Trent’s conditions for justification (laver and desire) went from necessary for justification, to semi-necessary, depending on which condition is used. The conditions for baptism went from certain to uncertain. From true to semi-false. And yes, like a time bomb in VII ready to explode, the conditions for true Baptism now in doubt, will eventually be rendered obsolete and Trent’s sentence will be cited to prove it. Soon the conditions for Baptism will finally be relegated to the round file and the Sacrament of Baptism will be destroyed.
The Trent sentence was written in the negative sense, using absolutes like ‘cannot’ followed by a precise terminology for the conditions by great Catholic minds of the day under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. They protected the meaning of the words, within the words themselves. Not only does the tiny, little change of interpreting the “or” as an “either/or” destroy the true meaning, this seemingly innocent boo boo quickly makes the Sacrament of Baptism subject to modernist mauling. For now this has caused only from a few problems I have personally witnessed:
*People now shy away from the expense, trouble and formality of getting the Sacrament of Baptism.
*People count on bod for relatives and friends they feel they are unable to approach with the truth.
*People hold hope in bod for non-Catholics dying all over the world, but do little else to help.
*People actually pray that abortion somehow triggers bod to save innocent souls even though we are told it can’t (for now).
*Bod’ers insist God will be merciful to those outside the Church, whether or not they fulfill the missionary mandate of Christ.
*People have become convinced that it is possible that all, or at least most men, will be saved.
*People no longer see the necessity of the Catholic Church since God is merciful enough to provide bod for those who don’t deserve to go to hell, but have not been baptized.
These are only some of the current nightmares and consequent collateral damage of bod. And if the above isn’t enough, justification by desire alone automatically means you can have justification without water. And since you can have justification without water, then you could also have justification without desire, because the ‘or’ says so. Can someone really get justification without desire? That is what the sentence says if ‘or’ is exclusive, yet we all know such a thing is clearly impossible. Even a child must be represented by proxy for the necessary ‘desire’ for true baptism according to Church teaching. And everyone knows it is forbidden to baptize the unwilling. But there you have it, baptism whether you want it or not, courtesy of the exclusive “or”.
Interpreting the statement to say that desire without water can obtain justification, denies the words and reverses the Trent sentence de facto, because the word ‘cannot’ in Trent’s statement is instantly rendered, ‘can’. Bod interpretation teaches that you can have justification without water, even though the actual statement says you cannot. The Council backs up the true meaning of its statement in Council of Trent, Canon 2, on Baptism, when it insists water is necessary for baptism and places anyone saying otherwise under anathema. Bod’ers weasel out of this saying the canon applies only to “formal” baptism. So now we have formal and informal Baptism? Sounds like ordinary and extraordinary Mass. A lovely example of the hermeneutics of continuity, the art of going from one belief to another by way of denial of truth. Can Catholics playing this game not see the direction this is heading?
Many proponents of bod try to recover from the chaos of bod and insist that ‘desire’ somehow includes ‘water’ and vice versa. More hermeneutics. But if water alone is effective, or desire alone is effective, then they specifically do not include each other! The proof text used to pretend water and desire remain united after being separated, is made false by the exclusive “or” in Trent’s statement. That means their interpretation undermines their interpretation, which ought to be the nth clue that they are dead wrong. Trents words are firm and unchangeable, sounding the alarm against faulty reasoning, but if people refuse to hear this, unfortunately, with truth obscured and unprotected, the entire sacramental system collapses. Oh well, the Church was crashing anyway.
All the tying of loose ends by those who took the bait because it suited them to do so, even against severe warnings, begin to unravel even faster when things are put into high gear by the more shameless modernists. (see proof: Because the meaning of Trent on justification has been revamped, we can now watch the dominoes, like “No salvation outside the Church” and “Sacramental Baptism” tumble down. Soon, the good intentioned believers of baptism of desire will find no leg to stand on when the modernists cut the line to the truth entirely and finally throw Baptism out with the bath water. Why stop now? If laver, at times, is not necessary and desire, at times, is not necessary, (because the two have become mutually exclusive with the mistranslation of the word ‘or’) what is to protect laver and desire as a team? If each is not necessary, they aren’t necessary. Next thing you know, baptism becomes some “extended rite celebrated in water”. Oh, don’t scoff now. This was a quote from Novus Ordo’s Father John Hardon trying to explain bod. Remember, you were warned.
Interpreted as the Church intended, Trent showcases the Divine Mind in a beautiful, self-protected statement as the bulwark of the Sacrament of Baptism and of the dogma of the Faith that there is no salvation outside the Church, because She encased the truth in beautiful words of armor intended to be understood as they are written and not against reason. Words of truth provided so sweetly by God for those who love Him yet which suffer cruelly from Satanic back-masking against infallible teachings. The truth is self evident.
Topic: The Fruits of Baptism of Desire (Read 3130 times)