Of the Doctors of the Church, no one (at least of anything like a Catholic frame of mind) could ever deny that St. Thomas Aquinas is the greatest, even the "Angelic Doctor," a title given to no other. And needless to say, he too has weighed in at some length upon the Baptism of Blood and Desire issue. As I have done before, I prefer to present his comments at some length, so that one may see the most crucial quotes in their true context, and understand them as much as possible, in the sense he originally intended. Then I will explore the manner in which tiny portions are quoted or misquoted in the Treatise so as to create a false impression.
For those not familiar with the Summa Theologica, I should tell you that it takes a format somewhat strange to modern readers, but once one sees what the format actually is, one sees the same format being repeated in cookie-cutter-like fashion in the Sainted Doctor's entire Summa. In writing the Summa, it was his goal to make even the most subtle and abstruse doctrinal concepts accessible to the ordinary reader. The format, once one get's used to it, is actually quite nice and makes for interesting reading regarding whatever question is being addressed.
Each numbered "Article" starts with a Title, framed in the manner of a question (much like found in many catechisms today such as the Baltimore Catechism, and also the Radio Replies series). Then there comes a numbered series of "Objections" to the Catholic position (usually about three but sometimes more and rarely, fewer). These objections may be culled from casual questions heard in the street, the writings of heretics or various other heterodox or unorthodox persons, or even from rival schools of theological thought or saintly writings that have been decided against. Some may even have been posited by himself in a hypothetical fashion, e. g. "What if somebody were to ask…," or "I suppose somebody could say..." After the objections comes an "On the contrary" in which the standard Church position, culled from the Fathers, the Popes and Councils, or catechisms, or other contemporary sources of doctrinal teaching is then given. This is the Church's standard "position" regarding the question, as was commonly given in his own day. Following that St. Thomas adds his own further commentary and enlargement of the Church's position with his "I answer that" in which he discusses the question more thoroughly but still in general terms. At the last comes his "Replies to Objections" in which he directly addresses the various objections, item by item, in a numbered series in which the numbers match the number assigned to the objection being responded to.
There are three such articles which directly address the issues pertinent to BOB and BOD, plus several others which also have some bearing on this issue. I start here with the main three articles, one at a time, in full:
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, Q. 66: Article 11. Whether three kinds of Baptism are fittingly described--viz. Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit?
Objection 1. It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Ephesians 4:5): "One Faith, one Baptism." Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.
Objection 2. Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above (Question 65, Article 1). Now none but Baptism of Water is a sacrament. Therefore we should not reckon two other Baptisms.
Objection 3. Further, Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) distinguishes several other kinds of Baptism. Therefore we should admit more than three Baptisms.
On the contrary, on Hebrews 6:2, "Of the doctrine of Baptisms," the gloss says: "He uses the plural, because there is Baptism of Water, of Repentance, and of Blood."
I answer that, As stated above (Question 62, Article 5), Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this it is written (Isaiah 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): "The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable."
Reply to Objection 1. The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.
Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (Question 60, Article 1), a sacrament is a kind of sign. The other two, however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not sacraments.
Reply to Objection 3. Damascene enumerates certain figurative Baptisms. For instance, "the Deluge" was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of the salvation of the faithful in the Church; since then "a few . . . souls were saved in the ark [Vulgate: 'by water'," according to 1 Peter 3:20. He also mentions "the crossing of the Red Sea": which was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of our delivery from the bondage of sin; hence the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 10:2) that "all . . . were baptized in the cloud and in the sea." And again he mentions "the various washings which were customary under the Old Law," which were figures of our Baptism, as to the cleansing from sins: also "the Baptism of John," which prepared the way for our Baptism.
I cannot imagine a more clear and explicit description of BOB and BOD exactly as the Church has always taught, but nowhere quite so clear as here. And this is in the words of probably the greatest Doctor of the Church. One should think that this alone should be the end of any denials of BOB and BOD, and the writer of the Treatise to be at quite a loss to deal with this. As it is, his response is quite disingenuous, actually going so far as to try to slur the good name and orthodoxy of the Sainted Doctor.
Latching on to nothing more than one tiny extract from the above, he attempts to "prove" that St. Thomas Aquinas taught the absurdity of "three baptisms," as if he were somehow unaware that there is only "one faith, one baptism." See here with what brutality he tortures the words of the Angelic Doctor:
In Summa Theologica III, Q. 66, Art. 11, St. Thomas tries to explain his belief in baptism of desire and blood. He tries to explain how there can be "three baptisms" (water, blood and desire) when St. Paul declares in Ephesians 4:5 that there is only one. He says:
"The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and of the Holy Ghost."
With all due respect to St. Thomas, this is a feeble attempt to answer the objection as to how there can be "three baptisms" when God reveals that there is only one. It is feeble because St. Thomas says that the other two baptisms, desire and blood, are included in the baptism of water; but this is false.
But having now seen the quote in full, can you not see that the whole absurd notion of "three baptisms" is introduced, not by St. Thomas himself, but by his Objector(s), the first two of which are raising exactly the same false claim that Fr. Feeney and Peter Dimond and others like them today, who deny BOB and BOD, always raise. In no way is the Angelic Doctor endorsing here their claim to BOB and BOD making for "three baptisms" as though the well-known fact of there being only "one faith, one baptism" would refute BOB and BOD. In only two places (once in his "I answer that" and once in his "Reply to objection 1") does St. Thomas use the word "baptisms" with the plural with regards to directly addressing the absurd claim of the objector who so used the plural. In a third place (in his "Reply to objection 2") he deliberately omits the word but merely says "The other two" but omitting the word "baptisms" to avoid repeating such a sacrilege a third time. It is exactly as if he meant to put quotation marks around the phrase (but in the 1200's writers didn't do this sort of thing) exactly as Fr. François Laisney of the SSPX does in his article about the three errors of those who follow Fr. Feeney. Properly, if this had been a common practice in his day, the sentence quoted in the Treatise should have read, "The other two 'Baptisms' are included in the Baptism of Water…"
More importantly, St. Thomas has here acknowledged the Scripture regarding "one faith, one baptism" and in no way repudiated it, even while responding to the objection that introduced this scriptural passage. So it is useless to speculate "what St. Thomas would have said if he had lived until the dogmatic Council of Vienne in 1311" since he clearly showed here no need to wait until that Council to be aware of that dogmatic fact. He would have maintained exactly the same teaching, and with exactly the same wording. Hence it is possible (and certain in the next section) that he would only have employed the plural word "baptisms" as a shorthand for "modes of receiving the one baptism." And the plural of baptism could also refer to separate baptismal events, as for example "We had two baptisms today. We baptized Jim and then we baptized Suzan." (And that's if he actually did say "baptisms" since, for all I know, it is even possible that the translation may have been somewhat sloppy here.) The third objection regarding multiple baptisms (namely of John, or of the Flood, etc.) has no bearing on the question of BOB and BOD, but rather shows an opposite error also possible in this area, together with the Saint's response to it. I included it here only for completeness.
And what problem has the author of the Treatise with St. Thomas' statement to the effect that the "other two" are included in the Baptism of Water? He continues, "One who receives baptism of water doesn't receive baptism of desire and baptism of blood, even according to the baptism of desire advocates. Therefore, it is false to say, as St. Thomas does, that the other two baptisms are included in the baptism of water; they most certainly are not." Well excuse me, but there is not a single "baptism of desire advocate" who would dare to deny what St. Thomas has taught here, for it is in fact quite obvious that the "other two" most certainly are included in the Baptism of Water. How so? Desire is included in that there must be a desire to be baptized on the part of the person (or of their parents and godparents on their behalf in the case of infants) to be baptized, else the Church will not baptize the person. So right there is the desire. And the Sacrament of Baptism derives its efficacy from the merits of the Passion of Christ, thus uniting the baptismal candidate with our Lord's own martyrdom.