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.

Pope Leo XIII said all seminarians should go to their schooling with TWO books in hand: the Summa Theologiae and the Roman Catechism (CoTrent).

You are sticking with your own faulty interpretation, limiting the power of the Almighty to the use of material things that He created.  Do you also reject the teachings about spiritual communions and perfect contrition?  These are ways to receive the grace of the sacrament without receiving the sacrament itself.

Do not worry, I have been through this a thousand times with men more "learned" and hard-headed than you - and I know it never gets anywhere.  Good day.

You limit the power of the Almighty by implying that he might let one of the elect slip through His fingers unbaptized, as though He is not in control.
And of course I do not deny the teachings on perfect contrition.  They are explicitly spelled out in Trent, unlike the so-called teaching that you are attempting to foist on others, which is based on your own fallacious interpretation, which goes directly against the clear and concise words of the decree and Scripture.

It's strange how tempting it is to pick fights with them, isn't it gladius?

It becomes almost addictive.  The way a sadomasochistic unhealthy relationship is addictive.

I just realized you were Eamon Shea, by the way.  I remember your posts from Bellarmine Forums when I was an unbaptized pagan lurker, on the way to becoming Catholic and still trying to decide where I stood on all of this.  ( The light has since struck and in a big way ).  I must have read every post on that board three or four times over.  

You actually cleared up a lot of my fears on the jurisdiction issue when you came on and quoted Bishop Pivarunas, who cited the Great Western Schism and another three-year vacancy of the Holy See previous to that.  I remember you would often come on and talk clear, concise sense.  But as was the tendency on that board, John Lane then went on the attack and obfuscated everything with his "back to the books" mantra.  I like him, but every thread on that board ended the same way, in dissipated, sullen confusion.

I've been meaning to ask, what was the source of the contention between you and Father Cekada?  Father Cekada was one of my heroes but that letter where he calls you "mentally ill," whether true or not -- I've seen no evidence of it -- struck me as un-priestlike.  He seems to relish trash-talk and invective more than is seemly for a man of the cloth.