Now STOP. Ask yourself, is the meaning of these words: ‘Unless one is reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’ literal, if BoD is true?

Got your answer?







Select the text below for it to be visible:

If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and therefore reduces to some sort of metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless one is reborn of water and the Spirit,’ let him be anathema” (Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Session 7, canon 2, A.D. 1547 - Denzinger 1615).

As we can see, the words of Christ must be taken literally.

Did your article address this enormous debate-ending ace-in-the-hole dogma? No, of course not, because it's impossible.

This video is all you need to be convinced of the true position:

However, there is much, much more evidence and, don't worry, all the objections I ever heard are refuted. No Father taught BoD, no saint ever believed in salvation without knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, while some saints held BoD for catechumens.

Your article espouses the incredibly abominable heresy of salvation, not with faith alone, but without faith at all. Truly disgusting and easily refuted.


I'll send you some more material if you want after my exam.

"One Lord, one faith, one baptism."
[Ephesians 4:5]

One. Not three. Not grace separated from the Sacrament. One baptism of water and the Holy Ghost. (John 3:5)

See how simple that is compared to the contrived reasoning of BOD adherents?

You should not read things like that, by that I mean things that blatantly contradict the very words of Our Lord. You should not be using those words against the words of Our Lord, and if you don't think that is what is being done, if you've convinced yourself that nothing of the sort is happening, then you're fooling yourself.

The litmus test of a BOD is so simple that it's almost inconceivable anyone believes in a BOD at all, since all any a BODer needs to do, is to simply use the Divine Revelation, which are the words of Our Lord in John 3:5, to prove there is a BOD, or to prove that a BOD does not contradict this Divine Revelation. 

"I never said that I agree with you that there's such a thing as a BoD that can lead to salvation without the Sacrament.  I just said that it's permissible for a Catholic to believe in it, as St. Robert and St. Alphonsus held it.  To make an analogy, I think that Molinism is wrong and bad and harmful (I agree with the Thomists), but I would also say that it's permissible for a Catholic to hold ... as the Church has explicitly permitted it without actually resolving the question.  It's not that difficult.  I don't believe in any BoD and think it's theological garbage, without any foudation in faith or reason, but is just emotion-based speculation.  But I disagree with the Dimonds who hold that it's formally heretical and not permitted for Catholics to believe." - Quote from Ladislaus

I believe it is very closed minded and, dare I say, stubborn of you to say 'It's obvious, you guys are just idiots.' This guy Ladislaus seems to be the biggest defender of your position, and yet he holds that it is permissible to believe in it. Some of the greatest theological minds on earth believed in BoD, and it was an uncontested issue in the Faith until recently.

Yes, it is heretical to say that people can be saved outside the Church.

No, it is not heretical to say that there's no such thing as a BoD that suffices for salvation.

I can show you 3 Dogmatic Definitions to back up the first statement above.

Please find 1 Dogmatic Definition that indicates that BoD exists, that explains what it is, and that states that BoD can suffice for salvation in the absence of having actually received the Sacrament of Baptism (with matter + form).

You won't find anything for #2.

There's merely a mention of a votum without which there can be no justfication.  There's no Canon in Trent explaining what must be believed about it.  We do not give the assent of faith to phrases like "Baptism of Desire," but to propositions, and nowhere is the proposition that must be believed defined.  There's no definition that justification suffices for salvation (post-Tridentine theoloian Melchior Cano, who was at Trent and spoke twice there, held that infidels, for example, could be justified but not saved).  So every piece of it is missing.

In Sacred Scripture Our Lord alludes frequently to the internal dispositions, which must precede the outward manifestation of faith. In verses John 3:3-8, Christ speaks of Baptism five times but Baptism of water only once. For instance, He mentions the man "who is born of the spirit" (6, 8). St. Thomas Aquinas discussed the verse concerning Baptism by water (Jn 3:5) in the following context:
As it is written (I King 16:7), "Man sees those things that appear, but the Lord beholds the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in the heart, though not in body: thus the Apostle says (Rom. 2:29) that "The circuмcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but God."
The primacy of the spirit is nowhere more plainly expressed than when Cornelius, a Roman centurion, is received into the Church. Note the sequence of events:
"While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word. And the faithful of the circuмcision, who came with Peter, were astonished, for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also.... And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" (Act. 10:44-48).
Archbishop Francis Patrick Kenrick (1796-1863), points out in this regard that: " Cornelius and his family received the Holy Ghost whilst Peter was yet speaking to them, before they were baptized. (Acts 10, 44) Others may receive grace in like manner, and be justified before the actual reception of the sacrament, the grace whereof they may receive by anticipation, God accepting the desire of their heart, and subsequently in its reception conferring more abundant grace. This may particularly happen in regard to such as are snatched out of life before they can receive the sacrament. The believer, whilst preparing for its reception, may suddenly feel the approach of death, when no minister of God or other person is at hand to make the sacred ablution. Relatives, under the influence of strong prejudices, may refuse to the dying man the opportunity of receiving the sanctifying rite. In such circuмstances his faith, desire, and love will no doubt obtain for him from the divine goodness the grace which he earnestly implores. This sentiment is not at all inconsistent with the belief of the necessity of Baptism for all who have it in their power to receive it, and of its efficacy, whereby grace is imparted to the worthy receiver." (The Catholic Doctrine on Justification, Archbishop Francis Patrick Kenrick, page 133-134)
Our Lord also stated, "Everyone that shall confess me before men, I will also confess before My Father in Heaven" (Mt. 10:32). This was later taken by many saints as a reference to Baptism of blood in place of water, as undergone by the catechumen martyrs.
Our Lord also declares; “Unless[19] you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven” (John 6:8). Now if we affirm that someone who dies in the state of grace without receiving the Eucharist will be saved we would obviously have to qualify the statement of Our Lord by adding "at least in desire".[20]  
What is more is that St. Paul clearly states that by the state of Justification (being in the state of grace) we are made sons of God  “Being justified therefore by faith, let us have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access through faith into this grace wherein we stand: and glory in the hope of the glory of the sons of God” ( Romans 5:1). 
Now St. Paul also affirms “And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God and joint heirs with Christ” - Romans 5:17 (See also Titus 3:7).  Hence, it clearly follows that if we die justified we indeed shall attain to the reward of the just, which is eternal life.
Doesn't this go against the Dogma "No Salvation outside the Church"?
No. The Dogma "No Salvation outside the Church" is an objective judgment based on the words of Christ and Church teaching. The Church however by means of this does not propose to judge the internal dispositions of individuals as this judgment is reserved to God alone for the Church does not Judge the internals or the dead for that matter, she judges objective facts. With this in mind, we must further affirm that even if we distinguish the visible, structural elements of the Church from the spiritual life of grace flowing in her members (body and soul of the Church) they only designate differently the same Church.[21] We must affirm this fact since we must never forget that there is no belonging to the soul of the Church if one refuses to belong to its body[22]. Since what is meant by "the Body of the Church" is simply the visible Society of the Roman Catholic Church, while by the term "the Soul of the Church" we are simply referring to the supernatural bonds of faith, hope and Charity.
St. Robert Bellarmine further explains that "Since the gospel pertains to the faithful alone, and since none has faith in the gospel except the faithful, there was no need in the gospels to describe the form in which infidels will be judged, but it was sufficient to make the general statement: He who does not believe, will be condemned (Mark 16); and: He who believes  not in the Son will not see life (John 3); and with regard to children: The fault of one man resulted in the condemnation for all men (Rom 5)." - St. Robert Bellarmine, De Amissione Gratiae et Statu Peccati, Book 6, Chap. 5.
The Church is necessary for all for salvation. This necessity is not only one of precept[23] but also of means (either as a cause or condition without which one cannot be saved) and this at least in desire. Disobedience to this command would forestall salvation.
As regards those who belong to the Church St. Augustine points out that, "When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body . . . All who are within in heart are saved in the unity of the ark" (Baptism 5:28:39). Yet we must keep in mind that no one who positively repudiates the Church can be said to belong to the Church in any sense. As St. Cyprian put it: "he will not have God for his Father who would not have the Church for his mother."
Pope Pius XII exclaimed the same when he stated, "those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church . . . we ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in he Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with us in the one, organic Body of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the society of glorious love".[24]
Further more St. Robert Bellarmine in his work" De Ecclesia Militante" states "there are those who belong to the soul [of the Church] and not the body, as [are] catechumens or the excommunicated, if indeed they have charity [state of grace], which can happen." Again he also affirms that "Catechumens however if not in re at least in voto are in the Church and are therefore able to be saved."[25]
While such persons are said to belong to the Soul of the Church it's important to keep in mind that no body can be said to belong to the soul of the Church if he does not at least desire to belong to the body of the Church.
Ultimately, to understand this dogma we must primarily understand primarily that when the Church declares it to an infallible to truth that "There is no Salvation outside the Church", she (the Church) is making an "Objective" judgment. She is not making a "Subjective" Judgment! She judges from the facts and hence she does not seek to judge the individual dispositions of men. This is for God alone. She judges from the facts. These facts are that those who separate themselves from the Church or those who are not part of her have not communion with her and with this knowledge and the Truths of the gospel she can unhesitatingly declare with Christ (her divine founder) that those who reject the Church reject salvation (Matt 18:17). The Church does not claim to judge each individual person, but errors. Hence, those who hold to these errors and die in them cannot be saved. This is precisely how this dogma is to be understood.
St. Thomas Aquinas when speaking of the salvation of infidels states that “Granted that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, no untenable conclusion follows even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to divine providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that of  his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, (in which case a desire for baptism would still be necessary) or would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20).” [26]
In dealing with the same issue St. Bonaventure states that “God obliges no one to do the impossible and therefore it must be admitted that the baptism of desire without the baptism of water is sufficient, provided the person in question has the will to receive the baptism of water, but is prevented from doing so before he dies." [27]
As early as 1713 Clement XI condemned in his dogmatic Bull "Unigenitus" the proposition of the Jensenist Quesnel that affirmed that “no grace is given outside the Church” just as Alexander VIII has already condemned in 1690 the Jansenistic proposition of Arnauld that “Pagans, Jews, heretics, and other people of the sort, receive no influx [of grace] whatsoever from Jesus Christ”.
A dilemma that we pose for those who deny this teaching (baptism of desire) is that when Pope Boniface VIII declared that there "Outside the Church there is no salvation nor remission of sins"[28]. We all agree that a person can be justified outside the Church. However, this justification means remission of sins, because it puts one in the state of grace. Thus, if we are to take this Bull rigorously as the Feeneyites wish[29], then we must say also that there can be no justification/remission of sins before entrance in the Church/water Baptism. How is it that such persons will often admit that one can be justified before baptism of water and then at the same time declare that such justified persons are still totally outside the Church and are not members of the Church in any sense of the word? This goes directly against the words of Pope Boniface VIII who made it clear that "Outside the Church is no salvation nor remission of sins". This must obviously mean that those who are justified without water baptisms are indeed members in some sense of the term or else one could never admit that a person could be justified (have the remission of their sins) before baptism (by water).
It is only with a proper understanding of the faith that we are able to put the Church's teaching on this issue in its proper context, without avoiding excess or defect. For that same reason, it is worth noting that the Church has always condemned the following as errors opposed to the faith:[30]
First error: "Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true." (Proposition XV).
Second error that: "Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation and arrive at eternal salvation." (Proposition XVI).

Third error: "Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ." (Proposition XVII).

Fourth error: "Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church." (Proposition XVIII).


^^Not my words, quoted from the article

"I never said that I agree with you that there's such a thing as a BoD that can lead to salvation without the Sacrament.  I just said that it's permissible for a Catholic to believe in it, as St. Robert and St. Alphonsus held it.  To make an analogy, I think that Molinism is wrong and bad and harmful (I agree with the Thomists), but I would also say that it's permissible for a Catholic to hold ... as the Church has explicitly permitted it without actually resolving the question.  It's not that difficult.  I don't believe in any BoD and think it's theological garbage, without any foudation in faith or reason, but is just emotion-based speculation.  But I disagree with the Dimonds who hold that it's formally heretical and not permitted for Catholics to believe." - Quote from Ladislaus

I believe it is very closed minded and, dare I say, stubborn of you to say 'It's obvious, you guys are just idiots.' This guy Ladislaus seems to be the biggest defender of your position, and yet he holds that it is permissible to believe in it. Some of the greatest theological minds on earth believed in BoD, and it was an uncontested issue in the Faith until recently.

Simply use the Divine Revelation, which are the words of Our Lord in John 3:5, to prove there is a BOD, or to prove that a BOD does not contradict this Divine Revelation. 

There's a really interesting concurrent thread on the home page-- God's salvific will to save "all men" and the death of unbaptized infants.

It is interesting because posters are discussing, in relative obscure and penetrating detail, the theology of predestination, of the various distinctions in God and man's will, and so forth. I say without any irony that the thread is an excellent read.

What one does not find in the thread is anyone saying "why can't you just take the simple and straightforward plain meaning of the scriptures-- 1 Tim 2:4 clearly states God wills all men to be saved; is this not a much simpler doctrine than the gymnastics of the theologians to explain away scripture's plain meaning?"

Why is such asinine argumentation absent from that thread?  Why does this 'plain meaning' canard continually rear its ignorant head for some 'plain' meanings but not for others? And how does one decide when the 'plain' meaning is in fact plain, versus when the 'plain' meaning needs theology to illumine it?  In a decade of discussing this issue online and offline, with strangers and neighbors, I have yet to find any proponent of 'plain meanings' insist on the plain meaning of any other scripture beside John 3:5.  Is it just ignorance? Confirmation bias? Malevolence? Why does this apparent rule of faith only ever assert itself for this ONE scriptural passage?

It's an expression that's offensive to pious ears at the very least and misleading at worst ... even if some saints used it.  St. Cyprian taught the heresy that the Baptism of heretics was invalid.

What's ironic, though, is that for those who claim that Trent taught BoD, there are only TWO Baptisms, not 3, not 4.

If, as you guys claim, Trent taught there can be no justification without the Sacrament or the Desire ... where's mention of BoB there?  In fact, according to that statement, there's no such thing as BoB that does not reduce to BoD.  So your "3 Baptisms" is heretical ... by your own standards for interpreting this passage in Trent.  This is actually further evidence that Trent was not teaching the "Three Baptisms" in this passage, as we have been asserting all along.

.
I think you missed the point. Do you honestly think those who believe in BoD believe in the existence of more than seven sacraments?