|
Baptism of Desire Is it a Catholic Teaching? By http://www.catholicresponse.org The purpose of this
article is to show the true Catholic teaching on this controversial matter
between Catholics. I will primarily
focus by means of refutation of a newsletter from A Voice Crying in the Wilderness, (newsletter #2). This article, by Bro. Dimond,
can be found on their website at: http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Short_Refutation_of_the_Theory_of_Baptism_of_Desire.html My comments/refutations
will be in black and Verdana font, Bro. Dimond’s original statements will be in maroon and Arial font. A VOICE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS newsletter#2 A Short Refutation of the Theory of Baptism of
Desire - by Bro. Peter
Dimond, O.S.B. - In many ways
the dogma outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation is the most
important dogma in the Catholic Church. Connected with this is the necessity of
receiving the Sacrament of Baptism. But today both of
these truths are almost universally denied by those calling themselves
Catholic. They assert that the unbaptized can be
united to the Church, justified (attain the state of grace) and saved by what
is called baptism of desire. A tiny minority of those who believe in baptism
of desire (less than 1%) limit it to those who actually desire baptism
and believe in the Catholic religion (e.g., unbaptized
catechumens). The vast majority of them (more than 99%) extend the possibility
of salvation by baptism of desire to pagans, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists,
etc. and people of no religion, who do not actually desire baptism or believe
in the Catholic Faith. This majority group also somehow extends the
"saving capability" of baptism of desire to Protestants, even
though Protestants have already been baptized. The
problem with this logic lies with the fact that it doesn’t
matter what even 99% of Catholics may believe, what does matter is what the
Church actually teaches on a given topic.
The introduction of this unsubstantiated “fact” seems nothing more than
hyperbole to draw out an emotional response, primarily from “Traditional
Catholics.” In this newsletter
we will show that the Catholic Church has infallibly taught that one cannot
enter into the kingdom of heaven without being born again of water and the Holy
Ghost (i.e., actually receiving the Sacrament of Baptism). The
discussion will focus mainly on baptism of desire as it is believed by
the tiny minority (for those who actually desire baptism and believe in the
Catholic religion), because the majority’s definition of baptism of desire
(that baptism of desire saves those who don’t believe in the Catholic Faith or
actually desire baptism) is directly contrary to many defined dogmas, was never
held by any saint, and is a denial of the Athanasian
Creed which defined that whoever wishes to be saved must believe
in Jesus Christ, the Most Holy Trinity and the Catholic Faith. But with all due respect, Bro. Dimond fails to acknowledge that what 99% of
Catholics may believe is irrelevant if it disagrees with Catholic
teaching. What he has just represented
is NOT the Catholic teaching on Baptism of Desire,
rather it is the view of this (undocumented) 99% of Catholics. We will get to what the real teaching is here
in just a bit, for he has put “Baptism of Desire – On the Witness Stand” and
there he has provided the opportunity, not only to defend the real teaching,
but he has presented it! Baptism of Desire – On the Witness Stand 1) Are the
words of Jesus Christ in John 3:5 (" Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a
man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of
God.") to be taken as they are written, or not as they are
written? All defenders of the theory
of baptism of desire must admit that they believe that John 3:5 is not
to be taken literally. They agree that baptism of desire
cannot be true if John 3:5 is understood as it is
written. So the question is: Does the Catholic
Church understand John 3:5 as it is written or not? Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess.
6, Chap. 4: "In these words there is suggested a description of the
justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state
in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace
and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our
savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, CANNOT
TAKE PLACE WITHOUT THE LAVER OF REGENERATION OR A DESIRE FOR IT, AS
IT IS WRITTEN: UNLESS A MAN BE BORN AGAIN OF WATER AND THE HOLY
GHOST, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD (JOHN 3:5)." The reader can see very
clearly that the Council of Let’s see, why do we think this? Well, let’s start
out by reminding Bro. Dimond that the Council of Trent is an infallible and
dogmatic council. What
is declared and/or defined by this council cannot be dismissed by any true and
faithful Catholic. The baptism of desire people
believe that the use of the word "or" (Latin: aut)
in the above passage means that justification can take
place by the water of baptism or the desire for it. But
a careful look at the passage proves this to be false. The passage says that
justification cannot take place without the laver of regeneration (water
baptism) or the desire for it; in other words, both are necessary. Suppose I
said, "This shower cannot take place without water or the desire to
take one." Does this mean that the shower takes place by the desire to
take a shower? Absolutely not. It means that both are
necessary. Bro.
Dimond contradicts himself and levies a contradiction on the Council of Trent
as well. First he states
“that justification can take place,” then he says “that justification cannot take place.” Well, you cannot have an infallible council
making both statements! Either it cannot
happen, or it can – this is simple logic.
The fact that the Latin word “aut” is used and
means “or” – this is quite simply proof
that it can happen. We must also keep in mind, the Church never declares a given individual is
not justified and/or is condemned to hell.
The Church does not play the role of God here – that is His job. It’s not Bro. Dimond’s, nor is it
the job of the Benedictines at Most Holy Family Monastery. What is the job of the Church and the
faithful is to teach that Baptism is a command of our Lord and no one can
willfully refuse to be baptized and expect to be
justified and/or saved. Back
to the word “or” here, in this context – “or” does not mean “and” so no matter
how much one desires to force the meaning of “and” on this passage, we cannot,
without rewriting the passage. As for
the shower analogy, Bro. Dimond left out the key
concept – it is not “baptism” that will take place in Baptism
of Desire, rather it is justification that takes place. Therefore, in the shower analogy, Bro. Dimond
missed a point and to make it a valid comparison we would have to add something
like, “The mark of this shower cannot take place without the water or the desire
for the shower.” In other words, the
"mark" of the shower "may" take place whether one actually
gets in the shower "or" at least desires to do so. In keeping with the Catholic teaching on
"desire" - if one had the opportunity to get in the shower and
willfully refused, then the "mark" would not be
attained for if one's "desire" is pure, they would not pass up
such an opportunity. Disjunctive
use of the word “or:”
If you clean your room, you may watch television or go to the
movies. You can do either of these
things, but not both. In the context of
the subject of this article, “Justification of the impious…
…cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for
it.” Either works, but
not both. Conjunctive
use of the word “or:”
If you do not clean your room, you may not watch television or go
to the movies. You cannot do either of
these things. In the context of In fact, the Latin word aut ("or") is used in the same way in
other passages in the Council of Trent. In the introduction to the decree on
Justification, the Council strictly forbids anyone to "believe, preach or
teach" (credere, praedicare aut docere) other than as it is defined and declared in the
decree on Justification. Pope
Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Introduction: "... strictly
forbidding that anyone henceforth may presume to believe, preach or teach,
otherwise than is defined and declared by this present decree."
Does "or" (aut) in this passage mean that one is only
forbidden to preach contrary to the Council’s decree on justification, but
one is allowed to teach contrary to it? No, obviously "or"(aut) means that both preaching and teaching
are forbidden, just like in chapter 4 above "or" means that
justification cannot take place without both water and desire. No,
Bro. Dimond is missing the syntax of this sentence,
the two instances do not use the word “or” in the same way. In the statement of “cannot take place
without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it” this is a disjunctive
statement. This next statement,
“believe, preach or teach,” the context tells us this use of “or” is a
conjunctive statement, not a disjunctive one.
So it is grammatically incorrect to say the use
of “or” in these two passages is the same. Another example of the use of aut to mean "and" (or "both") in
Trent is found in Sess. 21, Chap. 2, the decree on
Communion under both species (Denz. 931). Pope
Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 21, Chap. 2: "Therefore holy mother Church... has approved
this custom of communicating under either species, and has decreed that it be
considered as a law, which may not be repudiated or be changed at
will without the authority of the Church." Does aut
in this declaration mean that the Council’s decree may not be
repudiated, but it may be changed? No, obviously it means that both
a repudiation and a change are forbidden. This is
another clear example of how the Latin word aut
can be used in contexts which render its meaning "and" or
"both". Yes,
again the context of this passage relegates the meaning of “and” or “both” to
this use of “or.” Ironically, it must be
pointed out that you have used “or” to mean “either/or” here in your own
explanation! And these examples blow away the claim of
baptism of desire supporters: that the meaning of aut
in Chapter 4, Session 6 is one which favors baptism of desire. Well,
no, due to the lack of proper syntactical examination, the conclusion reached
here is faulty. But why does Catechism of the Council of "INTENTION - ... In the first place they must desire and
intend to receive it…" So, far from being in favor of baptism of
desire, this chapter of the Council of Trent actually goes against it. It
defines that justification of the impious cannot take place without the water
of baptism or the desire for it. The Council of
Trent is anything but ambiguous – thus this use of “or” when contrasting two
objects (the actual laver “or” the desire of it) is doing just that,
“contrasting” the two objects. If the
intended meaning was “and” then “and” would have been used, or other words
would have been included to make the "or" a "conjunctive or." We know this
interpretation of this passage is correct, because if what baptism of
desire proponents say were correct, we would actually have the Council teaching
us in the first part of the sentence that John 3:5 is not to be taken
as it is written (desire sometimes suffices), while simultaneously
contradicting itself in the second part of the sentence by telling us to take
John 3:5 as it is written (sicut
scriptumest)! But this passage is infallible and there
is no contradiction contained therein. So let every baptism of desire
supporter cease preaching that Sess. 6, Chap.
4 teaches that justification "can" be effected by water or
desire, which is certainly not what the Council says.
Let them cease preaching that John 3:5 is not to be taken AS IT IS WRITTEN. The
problem with the insistence on this thesis is that we do not take any one verse
out of the context of the rest of Scripture.
If Bro. Dimond’s argument were valid here,
then one could go just a bit further in the same chapter and find that only
“believing” is necessary: Joh Joh Joh In
fact, if we look at the context of verse 5, the meaning of “born of water” can
actually mean our physical birth. Let us
look at the context: Joh 3:5 Jesus
answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom
of God. Joh 3:6 That
which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is
spirit. Joh 3:7 Marvel not
that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. Recognizing
the two part comparison in v.5 which is repeated in v.6 and then confirmed in
v.7 – we see that the statement we must be “born of water and of the Spirit” is
indicative of our physical birth and our spiritual birth. By our mother, we receive physical birth
(which is literally a birth by water); through the Sacrament of Baptism we are
“born again… of the Spirit.” To insist
that being “born of water” is “water baptism” ignores the context of John 3. Let them cease quoting the
horrible mistranslation of this passage as it is found
in Denzinger (which many of them continue obstinately
to do after it has been pointed out to them). Bro.
Dimond has not established that “Denzinger” is a
“horrible mistranslation.” In fact, this
is the first mention that it is such.
What is mistranslated? The word “or?” This
cannot be, for even Bro. Dimond has acknowledged the use of this word and
defended it, albeit through the use of faulty syntax, he still defends the fact
that “or” is used. And furthermore, let not
these people think that they justify themselves before the all-knowing God by
ignoring the above facts and continuing to obstinately assert that Sess. 6, Chap. 4 definitely teaches baptism of
desire. Here
we see a false dilemma being presented. It is not
the argument of those who support Baptism of Desire that one may “ignore” the
command to be baptized. They cannot be justified
asserting this even by quoting famous Church theologians, who were mistaken in
good faith; for God did not give the charism of
infallibility to theologians, however great, but to Peter and his successors
alone (Lk. 22:31-32). It
is not stated to whom Bro. Dimond is referring here, but since it is well known
by anyone who has debated this topic previously, one can assume he is referring
to St. Thomas Aquinas and the Summa Theologica, which
makes several references to Baptism of Desire. The problem we would have here though is that
the Summa Theologica has never been
abrogated. In fact, if we were to
accept Bro. Dimond’s argument here, then we’d have to assume that teaching Baptism of Desire is
heresy. It would not make sense then
that Aquinas is heralded as both a doctor and saint in
the Catholic Church and not condemned a heretic. It
must also be noted, infallibility is not reserved to Peter and his successors
alone – for the same authority given to Peter alone in Matthew 16:18-19 is also
given to the rest of the Apostles, as a group, in Matthew 18:18. This is why we also attribute infallibility
to ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church.
(And it must be noted that the “keys” mentioned
in Matthew 16 are not mentioned in Matthew 18 – the keys represent a supremacy
of authority which is only mentioned in the context of St. Peter). Some baptism of desire
supporters also bring forward Sess. 7, Can. 4 on the
Sacraments to somehow try to prove baptism of desire. But it’s obvious that this canon does not teach that either
the sacraments or the desire for them is sufficient for justification,
as some claim, but that it condemns those who assert that neither the
sacraments nor the desire for them is necessary for justification, and that faith
alone suffices. It does not affirm that either is sufficient, but condemns
those who assert that neither is necessary. For a full discussion of this canon we refer you to the section on it in issue #6 of our
magazine. Again,
the problem with the above argument is lies in the fact that It is also
quite interesting to consider that whereas the Council of Trent never
teaches baptism of desire, it teaches no less than three times (twice
in Sess. 6, Chap. 14 and once in Sess.
14, Chap. 4) that the desire for the Sacrament of Penance (if a person has
perfect contrition) can suffice for justification before Penance is actually
received. This
efficacy of the desire for the Sacrament of Penance is
mentioned three times, but the supposed efficacy of the desire for
baptism (baptism of desire) is not mentioned at all. This should indicate
something to those who believe in baptism of desire: God didn’t
allow it to be taught in the infallible Council of Trent or any other Council
or even in any Papal encyclical in the history of the Church, because it is an
erroneous theory. Well
here Bro. Dimond has issued an absolutely false
statement. “The laver of regeneration, or the
desire thereof” is clearly mentioned, so to say it is “not mentioned at
all” is utterly false. John 3:5 is true exactly as
it is written (Trent, Sess. 6, Chap.
4). This
has already been acknowledged as true, but one must
also look at the context! Verses 6 and 7
refute the thesis that Bro. Dimond is so earnestly defending. If the concept of baptism of
desire were a true teaching of the Church, then the Council of Trent definitely
would have included it in the canons on Baptism or in the chapters on
Justification. But it’s nowhere to be found. It is not found, explicitly, in the canons on Baptism nor in
the chapters on Justification for it is rather obscure and very limited in
scope. Extremists on both sides of this
matter seem to make a much bigger argument out of Baptism of Desire than is
truly there. It must
also be considered that every Church council had a focus. It’s also noteworthy that the terms baptism
of desire and baptism of blood are not found anywhere even in The Catechism
of the Council of Trent - contrary to what many assert. For a discussion of
what The Catechism of the Council of Trent does and does not teach on
Baptism, consult the section on it in issue #6 of our magazine. We
find Bro. Dimond in another false statement, below is a quote from the
Catechism of Trent: On adults, however, the Church has
not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has
ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The
delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we
have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for
adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their
repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness. (http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tsacr-b.htm) 2) Is
there one baptism or are there three? Is there only one baptism
celebrated in water? Or do three baptisms exist:
water, blood and desire? Let us quote the teaching of the Church: The Dogmatic Nicene
Creed: "We confess one baptism for the remission of sins."
Countless Popes have professed the dogma that there is only one baptism (see
issue #6 of our magazine for quotes from no less than 9
other Popes). Did baptism of desire proponents ever wonder why countless Popes
have professed that there is only one baptism, and not a single one of them
bothered to define the so-called "other two" (desire and blood)? Why
has not a single Pope ever used the terms "baptism of desire" and
"baptism of blood"? Why did two general councils of the Church –
Lateran IV and Pope
Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution
1, 1215, ex cathedra: "But the sacrament of baptism is
consecrated in water at the invocation of the undivided Trinity – namely,
Father, Son and Holy Ghost – and brings salvation to both children and adults
when it is correctly carried out by anyone in the form laid down by the
Church." If the sacrament of baptism brings
salvation to children and adults (de fide), then without it there is
no salvation! Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne,
1311-1312, ex cathedra: "Besides, one baptism
which regenerates 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 commonly the perfect remedy for salvation for
adults as for children." Here Pope Clement V defines as
a dogma that ONE BAPTISM must be faithfully confessed by all,
which is celebrated in water. This means that all Catholics must profess one
baptism of water, not three baptisms: of water, blood and desire. To confess
"three baptisms", and not one, is to reject Catholic dogma. What
we have here is a “common fallacy” in rhetoric.
Bro. Dimond has levied a “straw man.”
There is only one baptism, just as we confess in the Creed. This one baptism is
generally manifested in baptism of water, but in a very limited scope –
it may be manifest through either blood or desire. (Baptism by blood has not
been a topic of this article until this point, but that would
be the acceptance of martyrs for the Faith who may not have had the opportunity
to receive water baptism prior to death). To assert that proponents of Baptism of
Desire and Baptism of Blood are saying there are “three baptisms” is to be
ignorant of the reality of the confession of one baptism. Is there is more than one Eucharist because
there is Body AND Blood and one can receive either and still receive the
wholeness of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ? By no means! Just as there is one Eucharist, wholly
complete in either of two forms; there is one baptism,
which may be wholly efficacious whether by water, blood or desire. 3) Are
those who have not received the Sacrament of Baptism part of the faithful? Who are the faithful? Can one
who has not been baptized be considered part of the
faithful? I have not, as yet, heard any believer in
baptism of desire try to answer this question. The following facts explain why
I have not yet gotten an answer to this question; it is because they cannot
answer this question. Pope Innocent III, Fourth
Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: "THERE IS INDEED ONE
UNIVERSAL CHURCH OF THE FAITHFUL, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which
Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice." As many of you know, the
Catholic Mass is divided into two parts: the Mass
of the catechumens (those training to be baptized) and the Mass of the faithful
(those baptized). Need one say more? In the early Church, the unsacramentally baptized (i.e., those who had not been
baptized with water) had to leave after the Mass of the catechumens,
when the faithful professed the Creed. The unbaptized
were not allowed to stay for the Mass of the faithful, because it is only
by receiving the Sacrament of Baptism that one becomes one of the faithful. This is the teaching of Tradition. This teaching of
Tradition is why in the Traditional Rite of Baptism, the unbaptized
catechumen is asked what he desires from holy Church,
and he answers "Faith." The unbaptized
catechumen does not have "the Faith", so he begs the Church for it in
the "Sacrament of Faith" (Baptism), which alone makes him one of
"the faithful." "For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful… One has Christ for his King; the
other sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat
which decays and perishes… Since then we have nothing in common, in what, tell
me, shall we hold communion?… Let us then give
diligence that we may become citizens of the city above… for if it should
come to pass (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we
depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will
be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and
bonds indissoluble." Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 7 on
Justification, ex cathedra: "… the instrumental cause [of
Justification] is THE SACRAMENT OF
BAPTISM, WHICH IS ‘THE SACRAMENT OF FAITH,’ without faith no one is ever
justified… THIS FAITH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH APOSTOLIC TRADITION, CATECHUMENS BEG
OF THE CHURCH BEFORE THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM, when they ask for ‘faith
which bestows life eternal,’ (Rit. And with these facts in mind (that a
catechumen "begs" for the faith because he isn’t part of the
faithful), remember the definition of Pope Innocent III at the Fourth Lateran
Council: "There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful,
outside of which nobody at all is saved…" The original Latin reads: "Una vero est fidelium
universalis ecclesia, extra quam
nullus omnino
salvatur…" The Latin words nullus omnino mean
"absolutely nobody." Absolutely nobody outside the one Church of the
faithful is saved. Since the one Church of the
faithful only includes those who have received the Sacrament of Baptism – as
apostolic tradition, liturgical tradition and Church dogma show – this means
that absolutely nobody is saved without the Sacrament
of Baptism. What
Bro. Dimond appears to be overlooking here is that the Church of the Faithful
refers to the Church Militant – that is, those still alive in the Church. For those whom Baptism of Desire (or blood)
would be applicable would be among either the Church Suffering (those in
Purgatory) or the Church Victorious (those in Heaven). In either case, Baptism of Desire is not for
the Church Militant, but it MAY apply (again, it is God who is the Judge of
this) to those who have died prior to receiving Water Baptism, but had an
honest and earnest desire for it. 4) Is Our
Lord’s command to be baptized impossible for some to
fulfill? Catechism of the Council of "Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the
Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave to His Apostles the command to go
and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on
all who were to be saved." As proven above, God commanded
all men to be baptized. The supporters of the theory
of baptism of desire argue that for some people the command to be baptized is impossible to fulfill. Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 11 on
Justification, ex cathedra: "... no one should make use of that rash statement
forbidden under anathema by the Fathers, that the commandments of God are
impossible to observe for a man who is justified. ‘FOR GOD DOES NOT COMMAND IMPOSSIBILITIES, but by commanding
admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray
for what you cannot do…" Bro. Dimond argues “the supporters of the
theory of baptism of desire argue that for some people the command to be
baptized is impossible to fulfill.” Again it must be stated, what individuals argue is really
irrelevant if the Church has a teaching on this matter, and she does. No one can say, with certainty,
that God does or does not provide a supernatural means of receiving the
Sacrament for those who die with an honest desire to receive the
Sacrament. It must
also be reiterated that no man can speak for the Judgment of God. It is primarily up to us to teach and
emphasize the need for Baptism to fulfill the Lord’s command, but for those
limited few who may die while desiring the Sacrament
we must leave their Judgment to God. Is Lefebvrism
Catholic? Recently, the Society of St.
Pius X (SSPX – Lefebvrists) published two books attacking
the teaching of the Church on Baptism. They spend their time trying to figure
out ways for people to be saved without baptism – but
to no avail. Baptism of Desire by Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau
was published by the SSPX in 1999, while Is
Feeneyism Catholic? by
Fr. Francois Laisney was published in 2001. The
premise of these books - especially Is Feeneyism
Catholic? - is that it is not Catholic to take John 3:5 as it is
written. Such a premise not only condemns the teaching of the Council of Trent,
that John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written (as we have shown), but it
literally means that you are not Catholic if you believe exactly what the
following Magisterial teaching declares: Pope
Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Exultate Deo, 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 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
Pius XI, Quas Primas (#
15), Pope
Pius XI is expressing the truth here, but he does not elaborate on the entire
teaching on Baptism. He does not tell us
what constitutes a valid baptism, nor the ordinary or extra-ordinary ministers
who may validly administer the Sacrament.
He doesn’t tell us what the matter, form and intent must be, he only
mentions the necessity of Baptism, and those who support the teaching from
Trent – which echoed (and certainly did not condemn) the teachings of St.
Thomas Aquinas. Here we see the Council of The
fact of the matter is, Quas Primas does not go into the details regarding the eternal
rite. The Society of St. Pius X’s
books teach that these statements of Pope Eugene IV and Pope Pius XI are not
Catholic. Anyone who obstinately promotes, defends or supports such a view (or
the books) is a heretic, which unfortunately also includes the Society of St.
Pius V, the C.M.R.I. and most other independent priests. One who would
obstinately give financial support to such a group would also be a heretic, for
then one would be supporting their heretical position, among others. We
have at least a couple problems with Bro. Dimond’s
credibility here. First off, he does not
quote nor cite anything from these books.
Second, it must be reiterated that what anyone
teaches, believes, etc., is irrelevant if the Church has already taught on this
matter. It must also be noted, Bro. Dimond sympathizes with the Society
of St. Pius V and the C.M.R.I., and both organizations, as well as the Most
Holy Family Monastery (MHFM), are sedevacantists. That is, they believe the Chair of Peter is
empty, that Pope John Paul II is not the real and valid pope – and argue that
he is, in reality an “anti-pope,” or even The Antichrist. The purpose of this refutation/article is not
to refute sedevacantism, so we will not go into details of that matter
presently. Suffice it to say – these organizations have already separated
themselves from valid Catholicism and articles, such as the one being refuted
here, appear to be little more than rationalizations to justify in their minds
their separation from the Church. All of these groups also
believe that people can be saved in non-Catholic
religions, which totally rejects the dogma that outside the Catholic Church
there is no salvation. The C.M.R.I. actually printed an article in their
magazine, The Reign of Mary, entitled "The Salvation of Those Outside the Church." It is not possible to deny the
dogma more directly. It
seems that the MHFM’s lifeboat is getting smaller and
smaller. Bro. Dimond, while sympathizing
with the sedevacantist views of the other two organizations he mentions, now
appears to be outright condemning the C.M.R.I. organization. Is the The
remainder of this section from Bro. Dimond’s article
consists solely of attacks on the books presented by the Society of St. Pius X
(SSPX). Since it is not the goal of this article/refutation to defend SSPX nor books they have produced, we will skip to the next
section. Strange Heresy? In May of 1999, the This whole section is primarily a dispute between the two sedevacantist camps, thus rather than getting involved
in their infighting, this section will also be skipped. John 3:5 vs. John 6:54 Some writers, including Fr. Laisney in Is Feeneyism
Catholic?, have tried to refute a literal interpretation of John 3:5 by
appealing to the words of Our Lord in John 6:54: "Amen, amen I say to
you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall
not have life in you." They argue that the language in this verse is
the same as in John 3:5, and yet the Church doesn’t
take Jn. 6:54 literally – for infants don’t need to
receive the Eucharist to be saved. But the argument
falters because the proponents of this argument have missed a crucial
difference in the wording of these two verses. John
John
3:5- "Amen, amen I say to thee, UNLESS A MAN be
born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Our Lord Jesus Christ, when
speaking on the necessity of receiving the Eucharist in John Again,
Bro. Dimond has a problem with context if he is trying to limit the teaching of
John Joh Joh Joh 6:53 Then Jesus
said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the
Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Joh Joh Joh Joh Joh Verse
51 clearly refers to “…if any man…” and verse 54 opens with “Whoso…” indicating
no limitation; likewise verse 58 is not limiting in scope regarding “he that eateth…” In other
words, the context utterly crushes Bro. Dimond’s
thesis. Verse 53 actually states that
those who do NOT “eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood… have no
life in (them).” It would seem that in
his zeal to disprove Baptism of Desire – Bro. Dimond is sacrificing one of the
strongest support sections from Scripture to defend Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus
( But in John 3:5 Our Lord unequivocally
speaks of every man. This is why the Catholic Church’s magisterial teaching,
in every single instance it has dealt with John 3:5, has taken it as
it is written (see Council of Carthage, Denz 102;
Florence, Denz. 696; Trent, Sess.
5, no. 4, Denz. 791; Trent, Sess.
6, Chap. 4; Trent, Can. 2 and 5 on Baptism, Denz. 858
and 861.). Earlier
Bro. Dimond criticized Denzinger (Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion
Symbolorum, translated by Roy J. Deferrari) as a “horrible mistranslation” but now
repeatedly cites the same source? For
those following along in their own Denzinger, the
reference that offends Bro. Dimond (“…or a desire for
it…”) is found in D.796. Why is such a “horrible mistranslation” now seen as a source
worth citing? Aside
from the inconsistency here, Bro. Dimond has a bigger
problem. The word “you” can have
ambiguous meaning here, but even if we grant him the way he uses it, in the
case of the Eucharist, it is not limited just to those who understand Jesus’
words. Bro. Dimond
relates it to Baptism, because everyone can receive Baptism – adults and
infants, but so too can infants receive Eucharist! His statement is very Latin-centric, not
recognizing that our Eastern brethren give all three rites of initiation to
infants. We (Latins)
have our reasons for waiting for a child to reach the age of reason, but this
waiting does not preclude the “ability” for an infant to receive the Eucharist. Also, one should note that Pope
Paul III, Council of Trent, Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism,
Can. 5: "IF ANYONE SHALL SAY THAT BAPTISM IS OPTIONAL, THAT IS, NOT
NECESSARY FOR SALVATION (cf. John 3:5): let him be anathema." John
3:5-7: "Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter
into the Baptism
is not optional, and I know of no supporter of Baptism of Desire that says
so. Thus, we have another straw man
argument. In
conclusion, it would seem those who oppose Baptism of Desire are making “much ado
about nothing.” Baptism of Desire truly can only be applied in a very limited scope. If one “desires” baptism and, through not
fault of their own, are not baptized prior to death, then God MAY
judge their desire as sufficient for justification. There is also no definitive teaching that one
IS
justified through the “desire” for the Sacrament. Likewise, to put this in perspective, some
seem to overly defend this “possibility” and may
actually be doing damage to souls if such souls get a false sense of security
that actual baptism is not a necessity to actually seek. Our focus, as faithful Catholics, should be
to preach the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism, since it
is commanded by God. IF there is
an obscure chance that someone desires Baptism, but dies prior to receiving it
– then we should leave the judgment of such a person’s soul to God. He alone knows the heart of anyone else and
for us to presume condemnation on anyone is a usurpation of His role as Judge. I reiterate, it can
be just as dangerous for an extremist who blindly defends Baptism of Desire as
it is for an extremist who obstinately denies the teaching. in medio stat virtus (Virtue is in the middle) Additional
sources: http://www.romancatholicism.org/lbod-thesis.html http://www.coomaraswamy-catholic-writings.com/Baptism%20of%20Desire.htm http://www.stthomasaquinas.net/baptism.html http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm http://www.newadvent.org/summa/406611.htm |
Copyright © 2004, Scott Windsor, www.catholicresponse.org