I recommend books by Tan and other traditional catholic publications. Buy nothing of the novus ordo and boycott them. The anti-church is Vatican II and they are anti-popes, anti-christs, anti-cardinals, anti-bishops, anti-priests and anti-catholics. Father Michael Muller (Mueller) - The Blessed Eucharist and The Sinner's Return To God by TAN are for those who need to start learning the true faith once they leave the novus ordo.

The New Mass, A Happy Meal, Protestant Supper Service, Catholic Style

The Mass of All Time!...Yesterday...Today...Tomorrow

"...By this our decree, to be valid in perpetuity, we determine and order that never shall anything be added to, omitted from, or changed in this Missal..."
-- Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum, July 19, 1570

"With the new Liturgy, non-Catholic communities will be able to celebrate the Lord's Supper with the same prayers as the Catholic Church." -- Max Thurian, Protestant Minister of Taize

"...nothing in the renewed Mass need really trouble the Evangelical Protestant." -- M. G. Siegvalt, Protestant Professor of Dogmatic Theology, Strasbourg

Sixty-two reasons why, in conscience, we cannot attend the new mass (also known as Mass of Paul VI, Novus Ordo, new liturgy) either in the vernacular or the Latin, whether facing the people or facing the tabernacle. Thus, for the same reasons, we adhere faithfully to the traditional Mass (also known as Tridentine Mass, old Latin Mass, Roman Missal, Pian Missal, Missal of St. Pius V, Mass of All Time).
-- Based on the Sixty Reasons set forth by 25 priests of Campos, Brazil.

1. Because the new mass is not an unequivocal Profession of Catholic faith (which the Traditional Mass is), it is ambiguous and Protestant. Therefore, since we pray as we believe, it follows that we cannot pray with the new mass in Protestant fashion and still believe as Catholics!

2. Because the changes were not just slight ones but actually "deal with a fundamental renovation...a total change...a new creation" (Msgr. A. Bugnini, co-author of the new mass).

3. Because the new mass leads us to think "that truths...can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic Faith is bound forever."*

4. Because the new mass represents "a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent" which, in fixing the "canons," provided an "insurmountable barrier to any heresy against the integrity of the Mystery."*

5. Because the difference between the two is not simply one of mere detail or just modification of ceremony, but "all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place (in the new mass), if it subsists at all."*

6. Because "Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment in the faithful who already show signs of uneasiness and lessening of faith."*

7. Because in times of confusion such as now, we are guided by the words of Our Lord: "By their fruits you shall know them." Fruits of the new mass are: 30% decrease in Sunday mass in U.S. (NY Times 5/24/75), 43% decrease in France (Cardinal Marty), 50% decrease in Holland (NY Times 1/5/76).

8. Because "amongst the best of the clergy the practical result (of the new mass) is an agonizing crisis of conscience..."*

9. Because in less than seven years after the introduction of the new mass, priests in the world decreased from 413,438 to 243,307 -- almost 50% (Vatican Statistics).

10. Because "The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition...do not seem to us sufficient."*

11. Because the new mass does not manifest Faith in the Real Presence of our Lord -- the traditional Mass manifests it unmistakably.

12. Because the new mass confuses the REAL Presence of Christ in the Eucharist with His MYSTICAL Presence among us (proximating Protestant doctrine).

13. Because the new mass blurs what ought to be a sharp difference between the HIERARCHIC Priesthood and the common priesthood of the people (as does Protestantism).

14. Because the new mass favors the heretical theory that it is THE FAITH of the people and not THE WORDS OF THE PRIEST which makes Christ present in the Eucharist.

15. Because the insertion of the Lutheran "Prayer of the Faithful" in the new mass follows and puts forth the Protestant Error that all the people are priests.

16. Because the new mass does away with the Confiteor of the priest, makes it collective with the people, thus promoting Luther's refusal to accept the Catholic teaching that the priest is judge, witness and intercessor with God.

17. Because the new mass gives us to understand that the people concelebrate with the priest -- which is against Catholic theology!

18. Because six Protestant ministers collaborated in making up the new mass (Drs. George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith and Thurian).

19. Because just as Luther did away with the Offertory -- since it very clearly expressed the sacrificial, propitiatory character of the Mass -- so also the new mass did away with it, reducing it to a simple Preparation of the Gifts.

20. Because enough Catholic theology has been removed that Protestants can, while keeping their antipathy for the true Roman Catholic Church, use the text of the new mass without difficulty. Protestant minister Thurian said that a fruit of the new mass "will perhaps be that non-Catholic communities will be able to celebrate the Lord's Supper using the same prayers as the Catholic Church." (La Croix 4/30/69).

21. Because the narrative manner of the Consecration in the new mass infers that it is only a memorial and not a true sacrifice (Protestant thesis).

22. Because by grave omissions, the new mass leads us to believe that it is only a meal (Protestant doctrine) and not a sacrifice for the remission of sins (Catholic doctrine).

23. Because the changes such as: table instead of altar, facing people instead of tabernacle, Communion in the hand, etc., emphasize Protestant doctrines (e.g. Mass is only a meal, priest is only a president of the assembly, etc.)

24. Because Protestants themselves have said "the new Catholic Eucharistic Prayers have abandoned the false perspective of sacrifice offered to God." (La Croix 12/10/69).

25. Because we are faced with a dilemma: either we become protestantized by worshiping with the new mass, or else we preserve our Catholic Faith by adhering faithfully to the traditional Mass of All Time.

26. Because the new mass was made in accordance with the Protestant definition of the Mass: "The Lord's Supper or "Mass" is a sacred synaxis or assembly of the people of God which gathers together under the presidence of the priest to celebrate the memorial of the Lord" (Par. 7 Introd. to the New Missal, defining the new mass, 4/6/69).

27. Because by means of ambiguity, the new mass pretends to please Catholics while pleasing Protestants; thus it is "double-tongued" and offensive to God who abhors any kind of hypocrisy: "Cursed be...the double-tongued for they destroy the peace of many." (Sirach 28:13).

28. Because beautiful, familiar Catholic hymns which have inspired people for centuries have been thrown out and replaced with new hymns strongly Protestant in sentiment, further deepening the already distinct impression that one is no longer attending a Catholic function.

29. Because the new mass contains ambiguities subtly favoring heresy, which is more dangerous than if it were clearly heretical since a half-heresy resembles the truth!

30. Because Christ has only one Spouse, the Catholic Church, and her worship service cannot also serve religions that are at enmity with her.

31. Because the new mass follows the format of Cranmer's heretical Anglican mass, and the methods use to promote it follow precisely the methods of the English heretics.

32. Because Holy Mother Church canonized numerous English martyrs who were killed because they refused to participate at a Mass such as the new mass!

33. Because Protestants who once converted to Catholicism are scandalized to see that the new mass is the same as the one they attended as Protestants. One of them, Julian Green, asks, "Why did we convert?"

34. Because statistics show a great decrease in conversions to Catholicism following use of the new mass. Conversions, which were up to 100,000 a year in the U.S., have decreased to less than 10,000!

35. Because the Tridentine Mass has forged many saints. "Innumerable saints have been fed abundantly with the proper piety towards God by it..."

36. Because the nature of the new mass is such as to facilitate profanations of the Holy Eucharist, which occur with a frequency unheard of with the Tridentine Mass.

37. Because the new mass, despite appearances, conveys a New Faith, not the Catholic Faith. It conveys Modernism and follows exactly the tactics of Modernism, using vague terminology in order to insinuate and advance Error.

38. Because by introducing optional variations, the new mass undermines the unity of the liturgy, with each priest liable to deviate as he fancies under the guise of creativity. Disorder inevitably results, accompanied by lack of respect and irreverence.

39. Because many good Catholic theologians, canonists, and priests do not accept the new mass, and affirm that they are unable to celebrate it in good conscience.

40. Because the new mass has eliminated such things as: genuflections (only three remain), purifications of the priest's fingers in the chalice, preservation from all profane contact of the priest's fingers after Consecration, sacred altar stone and relics, three altar cloths (reduced to one), all of which "only serve to emphasize how outrageously faith in the dogma of the Real Presence is implicitly repudiated."*

41. Because the Tridentine Mass, enriched and matured by centuries of Sacred Tradition, was codified (not invented) by a Pope who was a Saint Pius V, whereas the new mass was artificially fabricated.

42. Because the Errors of the new mass which are accentuated in the vernacular version are even present in the Latin text of the new mass.

43. Because the new mass, with its ambiguity with permissiveness, exposes us to the wrath of God by facilitating the risk of invalid celebrations. "Will priests of the near future who have not received the traditional formation, and who rely on the novus ordo with the intention of 'doing what the Church does,' consecrate validly? One is permitted to reject its validity and licitness."*

44. Because the abolition of the Tridentine Mass recalls the prophecy of Daniel 8:12: "And he was given power against the perpetual sacrifice because of the sins of the people" and the observation of St. Alphonsus de Liguori that because the Mass is the best and most beautiful thing which exists in the Church here below, the devil has always tried by means of heretics to deprive us of it.

45. Because in places where the traditional Mass is preserved, the faith and fervor of the people are greater, whereas the opposite is true where the new mass reigns. (Report on the Mass, Campos, ROMA, Buenos Aires # 69, 8/81)

46. Because along with the new mass goes also a new catechism, a new morality, new prayers, new ideas, a new calendar -- in one word, a New Church, a complete revolution from the old. "The liturgical reform....do not be deceived, this is where the revolution begins." (Msgr. Dwyer, Archbishop of Birmingham, spokesman of the Episcopal Synod.)

47. Because the intrinsic beauty of the Tridentine Mass attracts souls by itself; whereas the new mass, lacking any attractiveness of its own, has to invent novelties and entertainments in order to appeal to people.

48. Because the new mass embodies numerous errors condemned dogmatically at the Council of Trent (mass totally in vernacular, words of Consecration spoken aloud, etc. See Condemnation of Jansenist Synod of Pistoia), and errors condemned by Pope Pius XII (e.g. altar in form of a table. See Mediator Dei.)

49. Because the new mass attempts to transform the Catholic Church into a new, ecumenical Church embracing all ideologies and all religions -- a goal long dreamt of by the enemies of the Catholic Church.

50. Because the new mass, in removing the salutations and final blessing when the priest celebrates alone, shows a disbelief in the dogma of the Communion of Saints.

51. Because the altar and tabernacle are now separated, thus marking a division between Christ in His-priest-and-Sacrifice-on-the-altar, from Christ in His Real Presence in the tabernacle, "two things that of their very nature must remain together." (Pope Pius XII)

52. Because the new mass no longer constitutes a vertical worship from man to God, but instead a horizontal worship between man and man.

53. Because the new mass, although appearing to conform to the dispositions of Vatican Council II, in reality opposes its instructions, since the Council declared its desire to conserve and promote the traditional rite.
Truly the fact is the innovators at Vatican II planned a new mass and this can be found by studying Sacrosanctum Concilium which was promulgated by Paul VI.

54. Because the traditional Latin Mass of Pope St. Pius V has never been legally abrogated and therefore remains a true rite of the Catholic Church by which Catholics may fulfill their Sunday obligation.

55. Because Pope St. Pius V granted a perpetual indult, valid "for always," to celebrate the Tridentine Mass freely, licitly, without scruple of conscience, punishment, sentence or censure" (Papal Bull "Quo Primum").

56. Because Paul VI, when promulgating the new mass, himself declared, "The rite...by itself is NOT a dogmatic definition..." (11/19/69)

57. Because Paul VI, when asked by Cardinal Heenan of England if he was abrogating or prohibiting the Tridentine Mass, answered: "It is not my intention to prohibit absolutely the Tridentine Mass."

58. Because "in the Libera Nos of the New mass, the Blessed Virgin, the Apostles and all the Saints are no longer mentioned; her and their intercession thus no longer asked, even in time of peril."*

59. Because in none of the three new Eucharistic Prayers (of the new mass) is there any reference...to the state of suffering of those who have died, in none the possibility of a particular Memento, thus undermining faith in the redemptive nature of the Sacrifice.*

60. Because we recognize a true Pope's supreme authority in his universal government of Holy Mother Church, but we know that even this authority cannot impose upon us a practice which is so CLEARLY against the Faith: a Mass that is equivocal and favoring heresy and therefore disagreeable to God.

61. Because, as stated in Vatican Council I, the "Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by His revelation they might make new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles." (D.S. 3070)

62. Because heresy, or whatever clearly favors heresy, cannot be a matter for obedience. Obedience is at the service of Faith and not Faith at the service of obedience! In this foregoing case then, "One must obey God rather than men." (Acts of the Apostles 5, 29)

* Letter of Cardinals A. Ottaviani and A. Bacci to Paul VI, dated September 25, 1969 enclosing A Critical Study of The Novus Ordo Missae.

Pro-life reason: God is pleased only with the Tridentine Mass and hears the prayers of those who attend the Tridentine Mass. More babies get to live then and some get to heaven and not the limbo of hell. LumenGentleman.Com, Maeta Traditional.

This is the basket of fragments of fish and rye bread gathered at the campus of shorts girls helping to feed the novus crowds. Cantor sister is singing her arms out since this is her debut to move up with a recording contract for Pantheistic Records. Dad and daughter laughing and smiling at the gay homo looking priest. If a priest wears rainbow he must be a homo. It is a fact the novus ordo accept the homos and will start promoting gay marriage in the novus ordo parishes.




These messes occurred in 2005 and 2006. Father Pinkus celebrating the party mess at Villanovus. The plus sign has replaced the cross. It is part of the curriculum of the new order catholic church. The girl in the tank top getting the bread crumb from the brunette; I know her from my days of hanging out in dive bars like Brownies Plymouth. Yeah that place where they had the same no talent cover bands every week and ripped patrons off with a cover charge. Welch's grape juice is good for the heart. Think I will have another glass.

These photos are from Villanova the so called catholic university with the Augustinian community of believers. Here you see the wildcat shorts girls in blue and one of the other messes in red shirts and shorts participating in the mess as called for by Fatican II. Pink and homo colors show unity with the queer community. Villanova on its website and ministry believes in the diversification of all faiths including pagan worship and non-christian religions. They pray together as the PEOPLE OF GOD. Next time when you pray hold a buddha icon instead of rosary beads. The precious blood of the Lord is contained in the hearts of those who love and obey Him as we are internally formed with His cross and sufferings in our hearts. We shall drink of the cup so you will remain in Him alone. If you knew truth you would throw yourself into a fire to burn out the impurities within you. Such shall come for many. Since we have been left orphans by the New Vatican with its imposing the devil's false council of Vatican II and the abominable novus ordo "mass"/service we must know that Christ has not left us to perish unless we follow our own ways and the ways of the false catholic new religion that has cost hundreds of millions of souls already. All novus ordo will end up in hell and many of those who follow traditional teachings and the Tridentine Rite will join them since attending Latin Masses does not guarantee a soul is saved. Nothing we do or say can guarantee our eternal life. Christ alone does have the keys that guarantee salvation for any soul. You must pray daily for if you stop praying you will end up in hell or at least you can expect hell if you don't pray. We should practice the corporal and spiritual works of mercy as much as possible. A lack of them is a lack of true charity that does not always mean taking money out of your pocket. It is not a sin to pray in novus ordo facilities unless you pray with them or believe their rites and sacraments are valid. Don't expect a novus ordo consecration to be valid or licit in an adoration chapel. Don't believe the consecration fulfilled the sacrament in a novus ordo consecration. You must believe the Divine and Real Presence exists as a matter of catholic faith in the Tridentine Rite that existed before Vatican II. If it is novus ordo it is not Christ. For traditional catholics, I tell you not to believe in just anything because you must believe in what is the truth, don't go seeking after signs and wonders or inner feelings. The novus ordo does that and they perform miracles by the devil since the church has warned us of times and people like this. This may not be a grace but if you feel empty do not cease in prayer. I warn you that you are not to focus on an exposed host in a novus ordo chapel or church because you are worshipping a piece of bread which is idolatry. You may not kneel on both knees when you first come in or leave so as to not worship a novus ordo host. We worship Christ but you may kneel on the pads for the time of prayer. You may never approach a doubtful sacrament or believe in something that is a lie or deception like the novus ordo. If you follow the false ecumenical and diabolical council you have the indelible mark on your soul of damnation and its new order church. If you embrace it you cannot please Christ. You have been deceived by the workers of iniquity in the new catholic church founded by men and promoted by the devil. He makes it look good, sound good and feel good enough just to keep you coming back for more and you don't know it or want to know it for what it really is. I will tell you that you should not participate in it or embrace its ways. I will always tell you to reject and fight against the diabolical council and its deadly fruit and to go to the Mass Of All Time and to continue adoration even though they are new order consecrations. I am a member of the true Roman Catholic Church of pre-Vatican II and it is that Magisterium in which we obey and follow. The false catholic church made by demons with the worldly authority of men is not blessed by God. St. Matthew's in cluster 71 with a traditional style church. What is lacking? Christ cannot be with the novus ordo because it is evil.

Get on the side of the saints who are in heaven. Not of the bloody devils in fancy and respectable clothes who are of the New Order catholic church. This church is way more wicked than many other sects. The only true church is the Roman Catholic Church prior to John XXIII and the post council. You must follow those prayers, those Masses, those doctrines and the dogmatic truths in which she the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church teaches. If you don't embrace these things you shall perish since you are not truly in the True Roman Rite instituted by Christ and given to the apostles who were the first bishops and as Peter the first to govern the church as the papal authority.

The novus ordo cult has even changed the authentic messages of Garabandal, LaSalette and who knows what else. Garabandal is a false apparition prior to Vatican II. It is even diabolical. Conchita and these others were under the influence of the devil. Pray for truth and take the time to investigate all things especially when it sounds novus ordo. For communion you may receive once daily, and you may not eat or drink before communion for 3 hours other than water. Ignore the novus ordo decrees they are invalid. Recall that liberals and modernists make changes all the time as they have done since John XXIII usurped the throne. I have not only seen some festive things in the new service churches, it is in their bulletins, it's in their happy living, their worldly joy, their websites with protestant and modernized un-catholic songs in which the revised catholic church celebrates. Is there anything the revised novus ordo Vatican II church doesn't celebrate? Do not do cenacles or have any involvement in the Marian Movement of Priests.

The modern new order catholic church has much to lose in the way of money, souls, lives and many punishments are coming to you new church in Vatican and international catholicism. You hide the facts and lie to others about the Mass Of All Time, and anything else the traditionalists believe and do. You have ugly crosses and religious items that look that they were made by pagans. Hanging in chapels and churches. Ugly churches like St. Eugene or St. Teresa of Avila in Trooper have modernistic windows and masonic designs. Many pastors are effeminate and queer. These churches are an auditorium for a school play. If you have rosary beads, prayer cards of JPII or Benedict with the crooked cross staff, you would be wise to throw them out. Take a close look at the disfigured figure, the inverted cross and search for the meaning. It has nothing to do with Christ but to pervert and twist His doctrine and church which is what the new age bishops and anti-popes do intentionally and some who just obey like the wind that blows nowhere. If you get to a church or chapel and a new order service is being said don't go in. Wait until it is finished before you go to pray to Christ before entering that church. Stay in the back behind shut doors. I urge all to pray five decades of the Rosary daily and preferably alone in silence on your knees if possible and do this for the Miraculous Medal. It is mandatory that you pray to the Holy Ghost often, get a devotion booklet on traditional Catholic prayers for this. It is a new order thing for those who only bow when they go into chapels and churches. Is there a problem with kneeling or genuflecting for services, before you sit or leave or walk near the altar or in the novus ordo dilemma (the table)? Those who do not seek eternal life but only things perishable will perish with these things of the world along with the many who are not of God. I suggest to avoid new order services that you pray your devotions by yourself in a church or chapel. That could be the Miraculous Medal or other devotions which I am all for. One of the many parishes that is a disgrace is Holy Spirit in South Phila. I am using this as a prime example of the typical novus ordo garbage that the Lord is angered and sorrowful over. I have seen much worse parishes in this archdiocese though. First the convent chapel is not used often for prayer. There are no kneelers in the chapel even for their crummy daily novus ordo service. The nuns look like lay women. It is a novus ordo bad habit. They don't even kneel or genuflect when they are required. The clergy are lazy and it is such a chore to include some of the liturgy they use in the novus ordo including the "wash away my iniquities" so the priest will have a clean soul and hands to offer a novus ordo meal to the nuns and lay people to eat it with their dirty novus ordo hands. Perhaps they can use some table manners and use a fork and a knife to eat the community breakfast and drink their coffee. A cheap wood image of the resurrected Jesus stands over the Ikea table with hands outstretched since there is no need for a sacrifice, but to invite anyone to come to the table to eat and drink. Many novus ordo make the sign of the cross so fast and half hearted just to make it look like they have reverence for the Trinity. But this parish does much worse on the weekends with the once a weekers where they raped the altar space by taking away the altar rails like many cheap novus ordo churches of the present Vatican II theology.

You don't need modernism in your devotions and worship. I hope in the near future that the faithful will start spending more time in the adoration chapels. The people who do spend hours weekly in adoration or prayer are seeing a decline as is happening in the parishes for attendance. For ugly churches like St. Teresa of Avila who has a antipope John Paul II window I issue the lies of many priests from here and the archdiocese that deceive people with false interpretations of doctrine, scriptures and crummy sermons which are really homilies. One such is telling others they can receive Communion without confession if they promise and follow through with penance in eight days. Like the new "pope" saying Vatican II was misinterpreted. The New Age Church is a red scarlet beast of deception, confusion and lies. That's one of many reasons I no longer am in it. Christ is not in it either. How can Jesus lower Himself to the protestant novus ordo? I give no credibility to the novus ordo for anything. Those who forget who they are supposed to love and adore will be last. Please don't attend the novus ordo for those who want the truth and real Mass and don't go to St. Isaac Jogues novus ordo first Friday devotion. You have a better option to please Christ and sacrifice. Do First Friday and First Saturday devotions on your own. We always urge you to do Litanies, Rosary, and other devotions before the novus ordo cult changed certain things.
Don't make excuses that the babies are in heaven and are happy now. They are in the limbo of hell. Don't say the women were mislead or lied to by the abortion industry or anyone else. They cannot blame Satan and his legions either. Does anyone want to argue that the elements of sin based on the catechism are not in line with Jesus Christ? If a person does not have an intent or knowledge they committed a mortal sin or a sin it is still a mortal sin. If they were ignorant or did not think it was a mortal sin will that defy the fact it is a mortal sin and they will go to hell if not repenting of it? Does anyone want to tell those wonderful know it all, wise in the new catholic church they are wrong? Jesus did not lessen or justify sin, so I warn you don't you ever justify anyone in sin of commission or omission under any circumstances. Tremble in fear of sin. Petty sins add up to a pile of trash. All day all night His brilliance shines, your zeal for Him and His ways should be like a raging fire in your heart, soul, your whole being. Jesus your Lord and God has poured out His blood for you. All He desires is that you truly love Him as He has loved you. I recommend Stations Of The Cross on a more frequent basis.

Since you are not permitted to worship a piece of bread or approach a doubtful sacrament then I say you must still find a place to pray but still attend these chapels for private catholic prayers and reading and use the Douay Rheims Bible only. If you are a loyal new order catholic and like Vatican II I suggest you go to Picasso style churches like St. Genevieve for the Saturday afternoon mess to hear the Serendipity Singers with three guitar accompaniment and piano. A choral director is there while you are kneeling expressing sorrow for your sins, I hope that part is true for many but not all. Traditional catholics are on a stricter standard of our Lord. We must learn to suffer more, be willing to sacrifice more, even be willing to depart from this world at any time for the sake of others such as family and in atonement for our own sins. Faithful to Christ and adoration (two different things) know better than billions of people. Is it easier said than done? Surely, but we strive to be as holy as possible despite our many failures and weaknesses. Novus ordo worship is protestant, so you are not catholic. Communion in a state of grace, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and confession are necessary. The first five Saturday devotion to our mother is mandatory as well. Lazy novus ordo "bishops", lazy slacker priests and dirty pastors. You disgust Christ. For the faithful, you must use your Tridentine Mass Missal on your own to fulfill a replacement for the Mass since there are no valid or licit Masses in the Philadelphia region. All the clergy are either heretics or invalidly ordained. Holy Days, holidays or any other day is no reason to stop or take time off from these mandatory obligations. Same with holy days of obligation which mortal sin is on the Vatican, bishops, and clergy. What is hard to believe in the ones chosen by God to carry out His will? Our heavenly Father does deserve and want a feast day for His commemoration. His patience with the crimes of the world is not going to be always. The Holy Ghost is also deserving of a feast day in the Christian churches. This is our God that must be revered all the time not just when we feel like it. The attacks on the Ten Commandments, Christian ideologies, morals, beliefs is being fought by millions in this country. They follow the precepts of the one world government and Satan's legions. St. Agatha in this site depicting the background image of her. St. Agatha and many in her time were much braver than most of us. St. Agatha holding her breasts on a plate signifies one of the torments she went through prior to her death. Her breasts were cut off, she was placed on hot coals, her flesh was torn with iron hooks. An earthquake shook Catania at the time of her tortures where she soon died in a dungeon. Some of the most notorious emperors persecuted Christians such as Decius. Near the end of the persecution was the worst Diocletian until Constantine the Great legalized Christianity. Licinius was in Asia Minor where he was persecuting Christians around 316 A.D. We have many Diocletians and Licinius' in America today. Some of them are on the Supreme Courts in every state not just Washington. St. Jude, St. Rita, St. Theresa are always those who should be prayed to for intercession. If you become as they are be willing to suffer. Too many pray for what they want or for cures. If that is all they pray for it is sure they missed something. If such a terminal disease has come upon a soul, be that the Lord has brought a cross and if He wills you will heal, if not offer it up and your many sufferings and death will convert souls. Without it I am telling you "adorers" don't expect these miracles and conversions. Don't expect that the Lord will stop evil people and sin. After we are long gone the Lord will no longer be patient and will destroy this world. But I would have you be ready to die today and tomorrow if it is His will. He may come back sooner than we think and it may be next year or five years from now. If we deny Christ we are not members of His church or body. It is heresy not believing in adoration in true catholic faith. I will at least say if it is Christ present by some unknown grace, then we are probably better off to believe it is not if it is in a novus ordo parish. There are many unworthy priests in this archdiocese and I have seen many of them. Those who I speak of are novus ordo catholics. We as true catholics do not have to obey the false church of anti-pope John Paul II his predecessors John and Paul or Benny. Disobey the new in the new canon code, catechism of 83 etc.


After seeing many of the church bulletins online or the weekly bulletins of many churches in the archdiocese it is alright to have some social events. What is not good is a lack of prayer or pro-life activities. What is not good is no prayer, small attendance for worship but we true catholics worship Christ by prayer and in only a Tridentine Rite can hosts become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. Then the lack of love, sacrifice, charity, suffering all have been called to do. Instead of bingo, casino trips, banquets, dancing, or nonsense that has nothing to do with liturgy. There is a time for all of us when we will kneel before our Lord since the novus ordo church took this away from us. The false leaders who believe that one should not kneel or genuflect in communion are not correct. Our mother has indicated this is the way the Lord meant it to be that we should kneel in eating His body. Jesus requests daily prayer anywhere. St. Joseph's University is an awful eyesoar of a chapel or whatever it is called. "Alone day and night I AM waiting for you to come to Me. I am so lonely seeking your attention, your love that I desire, I wait until morning comes for you, I seek you, come always into the many entrances of My Sacred Heart". Mary our Mother is crying for they do not listen to her or her Son. The wounds that never heal shedding blood. One million four hundred thousand novus ordos in this diocese but it seems as only a few Catholics exist if even. All chapels and parishes must use a fitting monstrance and other holy vessels that look holy, not modern for the novus ordo host. I will tell you novus ordo to your face I shall not give any credibility to the novus ordo for anything. I will pray in these chapels but those who know the truth cannot approach a doubtful sacrament, nor can any of us pretend a sacrmament is confected when it isn't or may not be. The Lord expects those that love Him to admonish sinners. You don't have to be an evangelizer, activist or holy as many are to ease the Lord's wounds. I am warning many of you "adorers" stop acting like you have nothing else but prayer to rely on for I say pray all the more but you must do more, for the day will be that is all you and I will be able to do while you will know, hear and see many bodies falling to the ground. It will be faith that will save some. Have works as well. Empty yourself daily, die each day and embrace the cross without it you are not doing His will. Stop seeking praise and recognition in this passing decaying world and build only eternal treasures as we have been told to do. I would have you offer masses up that are Tridentine Masses. It is not in my conscience and morals of faith to offer any new age novus ordo for anything or anyone. I would still have you offer Holy Communion and candles up along with any prayer of reverence. Nothing less. Other than Christ, I cannot embrace garbage in a new age modernist liturgy that took away tradition, reverence, eucharistic prayers, teaches a new "doctrine" and offers slop to the members of a New Age Church under the mask of Catholic.

I have seen some hideous catholic churches interiors, exterior all over, ugly modern stained glass and ugly art. I am in disgust over some of the monstrances that are not fit to place the host in them. The tabernacles I have seen in some churches are more suitable for a small refrigerator. Many are not located behind the altar. But then in many cases there is no altar in novus ordo parishes. I have seen where new ordo consecrations take place on things useful to drink cheap beer on like Bud Light and that's about all and eat some lousy chicken wings on from places like Hooters or Tootsies. Our Lady Of The Rosary in Coatesville has a table with a hole underneath to store Bud Light. St. Christopher's in Phila is typical of a new age church, Presentation in Cheltenham has modern stained glass that is ugly. In the adoration chapel at Presentation and St. Catherine of Siena in Horsham crooked crucifixes were above the makeshift altars (tables) but the images are alright, the cross is not. Much more will be given by heaven to souls or others with anything done at a Tridentine Mass. Father Martin Van Cochem - The Incredible Catholic Mass by Tan explains the Mass.

I will specify where I see a problem and certainly that includes what the New Order Mess abandoned and its destructive elements of addition. For the wide mouth that leads to eternal punishment will be narrowed if you heed the Word of the Lord. Seek and you shall find. Die to yourself daily until your Master says it is time to come home. For those who seek to be first will be last, those who take the place of honor will be persecuted by worldly people. These pictures are from a lab in Southern California of aborted babies, a photo is a baby from a black mother. This was a D and E. I have seen these images from a handful of sites and have copied them for more of you to see. Anyone can see the pain these babies experience at the hands of the reptile killers. Those made in the image and likeness of God do not murder babies. The seven month unborn was murdered in Texas. It pains all of us as we see our Lord so unloved and forgotten by so many. Whether you are coming to pray for others, cry silently or even in your human weakness cry in pain, while you pray for whatever is happening to those you know or yourself. Pray for your pets and the innocent creatures God made. Jesus is waiting to hear from you at all times, to comfort you as well.

Speak with others about graces received from those who spend a little time each week in front of the Lord. Blessed Mary says wear her Brown Scapular as a sign of devotion and love. There are many scapulars, red, blue, green, white... You were made by Him to love Him, serve Him and worship Him in this world, not your family, not your significant other, your children or all He created.

Jesus' image below is the Holy Face Devotion, "By offering My Face to My Eternal Father nothing will be refused, and the conversion of many sinners will be obtained." "Whoever gazes upon My face already consoles me". (Our Lord to Sr. Mary of St. Peter). If you never come to Love Him when you depart from this world you will not Love Him in the age to come, nor inherit the kingdom. Psalm 127:3, God says, "Behold, children are a heritage of the Lord; and the fruit of the womb is His reward". I stress to you woman have children in the marriage bed, be not defiled. The Lord will send a suitable Godly man into your life if you seek to please the Lord your God. I who am telling you the Lord hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath He made mention of my name, in my words to all of you, He hath made my mouth like a sharp edged sword. This text is from Isaiah 49.

Let it burn, let it burn, let it burn. I mean all death camps. They will burn or anyone that likes these places. I hope to see more Planned Parenthoods anywhere I read about in the news or internet being burnt to the ground or a hurricane destroying it... Need I go on?

Holy Face Of Jesus I adore Thee, I love to die for Thee, I am your child for eternity. Amen.
The information below was taken from Richard Ibranyi's website for the dogmatic issues. I would probably agree with most of what is shown if it is an opinion of a lay true catholic but I don't necessarily agree with everything being stated in this baptism argument. I believe one must have water baptism sacramentally in the Tridentine rite for it to be valid and to be able to gain entry into heaven.
The Baptism Controversy

“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 kingdom of God.” Saint John 3:5

Judica me Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta: ab homine iniquo et doloso erue me.

Soli Deo Gloria

“If anyone shall say that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema.” (The Council of Trent, 1547)

“Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan, unto John, to be baptized by him. But John stayed him, saying: I ought to be baptized by thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering, said to him: Suffer it to be so now. For so it becometh us to fulfil all justice. Then he suffered him. And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water...” (Saint Matthew 3:13-16)

“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 into 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.' The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.” (The Council of Florence, 1439)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction.. 5

The Salvation Dogma and Baptism.. 5

Baptism of desire actually means baptism by perfect contrition.. 5

Allowed opinions on baptism... 6

Fr. Feeney's Opinion on Justified Catechumens Is Not Heretical.. 7
Introduction.. 7

Fr. Feeney rightly believed that justification and salvation are not the same. 7
Fr. Feeney rightly believed there is no remission of sins outside the Catholic Church.. 9
Fr. Feeney rightly believed that justified catechumens do not go to hell. 10
Fr. Feeney's error is illogical but not heretical. 12
Logic dictates that God would not justify a man before he is baptised with water. 12
Erroneous theology does not equal the denial of a dogma.. 12
If anyone has evidence, send it to me. 13
Dilemmas: Baptism of Desire and Blood.. 14

Baptism and Membership.. 17

When Was Baptism Mandatory? 18
The Good Thief. 18
The Bible and Baptism... 19
Other Baptisms.. 20
The Popes and Baptism... 23
Pope St. Leo the Great.. 24
Pope Innocent II 24
Pope Innocent III 26
Conclusion.. 26
Saints and Baptism... 27
St. Gregory Nazianzen. 27
St. John Chrysostom and possibly St. Cyril of Jerusalem.. 28
St. Martin of Tours. 29
Some Other Saints. 29
Saints Contradictory Teachings. 29
St. Cyril of Jerusalem.. 29
St. Ambrose. 30
St. Augustine. 30
Baptism of Blood.. 34
Roman Martyrology, Lives of the Saints, etc., are not infallible. 35
St. Ambrose First Mentioned Baptism of Desire. 39
Miraculous Baptisms.. 41
St. Peter's Miraculous Fountain. 42
St. Martin of Tours. 42
The Catechumen and Perfect Contrition.. 43
The Councils, including Trent, on Baptism... 44
Trent's Session VI, Chapter 4, On Justification. 44
And/Or and The Two Types of Candidates 45
Is it Desire, Vow, or Perfect Contrition? 46
Trent's Session VII, Canons on the Sacraments in General 48
Necessity of Precept and Means 48
Catechisms are not Infallible. 49
Catechisms can contain Errors. 50
The Catechism of Trent 50
Revisions to Original Text 50
Seemingly Heretical: There are only Two Parts of the Church. 50
Seemingly Heretical: No Grace Exists Outside the Church. 51
Seemingly Heretical: Only Reception of Sacraments Forgives Sins. 51
Seemingly Heretical: Basic Dogmas Can be Denied without Guilt 51
Erroneous Example of Resurrection of the Body. 53
Questionable: The Soul does unite with the Body upon Conception. 54
Questionable: Unforeseen Accident and Grace of Righteousness. 54
Catechism of Trent on Baptism... 54
St. Alphonsus' Teachings on Baptism... 57
On Baptism of Desire and Blood for Catechumens 57
On Infant Baptism.. 58
“Errors of du Bay” Do Not Defend Baptism of Desire 60
Error one 60
Error two.. 61
Error three 61
Is Baptism of Desire and Blood, Heresy? 62
Saints Taught Baptism of Desire and Blood 63
Martyrologies and Breviaries 65
Catechism of Trent 65
1917 Code of Canon Law.. 65
Bible verses in and out of context 66
Baptism of Old Testament Elect.. 67
Old Testament Justification.. 68
Justified in Vow.. 70
Circumcision. 73
St. Peter's Pentecost Preaching. 73
Saul's sins were not remitted when he was a Pharisee. 74
Were there exceptions?. 74
St. Mary Magdalene. 74
The Prophet Jeremias. 75
Sanctification and being “filled with the Holy Ghost”. 76
St. John the Baptist 77
Cornelius and his companions. 78
St. Paul 78
Revisions, additions, and corrections.. 79
From June 3 to June 6. 79
July 2006. 79
Introduction

The Salvation Dogma and Baptism

Statement:

I believe in the dogma “outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation” in the same sense as the Catholic Church infallibly defines it. Hence I reject and condemn as heresy the belief that any man who dies worshipping false gods, practicing false religions, or as an atheist can be saved.

But I also believe it is heresy to teach that only those who have been baptized by water can be saved. It is part of the solemn and the ordinary magisterium that catechumens can also be saved by baptism of desire or blood without being baptized by water.

RJMI Answer:

You are correct on the first point and wrong on the second—baptism of desire or blood is not part of the solemn or ordinary magisterium. Neither baptism of blood nor baptism of desire has been infallibly defined. Many confuse the dogma “outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation” with baptism of desire and baptism of blood. Although the two topics are related, they are not identical. The Catholic Church interprets the dogma “outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation” to mean that only those who profess belief in the Catholic Church and faith and enter the Catholic Church can be saved; hence anyone who dies worshipping a false god or adhering to a false religion or as an atheist goes to hell. I refer to this dogma as the Salvation Dogma. Those who hold the allowable opinions of baptism of desire and blood do not deny the Salvation Dogma. Those who believe in the non-allowable opinion (the heretical opinion) of baptism of desire do deny the Salvation Dogma. To deny the Salvation Dogma, they had to formulate a heretical opinion of baptism of desire. (See my book The Salvation Dogma: Salvation Heresy enters Catechisms in U.S.A.”)

Baptism of desire actually means baptism by perfect contrition The term “baptism of desire” does not accurately describe what those who hold the allowable opinion regarding baptism of desire believe. They do not actually believe the desire for baptism can justify a catechumen. Desire cannot justify anyone and they agree. They believe that perfect contrition is what actually justifies catechumens, which must be accompanied by the desire to be baptised. Hence that is what they and I mean when we use the term “baptism of desire.”

This will be important to remember when I discuss the Council of Trent's use of the word “vow” (voto). If Trent meant to teach that baptism of desire could justify souls, the word “vow” (or as some wrongly interpret it “desire”) is insufficient because a vow or desire cannot sanctify anyone. The term needed to make it sufficient should have been “perfect contrition” because all the saints who believe in baptism of desire teach that it is perfect contrition that justifies souls, not the desire or vow. The desire and vow are necessary for those with the use of reason, but they do not effect justification. One of the purposes of an infallible definition is to clear up any obscurities regarding improper terminology; hence Trent does not mean the vow or desire to be baptized can justify souls. (See in this book Is it Desire, Vow, or Perfect Contrition?, p. 46.)

July 2006

Allowed opinions on baptism

Regarding doctrines that do not belong to the solemn or ordinary magisterium, the Church allows opposing opinions and thus debate. This is the case with the allowable opinions regarding the ongoing baptism controversy. The allowable opinions of baptism of desire and blood only apply to catechumens. A catechumen is a man who believes in the Catholic Church and faith and is preparing to enter the Catholic Church by water baptism. Hence an unallowable opinion is the heresy that teaches non-catechumens can be justified and saved by baptism of desire or blood, which even includes those who do not believe in Jesus Christ and the Most Holy Trinity. Below are the allowable opinions:

One: A catechumen cannot be justified, enter the Catholic Church, and be saved unless he is baptized by water. Hence only members of the Catholic Church can be justified and saved. This is my position.

Two: A catechumen can be justified, enter the Catholic Church, and be saved by prefect contrition and the desire for baptism without being baptized by water and hence without being a member of the Catholic Church. Baptism of blood is a species of baptism of desire.

Three: A catechumen can be justified and enter the Catholic Church by perfect contrition and the desire for baptism but cannot be saved until he becomes a member of the Catholic Church by being baptized by water. This is Fr. Feeney's position.

Anyone who holds the above opinions cannot be rightly accused of teaching heresy; hence these opponents must not denounce one another for teaching heresy but only for teaching a non-heretical error. And all must be willing to submit to a future pope's infallible definition.

This baptism controversy can be compared to the disputes in the thirteenth century over the Immaculate Conception. St. Thomas Aquinas believed Mary had the stain of original sin and other saints believed she did not, and none could rightly be accused of teaching heresy but only a non-heretical error because the doctrine was not yet infallibly defined until 1854. (See my book “The Solemn and Ordinary Magisterium: Immaculate Conception doctrine proves the need of papal intervention.”)

July 2006

Fr. Feeney's Opinion on Justified Catechumens Is Not Heretical

Introduction

A catechumen is a man who is preparing to enter the Catholic Church; hence he believes in the Catholic Church and faith. Those who believe in the allowable opinion of baptism of desire believe that a catechumen can be justified by perfect contrition and the desire to be baptised by water and this places him inside the Catholic Church but not as a member. Hence, according to their opinion, these catechumens are justified before they get baptized by water. I will refer to these catechumens as justified catechumens.

Fr. Feeney believed that catechumens could be justified by perfect contrition and the desire to be baptized but they could not be saved in that condition. He believed that justified catechumens must meet other conditions before they can be saved. Those conditions are that they must be baptized members of the Catholic Church, which only happens by being baptized by water, and they must die.

Fr. Feeney's belief is similar to the position that some saints held, with one difference. Like Fr. Feeney, these saints believed that a catechumen could be justified by perfect contrition and the desire to be baptized and this places him inside the Catholic Church but not as a member. But unlike Fr. Feeney, these saints believed that a justified catechumen does not need to be baptized by water to be saved, and hence he can be saved without being a member of the Catholic Church.

I believe that catechumens cannot be saved or justified without being baptized by water. I believe that my position defends the true interpretation of the Council of Trent's session 4, chapter 4, by the evidence of Trent itself and all other pertinent things considered. My position has no inconsistencies. It is the only one that does not endanger related dogmas but rather fits them together harmoniously.

A future pope is the only one who can ultimately settle this dispute by an infallible definition.

Even though I believe Fr. Feeney's position is indefensible and inconsistent, it is not heretical, based upon my knowledge of Fr. Feeney's beliefs on baptism. The purpose of this chapter is to prove that Fr. Feeney's position regarding baptism was not heretical. Many saints have defended erroneous doctrines that were later condemned as heresy. And many saints put forward an erroneous and inconsistent theology in an attempt to defend a dogma while not denying the dogma.

Fr. Feeney rightly believed that justification and salvation are not the same Justification, also known as sanctification, is the state in which man is free from all stain of deadly sin, original and mortal. Hence a justified or sanctified man is in a state of grace and thus in the way of salvation so that if he died in such a state he would go to heaven. A justified man does not attain salvation until he dies and goes to purgatory or heaven. Hence justification and salvation are not identical. This is what Fr. Feeney means when he rightly teaches that justification and salvation are not the same thing.

Fr. Feeney uses the example of the Blessed Virgin Mary. She was in a state of justification from the very instant of her conception (she never had the stain of any sin). Hence the Blessed Virgin Mary was always in the way of salvation. Yet she also needed to be baptized by water and her life in this world needed to end[1] to attain eternal salvation:

Fr. Feeney, Bread of Life, Chapter 10: “Our Lady was redeemed in her own special way. She was preservatively redeemed. From the very first instant Our Lady entered existence, she entered it as a justified child. The stain of original sin had never been allowed to touch her because of the foreseen merits of Christ, her Child. She was not only a just maiden, she was highest of all the just. The angel called her ‘full of grace.’ And the angel said, ‘The Lord is with thee.’ (Luke 1:28) ... But it was not enough, even for the Blessed Virgin, to have been preservatively redeemed and kept free from the stain of original sin... What I say is this: The Blessed Virgin Mary, the Immaculate Mother of God, was baptized by water; and had to be baptized in order to be saved.”

Hence even though the Blessed Virgin Mary was justified, other conditions had to be fulfilled before she could be saved. Just like Jesus, Mary had to be baptized by water to fulfill the law of baptism:

“Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan, unto John, to be baptized by him. But John stayed him, saying: I ought to be baptized by thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering, said to him: Suffer it to be so now. For so it becometh us to fulfill all justice. Then he suffered him. And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water...” (Mt. 3:13-16)

And Mary's life in this world needed to come to an end, which occurred when she was assumed into heaven.

Even those who hold the opinion that baptism of water is not necessary for justified catechumens to be saved must admit that to be in a state of justification is not enough to be saved. Other conditions must be met: one, the justified man must persevere in a state of justification; and two, he must die. Death, then, is a necessary condition for salvation. If one does not die or end his life in this world as the Blessed Virgin Mary had, he cannot be saved. Saints teach that death is the gateway to salvation for a justified man and therefore a most awaited and joyful event:

St. Alphonsus Marie de Liguori, Preparation for Death: “Viewed according to the senses, death excites fear and terror; but viewed with the eyes of faith, it is consoling and desirable. To sinners it appears full of terror; but to the saints it is amiable and precious. ‘It is precious,’ says St. Bernard, ‘as the end of labors, the consumma­tion of victory, the gate of life.’ ...Death is not only the end of labors, but it is also the gate of life, says St. Bernard. He who wishes to see God must necessarily pass through this gate. This is the gate of the Lord; the just shall enter into it.
“... And will not a soul that loves God exult with gladness at hearing that it will soon be released from the prison of this earth, and go to enjoy God? ‘While we are in the body, we are absent from the Lord.’ While the soul is united to the body, it is at a distance from the vision of God, as if in a strange land, and excluded from its true country. Hence, according to St. Bruno, the departure of the soul from the body should not be called death, but the beginning of life. Hence, the death of the saints is called their birthday; because at death they are born to that life of bliss which will never end. St. Athanasius says: ‘To the just, death is only a passage to eternal life.' 'O amiable death,' says St. Augustine, ‘who will not desire thee, who art the end of evils, the close of toils, the beginning of everlasting repose?’ Hence the holy Doctor frequently prayed for death, that he might see God. ...St. Paul, sighing for death said that Jesus Christ was his only life; and therefore he esteemed death his greatest gain, because by death he acquired that life which never ends.
“... The greatest consolation which a soul that has loved God will experience in hearing the news of death, will arise from the thought that it will soon be delivered from the many dangers of offending God, to which it is exposed in this life, from so many troubles of conscience, and from so many temptations of the devil. The present life is an unceasing warfare with hell, in which we are in continual danger of losing our souls and God. St. Am­brose says that in this life we walk among snares: we walk continually amid the snares of enemies, who lie in wait to deprive us of the life of grace. ... Happy in this life is the man that lives in union with God; but, as the sailor is not secure until he has arrived at the port and escaped the tempest, so the soul cannot enjoy complete happiness until it has left this world in the grace of God. ‘Praise,’ says St. Maximus, ‘the felicity of the sailor: but not until he has reached the port.’ Now, if at his approach to the port the sailor rejoices, how much greater ought to be the joy and glad­ness of a Christian who is at the point of securing eternal salvation?” [2]

Therefore eternal salvation is not attained until a justified man dies and goes to his particular judgment. Not only justification, then, but death also is a necessary condition to attain eternal salvation. In this we see that justification and salvation are not the same thing.

Fr. Feeney rightly believed there is no remission of sins outside the Catholic Church It is a Catholic dogma that outside the Catholic Church there is no remission of sins and hence no sanctity:

Pope Pius IX: “Neither sanctity nor salvation can be found outside the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church.” (Racolta 626)
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctum, 1302: “Outside the Church there is no salvation nor remission of sins.”
Anyone who denies this dogma is a heretic. To my knowledge, Fr. Feeney did not teach that justified catechumens are outside the Catholic Church. If Fr. Feeney believed this, then he was a heretic. From the information I have, Fr. Feeney believed that justified catechumens are inside the Catholic Church but not as members. This is the same theology of the saints that believed baptism of desire or blood can justify and save a catechumen—they, too, believed that these catechumens are inside the Catholic Church but not as members. In the 16th century St. Robert Bellarmine was the first to write an extensive theological defense of this position. However, Fr. Feeney believed that one must be not only inside the Catholic Church but also a member to be saved:

Fr. Feeney, Bread of Life, Chapter 8: “You hear it said, ‘Father Feeney says that you have to be a member of the Catholic Church in order to be saved!’ That is right. That is what I am saying. But it is made to sound as if I am the one taking the cruel position. I am taking the kind position. Every man is kind when he is telling the full truth! And most especially is this so when the truth he is telling is eternal truth.”

Hence Fr. Feeney believed justified catechumens could not be saved in their current condition because they are not members of the Catholic Church. That Fr. Feeney also believed justified catechumens are inside the Catholic Church, even though not as members, is proved in his following statement from Bread of Life:

Fr. Feeney, Bread of Life, Chapter 2: “I have said that a Baptism-of-Desire Catholic is not a member of the Church. He cannot be prayed for after death as one of ‘the faithful departed.’ Were he to be revived immediately after death -- were he to come to life again -- he would not be allowed to receive the Holy Eucharist or any of the other Sacraments until he was baptized by water. Now, if he can get into the Church Triumphant without Baptism of Water, it is strange that he cannot get into the Church Militant without it...”

Fr. Feeney refers to justified catechumens as Catholics; hence he believes they are inside the Catholic Church but not as members-- "a Baptism-of-Desire Catholic is not a member of the Church." In other places Fr. Feeney teaches this same thing, that justified catechumens are inside the Catholic Church. For instance, Fr. Feeney's comparison of justified catechumens to the Blessed Virgin Mary in the above example proves that he believed justified catechumens are inside the Church just as Mary was.

Fr. Feeney rightly believed that justified catechumens do not go to hell To my knowledge, Fr. Feeney did not teach that justified catechumens who die go to hell. If Fr. Feeney believed this, then he was a heretic. From the information I have, Fr. Feeney explicitly and emphatically taught they do not go to hell.

Fr. Feeney believed that God would not let justified catechumens die and go to their particular judgment without water baptism—even if God had to raise them from the dead and have them baptized with water:

Fr. Feeney, Bread of Life, Chapter 7: “For it pertains to Divine Providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. ... There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water.”

Fr. Feeney states this, time and time again. Hence Fr. Feeney does not believe justified catechumens will go to hell. He believes that God will get them baptized by water before they die and go to their particular judgment. With this in mind, we can take in proper context Fr. Feeney's following statements that have been used by some to try to prove Fr. Feeney believed in heresy. None of Fr. Feeney's below statements from the Bread of Life contain heresy. Heresy cannot even be implied when one takes into consideration Fr. Feeney's other teachings on the topic in the same book and elsewhere:

Fr. Feeney, Bread of Life, Chapter 7: “He will then say, 'If you die in the state of justification, without yet being baptized, are you not saved?'

“You must answer him, ‘No, you are not. That is your reasoning in the matter. That is not Christ's statement.’
“And if he persists in saying, ‘Well, where does one go who dies in the state of justification which has been achieved without Baptism?’ — insist that he does not go to Heaven.
“And if he goes on to yell at you angrily, ‘Where are you going to send him — to Hell?’, say: ‘No, I am not going to send him to Hell... I am going to say what Christ said, ‘He cannot go into Heaven unless he is baptized by water.’
“... Here is a brief catechism line-up, in case you would like to brush up on what I have been saying:

Q. Can anyone now be saved without Baptism of Water?
A. No one can be saved without Baptism of Water.
Q. Are the souls of those who die in the state of justification saved, if they have not received Baptism of Water?
A. No. They are not saved.

Q. Where do these souls go if they die in the state of justification but have not received Baptism of Water?
A. I do not know.
Q. Do they go to Hell?
A. No.
Q. Do they go to Heaven?
A. No.
Q. Are there any such souls?
A. I do not know! Neither do you!
Q. What are we to say to those who believe there are such souls?
A. We must say to them that they are making reason prevail over Faith, and the laws of probability over the Providence of God.”
The facts, then, regarding Fr. Feeney's answers are as follows:

1) Fr. Feeney never said justified catechumens go to hell, which would be heresy. Instead, he said they do not go to hell.

2) Fr. Feeney never said justified catechumens who died would not go to heaven but only that they cannot go to heaven in their current condition (justified but not baptized by water).

Knowing Fr. Feeney's other teachings on this topic in his same book, there is only one thing that Fr. Feeney could mean. He means that dead justified catechumens go to a temporary place where God will raise them up from the dead, baptize them with water, and then they could enter heaven if they died in such a state:

Fr. Feeney, Bread of Life: “For it pertains to Divine Providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. ... There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water.”

Many times Fr. Feeney teaches that God would never let justified catechumens die and go to their particular judgment without being baptized by water. Fr. Feeney's third place, then, in which he said that he did not know where the justified catechumens go who die without being baptized by water, is the place where souls go when they die and have not yet gone to their particular judgment. From this place, which the Catholic Church has never named, men can be raised from the dead to resume their one life, as Lazarus was. In the history of the Catholic Church, some catechumens and infants who had died were raised from the dead and baptized with water:

Life of St. Martin, by Sulpitius Severus (363-420): “Chapter VII. Martin restores a Catechumen to Life - ...after the lapse only of a few days, the catechumen, seized with a languor, began to suffer from a violent fever. It happened that Martin had then left home, and having remained away three days, he found on his return that life had departed from the catechumen; and so suddenly had death occurred, that he had left this world without receiving baptism. ... Martin ... then laying hold, as it were, of the Holy Spirit, with the whole powers of his mind, ...stretches himself at full length on the dead limbs of the departed brother... he then rose up for little, and gazing on the countenance of the deceased, he waited without misgiving for the result of his prayer and of the mercy of the Lord. And scarcely had the space of two hours elapsed, when he saw the dead man begin to move a little in all his members, and to tremble with his eyes opened for the practice of sight... those who had been standing at the door immediately rush inside. And truly a marvelous spectacle met them, for they beheld the man alive whom they had formerly left dead. Thus being restored to life, and having immediately obtained baptism, he lived for many years afterwards... The same man was wont to relate that, when he left the body, he was brought before the tribunal of the Judge, and being assigned to gloomy regions and vulgar crowds, he received a severe sentence. Then, however, he added, it was suggested by two angels of the Judge that he was the man for whom Martin was praying; and that, on this account, he was ordered to be led back by the same angels, and given up to Martin, and restored to his former life.”

(See in this book Miraculous Baptisms, p. 41.)

Fr. Feeney’s error is illogical but not heretical Logic dictates that God would not justify a man before he is baptised with water A major problem with Fr. Feeney's opinion has to do with logic and not any heresy that a pope has condemned. If, according to Fr. Feeney, God would never let a justified catechumen die and go to his particular judgment without being baptized by water, then why would God justify him before he gets baptized with water? If God did this, He would be undermining the very sacrament he instituted for the justification and salvation of men. God would reduce the sacrament of baptism for these catechumens to a mere initiation rite in which they are made members of the Church but do not have their sins remitted. Hence the sacrament of baptism that God instituted for the remission of sins would be undermined because God remitted their sins without the sacrament, previous to the time when God knew that they would be baptized by water.

Erroneous theology does not equal the denial of a dogma Many saints defended doctrines that were later infallibly condemned. Hence they held an erroneous theology to defend their erroneous doctrines. In the eyes of God, all erroneous theologies are indefensible and illogical. Yet this did not make the saints heretics because the erroneous doctrines they defended were not yet infallibly condemned in their day. For instance, St. Thomas held an erroneous theology to defend his erroneous doctrine that Mary was stained with original sin. Hence his theology regarding this doctrine was erroneous and indefensible; and to some saints who opposed his opinion, it was also odious. Yet St. Thomas was not a heretic because the Immaculate Conception was not yet infallibly defined. It is easy to look back on past disputes over non-infallibly defined doctrines that have since been infallibly resolved and to make judgments against those who held the erroneous doctrines. But one must be careful not to make rash judgments. Until these allowable disputes are infallibly resolved, there are many legitimate concerns about correctly explaining the doctrine so as not to deny related dogmas. In these cases, saints’ erroneous theologies led to the final resolution in which the correct theologies were eventually formulated. This is all part of the normal process in which doctrines become dogmas. Saints are not infallible. Only the pope is infallible when he engages his charism of infallibility. (See my book Saints’ Teachings.)

“It needs to be mentioned that even saints can make mistakes by believing in an erroneous theology, but never can it be brought to a heretical conclusion. If it is, the offender becomes a heretic. If one wants to remain Catholic, the proper course he must take once an erroneous theology is brought to its heretical conclusion is to never concede to the heresy even if he cannot explain the dogma using the erroneous theology. Dogmas must always be believed even if man cannot reasonably understand or explain them. Fr. Michael Muller believed in the same erroneous theology as to what it takes to make a baptized person a heretic. Yet, when his opponents took the theology to its logical, heretical conclusion by teaching that all Protestants who never heard of the Catholic position are thus actually Catholic and inside the Catholic Church, Fr. Muller rejected this as heresy and said that they cannot be Catholic and inside the Catholic Church. Fr. Muller did not fall into heresy but lost the debate, whereas his opponents fell into heresy but won the debate because it was based upon an erroneous theology. Fr. Muller remained faithful to the Catholic Dogma even though he could not reasonably explain it based upon the erroneous theology, whereas his heretical opponents bowed to the erroneous theology instead of to the dogma.”

Fr. Feeney' erroneous theology regarding baptism never led him into heresy, at least from the information that I have. Even if Fr. Feeney's erroneous theology regarding baptism led to heretical conclusions, which it did not, Fr. Feeney never denied a dogma related to baptism. For instance, even though some believe his erroneous theology heretically places justified catechumens in hell, Fr. Feeney never said justified catechumens go to hell. Instead, he emphatically said that they do not go to hell. Just as Fr. Michael Muller's erroneous theology did not lead him to deny the Salvation Dogma, Fr. Feeney’s erroneous theology never led him to deny a dogma regarding baptism.

Also, I believe Fr. Feeney' opinion that catechumens can be justified by perfect contrition and the desire to be baptized is an error, which was also held by some saints. However, it would only be a non-heretical error. Hence, from the information I have, there is no evidence that Fr. Feeney denied a dogma regarding baptism.

If anyone has evidence, send it to me. If anyone has credible evidence that Fr. Feeney believed that justified catechumens are outside the Catholic Church or that justified catechumens are in hell, send it to me. If it is genuine, I will consider it in light of his other teachings on the same topic in order to take all of his teachings on this topic in correct context. If I get notorious evidence that proves Fr. Feeney denied a dogma related to baptism or any other dogma, I will denounce him as a heretic. I want only first-hand evidence and not third party evidence. Even though I believe Fr. Feeney was saintly, based upon the information that I have, that does not mean he was. If I discover that he believed or condoned any heresy or heretic either by sins of commission or omission, I will denounce him as a heretic.

When I speak of Fr. Feeney's beliefs on baptism, I mean his beliefs since his conversion from heresy. At one time Fr. Feeney was a heretic because he denied the Salvation Dogma. When he was a heretic, he wrote Fish on Friday and was very famous among the heretical so-called Catholics who likewise denied the Salvation Dogma. After his conversion, Fr. Feeney believed in the Salvation Dogma as the Catholic Church teaches it and in the necessity of baptism by water for salvation. From this time forward, he was very infamous among the heretical so-called Catholics. So when I say if anyone has evidence that Fr. Feeney believed in heresy to send it to me, I mean evidence from the time he believed in the Salvation Dogma and in the necessity of baptism by water for salvation. [This paragraph was added 7/20/2006.]

July 2006
Dilemmas: Baptism of Desire and Blood
Statement:
I agree, a pope has not infallibly defined baptism of desire and blood, but it is part of the ordinary magisterium and thus must be believed under pain of grave sin.

RJMI Answer:
It is true the baptism of desire and blood has not been infallibly defined. But it is not true that it is part of the ordinary magisterium (See: “Saints and Baptism,” p.4). The main condition necessary to make an undefined doctrine that is not taught by the unanimous consensus of the saints part of the ordinary magisterium has not been met. That condition is that a pope must censure with absolute silence one side only and penalize them for violating the censure. For instance, no pope has censured with absolute silence us who believe in the absolute necessity of water baptism and hence penalized us for breaking that silence. (See my book “The Solemn and Ordinary Magisterium: The Ordinary Magisterium: 2. Papal intervention when there is no unanimous consensus.”)

Popes have not made baptism of desire or blood part of the solemn or ordinary magisterium because one of the necessary conditions has not been met. They have not been explained with theological certainty so as to protect related dogmas from being denied. The popes were well aware of the following unresolved theological dilemmas:

1. There is a problem linking the teaching of baptism of desire with tradition. No Father, Doctor, or saint in the first four hundred years of the Church believed in it.

“The Catholic Encyclopedia,” 1914, Baptism: “IX NECESSITY OF BAPTISM - ... A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere. St. Ambrose may have done so for the soul of the catechumen Valentinian, but this would be a solitary instance and it was done apparently because he believed that the emperor had had the baptism of desire...”

Therefore, how could baptism of desire been part of revelation originating from Apostolic Tradition, when it was not taught by anyone until Ambrose in 392? Revelation constituting the object of the Catholic faith ended with the death of the last apostle. (See: “St. Ambrose First Mentioned Baptism of Desire,” p.39)

2. Being Baptism of desire and blood are not the sacrament of baptism, are not sacraments, how, then, can the sacrament of baptism in which water must be used be necessary as a “necessity of means” while not being necessary?

The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1914, Baptism, IX Necessity Of Baptism: “Theologians distinguish a twofold necessity, which they call a necessity of means (medii) and a necessity of precept (praecepti), The first (medii) indicates a thing to be so necessary that, if lacking (though inculpably), salvation can not be attained. The second (praecepti) is had when a thing is indeed so necessary that it may not be omitted voluntarily without sin; yet, ignorance of the precept or inability to fulfill it, excuses one from its observance. Baptism is held to be necessary both necessitate medii and præcepti.”

3. There is no remission of sins outside the Catholic Church. “Outside the Church there is no salvation nor remission of sins.” (Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctum, 1302) Being all men must be inside the Church to have their sins remitted and have a hope to be saved, what theology clearly teaches the status of the catechumen who is sanctified by desire or blood without receiving the sacrament? What is his relationship to the Church? Is he a member of the Church? To say he is would be heresy:

Council Of Trent, On Penance, Chap. 2: “It is otherwise with those of the household of faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made members of his own body.”

Council Of Florence, 1438-1445: “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 into 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.’ The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

Does the sanctified catechumen, who has not been baptized by water, belong to the soul of the Church while not belonging to the body of the Church? To say so is heresy and an affront to common sense. When he dies does his soul go heaven and body to go to hell? One either belongs to both the soul and body of the Church or not (See: The Salvation Dogma, “Salvation in Context: Body and Soul of the Church”). Is he inside the Church? Or, is he partially inside and partially outside the Church? Regarding this related dogma, Fr Pulvermacher fell into heresy defending his opinion of baptism of desire by teaching the sanctified catechumen is not a “full Catholic.” Either one is fully Catholic or he is not Catholic in any way. Is the part that is Catholic saved and the part that is not Catholic damned? Here we have a good example of our concern that related dogmas are properly explained with all certainty so as to avoid the trap Fr. Pulvermacher fell into.[3] No pope has officially taught what the relationship is of this supposed un-sacramentally baptized, sanctified catechumen to the Church, and thus the related dogma of no remission of sins outside the Catholic Church is in danger of being denied.

4. It is an infallible dogma that the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity are infused into a soul at the moment of its sanctification and not previous to it.

Council of Trent, on Justification, chap 7; D. 800: “In justification man receives simultaneously with the remission of sins all three virtues of faith, hope, and charity, which are infused by Jesus Christ in him whom He is implanted. ... This faith, in accordance with apostolic tradition, catechumens beg of the Church before the sacrament of baptism...”

How, then, can unsanctified catechumens, who have not yet been baptised by water, have a perfect love of God if they do not yet have a perfect faith in the God whom they are to love? An unbaptized, unsanctified catechumen does not have the theological virtue of faith. Only by this virtue can men have a perfect faith in God, and only then can he perfectly love God, the object of his perfect faith. Fr. Peter Scott, of the schismatic and heretical Society of St. Pius X, fell into heresy regarding this topic when attempting to defend baptism of desire and blood. He taught the theological virtues are first infused into an unsanctified catechumen, and it is this that enables him to have a perfect love of God and thus be sanctified. Therefore, he contradicted the dogmatic truth in the Council of Trent above that teaches the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity are not infused into a soul until the instant of its sanctification and not prior to it. Fr. Scott's improper theological defense of baptism of desire and blood led him to deny this related dogma of the infusion of the theological virtues at the instant of sanctification and not prior to it.[4]

5. Regarding the supposed catechumen who gets baptised by desire and then latter by water, why would God sanctify such a soul ahead of time, being He knows they are going to receive the sacrament? God would be undermining the very sacrament He instituted for the sanctification of souls and reduce it to a mere initiation rite. A heretical priest of the non-Catholic sect, the Society of St. Pius V, told me that almost all of his catechumens whom he baptizes with water are already sanctified by desire. Thus, he reduced the sacrament of baptism to a mere initiation rite in which no sanctifying grace is bestowed upon most of these catechumens.

6. Why would God allow a catechumen to die before he receives the sacrament of baptism if God sees he is of good will? If faith can move mountains, then God can see to it that baptismal water reaches every worthy man before he dies.

7. Why did God choose water for baptism, the most common element to men without which they cannot physically live. And, why does God also allow even a pagan to baptize in danger of death, if the sacrament is not necessary for all? If an explicit desire suffices, why not leave it at that instead of allowing a pagan to administer a sacrament of the Church.

8. Why did God allow good-willed catechumens, who died without receiving the sacrament of baptism, to be raised from the dead so that they can be baptized by water, if water baptism in not absolutely necessary? If baptism of desire suffices there would be no need to raise these good-willed catechumens from the dead and baptize them with water (See: “Miraculous Baptisms,” p.41).

9. Popes' official teachings found in bulls, encyclicals, and Councils never mentioned the words baptism of desire or blood or their equivalent. Instead, they teach the absolute necessity of sacrament of baptism in which water must be used:

Pope St. Leo the Great, infallible letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451: “...It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one.’ (1 Jn. 5:4-8) In other words, the spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption and the water of baptism these three are one and remain indivisible none of them is separable from its link with the others.” (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 81.)

The Council of Florence, Decree for the Armenians, Bull Exultate Deo, Nov. 22, 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 into 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.’ The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.” (D. 696)

The Council of Trent does not teach baptism of desire (See: “The Councils, including Trent, on Baptism,” p.44). Two popes' unofficial teachings, one whose origin is vague, have taught baptism of desire. One was in error when he taught circumcision remitted sins under the Old Covenant. (See: “The Popes and Baptism, Pope Innocent II” and “Pope Innocent III,” p.23)

10. The last pope, Pius XII, who could have solved this dilemma, this Baptism Controversy, by either excommunicating Fr. Feeney for heresy if baptism of desire and blood were dogmas (part of the solemn magisterium), or, denounce him for committing grave sin if baptism of desire and blood were part of the ordinary magisterium, did no such thing. Fr. Feeney was illegally and invalidly excommunicated for disobedience, but not for heresy (See: The Salvation Dogma, “Fr. Feeney: ‘Holy Office’ and ‘Excommunication’”). Nor did Pius XII infallibly define baptism of desire and blood. Nor did he make it part of the ordinary magisterium by imposing absolute silence on Fr. Feeney, and all who believe in the absolute necessity of sacramental baptism in which water must be used, with penalties attached for violators. Pius XII did no such thing, precisely because of the lack of a certain theology defending baptism of desire and blood. He, as all the past popes, was well aware of danger to related dogmas because of an uncertain theology defending the opinions of baptism of desire and blood. All one has to know that this is true is search official papal documents, bulls and encyclicals, and you will not find one pope who ever taught, or even mentioned the opinions of baptism of desire or blood. That is quite unusual if baptism of desire and blood is an infallible dogma or part of the ordinary magisterium.

April 3, 2003
Baptism and Membership
There is no remission of sins outside the Catholic Church. Sanctifying grace—the grace that places a soul in a state of grace—is not given outside the Catholic Church, but actual grace is given outside the Church to effect the conversion of non-Catholics.

Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctum, 1302: “Outside the Church there is no salvation nor remission of sins.”

Being all men must be inside the Church to have their sins remitted and have a hope to be saved, “What theology clearly teaches the relationship to the Church of a catechumen who is sanctified by desire without receiving the sacrament of baptism?” Is he inside or outside the Church? It is an infallible dogma that only those who receive the sacrament of baptism, in which water must be used, can be members of the Church.

Council Of Trent, On Penance, Chap. 2: “It is otherwise with those of the household of faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made members of his own body.”

Council Of Florence, 1438-1445: 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 into 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" The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.

If a non-sacramentally baptized catechumen can be sanctified by baptism of desire then he would have to be inside the Church while not being a member, and no theology has been put forward that resolves this apparent conflict. The Council of Valence III makes it more difficult to resolve, because it teaches the catechumen is not “truly incorporated into the Church” until he is regenerated from water and the Holy Spirit.

Council Of Valence III, A.D. 855, On Predestination, can 5: All the multitude of the faithful are regenerated from water and the Holy Spirit and thru this truly incorporated into the Church.

Some, such as Fr. Lucian Pulvermacher, trying to resolve this dilemma have fallen into heresy. They heretical teach that the catechumen who is sanctified by desire is not “fully Catholic,” which can only mean he is 1/2 Catholic and ½ not Catholic, partially inside and outside the Church. If he died before receiving the sacrament of baptism would the Catholic half go to heaven and the non-Catholic half go to hell? Here we have a good example of our concern that related dogmas are not denied when attempting to theologically explain these unresolved dilemmas. Fr. Pulvermacher fell into this trap and thus into heresy. (See: RJMI Books, The Implicit Faith Heresy and The Baptism Schism - A Debate with Fr. Pulvermacher, “Heresy – Men can be partially united to the Catholic Church” and “Fr. P. evades his heresy that a man can be partially Catholic”)

Others, trying to resolve this dilemma have fallen into heresy by teaching a man can belong to the soul of the Church and not Her body, thus effectively rending the Church’s body from Her soul. (See: The Salvation Dogma, “Salvation in Context: Soul and Body of the Church”)

June 1, 2002
When Was Baptism Mandatory?
The Good Thief
Question/Statement:

The Good Thief is proof that in certain cases explicit faith in Jesus Christ can sanctify a soul without the necessity of being baptized by water.

RJMI Answer:
The sacrament of baptism, which is the baptism of Christ, was not instituted until Christ commanded His apostles to baptize in His Name and was not mandatory (promulgated) until after Ascension Thursday:

St. Robert Bellarmine: “The law making Baptism necessary for salvation was promulgated on Ascension Day or, if you will, on Pentecost, simultaneously for the whole world, and at once became binding upon all nations.”[5]

Catechism of The Council of Trent, “Sacrament of Baptism”, Made Obligatory After Christ's Resurrection: “The second period to be distinguished, that is, the time when the law of Baptism was made, also admits of no doubt. 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.”[6]

A Catholic Dictionary: “PROMULGATION-The public announcement of a law, before which it is not binding.” [7]

When the Good Thief, St. Dismas, died, baptism was not yet mandatory; consequently, he did not have to be baptized before he died. Therefore, the saints err when they use the Good Thief as an example of baptism of desire.

It is my opinion that the just from the Old Testament era were baptized by water some time during the 40 days after our Lord rose from the dead and before He ascended into Heaven taking them with Him. Thus when our Lord said, “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” (Jn. 3:5) He literally meant all men. (See: “Baptism of Old Testament Elect,” p.67)

June 1, 2002
The Bible and Baptism
Question/Statement:
Does the New Testament teach baptism of desire or blood?

RJMI Answer:
There is no explicit or implicit teaching of baptism of desire or blood in the New Testament. The New Testament teaches that baptism with water is necessary to be in the way of salvation and does not mention any exceptions:

“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 kingdom of God.” (Jn. 3:5)
“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” (Mk. 16:16)

“Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” (Mt. 28: 19)

“But Peter said to them: Do penance: and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 2:38)

“Not by works of justice, which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost.” (Titus 3:5)

“They waited for the patience of God in the days of Noah, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also...” (1Pt. 3:20-21)

St. Paul's use of the term “doctrine of baptisms” in his letter to the Hebrews does not mean baptisms of desire and blood.

“Wherefore, leaving the word of the beginning of Christ, let us go on to things more perfect: not laying again the foundation of penance from dead works and of faith towards God, Of the doctrine of baptisms and imposition of hands, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.” (Heb. 6:1-2)

Haydock Commentary: “3. The doctrine of baptisms, which he expresseth in the plural number, either because all the faithful must be baptized once, if we speak of Christian baptism; or he means that persons ought to know they cannot receive Christ's baptism over again. Or, in fine, he means that the baptisms used by the Jews, which they so frequently repeated, could not make them justified.

Therefore, if baptism of desire and blood are true they would have to be part of the Apostolic Tradition that is not recorded in the Bible. They would have to have been orally taught by the original apostles and handed down by them. This can only be verified if the doctrines of baptism of desire or blood belong to the Solemn Magisterium or the Ordinary Magisterium. If so, then baptism of desire or blood must be believed and would certainly be known to be a revelation whose origin is found in Apostolic Tradition—the oral tradition of the original apostles not recorded in the Bible, being handed down by word of mouth. (See: General FAQ’s, “What Catholics must believe”)

The question is, “Do the doctrines of baptism of desire and blood belong to the Solemn or the Ordinary Magisterium?” No, they do not. Could they belong to the Solemn or Ordinary Magisterium in the future? If they are true, yes, a future pope could make them either part of the Ordinary or Solemn Magisterium.

(See: “The Saints on Baptism,” p.27 and Exurge Michael Issue # 5, Peter Scott's Hypocrisy, Heresy, and Schism”)

July 13, 2002
Other Baptisms
There is only one baptism that cleanses men from original and actual sins, and that is the sacrament of baptism, which can only be received by water. “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” (Eph. 4:5) Nicene Creed: “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins.” Baptism of desire and blood are not sacraments, and in the strict sense are not baptisms.

St. Thomas, Summa, Third Part, q. 66, art. 11: “Objection 2. Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above (65, 1). Now none but Baptism of Water is a sacrament. Therefore we should not reckon two other Baptisms [desire and blood].

“Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (60, 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.”

The sacrament of baptism cannot be received by desire or blood martyrdom. If baptism of desire and blood are true, then only the grace of baptism (sanctifying grace) is conferred to worthy catechumens, but they do not receive the sacrament, they do not become members of the Church, and they do not receive the indelible mark. Therefore, it is heresy to teach baptism of desire or blood is a sacrament, or is baptism in the strict sense. Therefore, there is only one baptism that sanctifies souls, not three.

Some unresolved theological problems the affect related dogmas are; if the sacrament of baptism is necessary as a necessity of means, meaning absolutely necessary, then how can baptism of desire or blood substitute for it, being they are not the sacrament of baptism. Also, what is the relationship of baptism of desire and blood with the sacrament of baptism, being they are not baptisms in the strict sense, and there is only one baptism that remits sins, not three.

The word “baptism” has several meanings; it does not always refer to the Sacrament of Baptism.

Baptism of Blood
This baptism commonly refers to the martyrdom of already baptized Catholics. Christ, who was already baptized by water, said that He had another baptism to undergo, referring to His death.

“And Jesus said to them: You know not what you ask. Can you drink of the chalice that I drink of: or be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized? But they said to him: We can. And Jesus saith to them: You shall indeed drink of the chalice that I drink of: and with the baptism wherewith I am baptized, you shall be baptized.” (Mark 10:38-39)

St. John Damascene: “These things were well understood by our holy and inspired fathers—thus they strove, after Holy Baptism, to keep... spotless and undefiled. Whence some of them also thought fit to receive another Baptism: I mean that which is by blood and martyrdom.” (Barlam and Josaphat, Woodward and Heineman, trans., pp. 169-171.)

The Bible does not teach unbaptized catechumens who die as martyrs can receive baptism of blood that sanctifies their souls.

Baptism of Fire
This baptism refers to the sacrament of confirmation that was instituted on Pentecost Sunday. This term is derived from the “tongues of fire” that dropped upon the Apostles, filling them with the Holy Ghost.

Old Testament Baptism
Baptism is used in the New Testament in reference to Old Testament events that prefigured the sacrament of baptism. “And all in Moses were baptized, in the cloud, and in the sea: And did all eat the same spiritual food, And all drank the same spiritual drink: (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.)” (1 Cor. 10:2-4)

John's Baptism
The “baptism of St. John the Baptist” was not the same as the “baptism of Christ.” John's baptism did not confer grace. "John first preaching before his coming the baptism of penance to all the people of Israel." (Acts 13:24) John baptized unto penance, but not unto true justification. His baptism prepared the people for the baptism of Christ.

“Now, in those days cometh John the Baptist, preaching in the desert of Judea, And saying: Do penance: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand...I indeed baptize you with water unto penance: but he who is to come after me, is stronger than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to carry: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” (Mt. 3:1-2,11)

Haydock Commentary, Mt. 3:11: “My baptism is only calculated to lead you to a penitential life, and not to give you true justice...(V)"

Apollo and his companions had only received John's Baptism and needed to be baptized in Christ.

“Now, a certain Jew, named Apollo, a native of Alexandria, and eloquent man, came to Ephesus, one mighty in the Scriptures. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord: and being fervent in spirit, spoke, and taught diligently the things that are of Jesus, knowing only the baptism of John." (Acts 18:24-25) "And it came to pass, while Apollo was at Corinth, that Paul having passed through the upper parts, came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples: And he said to them: have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? But they said to him: We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost. And he said: In what then were you baptized? Who said: In John's baptism. Then Paul said: John baptized the people with the baptism of penance, saying; That they should believe in him who was to come after him, that is to say Jesus. Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 19:1-6)

Haydock Commentary, Acts 19:5: “Baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, so called to distinguish it from the baptism of John; and that of Christ was given in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, according to the command of Christ himself. (Wi)”

The Council of Trent infallibly condemns anyone who teaches the baptism of John had the same force as the baptism of Christ.

Council of Trent, Canons of Baptism; D. 857: Canon 1 - If anyone shall say that the baptism of John had the same force as the baptism of Christ: let him be anathema.

St. Thomas, Summa, q. 66, art. 11, 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’ [Vulg.: 'by water'," according to 1 Pt. 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 Cor. 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.”

St. Paul's use of the term “doctrine of baptisms” in his letter to the Hebrews does not mean baptisms of desire and blood.

“Wherefore, leaving the word of the beginning of Christ, let us go on to things more perfect: not laying again the foundation of penance from dead works and of faith towards God, Of the doctrine of baptisms and imposition of hands, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.” (Heb. 6:1-2)

Haydock Commentary: “3. The doctrine of baptisms, which he expresseth in the plural number, either because all the faithful must be baptized once, if we speak of Christian baptism; or he means that persons ought to know they cannot receive Christ's baptism over again. Or, in fine, he means that the baptisms used by the Jews, which they so frequently repeated, could not make them justified.

St. Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians, speaks of the faithful being baptized for the dead. In this context baptism means sacrifices, mortifications, and sufferings offered up for the faithfully departed and for the conversion of the living that are spiritually dead.

“Otherwise, what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? Why are they then baptized for them?” (1Cor. 15:29)

Douay Commentary, on 1Cor. 15:29: “That are baptized for the dead... Some think the apostle here alludes to a ceremony then in use; but others, more probably, to the prayers and penitential labours, performed by the primitive Christians for the souls of the faithful departed; or to the baptism of afflictions and sufferings undergone for sinners spiritually dead. Ch.”

St. Paul is saying that the sufferings, mortifications, and sacrifices the faithful offer up for the dead is proof that they believe in the resurrection.

Therefore, the word baptism has several meanings and does not always refer to the sacrament of baptism that remits sins. Most importantly, no pope has ever mentioned baptism of desire or blood, or expressed this opinion in any of their official teachings, such as Councils, Bulls and Encyclicals. In their official teachings they only mention one baptism in which water must be used for the remission of sins, while never mentioning any exceptions. Two popes in their unofficial teachings, one whose origin is vague, have taught baptism of desire. (See: “The Popes on Baptism,” p.23)

August 13, 2002
The Popes and Baptism
Question/Statement:

Popes Innocent II and Innocent III taught baptism of desire; therefore, it must be believed.

RJMI Comment:
No pope has ever mentioned baptism of desire or blood, or expressed this opinion in any of their official teachings, such as Councils, Bulls and Encyclicals. In their official teachings, fallible and infallible, popes, such as Pope St. Leo Great, only mention one baptism in which water must be used for the remission of sins, while never mentioning any exceptions.

Pope St. Leo the Great

Pope St. Leo the Great, infallible letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451: “Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ's blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the same apostle’s words, ‘knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot’ (1 Pet. 1:18). Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: ‘and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin’ (1 Jn. 1:7); and again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith. Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) In other words, the spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption and the water of baptism these three are one and remain indivisible none of them is separable from its link with the others.”(Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 81.)

Two popes' unofficial teachings, one whose origin is vague, have taught baptism of desire.

Pope Innocent II

Pope Innocent II is attributed to having taught baptism of desire in a private letter, Apostolicam Sedem, to the Bishop of Cremonia of uncertain date. Firstly, even if the private letter is genuine it is not infallible and thus has no binding authority. I will quote from a book “Desire and Deception,” written by Thomas Hutchinson who believes in the absolute necessity of the sacrament of baptism for salvation.

Desire and Deception
by Thomas Hutchinson (pp. 31-32)

“We speak of the letter Apostolicam Sedem, written at the behest of Pope Innocent II (1130-1143), at an unknown date to an unnamed bishop of Cremonia. The latter had written an inquiry to the Pope regarding the case of a priest who apparently had died without being baptized. Of course, it has been defined that, in such a case, he was no priest, since the sacrament of orders may only be conferred validly upon the baptized. At any rate, here is the text of the letter:

“To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of holy mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the key to the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eight book of Augustine's ‘City of God’ where among other things it is written, ‘Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.’ Read again the book of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned.’(Den 388)

“...This letter is a private communication... There is no question of the lack of infallibility of such a document, particularly since it is in direct contradiction to the whole spirit and tenor of Papal acts of the time. Lastly, there is even question of who wrote this letter. Many authorities ascribe it to Innocent III (1198-1216). This question is mentioned in Denzinger. The letter is certainly not in keeping with the totality of his declarations either. In any case, a gap of 55 years separated the two pontificates. So a private letter of uncertain date, authorship, and destination, based upon false premises and contradicting innumerable indisputably valid and solemn documents, is pretended to carry the weight of the Magisterium on its shoulders. Were any other doctrine concerned, this missive would not even be given any consideration. As we shall see, however, mystification and deception are part and parcel of the history of this topic of Salvation. Perhaps the letter was attributed to Innocent III because of his statement that the words of consecration at Mass do not actually have to be said by the priest, but only thought internally-- a sort of Eucharist by Desire. Later St. Thomas Aquinas took him to task on this point.’

“But Innocent III is indeed key to understanding the original teaching of the Church on this topic. It was in his time (as always until the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore) forbidden to bury the unbaptized (whether catechumens or even children of Catholic parents) in consecrated ground. He explained the rationale for this law, writing: ‘It has been decreed by the sacred canons that we are to have no communion with those who are dead, if we have not communicated with them while alive’(Decr. III, XXVIII, xii). Commenting on this passage from the Catholic Encyclopedia (II, 267), William Fanning, a believer in ‘baptism of desire,’ nevertheless remarks: ‘As baptism is the door of the Church, the unbaptized are entirely without its pale.’”

End of Quote
Upon close examination, what does this letter actually teach? This supposed letter of Pope Innocent II to the Bishop of Cremona does not teach baptism of desire; rather it upholds the absolute necessity of baptism by water. Upon examining all the relevant facts, there can be no other interpretation of this private letter.

It is an infallible dogma that a man cannot be a priest (validly ordained) without having received the sacrament of baptism that sanctifies his soul, gives him the indelible mark, and makes him a member of the Church, thus enabling him to receive the other sacraments of the Church. Pope Innocent II could not have been ignorant of this. In his letter he refers to the priest as truly being a priest even though there is no record of him being baptized-- “you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned.” Therefore, Pope Innocent must believe the priest was somehow baptized by water and made a member of the Church in order to continue referring to him as a priest. Indeed, he uses St. Augustine's teaching to prove that the priest was baptized, but invisibly-- “Baptism is ministered invisibly.” That means baptism by water was administered to the priest sometime before he became a priest, either by an angel from heaven or some man sent by God. This passage from St. Augustine's On Baptism against the Donatists does not teach a man is saved by baptism of desire. He teaches baptism is ministered to such a man, but invisibly, not being recorded. (See: “The Saints and Baptism,” p.27) Pope Innocent II had to use this example or admit the so-called priest was not baptized by water and thus was no priest. Pope Innocent also interprets St. Ambrose's Funeral Oration for Emperor Valentinian to mean Valentinian was invisibly administered the sacrament of baptism sometime before he died and went to his particular judgment.

It also needs to be mentioned that saints' opinions are not infallible; therefore, Ss. Ambrose and Augustine's opinions are just that and nothing more. It takes a pope to make a teaching part of the Ordinary Magisterium, and it takes a pope to make a teaching part of the Solemn Magisterium by infallibly defining it. (See: General FAQ's, What Catholics Must Believe)

Pope Innocent III

Pope Innocent III does teach baptism of desire in a private letter to the Bishop of Metz. Firstly, being a fallible teaching it is not binding on Catholics.

Pope Innocent III, to the Bishop of Metz, Aug. 28, 1206: “We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when he says to the Apostles: ‘Go, baptize all nations in the name etc.,’ the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another... If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith.”

This is a mere fallible opinion expressed by Pope Innocent III. To prove that Pope Innocent's teaching on baptism of desire could be erroneous, I refer to another of his fallible teachings in which he did teach a doctrinal error. He erroneously taught circumcision under the Old Law remitted sin. Pope Innocent III, Maiores Ecclesiae causas, letter to Humberto, the Archbishop of Arelatensem, 1201, The Effect of Baptism (and the Character): “...Although original sin was remitted by the mystery of circumcision, and the danger of damnation was avoided, nevertheless there was no arriving at the kingdom of heaven, which up to the death of Christ was barred to all.”[8]

This erroneous opinion of Pope Innocent III, which was also taught by St. Thomas in the 13th century, has since been infallibly condemned at the Council of Florence in 1441 Council of Florence, Exultate Deo, Nov 22, 1439; D. 695: There are seven sacraments of the new Law... which differ a great deal from the sacraments of the Old Law. For those of the Old Law did not effect grace, but only pronounced that it should be given through the passion of Christ; these sacraments of ours contain grace, and confer it upon those who receive them worthily. The sacraments of the Old Law, of which circumcision was one, did not effect grace, which is contrary to Pope Innocent III's teaching that circumcision remitted sins, thus effected grace. Therefore, Pope Innocent III's teaching of baptism of desire for the Jew who tried to baptize himself can also be erroneous, and it certainly is not infallible.
Conclusion

That is the sum total of papal evidence for baptism of desire and blood; two fallible statements, neither being bulls or encyclicals, and one of questionable authenticity, and the other taught by a pope who proved to be in error regarding circumcision remitting sin. Anyone who uses this evidence from these two popes to try and bind Catholics to baptism of desire or blood is either of bad-will, or ignorant of what constitutes papal infallibility and a teaching that belongs to the Ordinary Magisterium.

August 16, 2002
Saints and Baptism
Question/Statement:

Even though baptism of desire and blood has not been infallibly defined, it is part of the ordinary magisterium because they were taught by the unanimous consent of the Fathers and saints. Therefore, baptism of desire and blood must be believed under pain of grievous (mortal) sin, because it is part of the ordinary magisterium.

RJMI Answer:
Being that baptism of desire and blood for catechumens has not been infallibly defined by a pope and is not part of the ordinary magisterium, they are only opinions. The only time a pope is not needed to make a non-infallibly defined doctrine part of the ordinary magisterium is if it was taught by the unanimous consent of the Church Fathers. If just one saint dissented, then a pope is needed to make it part of the ordinary magisterium or part of the solemn magisterium by infallibly defining it. (See: General FAQ's, “What Catholics Must Believe”)

The question, then, is, “Are there any Fathers or saints that believed in the absolute necessity of sacramental baptism by water?” Yes, many of the early Eastern Church Fathers did, some being Ss. Gregory Nazianzen and John Chrysostom.

St. Gregory Nazianzen
St. Gregory Nazianzen: “Of those who fail to be baptized, some are utterly animal or bestial, according to whether they are foolish or wicked… Others know and honor the gift of Baptism; but they delay, some out of carelessness, some because of insatiable passion. Still others are not able to receive Baptism, perhaps because of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circumstance, which prevents their receiving the gift, even if they desire it. I think the first group will have to suffer punishment, not only for their other sins, but also for their contempt of Baptism. The second group will also be punished, but less, because it was not thought wickedness so much as foolishness that they brought about their own failure. The third group will neither be glorified nor punished by the Just Judge; for, although they are un-Sealed, they are not wicked. They are not so much wrongdoers as ones who have suffered a loss... If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder solely by his intention and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized on who desired Baptism without having received Baptism. But, since you cannot do the former, how can you to the latter? ...If you prefer, we will put is this way: if, in your opinion, desire has equal power with actual Baptism, then make the same judgment in regard to Glory. You would then be satisfied to desire Glory, as though that longing itself were Glory. Do you suffer damage by not attaining the actual Glory, as long as you have a desire for it? I cannot see it.” [9]

St. John Chrysostom and possibly St. Cyril of Jerusalem

The History of Dogmas, Tixeront: “The authors of whom we are speaking deem baptism absolutely necessary-except in case of martyrdom—to attain to everlasting happiness. St. John Chrysostom does not except even those believers who die before receiving it: he declares that they are like the heathen, ‘outside the palace with the culprits, with the condemned;’ nor does he think that they can be helped by prayers and by the offering of the Holy Sacrifice. Alms given for their intention can alone bring to them some alleviation.[10]

St. Cyril of Jerusalem goes still further, and does not except those who should besides practice virtuous deeds: to them also baptism is absolutely necessary in order that they may enter into the kingdom of heaven [Footnote 130: Catech. III, 4.].” [11]

St. John Chrysostom: “Weep for unbelievers! Weep for those who differ not a smidgen from the infidels: those who die without baptism... They are truly worthy of mourning, truly worthy of tears. They are outside the Royal City along with those subject to punishment, along with the damned… What do you suppose is my anguish when I hear that any person has been taken away unbaptized? When I reflect upon the intolerable punishments of that life, the inexorable doom!” (“On Philippians,” homily III: 4; “On the Acts of the Apostles,” homily I:8.)

St. John Chrysostom: “And plainly must we grieve for our own catechumens, should they, either through their own unbelief or through their own neglect, depart this life without the saving grace of baptism.” (“The Consolation of Death,” Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, vol. IV. p. 363.)

St. John Chrysostom: “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.” (Hom. in Io. 25, 3; PG 59, 151-152)

St. John Chrysostom: “Hear, ye as many as are un-illuminated, shudder, groan, fearful is the threat, fearful is the sentence. ‘It is not possible,’ He [Christ] saith, ‘for one not born of water and the Spirit to enter into the Kingdom of heaven’; because he wears the raiment of death, of cursing, of perdition, he hath not yet received his Lord's token, he is a stranger and an alien, he hath not the royal watchword. ‘Except,’ He saith, ‘a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven.’” (Homily XXV, on the Gospel of John 3:5.)

Beware of those who take the below teaching of St. John Chrysostom out of context to try and prove he taught a catechumen can receive sanctifying grace by baptism of blood. St. John Chrysostom, Panegyric on St. Lucian, 4th Century: “Do not be surprised that I call martyrdom a Baptism; for here too the Spirit comes in great haste and there is a taking away of sins and a wonderful and marvelous cleansing of the soul; and just as those being baptized are washed in water, so too those being martyred are washed in their own blood.” (Jurgens, volume 2:1139.)

Baptism of blood commonly refers to the martyrdom of already baptized Catholics. This is the sense in which St. John Chrysostom uses the term in his above quote. St. John is referring to the martyrdom of a Catholic priest, St. Lucian. Thus, he is speaking of a Catholic who had already received sacramental baptism by water. The blood martyrdom, then, that he is referring to is that of an already baptised Catholic who dies for the faith. As the Church teaches, the martyrdom of an already baptized Catholic effects the remission of all actual sins and the punishment due to sin, so that the martyr immediately enters heaven when he dies. (See: “Other Baptisms,” p.20) St. John compares this to the sacrament of baptism which remits all sin (original and actual) and punishment due to sin, thus if one dies right after he was baptised he too would immediately enter heaven. Therefore, in St. John's above statement he not teaching St. Lucian received the grace of baptism (sanctifying grace) by his martyrdom. This concurs with Tixeront, who says St. John Chrysostom believed in the absolute necessity of sacramental baptism by water for salvation.

St. Martin of Tours
In the days of St. Martin of Tours, neither he nor the laymen believed in baptism of desire or blood. See: “Miraculous Baptisms,” and go to St. Martin of Tours, p.42.

Some Other Saints

Neither Ss. Jerome, Basil the Great, Gregory the Great, and Francis Xavier taught baptism of desire or blood, nor many of the Eastern Fathers.

Not one Father or saint, Eastern of Western, believed in baptism of desire before St. Ambrose's Funeral Oration for Emperor Valentinian in A.D. 392. Therefore, baptism of desire was not taught by the unanimous consent, as a matter of fact it was not taught by any saint until A.D. 392. Being it has no link with the Fathers and saints’ teachings from the first 392 years of the Church, it has an additional problem; it has absolutely no link with the Apostolic Tradition of the original apostles. (See: “St. Ambrose First Mentioned Baptism of Desire,” p.39)

Saints Contradictory Teachings

Another problem is that some of the saints who did teach baptism of desire or blood in one place denied it in another by teaching the absolute necessity of the sacrament of baptism in which water must be used, making it clear there are no exceptions. Below are some examples:

St. Cyril of Jerusalem

As you read above, Tixeront, in his book The History of Dogmas, teaches St. Cyril of Jerusalem believed in the absolute necessity of sacramental baptism by water: “St. Cyril of Jerusalem goes still further, and does not except those who should besides practice virtuous deeds: to them also baptism is absolutely necessary in order that they may enter into the kingdom of heaven” We read from St. Cyril's own writings that he believes in the absolute necessity of sacramental baptism by water for salvation.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “There is no other way to become a Christian than by water and the Spirit. This is the way the Lord Jesus determined that we should be born again, and it is not for us to find fault with the means He chose. Both water and the Spirit are necessary. ...Someone may be a good person but unless he is sealed by the Spirit in sacramental Baptism, he cannot enter the kingdom. This seems very bold language, but I only say that it is the Lord's, not mine. ...Every one who desires to be saved must receive Baptism.” (Catechetical Lectures, III, p. 33.)

But, others produce the below teaching of St. Cyril that contradicts his above teaching and seems to prove Tixeront wrong:

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, 350 AD: “If any man does not receive baptism, he does not receive salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who, even without water, will receive the kingdom.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Liturgical Press: Collegeville, MN, 1979, volume 1: 811.)

St. Ambrose

In several places, and in all of his official teachings, St. Ambrose teaches the absolute necessity of sacramental of baptism by water. Only once did he mention baptism of desire in an unofficial teaching and was the first to do so (See: “St. Ambrose First Mentioned Baptism of Desire,” p.39).

St. Augustine
Saint Augustine wrote a book of corrections in relation to his former writings and was working on a second when he died. This is just one proof that saints’ teachings are not infallible; that they can err regarding doctrines that were not part of the solemn or ordinary magisterium in the days they lived. St. Augustine presents three separate and unreconciled teachings regarding the sacrament of baptism. Upon reflection, his final opinion was that sacramental baptism by water is absolutely necessary for salvation.

One: He teaches the absolute necessity of sacramental baptism by water for salvation:

St. Augustine: “How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized, and are thus lost forever! ...When we shall have come into the sight of God, we shall behold the equity of His justice. At that time, no one will say: Why did He help this one and not that one? Why was this man led by God's direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster and not baptized? [12]

Look for rewards, and you will find nothing but punishments! ... .For of what use would repentance be, even before Baptism, if Baptism did not follow? ...No matter what progress a catechumen may make, he still carries the burden of iniquity, and it is not taken away until he has been baptized.” (The Faith of Our Fathers, Fr. Jurgens, bk. 3, 1496; On the Gospel of St. John, Chapter 13, Tract 7.)

St. Augustine: “Note that I speak now both to the faithful and to catechumens. What did I mention in connection with the spittle and the clay? This: the Word became flesh. The catechumens can hear this; but just listening to it does not accomplish that for which they were anointed. Let them hasten to the font if they seek the Light.” (The Divine Office, bk., p. 1620, from Fourth Week in Lent, Treatise 44 on John.)

St. Augustine: “What is the Baptism of Christ? A washing in the word. Take away the water, and there is no Baptism. It is, then, by water, the visible and outward sign of grace, and by the Spirit, Who produces the inward gift of grace, which cancels the bond of sin and restores God's gift to human nature, that the man who was born solely of Adam in the first place is afterwards re-born solely in Christ.” (“On John,” 15:4, Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Latina, Fr. J. P. Migne, Paris, 1855, vol. 35.)

St. Augustine: “Or how can they fail to be saved by water... the same unity of the ark saved them, in which no one has been saved except by water. For Cyprian himself says, 'The Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being in all simplicity admitted to the Church, have fallen asleep within her pale.' If not by water, how in the ark? If not in the ark, how in the Church? But if in the Church, certainly in the ark; and if in the ark, certainly by water. ...nor can they be said to have been otherwise saved in the ark except by water.” (On Baptism (De Baptismo), 5:28.)

Two: Contradicting his above teaching, St. Augustine, in City of God, teaches that an unbaptized catechumen—meaning he has explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Most Holy Trinity and an explicit desire to be baptized--can be justified if he dies unbaptized and as a martyr.

St. Augustine: “I have in mind those unbaptized persons who die confessing the name of Christ. They receive the forgiveness of their sins as completely as if they had been cleansed by the waters of baptism. For, He who said: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,’ made exceptions in other decisions which are no less universal: ‘Everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge him before my Father in heaven’; and again: ‘He who loses his life for my sake will find it.’ So, too, in the psalm: ‘Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints.’ For, what could be more precious than a death, which remits all sin and amasses merit? Men, unable to defer their death, who are baptized, and thus depart from life with all their sins forgiven, are not equal in merit to those who have not postponed death, although they could have done so, because they preferred to lose life by confessing Christ than, by denying Him, to gain time for Baptism.” (City of God, Bk. XIII, Chap. 7.)

Three: In another of his works, On Baptism (De baptismo), St. Augustine contradicts himself by teaching baptism is actually administered, invisibly, to worthy catechumens who seemed to die without it.

St. Augustine: “Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom has not contempt of religion (the Catholic Religion) but death excludes.” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists (De Baptismo), Bk. IV, Chap. 22.)

He teaches, “Baptism is ministered invisibly.” By using the word “ministered,” he clearly teaches someone, a minister, administers the sacrament of baptism. By invisibly, he means it is not known to anyone but the minister and maybe very few, so that there is no public record. This can take place miraculously if God allows a minister to be transported to baptize such a one with water. Or God can even temporarily raise a catechumen from the dead so he can be baptized by a minister in a way not known by anyone else. “For many of his works are hidden, but the works of his justice who shall declare?” (Eclcus. 16:22)

Final Opinion: What, then, was St. Augustine's final conviction regarding the sacrament of baptism? We have definitive proof from his latter works that he did not favor his former opinions of baptism of desire and blood; instead, he defended the absolute necessity of sacramental baptism by water for salvation. His refutation of the Pelagians, who denied original sin and the necessity of baptism for infants, led him to see the flaws in his earlier opinion and change his position.

We will first present his former and then latter work that deals with the Good Thief. In the former, he teaches the Good Thief had baptism of blood. In the latter, he teaches the Good Thief was, indeed, baptized by water in a way that was not historically recorded.

St. Augustine's former teaching on Baptism, On Baptism Against the Donatists 4, 22: “That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by martyrdom is supported by an argument by no means trivial, which the blessed Cyprian adduces from the thief, to whom, though he was not baptized, it was yet said, ‘Today shall thou be with me in Paradise.’”

St. Augustine does not take into consideration the fact that the sacrament of baptism was not instituted until Christ commanded His apostles to baptize in His Name and was not mandatory (promulgated) until after Ascension Thursday (See: When was Baptism Mandatory?, p.18). Even worse, St. Augustine teaches the Good Thief died as a martyr, when in fact he died for his own crimes and not as a martyr for Christ:

“And one of those robbers who were hanged blasphemed him, saying: If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering, rebuked him, saying: Neither dost thou fear God, seeing; thou art under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly: for we receive the due reward of our deeds. But this man hath done no evil.” (Lk. 23:39-41)

The Good Thief was not killed for confessing Christ, but because of his own sins. Therefore, he was not a martyr. Upon reflection, St. Augustine changed his opinion when he refuted the Pelagians:

St. Augustine's latter teaching on Baptism, On the Soul and Its Origin 1, 11: “Besides all this, there is the circumstance, which is not incredibly reported, that the thief who then believed as he hung by the side of the crucified Lord was sprinkled, as in a most sacred baptism, with the water which issued from the wound of the Saviour's side. I say nothing of the fact that nobody can prove, since none of us knows that he had not been baptized previous to his condemnation. However, let every man take this in the sense he may prefer; only let no rule about baptism affecting the Saviour's own precept be taken from this example of the thief.”

Here, St. Augustine puts forward his new opinion that the Good Thief, indeed, could have been baptized by water, even though there is no record of it. He then speculates as to how this may have occurred:

St. Augustine, On the Soul and its Origin 3, 12: “As for the thief, although in God's judgment he might be reckoned among those who are purified [ie., as in, a second time, that is, after baptism and his fall] by the confession of martyrdom, yet you cannot tell whether he was not baptized. For, to say nothing of the opinion that he might have been sprinkled with the water which gushed at the same time with the blood out of the Lord's side, as he hung on the cross next to Him, and thus have been washed with a baptism of the most sacred kind, what if he had been baptized in prison, as in after times some under persecution were enabled privately to obtain? Or what if he had been baptized previous to his imprisonment? If, indeed, he had been, the remission of his sins which he would have received in that case from God would not have protected him from the sentence of public law, so far as appertained to the death of the body. What if, being already baptized, he had committed the crime and incurred the punishment of robbery and lawlessness, but yet received, by virtue of repentance added to his baptism, forgiveness of the sins which, though baptized, he had committed? For beyond doubt his faith and piety appeared to the Lord clearly in his heart, as they do to us in his words. If, indeed, we were to conclude that all those who have quitted life without a record of their baptism died unbaptized, we should calumniate the very apostles themselves; for we are ignorant when they were, any of them, baptized, except the Apostle Paul. If, however, we could regard as an evidence that they were really baptized the circumstance of the Lord's saying to St. Peter, “He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet,” what are we to think of the others, of whom we do not read even so much as this,--Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, Silas, Philemon, the very evangelists Mark and Luke, and innumerable others, about whose baptism we should never entertain any doubt, although we read no record of it?”

One possibility as to how the Good Thief was baptized, which St. Augustine did not consider, is, in my opinion, the true one. St. Augustine touches upon a profound truth that has not yet been infallibly defined by a pope, that being, all men must be baptized by water before they can enter heaven, even the Old Testament Elect who waited in Limbo of the Fathers. Therefore, the Good Thief, indeed, was baptized by water, along with the Old Testament Elect, sometime within the 40 days after our Lord's Resurrection and before His Ascension. (See: Baptism of the Old Testament Elect, p.67)

In the same work, St. Augustine teaches that there are no accidents in the eyes of God, and God is all-powerful. Therefore, if a man is among the predestined, the elect, God will get him whatever he needs before he dies, which first-and-foremost is sacramental baptism by water.

St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)

In other works, St. Augustine again teaches that the predestined, the elect, will not be permitted by God to die and go to judgment without having received the sacramental baptism by water.

St. Augustine: “Not one of the elect and predestined perishes, regardless of his age at death. Never be it said that a man predestined to life would be permitted to end his life without the sacrament of the Mediator. Because, of these men, Our Lord says: ‘This is the will of the Father, that I should lose nothing of what he has given me.’” (Against Julian 5, 4)

St. Augustine: “As, therefore, that one man [Christ] was predestinated to be our Head, so we being many are predestinated to be His members. Here let human merits which have perished through Adam keep silence, and let that grace of God reign which reigns through Jesus Christ our Lord, the only Son of God, the one Lord. Let whoever can find in our Head the merits which preceded that peculiar generation, seek in us His members for those merits which preceded our manifold regeneration. For that generation was not recompensed to Christ, but given; that He should be born, namely, of the Spirit and the Virgin, separate from all entanglement of sin. Thus also our being born again of water and the Spirit is not recompensed to us for any merit, but freely given; and if faith has brought us to the laver of regeneration, we ought not therefore to suppose that we have first given anything, so that the regeneration of salvation should be recompensed to us again; because He made us to believe in Christ, who made for us a Christ on whom we believe. He makes in men the beginning and the completion of the faith in Jesus who made the man Jesus the beginner and finisher of faith; for thus, as you know, He is called in the epistle which is addressed to the Hebrews.” (The Predestination of the Saints, 31)

St. Prosper of Aquitaine, taking up were St. Augustine left of, teaches the same:

St. Prosper of Aquitaine: “For in this respect they are in the same condition as the greatest sinners; regenerated in baptism they are alike in sanctity; take away baptism, and they perish all together. It is a fact then, that grace seeks its adopted sons even among the worse sinners in their very last moments, and that many who looked less wicked are denied this gift. But who could say that these facts escape God’s ruling or that He decrees them without a profound justice? ...It is obvious that all who die without baptism are lost.” (The Call of All Nations 1, 17; 2, 24)

“No man attains to eternal life without the sacrament of baptism.” (Answers to the Gauls 9)

The last consideration is, the great saints could not theologically explain baptism of desire and blood for catechumens. Most never even attempted to do so, because they knew the dilemmas it posed. Until this is done, there is a serious threat to related dogmas for those who hold the opinions of baptism of desire or blood when they attempt to theologically explain them. (See: “Dilemmas: Baptism of Desire and Blood,” p.14) Until a future pope resolves this dispute, let all Catholics be about the primary business of the Church:

“Going therefore, teach ye all nations: Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” - Saint Matthew 28:19

March 10, 2003
Baptism of Blood
Question/Statement:
An unbaptized catechumen who dies as a martyr is baptized in his own blood, which justifies and saves him. This has been a teaching of the Church from the earliest times, and is found in the Roman Martyrology and other histories of the saints.

RJMI Answer:
If an unbaptized catechumen who dies as a martyr can be justified and saved, commonly known as baptism of blood, it is not the catechumen's blood that justifies him. A mere man's blood cannot sanctify anything. Only the Most Precious Blood of Jesus Christ sanctifies souls. “Jesus Christ... who hath loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood.” (Apoc. 1:5) Therefore, baptism of blood would actually be baptism of desire, in that such a death proves a true perfect love of God, and this perfect love of God is what would remit his sins. The early saints, before 392, who believed in baptism of blood referred to it as such and not as baptism of desire, because they believed the unbaptized catechumen who dies can only be sanctified by shedding his blood for Christ. They did not believe in baptism of desire, as it is commonly understood, that being, an unbaptized catechumen who does not die as a martyr can be justified and saved. Baptism of desire, as commonly understood, was first mentioned by St. Ambrose in 392. (See: “St. Ambrose First Mentioned Baptism of Desire,” p.39)

The term “baptism of blood” is also used to mean the martyrdom of an already baptized Catholic. This act of a baptized Catholic who sheds his blood for the name of Christ expiates all his sins and temporal punishment due to sin and allows him to directly enter heaven without going to purgatory. Jesus Christ, although already baptized by water, refers to another baptism he must undergo. "And Jesus said to them: You know not what you ask. Can you drink of the chalice that I drink of: or be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized? But they said to him: We can. And Jesus saith to them: You shall indeed drink of the chalice that I drink of: and with the baptism wherewith I am baptized, you shall be baptized:" (Mark 10:38-39) This baptism refers to His blood martyrdom on the Cross not the sacrament of baptism. The Sacrament of Confirmation is also referred to as baptism of fire. (See: “Other Baptisms,” p.20)

From the early days of the Church, some saints believed baptism of blood sanctifies the soul of an unbaptized catechumen who dies as a martyr. However, other saints did not believe in baptism of blood or desire. (See: “Saints and Baptism,” p.27) And most importantly, no pope in-or-out of Council infallibly defined it, nor even mentioned the words “baptism of blood” or its equivalent in any bulls or encyclicals, fallible or infallible.

Roman Martyrology, Lives of the Saints, etc., are not infallible

The Roman Martyrology, histories of the lives of the saints, sermons, and commentaries in Breviaries are not infallible. They have been corrected many times, which is one proof they are not infallible. One proof is Clement of Alexandria (+ c.215). Clement had been honored in the Roman Martyrology as a saint until the 17th century when Pope Clement VIII removed him from the Roman Martyrology for grave suspicion of heresy after examining Clement's writings:
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Clement of Alexandria, 1908: “Clement has had no notable influence on the course of theology beyond his personal influence on the young Origen. His writings were occasionally copied, as by Hippolytus in his ‘Chronicon’, by Arnobius, and by Theodoret of Cyrus. St. Jerome admired his learning. Pope Gelasius in the catalogue attributed to him mentions Clement's works, but adds, ‘they are in no case to be received amongst us’. Photius in the ‘Bibliotheca’ censures a list of errors drawn from his writings, but shows a kindly feeling towards Clement, assuming that the original text had been tampered with. Clement has in fact been dwarfed in history by the towering grandeur of the great Origen, who succeeded him at Alexandria. Down to the seventeenth century he was venerated as a saint. His name was to be found in the martyrologies, and his feast fell on the fourth of December. But when the Roman Martyrology was revised by Pope Clement VIII (1592-1605) his name was dropped from the calendar on the advice of Cardinal Baronius. Benedict XIV maintained this decision of his predecessor on the grounds that Clement's life was little known, that he had never obtained public cultus in the Church, and that some of his doctrines were, if not erroneous, at least suspect.”

The Mass prayers are more official than the Roman Martyrology and Lives of the Saints, and the Mass prayers all teach the necessity of sacramental baptism by water to sanctify souls with no exceptions mentioned for baptism of desire or blood:

Roman Missal, Good Friday Liturgy, Prayer For the Catechumens: “Let us pray for our catechumens: ...that having received, by the laver of regeneration, the remission of all their sins, they also may abide in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Holy Saturday Liturgy, The Blessing of the Font, From three prayers: “Almighty and eternal God, look mercifully on the devotion of the people coming to a new birth, who like the hart pant after the fountain of Thy waters; mercifully grant that the thirst of their faith may, by the sacrament of baptism, sanctify their souls and bodies... send forth the spirit of adoption to regenerate the new people, whom the font of baptism brings forth... Here may the stains of all sins be washed out... that all who receive this sacrament of regeneration, may be born again...” Nicene Creed: “I believe in one baptism for he remission of sins.”

In the martyrologies and lives of the saints there were less than 20 martyrs mentioned as being sanctified by blood martyrdom out of the eleven million martyrs that died during the first centuries of the Church. A very feasible case can be made for these supposed blood baptisms that they were baptized by water some time before they died. Just because there is no record of baptism by water does not mean they did not receive it. There is no record of the Apostles’ baptisms. That does not mean they were not baptized by water. The following book by Br. Robert Mary[13] explains this:

The Truth about Salvation, Br. Robert Mary M.I.C.M., starting on page 173: “We will now examine the historical evidence put forth by those who claim that "baptism of blood" is a substitute for, even superior to, the sacrament of Baptism. This evidence is found in the many writings that have been handed down to us over the centuries as recorded in various martyrologies, acts of the martyrs, lives of the saints and similar sources. The most concise information on martyrs is found in martyrologies. The present Roman Martyrology is a catalogue of saints honored by the Church, not only those martyred for the Faith. It first appeared in 1584, and was derived from ancient martyrologies that existed in the fourth century, plus official and nonofficial records taken from acts of the martyrs that date back to the second century. It has been revised several times since its first compilation. When he was assigned to revise the ancient accounts, Saint Robert Bellarmine himself had to be restrained from overly skeptical editorial deletions.

“As the reader studies the extracts presented below, he should bear in mind several important considerations: First, it was not the intent of those who first reported the circumstances of the deaths of the martyrs to provide information from which "baptismal register" could later be compiled. If the chronicler makes no mention of the martyr's Baptism, it does not necessarily mean that he was never baptized. As case point is Saint Patrick. He was not a martyr, but his Baptism was never recorded. Yet, we know positively that he received the sacrament since he was a bishop. “Next, even if a chronicler states positively that a martyr had not been baptized, it should not be understood to mean that he was "not recorded" as having been baptized. In those times especially, no person could hope to know with certainty that another had not been baptized.
“Third, if the chronicler says that a martyr was "baptized in his own blood", this does not automatically preclude prior reception of the sacrament by water. When Christ referred to His coming Passion as a "Baptism", He had already been baptized by Saint John in the Jordan. Note, in that regard, this quote from Saint John Damascene: "These things were well understood by our holy and inspired fathers-thus, they strove, after Holy Baptism, to keep...spotless and undefiled. Whence some of them also thought fit to receive yet another Baptism: I mean that which is by blood and martyrdom." (Barlaam and Josaphat, St. John Damascene)

“Fourth, "baptism of blood" should be understood as the greatest act of love of God that a man can make. God rewards it with direct entrance into heaven for those who are already baptized and in the Church: no purgatory-it is a perfect confession. If it were capable of substituting for any sacrament, it would be the sacrament of Penance, because Penance does not oblige with a necessity of means, but precept only.
“In the book "Church History", Father John Laux, M.A., writes: ‘If he [the Christian] was destined to lose his life, he had been taught that martyrdom was a second Baptism, which washed away every stain, and that the soul of the martyr was secure in immediate admission to the perfect happiness of heaven.’
“Fifth, when a martyr is referred to as a ‘catechumen,’ it does not always mean he was not yet baptized. A catechumen was a person learning the Faith, as a student in a class called a catechumenate, under a teacher called a catechist. That students continued in their class even after they were baptized is confirmed conclusively by these words of Saint Ambrose to his catechumens: ‘I know very well that many things still have to be explained. It may strike you as strange that you were not given a complete teaching on the sacraments before you were baptized. However, the ancient discipline of the Church forbids us to reveal the Christian mysteries to the uninitiated. For the full meaning of the sacraments cannot be grasped without the light which they themselves shed in your hearts.’ (On the Mysteries and on the Sacraments, Saint Ambrose)

“Sixth, in those days, a formal Baptism was a very impressive ceremony conducted by the bishop. However, the Church has always taught that, in case of necessity, any person of either sex who has reached the use of reason, Catholic or non-Catholic, may baptize by using the correct words and intending to do what the Church intends to be done by the sacrament. Therefore, in the early Church, baptized Christians and unbaptized catechumens were instructed to administer the sacrament to each other, if and as needed, whenever persecutions broke out.
“Seventh, salvation was made possible for us men when, on the Cross on Calvary, Our Lord Jesus Christ sacrificed His Sacred Body and Blood in atonement for our sins. Hence, a man is saved, not by sacrificing his own human blood, but by the sacrifice of the Most Precious Divine Blood of Our Holy Savior.
“Let us put it another way: In our opinion, the absolutely certain remission of original sin and incorporation into Christ and His Church are accomplished only by the water to which, alone, Christ has given that power. A man's blood has no such power. Martyrdom is the greatest act of love of God a man can make, but it cannot substitute for the sacrament of Baptism.

“With these thoughts in mind, let us now examine the evidence presented as ‘proof’ of the theory of 'baptism of blood.'

“Saint Alphonsus Maria de Liguori tells us that there were approximately eleven million martyrs in the first centuries of the Church's history. Of these eleven million, and thousands of other martyrdoms which have since been recorded, we know of just a mere handful of instance-fewer than twenty--in which the martyrs were reputed to have died without Baptism. In not one of these cases is it possible to conclude positively that these persons were never baptized. “We will study briefly the few martyrdoms, of which we have knowledge, where the circumstances of the martyr's death are cited as ‘proof’ of 'baptism of blood.' Our source books are primarily ‘The Roman Martyrology’ (which, for brevity, we will also call Martyrology) and Father Alban Butler's ‘Lives of the Saints.’

“January 23, A.D 304-Saint Emerentiana

Martyrology: ‘At Rome, the holy virgin and martyr, St. Emerentiana, being yet a catechumen, she was stoned to death by the heathens while praying at the tomb of St. Agnes, her foster sister.’

Butler: ‘She suffered about the year 304...She is said in her acts to have been stoned, whilst only a catechumen, praying at the tomb of St. Agnes.’

“First, we must take notice of Butler's prefatory remarks concerning the martyrdom of Emerentiana's foster sister, St. Agnes, commemorated on January 21: ‘The following relation is taken from Prudentious...and other fathers. Her [Agnes] acts are as ancient as the seventh century; but not sufficiently authentic; nor are those given us in Chaldaic by Stephen Assemani of a better stamp. They contradict St. Ambrose and Prudentious in supposing that she finished her martyrdom by fire.’

“According to Saint Ambrose, Prudentius and Father Butler, Saint Agnes was beheaded. Others had said she was burned to death. Our point is that not all of the information given in the martyrdom narratives is necessarily accurate, consistent, or complete. Therefore, we have every right to question any particular narrative. Our sole purpose is to protect the words of Christ and the doctrines of the Church, our infallible guide to truth. “Let us consider the circumstances of the death of Saint Emerentiana: She was martyred in about A.D. 304 during the last great Roman persecution begun by the emperor Diocletian in March, 303. She went-"with her mother," one menology states-to the grave of her foster sister, Saint Agnes, to pray. Agnes had been martyred about one year previously and was buried a small distance outside the walls of Rome. That the grave was located in a relatively public area, and that the identity of the person buried there was well known, are indicated by the fact that, when Emerentiana was seen praying, a crowd gathered, not all of whom were necessarily pagans.

“Father Laux reports that, by the year A.D. 250: "The Christians formed at this time about one third of the population of the Empire." It is reasonable, then, to estimate that by the year A.D. 304, perhaps one half of the empire was Christian.... “Neither the Martyrology nor Butler say anything about Emerentiana having been baptized. They identify her as a catechumen, which liberals consistently assume is proof that she was not baptized. The Catholic Encyclopedia, for instance, states: "...while praying at St. Agnes's grave she was stoned to death by the pagan mob, thus receiving the baptism of blood." The final phrase is the editor's opinion. He clearly implies that the Saint was never baptized.

“We cannot provide factual proof that Emerentiana was baptized, but we know with absolute conviction, by the truths of our Faith, that she must have received the sacrament of Baptism before her death. How? Consider these very reasonable possibilities: “First, Diocletians's persecution had been underway for over one year. It was the worst ever. Its purpose was to completely obliterate the religion of Christ. It is very possible that Emerentiana was baptized, alone with the other catechumens in her instruction class, as soon as the persecution broke out.

“Next, to pray in public at the grave of a known Christian was to place oneself in extreme danger. Apprehension meant certain death. Realizing this, and knowing the importance of Baptism, Emerentiana would have sought it before going to the grave, if she had not already received it.

“Finally, if neither of the above occurred, it is possible that a Christian onlooker, perhaps even her own mother, baptized her after the stoning but before her soul left her body, or that the Christians who retrieved her body did so later, for all Christians knew that a person is not dead until the soul departs from the body, and God alone determines that moment.

“We know Saint Emerentiana is in heaven because the Church has told us so. And by our Faith, we know she was baptized by someone, for the same Church has told us that no one can enter heaven without first having been "born again of water and the Holy Ghost.”

Br. Robert Mary deals with the other supposed sanctifications by blood martyrdom in his book and shows how they could have been baptized by water before they died. He explains the martyrdoms of, Saint Emerentiana, The Forty Martyrs of Sebaste, Saint Victor of Braga, Saint Adralion, Saints Donatian and Rogatian, Saint Alban Protomartyr of England, Saint Pluarch and Seven Companions, Saint Genesius of Rome, Saint Gelasinus, Saint Genesius of Arles, Saint Porphry, and Saints Fausta and Evliasius, and how each could have easily received the Sacrament of Baptism in which water must be used, even if miraculously.

St. Augustine brings up this very possibility in his latter opinion that the Good Thief could very well have been baptized by water, and just because there is no record that a man was baptized does not mean he was not baptized.

St. Augustine, On the Soul and its Origin 3, 12: “As for the thief, although in God's judgment he might be reckoned among those who are purified [ie., as in, a second time, that is, after baptism and his fall] by the confession of martyrdom, yet you cannot tell whether he was not baptized. For, to say nothing of the opinion that he might have been sprinkled with the water which gushed at the same time with the blood out of the Lord's side, as he hung on the cross next to Him, and thus have been washed with a baptism of the most sacred kind, what if he had been baptized in prison, as in after times some under persecution were enabled privately to obtain? or what if he had been baptized previous to his imprisonment? If, indeed, he had been, the remission of his sins which he would have received in that case from God would not have protected him from the sentence of public law, so far as appertained to the death of the body. What if, being already baptized, he had committed the crime and incurred the punishment of robbery and lawlessness, but yet received, by virtue of repentance added to his baptism, forgiveness of the sins which, though baptized, he had committed? For beyond doubt his faith and piety appeared to the Lord clearly in his heart, as they do to us in his words. If, indeed, we were to conclude that all those who have quitted life without a record of their baptism died unbaptized, we should calumniate the very apostles themselves; for we are ignorant when they were, any of them, baptized, except the Apostle Paul. If, however, we could regard as an evidence that they were really baptized the circumstance of the Lord's saying to St. Peter, “He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet,” what are we to think of the others, of whom we do not read even so much as this,--Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, Silas, Philemon, the very evangelists Mark and Luke, and innumerable others, about whose baptism we should never entertain any doubt, although we read no record of it?”

A last consideration is, if one can be saved without baptism by water, then why the need for miraculous baptisms by water? (See: “Miraculous Baptisms,” p.41)

July 15, 2002

St. Ambrose First Mentioned Baptism of Desire

Question/Statement:
In 392, St. Ambrose said the non-sacramentally baptized catechumen, Emperor Valentinian II, had received baptism of desire before he died. Thus, baptism of desire must be believed.

RJMI Answer:

This is the earliest piece of evidence used by those who hold the opinion of baptism of desire for catechumens who did not die as martyrs. This is not to be confused with baptism of blood (martyrdom of a catechumen), which was taught by some saints previous to this.

The first time baptism of desire was spoken of was by St. Ambrose in the 4th century during his funeral oration for Emperor Valentinian II. Previous to this no one publicly taught that the desire to be baptized could sanctify a soul. All the priests, laymen, and probably all the bishops believed that an unbaptized catechumen who did not die a martyr could not be sanctified or saved. Therefore, the opinion of baptism of desire is not in conformity with what was taught always, everywhere, and by everyone, because for the first 392 years of the Church it wasn’t taught by anyone. This is also proven by the fact that unbaptized catechumens, who did not die as martyrs, were not allowed to be buried in the Church and be prayed for as faithfully departed.

“The Catholic Encyclopedia,” 1914, Baptism: “IX NECESSITY OF BAPTISM - ...A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere. St. Ambrose may have done so for the soul of the catechumen Valentinian, but this would be a solitary instance, and it was done apparently because he believed that the emperor had had the baptism of desire. The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga: ‘Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without the redemption of baptism.’ The arguments for a contrary usage sought in the Second Council of Aries (c. xii) and the Fourth Council of Carthage (c. Ixxix) are not to the point, for these councils speak, not of catechumens, but of penitents who had died suddenly before their expiation was completed.”

Before St. Ambrose's funeral oration for Valentinian II, there was no custom in the Church for burying unbaptized catechumens, who did not die as martyrs, in the Church or praying for them as faithfully departed--“there is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere.” This was a “solitary instance,” a new statement and practice allowed by St. Ambrose. This is also proven by the grieving Catholics at the funeral of Valentinian, as mentioned by St. Ambrose in the opening words of his oration. “But I hear you grieve because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism.” Why were the people grieving? Because they believed Valentinian did not receive the sacrament of baptism, and they were all taught and firmly believed that unbaptized catechumens who died not as martyrs could not be saved. St. Ambrose then went on to say:

St. Ambrose, Funeral Oration for Valentinian II, 392: “But I hear you grieve because he did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism... Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for?...Certainly, because he asked for it, he obtained it... His pious desire has absolved him.”[14]

St. Ambrose, touched by sentiments for his close friend Valentinian and his family whom he sought to console, offered a un-foreknown hope of justification and salvation by baptism of desire for Valentinian.

Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Fr. Sylvester Hunter S.J.: “This doctrine that Baptism of Desire may suffice for salvation when the true Sacrament is unattainable, may be illustrated from the discourse delivered in the year 392 by St. Ambrose at Milan, on occasion of the funeral of the Emperor Valentinian II. ...St. Ambrose, preached a beautiful discourse, to console the family of the victim.” (p. 225)

The History of Dogmas, Tixeront: “Outside the case of martyrdom and also, as St. Ambrose thinks and hopes, that of a sincere desire of receiving baptism, the baptism of water was deemed absolutely necessary for salvation.” (Vol. 2, p. 310)

In attempting to “console” the family St. Ambrose “thinks and hopes” for the possibility of baptism of desire for Valentinian. This hope is new to Catholics, St. Ambrose included. This is proven because St. Ambrose’s official teaching on the matter clearly contradicts the words of his funeral oration. In his official teachings he never mentioned any exceptions for baptism of desire or blood, while clearly teaching the absolute necessity of the sacramental baptism by water in all cases.

St. Ambrose: “One is the Baptism which the Church administers: the Baptism of water and the Holy Ghost, with which catechumens need to be baptized... Nor does the mystery of regeneration exist at all without water: “For unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom “ (John 3:5). Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot receive remission of his sins nor the gift of spiritual grace.”(De Mysteriis, chap 4, no. 20; The Divine Office)

The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1914, “Baptism”: “IX NECESSITY OF BAPTISM: ...St. Ambrose (II De Abraham., c. xi) speaking of the necessity of baptism, says: "No one is excepted, not the infant, not the one hindered by any necessity."

St. Ambrose was looked upon as one of the strictest regarding the necessity of the sacrament of baptism for justification and salvation. We read from Père Migne, the renowned patrologist, “From among the Catholic Fathers perhaps no one insists more than Ambrose on the absolute necessity of receiving baptism.” Therefore, we have a clear contradiction between St. Ambrose's official teachings as opposed to his funeral oration for Valentinian. The most that can be said by those who use St. Ambrose's funeral oration to defend baptism of desire, is that they have one piece of evidence that is clearly contradicted by St. Ambrose's official teachings on the matter, while not being able to produce earlier evidence from other saints. Indeed, that is a weak leg to stand on, and as far from infallible as you can get.

For more proof that baptism of desire has no link with early tradition see, (See: “Miraculous Baptisms,” and go to “St. Martin Tours,” p.42.)

July 15, 2002
Miraculous Baptisms
Question/Statement:

There is no urgency to baptize an adult catechumen with the use of reason, for even if he dies without being baptized by water he shall receive baptism of desire.

RJMI Answer:
Firstly, even if baptism of desire is true that is a presumptuous statement. Because the adult catechumen does not just need the desire to be baptized but also needs perfect contrition (love of God) and that is what would grant him the grace of baptism, and that is not such an easy thing to have.[15] An adult catechumen who dies without being baptized by water and without perfect contrition would not receive the grace of baptism (baptism of desire) and thus would be damned to hell. (See: “The Catechism of Trent on Baptism,” p.54)
Secondly, miraculous baptisms are convincing proof that water baptism is necessary for all. If water baptism is not necessary, and baptism of desire or blood could suffice, then there would be no need for miraculous baptisms.

St. Peter's Miraculous Fountain
St. Peter miraculously baptizes martyrs before their execution
In the Eternal City, Rome, St. Peter was chained to a pillar in Mamertine prison. From this pillar he baptized two of his guards who converted, Ss. Processus and Martinian, with water that miraculously sprung up from the ground within hands distance from St. Peter. These guards were also jailed with St. Peter and were to undergo execution the next day. God had miraculously supplied the water so that St. Peter could baptize these two martyrs with water. This is convincing proof that baptismal water is necessary, even for martyrs, and that God will supply it to all who are worthy. There is no obstacle that God cannot overcome to make water available to a worthy candidate. St. Martin of Tours
Raised a catechumen from the dead and baptized him.
Life of St. Martin, by Sulpitius Severus (363-420): “Chapter VII. Martin restores a Catechumen to Life - ...after the lapse only of a few days, the catechumen, seized with a languor, began to suffer from a violent fever. It happened that Martin had then left home, and having remained away three days, he found on his return that life had departed from the catechumen; and so suddenly had death occurred, that he had left this world without receiving baptism. The body being laid out in public was being honored by the last sad offices on the part of the mourning brethren, when Martin hurries up to them with tears and lamentations. But, then laying hold, as it were, of the Holy Spirit, with the whole powers of his mind, he orders the others to quit the cell in which the body was lying; and bolting the door, he stretches himself at full length on the dead limbs of the departed brother... he then rose up for little, and gazing on the countenance of the deceased, he waited without misgiving for the result of his prayer and of the mercy of the Lord. And scarcely had the space of two hours elapsed, when he saw the dead man begin to move a little in all his members, and to tremble with his eyes opened for the practice of sight… those who had been standing at the door immediately rush inside. And truly a marvelous spectacle met them, for they beheld the man alive whom they had formerly left dead. Thus being restored to life, and having immediately obtained baptism, he lived for many years afterwards... The same man was wont to relate that, when he left the body, he was brought before the tribunal of the Judge, and being assigned to gloomy regions and vulgar crowds, he received a severe [ed. Footnote 4 by translator below] sentence. Then, however, he added, it was suggested by two angels of the Judge that he was the man for whom Martin was praying; and that, on this account, he was ordered to be led back by the same angels, and given up to Martin, and restored to his former life.”

Some very important lessons are learned in the above facts. The catechumen who died without receiving the sacrament of baptism was ready to be damned to hell, but due to St. Martin's prayers God suspended his particular judgment and allowed the catechumen to be restored to life in order to be baptized by water. The question is “If the desire to be baptized could have sufficed to justify the catechumen-as it was obviously God's will to sanctify this catechumen—then why the need to raise him from the dead so that he could be baptized with water?” The below commentary by the translator, regarding the damning sentence awaiting the dead catechumen, proves that in the days of St. Martin there was not the faintest idea of baptism of desire. The commentator questions the absolute need of the sacrament of baptism by his use of the word “supposed,” in footnote 4 and questions the damning sentence of this catechumen.

Life of St. Martin, commentary, Footnote 4: “Here again it is to be noted what fatal consequences were supposed to flow from dying without receiving baptism.”

The commentator admits that Catholics, during the time of St. Martin, supposed those who died without receiving the sacrament of baptism were damned, proving laymen had no concept of baptism of desire or blood. The translator goes on to admit in another commentary that St. Martin, as well as several early Fathers did not believe in baptism of desire or blood.

Life of St. Martin, chap. II, p. 5: “During nearly three years before his baptism [St. Martin's], he was engaged in the profession of arms, but he kept completely free from those vices in which that class of men become too frequently involved… the whole body of comrades… loved him. Although not yet made a new creature [Footnote 5 by translator].”

Footnote 5: “Sulpitius manifestly refers to baptism in these words. However mistakenly, several others of the early Fathers held that regeneration does not take place before baptism, and that baptism is, in fact, absolutely necessary to regeneration.”

The commentator admits that several of the early Fathers did not believe baptism of desire or blood; thus, water baptism was necessary for all. Baptism of desire was alien to Catholic priests and laymen at the time of St. Martin. The problem is that Catholics in the days of St. Martin had no concept of baptism of desire, so where is the link with the early tradition of the Church? There were always those in the Church who believed the Blessed Virgin Mary had no stain of sin whatsoever in her life and so the Immaculate Conception has a link with tradition. No such link exists with baptism of desire. (See: “St. Ambrose First Mentioned Baptism of Desire,” p.39.)

There are many other historical accounts of miraculous baptisms. These two accounts suffice to prove the point that if baptism by water were not necessary, and baptism of desire or blood are true, then there would be no need for these miraculous baptisms.

June 20, 2002

The Catechumen and Perfect Contrition

The theological virtue of faith is infused into a soul at the moment of its sanctification and not previous to it. How can an unbaptized catechumen have a perfect love of God if he does not yet have a perfect faith in God, the object of his love? A catechumen asks for this type of faith, the theological virtue of faith, previous to his baptism during “The Questioning”:

“Priest. N., what dost thou ask of the Church of God? R. Faith.”

An unbaptized catechumen does not have the theological virtue of faith, and only by this virtue can he then have a perfect faith in God, and only then can he perfectly love God.

Fr. Peter Scott, trying to theologically resolve this dilemma, has fallen into heresy on this point. (See: Exurge Michael, Journal #5, Peter Scott's Hypocrisy, Heresy, and Schism, p. 23) Fr. Scott taught that the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity are first infused into the catechumen before his sanctification, thus enabling him to make a perfect act of love, have perfect contrition for his sins, and thus be sanctified.

Father Peter R. Scott, District Superior, Society of Saint Pius X, District of the United States of America, Regina Coeli House, May 1, 2001,: “God ...by infusing a supernatural Faith in the Church's teachings, a supernatural hope for God's mercy, a supernatural charity and the perfect contrition for all sin.”

That is heresy, because, if baptism of desire is true, it is perfect contrition that sanctifies (justifies) the soul and only then is the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity infused into a soul.

Council of Trent, on Justification, chap 7; D. 800: “In justification man receives simultaneously with the remission of sins all three virtues of faith, hope, and charity, which are infused by Jesus Christ in him whom He is implanted. This faith, in accordance with apostolic tradition, catechumens beg of the Church before the sacrament of baptism...”

Upon the catechumen's remission of sins (justification) he is also infused with the theological virtues and not prior to it. We are left with a dilemma that no saint has been able to theologically resolve. Can an unsanctified catechumen who does not possess the theological virtue of faith make a perfect act of love being he does not yet have a perfect faith in God, the object of his love?

June 1, 2002
The Councils, including Trent, on Baptism
Question/Statement:
Baptism of desire was infallibly defined for the first time at the Council of Trent in the 16th century.

RJMI Answer:
Trent's Session VI, Chapter 4, On Justification
Some saints have based their opinion of baptism of desire on what they believe was infallibly taught in the Council of Trent’s Session VI, Chapter 4, on Justification. This is the only piece of infallible evidence they believe defends their opinion of baptism of desire, and it stands on weak ground. All the other Councils and infallible decrees from popes teach of the absolute necessity of the sacrament of baptism in which water must be used with no exceptions mentioned for baptism of desire or blood. Below is the proper translation of this decree. The one in Denzinger is faulty.

The Council of Trent, Sess. VI, Ch 4, On Justification, Jan. 13, 1547: “By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the vow thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”

And/Or and The Two Types of Candidates

There are two distinctly different candidates who are baptized, catechumens with the use of reason and infants and adults without the use of reason. We will look at these two groups and how this sentence from Trent, “without the laver of regeneration or the vow thereof” relates to each.

1) Catechumens with the use of reason: The “or” means “and” in that both conditions are necessary. Just as if I was to say, “You cannot confect the sacraments without the proper form, matter, or intention.” The “or” in this case is easily understood to mean “and,” meaning the intention is also necessary along with the form and matter. Without the vow/desire/intention of the catechumen to get baptized, even if the sacrament is administered properly, justification does not take place. The catechumen with the use of reason needs both the laver and the vow/desire/intention to be justified.

Catechism of Trent, Dispositions for Baptism: “[Intention] The faithful are to be instructed in the necessary disposition for Baptism. In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it. ...Hence we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. ...[Faith] Besides a wish to be baptized, in order to obtain the grace of the Sacrament, faith is also necessary.”
2) Infants or adults without the use of reason: These cannot vow (desire) to be baptized. In this case “or” means “or” in that only one condition is necessary, that being the laver of regeneration.
The above decree in Trent on justification refers to both of these candidates, and wisely takes this into consideration with the prudent use of the word “or.” If “and” was used, meaning both conditions are necessary for all, then all those baptized without the use of reason would be disqualified because they cannot meet the second condition; they cannot vow (desire) to be baptized.
The last sentence in this decree, “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,” proves this point. Does the “and” mean “and” in that both conditions must be met, or does the “and” mean “or” in that only one of the conditions must be met?

A) If you answer, “and” means “and” in that both conditions must be met, then baptism by water is absolutely necessary to receive the Holy Spirit and enter the kingdom of God and my opinion is defended.

B) If you do not believe water is necessary in every case, then you would have to believe the “and” means “or” in that only one condition needs to be met for sanctification (justification) by the Holy Spirit, while excluding the water. That being so, it would be hypocritical to question our right to say the “or” in the preceding sentence, “without the laver of regeneration or the vow thereof,” means “and” in that both conditions must be met for those with the use of reason, and it means “or” in that only one condition needs to be met, the laver of regeneration, for those without the use of reason.

The infallible Councils of Vienne and Florence verifies my opinion that water is always needed.

The Council of Vienne, 1311-1312, Decrees: “1. ...All are faithfully to profess that there is one baptism which regenerates all those baptized in Christ, just as there is one God and one faith. We believe that when baptism is administered in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, it is a perfect means of salvation for both adults and children.”

The Council of Florence, Decree for the Armenians, Bull Exultate Deo, Nov. 22, 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 into 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.’ The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.” (D. 696)

The Councils of Vienne and Florence took place 37 and 165 years after St. Thomas Aquinas died who defended his opinion on baptism of desire in his “Summa.” Yet, these Councils did not mention any exceptions for baptism of desire and blood. I am not saying exceptions cannot exist, but they were never mentioned in any infallible decree from a Council before or after Trent, and as I have just proven it does not exist in Trent either. Also, no pope ever mentioned the exceptions of baptism of desire and blood in any bulls or encyclicals, precisely because the theological dilemmas that threaten related dogmas have not been resolved.

The canons at the end of each session specifically re-state in a more emphatic manner the most important infallible points made within that session. If baptism of desire is true, then this would certainly be an important exception that Trent was infallibly defining for the first time. Why, then, do we not see it ratified in the canons on Justification in session VI or any other canons in Trent? In these canons there is no mention of baptism of desire and blood whatsoever. The only canons that specifically deal with baptism are found in the canons on baptism in session VII, and these canons teach the absolute necessity of sacrament of baptism in which water must be used with no mention of any exceptions for desire or blood whatsoever.

The Council of Trent, Canons on Baptism: “Canon 5. If anyone shall say that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema.”

The Council of Trent, Canons on Baptism: “Canon 2. If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.”

Is it Desire, Vow, or Perfect Contrition?

The word used in Trent Session VI Chapter 4 on Justification is “vow” (voto) not “desire” (desidero)--“without the laver of regeneration, or the vow thereof.” This rules out the possibility of sanctifying grace being conferred by an implicit desire. A vow is an explicit act.

Webster's Dictionary: “Vow 1. a solemn promise or pledge; especially, one made to God.”

Therefore, this can only apply to catechumens who know of the sacrament of baptism, are desiring and preparing to be baptized, and then must vow to receive it just prior to receiving the sacrament. Below is the vow a catechumen must take just prior to receiving the sacrament of baptism.

4) N..........wilt thou be baptized?

A. I will
Without this explicit vow from those with the use of reason, at least in their hearts, even if the sacrament is received (laver of regeneration), there is no sanctification--they do not receive the grace of the sacrament.

Also, for those who believe the Council of Trent teaches baptism of desire there is a major theological problem with the use of the word “vow” or as some wrongly interpret it, the word “desire.” A desire or vow does not sanctify anyone, and the saints never taught it did. The saints who believed in baptism of desire taught that it was perfect contrition, a perfect love of God that sanctifies the soul not the vow or desire.

St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori: “#95. Baptism of blood... is martyrdom... baptism of the spirit is contrition with the promise to be baptized, or the desire thereof, but these are not sacraments... 96. ...Baptism of the spirit... is the perfect conversion to God through contrition, or through the love of God above all...” (Moral Theology, Bk. 6, tr. II, ch. I)

St. Thomas, while mentioning the necessity of the desire, also teaches the necessity of faith, of charity (love of God), which enables perfect sorrow for sins (perfect contrition), and it is this that would sanctify a soul if baptism of desire is true.

St. Thomas Aquinas: “I Answer That. ...the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that worketh by charity, whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly.” (Summa, III, Q. 68. art. 2.)

St. Thomas Aquinas: “...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.” (Summa, II, Q. 66, art. 11)

The saints never taught a mere desire to be baptized is sufficient to bestow the grace of baptism. They taught the candidates must also have perfect contrition, which is prefect love of God and sorrow for sins. Therefore, if Trent meant to teach the grace of baptism (sanctifying grace) can be bestowed upon certain catechumens before receiving the sacrament of baptism (baptism of desire) it should have been worded as follows:

“...This translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, or the desire to receive it accompanied with perfect contrition thereof...”

The word “vow” or “desire” is woefully deficient if it meant it could sanctify. There is absolutely no mention of the need for perfect contrition in this decree. On this point alone, along with others, we have every right to petition a future pope to settle this dispute. Infallible decrees have the special responsibility to make absolutely clear what can be taken out of context in saints' teachings. As a matter of fact, that is one of the main purposes of infallible decrees, to speak so clearly that no other view (meaning) may be taken from the words that would change the dogma's meaning. That is why I do not believe the Council of Trent teaches baptism of desire, because it does not mention the need of perfect contrition that even the saints who believed in it were careful to teach.

The same Council, Trent, teaches that a Catholic's mortal sins can be forgiven without receiving the sacrament of penance, provided the penitent desires to go to confession and has perfect contrition for his sins. Both conditions are mentioned, desire and perfect contrition. See below: “Session VII, Canons on the Sacraments in General.”

Another theological dilemma that has not been resolved is, “How can an unsanctified catechumen, who as such does not have the theological virtue of faith that is infused at the moment of sanctification and not prior to it, have a perfect love of God if he does not have a perfect faith in God, the object of his faith?” It is possible for a Catholic in mortal sin to make an act of perfect contrition (love of God) because he retains, still has, the theological virtue of faith in God, the object of his love. (See: The Catechumen and Perfect Contrition, p. 43)

Trent's Session VII, Canons on the Sacraments in General

The below canon in Trent condemns two heresies: One, the Protestant heresy that one can be justified and saved by faith alone with no need for the sacraments; Two, that one with the use of reason can be justified by the bare reception of the sacraments without also the desire to receive it.

The Council of Trent, Sess. VII, March 3, 1547, Canons on the Sacraments in General: “Canon 4: If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.”

However, there is one sacrament, penance, in which the grace and benefits of it can be obtained without actually receiving the sacrament. If a penitent Catholic desires to go to confession and has perfect contrition for his mortal sins, then his sins would be remitted before receiving the sacrament.

The Council of Trent, Session XIV, Doctrine on the Sacrament of Penance, Nov. 25, 1551, Chap. 4, on Contrition: “...The Council teaches, furthermore, that though it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation nevertheless must not be ascribed to the contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament which is included in it.” (D. 898)

Necessity of Precept and Means

In this case the grace of the sacrament of penance can be received without the actual reception of the sacrament, and that is because the sacrament of penance is only necessary as a necessity of precept, and not also as a necessity of means.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, Penance: “Penance does not oblige with a necessity of means, but precept (command) only.”

However, the sacrament of baptism is necessary as a necessity of precept and as a necessity of means. As a necessity of means, it is absolutely necessary for salvation.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1914, Baptism, IX Necessity Of Baptism: “Theologians distinguish a twofold necessity, which they call a necessity of means (medii) and a necessity of precept (praecepti), The first (medii) indicates a thing to be so necessary that, if lacking (though inculpably), salvation can not be attained, The second precept is had when a thing is indeed so necessary that it may not be omitted voluntarily without sin; yet, ignorance of the precept or inability to fulfill it, excuses one from its observance. Baptism is held to be necessary both necessitate medii and praecepti.”

Hence, we have another unresolved theological dilemma for those who believe in baptism of desire and blood. Being baptism of desire or blood is not a sacrament, is not the sacrament of baptism, “How can the sacrament of baptism be necessary as a necessity of means and not be necessary?”

June 13, 2002
Catechisms are not Infallible
Question/Statement:
Are Catechisms Infallible?

RJMI Answer:
Catechisms are not infallible, not even the great Catechism of the Council of Trent, also known as The Roman Catechism:

Introduction to The Catechism of the Council of Trent (The Roman Catechism): “...the Roman Catechism... Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de fide. (Footnote 37: A Compendium of Catech. Instruction, i. Pp. li. lii.)”[16]

Although a catechism is not infallible as a whole book, it can contain infallible teachings. The teachings in a catechism that are infallible must be rooted (found in) infallible teachings from popes. Catechisms can also contain non-infallibly defined doctrines that belong to the ordinary magisterium, and as such must be believed under pain of mortal sin. But, being catechisms are not infallible they can also contain error and even heresy. Catechisms can contain Errors

The Catechism of Trent

Revisions to Original Text
Even catechisms that are generally good can contain errors. There have been revisions to The Catechism of Trent, also known as The Roman Catechism. I will be referring to the Frs. McHugh-Callan edition, 1923.

Catechism of Trent, Introduction by John A. McHugh, O. P. and Charles J. Callan, O. P., 1923: “This translation used as its basis the Manutian text as reflected in the Maredsous edition of 1902, the fourth Roman edition of 1907 and the Turin edition of 1914. The purpose in the present version has been to reproduce the sense of the original as exactly as possible in clear, dignified, modern English.”

Catechism of Trent, The Creed, Article IX, I Believe in the Holy Catholic Church, Unity of Government: “Lastly, St. Ambrose says: Because he alone of all of them professed (Christ) he was placed above all.” [Footnote a: This quotation from St. Ambrose is not found in the earliest and best editions of the Roman Catechism; apparently the lacuna was due to a typographical mistake. The above passage has been supplied from the Roman edition of 1761.]

Therefore, the below errors and poorly worded passages that seem to be heretical may not have been in the original edition.

Seemingly Heretical: There are only Two Parts of the Church

The Roman Catechism seems to heretically teach that there are only two parts of the Church, the Church Triumphant and Church Militant, thus excluding the Church Suffering as a part of the Church, which consists of the souls in Purgatory. This would be heretical if it actually meant to deny the Church Suffering, the souls in Purgatory, but other passages in the same catechism teach of Purgatory. It would also be heretical if it meant to teach the Church Suffering is not a part of the Church.

The Catechism of Trent, Article IX, I Believe In The Holy Catholic Church; The Communion Of Saints: “The Parts of the Church – ...The Church consists principally of two parts, the one called the Church triumphant; the other, the Church militant. The Church triumphant is that most glorious and happy assemblage of blessed spirits, and of those who have triumphed over the world, the flesh, and the iniquity of Satan, and are now exempt and safe from the troubles of this life and enjoy everlasting bliss. The Church militant is the society of all the faithful still dwelling on earth. It is called militant, because it wages eternal war with those implacable enemies, the world, the flesh and the devil. We are not, however, to infer that there are two Churches. The Church triumphant and the Church militant are two constituent parts of one Church; one part going before, and now in the possession of its heavenly country; the other, following every day, until at length, united with our Saviour, it shall repose in endless felicity.”

Here we have an example of extremely bad and careless use of words. One wonders how this passage could have escaped the writer of it, and worse, those in authority who approved of the catechism.

Seemingly Heretical: No Grace Exists Outside the Church

The Church has condemned the doctrine that no grace exists outside the Catholic Church.

“Pope Clement XI, Bull Unigenitus, 1713, Condemned propositions of the Jansenist Quesnel: “29. Outside the Church, no grace is granted.” (D. 1379)

Yet, The Catechism of Trent, contrary to the above infallible condemnation, seems to teach the heresy that no grace exists outside the Catholic Church.

The Catechism of Trent, The Sacraments, The Eucharist: “For the Eucharist is the end of all the Sacraments, and the symbol of unity and brotherhood in the Church, outside which none can attain grace.”

The author of this passage in the catechism chose his words very poorly. As it stands it seems to be heretical. He could have meant two things: One, that no one can attain grace from receiving the Eucharist if they are outside the Catholic Church, although the passage is not worded to indicate that. Two, he meant sanctifying grace is not given outside the Church but actual grace is in order to effect conversions, but he did not make this distinction. Here is a good example of a very badly worded passage that should have been corrected.

The truth is that actual grace, which comes from the Catholic Church, is given to those outside the Catholic Church (non-Catholics) to effect their conversion. Whereas, sanctifying grace is given only to those inside the Catholic Church, to Catholics.

Seemingly Heretical: Only Reception of Sacraments Forgives Sins

The Council of Trent teaches a Catholic’s mortal sins can be forgiven without receiving the sacrament of penance if he has perfect contrition with the desire to go to confession.

The Council of Trent, On penance: “The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this Sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the Sacrament which is included therein.” [17]

The Catechism of Trent contradicts this teaching. It teaches only by the administration of the sacraments can sins be forgiven.

The Catechism of Trent, The Creed, The Forgiveness of Sins, Limitation of Power: “...for sins can be forgiven only though the Sacraments, when duly administered.”

Seemingly Heretical: Basic Dogmas Can be Denied without Guilt

It is an infallible truth that Catholics with the use of reason must know and believe the basic dogmas (infallible truths) of the Catholic faith with no excuses for ignorance.

St. Alphonsus Marie de Liguori: “Moreover, we are to know that there are certain articles of faith to be believed from a necessity of means; and others from a necessity of precept. The necessity of means implies that, unless we believe certain special articles, we cannot be saved.” [18]

Blessed Pope Pius X, Acerbo Nimis, April 15, 1905: “We are forced to agree with those who hold that the chief cause of the present indifference and, as it were, infirmity of soul, and the serious evils that result from it, is to be found above all in ignorance of things divine. And so, Our Predecessor Benedict XIV had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’”

If a Catholic denies just one basic dogma, by that fact alone, he is a formal heretic, excommunicated from the Church, and is no longer Catholic. However, the same does not apply to deeper dogmas. A Catholic who denies a deeper dogma may not be a formal heretic.

St. Thomas, Summa, II-II, q. 2, art. 5: “I Answer That - “...Therefore, as regards the primary points or articles of faith, man is bound to believe them, just as he is bound to have faith; but as to other points of faith, man is not bound to believe them explicitly, but only implicitly, or to be ready to believe them, in so far as he is prepared to believe whatever is contained in the Divine Scriptures. Then alone is he bound to believe such things explicitly, when it is clear to him that they are contained in the doctrine of faith.”

The Catechism of Trent does not make this distinction, thus it allows the reader to heretically believe a Catholic can deny a basic dogma, such as the divinity of Christ or the resurrection, and under certain circumstances remain Catholic, not being formally guilty because of an excuse of ignorance.

The Catechism of Trent, ARTICLE IX, I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH; THE COMMUNION OF SAINTS, The Importance Of This Article: “...For a person is not to be called a heretic as soon as he shall have offended in matters of faith; but he is a heretic who, having disregarded the authority of the Church, maintains impious opinions with pertinacity. Since, therefore, it is impossible that anyone be infected with the contagion of heresy, so long as he holds what this Article proposes to be believed, let pastors use every diligence that the faithful, having known this mystery and guarded against the wiles of Satan, may persevere in the true faith.”

A heretic who denies a basic dogma does not also have to deny the authority of the Church in order to be a heretic. To deny the authority of the Church is the sin of schism. It seems that the catechism is teaching that one cannot be a heretic until he first becomes a schismatic, and these two states, strictly speaking, can exist independent from one another.[19] Canon 1325.2 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law makes no such statement regarding denying the authority of the Church in order to be a heretic.

1917 Code of Canon Law: “c. 1325.2. One who after baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any one of the truths which must be believed de fide divina et catholica, is a heretic.”

Seeming to contradict itself, The Catechism of Trent elsewhere rightly teaches that no one with the use of reason has an excuse of ignorance if he denies a basic dogma, such as the Holy Ghost, with no mention that he must also deny the authority of the Church.

The Catechism of Trent, Creed, Art. VIII, I Believe in the Holy Ghost, Importance of this Article: “Hitherto we have expounded, as far as the nature of the subject seemed to require, what pertains to the First and Second Per sons of the Holy Trinity. It now remains to explain what the Creed contains with regard to the Third Person, the Holy Ghost.

On this subject the pastor should omit nothing that study and industry can effect; for on this Article, no less than on those that preceded, ignorance or error would be unpardonable in a Christian. Hence, the Apostle did not permit some among the Ephesians to remain in ignorance with regard to the Person of the Holy Ghost. Having asked if they had received the Holy Ghost, and having received for answer that they did not so much as know that there was a Holy, Ghost, he at once demanded: In whom, therefore, were you baptised? to signify that a distinct knowledge of this Article is most necessary to the faithful.”

This above teaching is correct. One becomes a heretic if he denies a basic dogma with no excuses for ignorance. He does not also have to deny the authority of the Church. (See: Infallibility, Heresy, and Heretics, “Basic and Deeper Dogmas.”)

Erroneous Example of Resurrection of the Body

It is a basic dogma of the Catholic faith that at the General Judgment all souls will be reunited with their bodies for eternity. The Roman Catechism teaches this truth but uses an erroneous example to try and prove this dogma by reason.

The Creed, Article XI, The Resurrection of the Body, Arguments Drawn From Reason: “The reasons also adduced by ecclesiastical writers seem well calculated to establish this truth. In the first place, as the soul is immortal, and has, as part of man, a natural propensity to be united to the body, its perpetual separation from it must be considered as unnatural. But as that which is contrary to nature and in a state of violence, cannot be permanent, it appears fitting that the soul should be reunited to the body, and consequently that the body should rise again. This argument our Saviour Himself employed, when in His disputation with the Sadducees He deduced the resurrection of the body from the immortality of the soul. (Mt. 22:23)”

This example implies that the saints who are in heaven, previous to the General Judgment, are in a “state of violence” because they do not have their bodies. The truth is they are in complete and total peace and joy. It then wrongly says Jesus supports this line of reasoning in Matthew 22:23.

“That day there came to him the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection; and asked him, Saying: Master, Moses said: If a man die having no son, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up issue to his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first having married a wife, died; and not having issue, left his wife to his brother. In like manner the second and the third and so on, to the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. At the resurrection therefore, whose wife of the seven shall she be? For they all had her. And Jesus answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married, but shall be as the angels of God in heaven.” (Mt. 22:23-30)

In this verse Jesus teaches there is a resurrection of the body, there are no marriages in heaven, and that the saints live like the angels. But Jesus does not teach the souls in heaven who do not yet have their bodies are in a “state of violence.”

Questionable: The Soul does unite with the Body upon Conception
It teaches a non-infallibly defined doctrine the may be erroneous. It teaches that a soul is not united to the body upon conception but some time after.

The Catechism of Trent, art. III, By The Holy Ghost: “That this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Ghost cannot be doubted; for according to the order of nature the rational soul is united to the body only after a certain lapse of time.”

However, many believe the soul is created and united to the body at the very instant of conception.

Questionable: Unforeseen Accident and Grace of Righteousness

(See: “The Catechism of Trent on Baptism,” p.54)
January 6, 2003
Catechism of Trent on Baptism
Question/Statement:
The Catechism of Trent in the 16th century teaches that adult catechumens who die without being baptized by water can be saved by baptism of desire.

RJMI Answer:

The Catechism of Trent does not teach baptism of desire or blood. But, it does have an ambiguous passage that could imply baptism of desire for an adult catechumen.

“The Catechism of the Council of Trent (The Roman Catechism),” Baptism, Necessity of Baptism, Ordinarily They Are Not Baptized At Once: “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.”

Men live when and where God wills it, and they die when and where God wills it. “God created man of the earth, and... He gave him the number of his days and time.” (Eclcus. 17:1, 3) The Lord killeth and maketh alive." (1 Kings 2:6) God knows and sees all things and has absolute power over all things. Therefore, there is no such thing as an accident in the eyes and realm of God. If the author’s use of the term “unforeseen accident” is in relation to man’s perspective, which is legitimate, then to what avail? Who cares? The catechism is not a secular book speaking only of events from the prospective of men without relation to God. No! It is a book that teaches about God and man’s relationship to God. The point is that God sees the adult who is in danger of death. God knows his heart and has the power to prevent a deadly accident if He wills it. Dare anyone say any different! “I will kill and I will make to live: I will strike, and I will heal, and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.” (Deut. 32:39)

For example, two catechumens are driving to church to get baptized and one dies in a car accident and the other arrives safely and gets baptized. Could God have prevented the catechumen's fatal accident? - Of course! The catechumen who died had to be ultimately of bad will or God would never have allowed him to die unbaptized. If faith can move mountains then that same faith can prevent a car accident by the power of God. Dear reader, do you have this faith in God? (See: The Salvation Dogma, “The Catholic Doctrine on Predestination.”)

St. Augustine, whose final opinion was that sacramental baptism by water is absolutely necessary for salvation (See: Saints and Baptism, St. Augustine, p.30), teaches that there are no accidents in the eyes of God and that God will get His predestined, the Elect, whatever they need to be saved before they die and go to judgment.

St. Augustine, On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.”

St. Augustine, Against Julian 5, 4: “Not one of the elect and predestined perishes, regardless of his age at death. Never be it said that a man predestined to life would be permitted to end his life without the sacrament of the Mediator. Because, of these men, Our Lord says: 'This is the will of the Father, that I should lose nothing of what he has given me.'”

Another point is that this “unforeseen accident,” mentioned in the Catechism of Trent, does not say it resulted in death. What type of “unforeseen accident” is the author talking about? If the point was that an adult catechumen could be sanctified by desire if he died before receiving the sacrament of baptism, Why not say so plainly? The wording should have then been, “should death make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters...”

Another ambiguous terminology is “avail them to grace and righteousness.” What type of grace is being referred to here? Is it actual grace or sanctifying grace? If it is sanctifying grace, why not say so plainly? He should have said, “will avail them to sanctifying grace” instead of “avail them to grace.” And, the word “righteousness” is ambiguous, in that it does not always mean sanctification (justification).[20] G. H. Joyce S.J. mentions the difference between these two terms. He refers to the obscurity caused by the use of the words "righteousness" and "righteous" instead of “justice” and “just” in the Revised Bible.

The Catholic Doctrine of Grace, G. H. Joyce S.J.: In the Authorized and Revised Versions the words “righteousness” and “righteous” are employed instead of “justice” and “just.” This rendering has certain advantages; but if it be adopted, the connection of the terms with “justification” and “to justify” becomes obscured.[21]

If the author of the passage in the Catechism of Trent meant to teach the adult catechumen that dies before receiving the sacrament of baptism can be justified and saved, he should of clearly said so. He should have worded it as such:

“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 death make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism, their repentance for past sins, accompanied with perfect contrition will avail them sanctifying grace (the grace of justification) and salvation.”

It is obvious that the author of the passage from the Catechism of Trent is not sure as to what he wants to convey. The author’s use of weak terminology, without any further clarification as to what he means, renders this passage ambiguous without any hope of truly knowing what he meant. The words “death”, “sanctifying grace” or “grace of Justification, and “salvation” should have been included if he meant to absolutely teach that the desire to be baptized can sanctify and save a soul. Why did he not include these words if he firmly believed in sanctification and salvation by desire? The lack of these definite words proves the author is not sure of what he is attempting to teach, and is aware of the unresolved theological dilemmas if he used the words “sanctifying grace” or “salvation”. It is clear that he is attempting to teach baptism of desire while not clearly teaching it.

Two interpretations could be, one, that this “unforeseen accident” that prevented the adult from receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, would, because of his desire grant him an actual grace in attaining a level of righteousness which would avail him with another opportunity to receive the Sacrament of Baptism before he dies, thus preventing his death. Or, two, if “accident” means his death, then this level of righteousness would spare him from the pains of hell (corporal punishment), while only suffering the punishment in hell of eternal separation from God that unbaptized infants suffer. No matter what interpretation one may try to render it is uncertain in every case and cannot be proven. There are serious weaknesses in every interpretation, so that one must look for further clarification, which does not exist within “The Catechism of Trent,” and more importantly does not exist in any Council or papal bull and encyclical since “The Catechism of Trent” in order to clarify, define the true meaning.

Another point needs to be made that proves the paragraph in the Roman Catechism is grossly deficient. Even if baptism of desire is true, and the catechism meant to teach it, it is rashly presumptuous to say adult catechumens who die without being baptized with water are not in danger. Because adult catechumens do not just need the desire to be baptized, and a mere repentance for sins, but also need perfect contrition (love of God); that is what would grant them the grace of baptism, and there is no guarantee that catechumens have perfect contrition.[22]

This passage in the catechism has the same dilemma that the Council of Trent's passage has in session VI, chapter 4 if it meant to teach baptism of desire, in that it does not mention the need of perfect contrition. The catechism only mentions a desire (determination) to receive the sacrament and a mere repentance of sins. It says nothing whatsoever about perfect contrition. Repentance for sins can be motivated by imperfect contrition, also known as attrition, and all agree the sacrament is necessary for those with imperfect contrition. (See: “The Council of Trent on Baptism, ‘Is it Desire, Vow, or Perfect Contrition?’”, p.46)

Only water baptism, the sacrament, would sanctify adult catechumens who do not have perfect contrition; thus, these are in danger of certain damnation if they die without being baptized by water. The catechism presumptuously makes it seem that all catechumens who die without being sacramentally baptized by water are not really in danger of damnation. It should have sternly warned candidates not to rely on baptism of desire as if this is safe, because to receive it one must have perfect contrition.

One last point, a catechism is not infallible in and of itself.

Introduction to “The Catechism of the Council of Trent (The Roman Catechism)”: “...the Roman Catechism… Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de fide.” (Footnote 37: A Compendium of Catech. Instruction, i. Pp. li. lii.)” (Catechism of Trent, Tan Edition, 1982, Introduction, p. xxxvi, John A. McHugh, O.P., Charles J. Callan, O.P)

A catechism can teach infallible truths that have been defined by past popes, but the book as a whole is not infallible. I have been told that the original translation of The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not mention the above passage regarding adult baptisms, “unforeseen accidents,” and a “grace of righteousness.” If anyone has any proof to back that up please send it to me. (See: “Catechisms are not Infallible,” p.49)

June 13, 2002
St. Alphonsus' Teachings on Baptism
Question/Statement:
Pope Gregory XIV declared the teachings of St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori to be error free and a safe guide to follow. St. Alphonsus defended baptism of desire and blood. Therefore, being his teachings are error free, baptism of desire and blood is of the faith and must be believed under pain of heresy.

RJMI Answer:
On Baptism of Desire and Blood for Catechumens

Beware of those who teach all of St. Alphonsus' teachings have been declared error free; only his moral teachings have been declared error free by the Sacred Penitentiary under Pope Gregory XVI.

Editor's Introduction to St. Alphonsus' Moral Theology: “Finally, our reigning most Holy Father, Gregory XVI, already in the first year of his pontificate, declared, through the Sacred Penitentiary, that professors of moral theology could follow the opinions of St. Alphonsus with profit, nay rather, confessors are not to be disquieted who, in the practice of the sacred tribunals of Penance, embrace any of blessed Alphonsus' opinions; even without viewing the reasons, they will be able to rely, with certainty, on the opinion of St. Alphonsus, and on this alone, because it is fundamental that, in all his works on morals, nothing can be found worthy of censure. For further assistance consult the applicable texts and decisions of the Sacred Penitentiary.”

Even at that, this above declaration from the Sacred Penitentiary is not infallible, unless a pope, speaking from the Chair of Peter (Ex Cathedra) makes the same declaration in an infallible encyclical.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, Infallibility: “Proof of Papal Infallibility - The pope, of course, can convert doctrinal decisions of the Holy Office, which are not in themselves infallible, into ex cathedra papal pronouncements...”

The Sacred Penitentiary's declaration only mentions St. Alphonsus' moral teachings as being free from error. It does not include his teachings on sacramental and dogmatic theology (doctrines of faith). It is common sense that all the teachings of a saint regarding doctrines of faith cannot be declared error free, because some of their teachings are opinions regarding doctrines that have not yet been infallible defined. Some of St. Alphonsus' doctrinal teachings are opinions regarding non-infallibly defined doctrines that are not part of the ordinary magisterium, in which other saints oppose his opinion. Some of St. Alphonsus’ doctrinal teachings contain error. (See: The Salvation Dogma, “St. Alphonsus and Salvation.”)

Our Lord personally approved St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica, yet it contains doctrinal errors. Our Lord was simply saying that as an overall piece of work He approves of it. Our Lord was not saying St. Thomas was infallible.

September 6, 2002
On Infant Baptism
Question/Statement:
St. Alphonsus teaches that infants during the New Covenant era could be saved without water baptism, by blood martyrdom, which he compares to the Holy Innocents.

St. Alphonsus: “Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato... Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view is at least temerarious.” [23]

RJMI Comment:
St. Alphonsus' teaching can be taken it two ways. The part that is missing after “operato,” which I do not have access to, can help to determine the true meaning. However, it is certain that he did not teach infants could be saved during the New Covenant era without water baptism, by blood martyrdom.

One:
He means baptized infants, just like baptized adults, can undergo another baptism, the baptism of blood, also known as martyrdom, which in many ways is like the sacrament of baptism because it remits the guilt of actual sins and its punishment in the case of baptized adults who are guilty of actual sins. In the case of baptized infants, even though they do not have the use of reason and are not guilty of actual sins, they would still be martyrs if they died for Christ and therefore receive this other baptism, this baptism of blood. This is the most probable interpretation, because St. Alphonsus teaches that infants during the New Covenant era need to be baptized by water to be saved, that they cannot have original sin remitted by baptism of desire or blood martyrdom:

St. Alphonsus de Liguori, “An Exposition And Defence Of All The Points Of Faith Discussed And Defined By The Sacred Council Of Trent; Along With A Refutation Of The Errors Of The Pretended Reformers,” p. 139: 45. The second point was whether they should condemn the opinion of Cajetan, who thought that in the new law there should be some remedy for the salvation of infants that die in the womb. He said that a person who would give the benediction in the name of the most holy Trinity to infants in danger of death in the womb, could not be insured. He added, "who knows but the divine mercy will accept such a baptism, on account of the desire of the parents." In order to save this opinion from censure, Seripando said that were it not true, faith would be more efficacious before the gospel than at present, since according to St. Gregory, faith produced then what the water of Baptism produces now. But Dominicus Soto pronounced the opinion to be an heretical error, and St. Pius V. ordered it to be expunged from Cajetan's work. For to say that heaven is open to him who is not baptized, or has not the desire of baptism, appears to be clearly opposed to the words of Jesus Christ: “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John III.5.).”

Therefore, St. Alphonsus does not teach that infants during the New Covenant era can be freed from original sin by baptism of desire or blood martyrdom. He teaches that they need to be baptized by water.

Two:

It is possible that St. Alphonsus erroneously taught that the Holy Innocents were sanctified (entered a state of grace) by baptism of blood, by their martyrdom for Christ, which substituted for water baptism; however, he did not transfer this privilege to infants during the New Covenant era, because he teaches they must be baptized by water to be saved.

The Holy Innocents were martyred under the Old Covenant when the sacrament of baptism did not yet exist (See: “When Was Baptism Mandatory?” p.18). They were saved by the conditions of the old dispensation. Therefore, St. Alphonsus erred if he meant the Holy Innocents' baptism of blood substituted for the sacrament of baptism.

The other point to consider is that if these infants died a natural death, instead of martyrdom for Christ, would they not still be saved? Of course they would be saved, because they were justified in vow by their parents faith in the true God, the God of Israel, and their observance of the Mosaic Law that was in effect at the time they died. The fact that they died as martyrs for Christ adds to their glory, but by no means was this necessary for them to be saved, just as blood martyrdom is not necessary to save baptised adults.

It is my opinion that the just from the Old Testament era were baptized by water some time during the 40 days after our Lord rose from the dead and before He ascended into Heaven taking them with Him. Thus when our Lord said, “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3:5) He literally meant all men. (See: “Baptism of Old Testament Elect,” p.67)

January 21, 2005
“Errors of du Bay” Do Not Defend Baptism of Desire

On October 1, 1567, in his Bull Ex omnibus afflictionibus, Pope St. Pius V condemned the errors of Michael du Bay (Baius). Some who believe in baptism of desire and blood for catechumens have taken three of the condemned errors of Michael du Bay out of context to support their opinion. What follows are these condemned errors and the proper interpretations of them.

Error one
“Condemned proposition 31: Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a ‘pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned’ (1 Tim. 1:5) can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins.” (D. 1031)

This statement deals with two types of men: catechumens and penitents. Catechumens are not members of the Catholic Church and penitents are. I will first give the only obvious meaning of this condemnation. The Church infallibly teaches that “Perfect and sincere charity” in a penitent remits his mortal sins before he goes to confession to a priest and gets absolved from the priest:

The Council of Trent, Session XIV, Doctrine on the Sacrament of Penance, Nov. 25, 1551, Chap. 4, on Contrition: “...The Council teaches, furthermore, that though it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation nevertheless must not be ascribed to the contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament which is included in it.” (D. 898)

Thus du Bay teaches heresy when he says that a penitent can have “perfect and sincere charity... without the remission of sin.” This is the only obvious heresy that this proposition condemns. Hence it is heretical to say, as Du Bay does, that one can have perfect charity and not be in a state of grace. This truth, as verified in this above condemned proposition, does not definitively address whether a catechumen can actually have perfect charity and perfect faith.

Any other meaning attributed to this condemned proposition is a guess and thus a guess at what Pope Pius V meant to condemn. Some can interpret it to mean that perfect charity can also exist in catechumens, but this is only a guess and thus only a guess at what Pope Pius V meant to condemn. We who believe in the absolute necessity of baptism by water can also guess at what it means in relation to the catechumen, but this also is only a guess at what Pope Pius V meant to condemn.

What follows is my guess at what it could mean in relation to a catechumen. Catechumens, unlike penitents, are outside the Catholic Church and thus their sins cannot be remitted. Pope Boniface VIII, in Bull Unam Sanctum, in 1302, teaches that “Outside the Church there is no salvation nor remission of sins.” Hence, catechumens cannot have “perfect and sincere charity” while they are outside the Catholic Church because outside the Catholic Church there is no remission of sins.

Also, catechumens cannot have perfect charity or perfect faith because they do not yet have the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity that are only infused at the moment of sanctification and not previous to it. Only those with the theological virtue of faith in God can have a perfect charity toward God, the object of their faith. (See in this book The Catechumen and Perfect Contrition.)

Error two
“Condemned proposition 32: That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins.” (D. 1032)

This statement says nothing at all about catechumens. As stated above, perfect charity is always connected with the remission of sins. To say otherwise is heresy. We who believe in the absolute necessity of baptism by water to be justified do not believe this perfect charity could exist in catechumens. But we must believe it can exist in penitents.

Error three
“Condemned proposition 33: A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of Baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained.” (D. 1033)

This statement contains many errors. It can mean many different things. I will point out the obvious heresies:

One: The Church infallibly teaches that the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity are infused into a catechumen the instant he is sanctified and not before:

Council of Trent, on Justification, chap 7; D. 800: “In justification man receives simultaneously with the remission of sins all three virtues of faith, hope, and charity, which are infused by Jesus Christ in him whom He is implanted. ... This faith, in accordance with apostolic tradition, catechumens beg of the Church before the sacrament of baptism...”

Therefore, the theological virtue of charity that is necessary for the fulfillment of “the law through charity” cannot exist in a catechumen “before the remission of sins has been obtained.” Du Bay says otherwise. He says, “A catechumen ...fulfills the law through charity... before the remission of sins has been obtained.” Hence du Bay teaches heresy. Perfect charity is always accompanied by the remission of sins.

However, du Bay contradicts himself by rightly teaching that the “fulfillment through the law of charity” is accomplished by the “laver of Baptism” which remits sins by sanctifying a soul. This conflicts with his teaching that the same state exists in a person “before [his] sins have been remitted.”

Two: The Church infallibly teaches that a man cannot live “justly, rightly and holily” before “the remission of [his] sins has been obtained”; that is, while he is a catechumen and in a state of damnation (not yet freed from original sin and most probably guilty of actual sins). A man cannot be holy while he is in a state of damnation. Du Bay says that a catechumen can live “justly, rightly and holily” while he is in a state of damnation. He says, “A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily ... before the remission of sins has been obtained.” Hence du Bay teaches heresy.

Three: This condemned proposition makes no statement whatsoever, either explicitly or implicitly, regarding the opinions of baptism of desire and blood for catechumens. It only deals with catechumens who receive the “laver of Baptism” and catechumens whose sins have not been remitted.

Other interpretations can be given to this condemned proposition. I have only given the obvious ones. Therefore, any other interpretation is not an obvious one but only a guess at what du Bay meant and thus only a guess at what Pope Pius V meant to condemn.

*October 28, 2005
Is Baptism of Desire and Blood, Heresy?
Question/Statement:

Pope St. Leo the Great and the Council of Trent's Canon 5 on Baptism infallibly teach that baptism by water is absolutely necessary for salvation.

Pope St. Leo the Great, infallible letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:

“Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ's blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the same apostle's words, ‘knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot’ (1 Pet. 1:18). Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: ‘and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin’ (1 Jn. 1:7); and again, ‘This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith. Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one.’ (1 Jn. 5:4-8) In other words, the spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption and the water of baptism these three are one and remain indivisible none of them is separable from its link with the others.”(Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 81.)

The Council of Trent, Canons on Baptism: “Canon 5. If anyone shall say that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema.”

Therefore, those who teach catechumens can be saved by baptism of desire or blood from the time of Pope St. Leo the Great's infallible definition in the 5th century teach heresy and are heretics.

RJMI Answer:
You will never win, or even engage a fair debate, with those who hold the opinion that catechumens can receive the grace of baptism by desire (perfect contrition) and blood, also known as baptism of desire and baptism of blood, if you do not address all the facts truthfully. Some of those facts are as follows:

Saints Taught Baptism of Desire and Blood

If Pope St. Leo the Great and the Council of Trent's Canon 5 on Baptism infallibly taught baptism by water is absolutely necessary for salvation, it was not interpreted that way by many saints, nor were these saints’ opinions condemned by any pope.

If it can be certainly known that Pope St. Leo's teaching on the necessity of baptism by water for justification and salvation excluded baptism of desire and blood for catechumens, then, the future Pope Innocent III, St. Thomas Aquinas, and other saints were heretics for denying it. They all believed in baptism of desire and blood for catechumens, although Pope Innocent III never infallibly taught it. (See: “The Popes and Baptism,” p. 23.)

After both Pope St. Leo's teaching in the 5th century and the Council of Trent's Canon 5 on Baptism in the 16th century, saints taught baptism of desire and blood and were never condemned by a pope. You would have to say they taught heresy and denounce them as heretics if it could be certainly known that Pope Leo and the Council of Trent's teachings infallibly taught the absolute necessity of the sacrament of baptism, of baptism by water. And worse, you would have to condemn all the popes who did not condemn the heretical teachings of these saints.

In the 18th century, St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori believed baptism of desire for catechumens was infallibly taught in the Council of Trent. Was he a heretic? You cannot say he did not know the teachings of Trent as he referred directly to them. It is my opinion he was in error. In one place, St. Alphonsus teaches the absolute necessity of the sacrament of baptism but in another he teaches desire and blood can take the place of the sacrament. He understands the necessity of baptism to include desire and blood. In my opinion this apparent contradiction cannot, and to date has not, been theologically resolved.

St. Alphonsus' Teachings on Baptism

Sacrament of Baptism Necessary
St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori: “It should be known that baptism is not only the first but also the most necessary of all the Sacraments. Without baptism, no one can enter heaven.” (Preaching of God's Word, (vol. 15, Complete Ascetical Works), NY Benzinger Bro.)

Desire and Blood can Substitute

St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori: “#95. Baptism of blood... is martyrdom… baptism of the spirit is contrition with the promise to be baptized, or the desire thereof, but these are not sacraments... “#96. ...Baptism of the spirit... is the perfect conversion to God through contrition, or through the love of God above all, with the explicit or implicit promise to receive baptism of water, whereof this suffices to take the place of [actual baptism of water] insofar as the remission of sins (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, Ch. 4), not however unto the imprinting of a character nor the taking away of all punishment due to sins... It is, moreover, of faith that through baptism of desire men may also be saved as seen from... the Council of Trent, where it is said: no one can be saved without the laver of regeneration, or its desire (cf. Sess. VI, Ch. 4).”

“#97. True baptism of blood is death by the pouring out of one’s blood for the faith... as taught by St. Thomas, Viva, Croix, and others. This baptism is indeed likened to true baptism because by virtue of its operation, as it were, like true baptism it remits both the guilt and penalty due to sin. It is said: ‘quasi’, because martyrdom does not operate strictly as a sacrament, but does so by reason of its imitation of Christ's Passion, according to the saying of Bellarmine, Suarez, Soto, Cajetan and, extensively, by the words of Petroc. ...It is evident, however, that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because martyrdom was not an action instituted by Christ...” (Moral Theology, Bk. 6, tr. II, ch. I)

RJMI side note: St. Alphonsus teaches that those whom he believes can be sanctified by the implicit desire for baptism must have an explicit faith in the true God. He uses the example of the Good Thief who explicitly believed in Jesus Christ but did not know of baptism. His example of the Good Thief is in error, because the Good Thief was not under the obligation to be baptized, as baptism was not obligatory until after Jesus Christ's Ascension.
(See: The Salvation Dogma, “St. Alphonsus and Salvation” and “St. Alphonsus’ Teachings,” p.57.)

St. Thomas Aquinas' teachings on Baptism

St. Thomas Aquinas believed in baptism of desire and blood for catechumens. In one place he teaches the sacrament of baptism is necessary for all in the same way Pope St. Leo teaches it, but in another place he teaches catechumens can receive the grace of baptism by desire or blood martyrdom.

Sacrament of Baptism Necessary

“I Answer That ...Men are bound to those things without which they cannot attain salvation... Consequently, it is clear that everyone is bound to be baptized, and that without baptism there is no salvation for men.” (Summa, III, Q. 68, art. 1, I Answer That.)

Desire and Blood can Substitute

I Answer That ...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 (Apoc. 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. ...Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism.” (Summa, III, Q. 66, art. 11)

“I Answer That. ...the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that worketh by charity, whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly.” (Summa, III, Q. 68. art. 2.)

In one place St. Thomas teaches all must be baptized, “everyone is bound to be baptized,” and in another he teaches all do not need to be “actually baptized.” This is a dilemma all fall into who believe in baptism of desire and blood. St. Thomas, in an attempt to resolve the apparent contradiction in his teachings on baptism, refers to baptism of desire and blood as pseudo-sacraments. This does not resolve the dilemma, because however you label it a pseudo-sacrament is not a sacrament in any way, and it is the sacrament of baptism that is necessary as a necessity of means, meaning there can be no exceptions.

I do not see how those who hold the opinion of baptism of desire and blood can theologically resolve this dilemma, and other dilemmas regarding the Baptism Controversy, without denying related dogmas. (See: “Baptism Controversy Introduction,” p.4) To this date the dilemmas have not been theologically resolved and that is why no pope has settled this dispute.

Martyrologies and Breviaries
After Pope Leo and the Council of Trent's teachings on baptism, many books, such as Martyrologies and Breviaries, teach baptism of blood for catechumens who are martyred. No pope has ever condemned these teachings or ordered them to be removed from the books or ordered footnotes to be added that say that the teaching is erroneous or heretical. In this case, one cannot presume the pope never read these teachings because all priests (and the pope is a priest) pray daily the Divine Office (Roman Breviary) and read daily the Roman Martyrology.

Catechism of Trent

The Catechism of the Council of Trent (also known as the Roman Catechism) confusedly and deficiently implies the possibility of baptism of desire for adult catechumens. (See: “The Catechism of Trent on Baptism,” p.54.)

1917 Code of Canon Law

The Code of Canon Law is not infallible; therefore, it can contain non-heretical doctrinal errors, that is, errors regarding doctrines that do not belong to the solemn or ordinary magisterium. I believe that one such error is taught in the 1917 Code of Canon Law: Canons 737 and 1239 teach baptism of desire:

Canon 737: “Baptism... the Sacrament which, if we are to attain salvation, must be either actually received or at least desired—is given validly by ablution with truly natural water and the pronouncing of the prescribed form of words.”

Canon 1239: “Unbaptized persons may not receive ecclesiastical burial, with the exception of catechumens who, through no fault of theirs, die without having received baptism, and are therefore to be regarded as among those baptized.”

These canons would be heretical if the absolute necessity of sacramental baptism by water had been infallibly defined; consequently, Pope Benedict XV who promulgated the 1917 Code of Canon Law and the following popes, Pius XI and XII, would be heretics for approving the heresy in these canons:

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Supplement, Code of Canon Law: “After the death of Pius X the completed work was ratified, approved, and sanctioned by His Holiness Pope Benedict XV, as announced by his Bull Providentissima Mater Ecclesia (27 May, 1917), which decreed that the prescriptions of the Code should have the force of law from Pentecost, 19 May, 1918. The work, which was published by the Vatican Press, opens with the Bull of promulgation, Providentissima Mater Ecclesia...”[24]

The Code of Canon Law, then, contains universal laws promulgated by the pope; hence it cannot be said that the pope (as well as the future popes who maintain the Code as the governing rule of the Church) did not know about these canons anymore than it can be said that apostate Antipope Paul VI did not know about the heresies in the Second Vatican Council that he approved by promulgating them. Nor can it be said that the antipopes that followed did not know about the heresies in the Second Vatican Council since they supported and promoted the Council and all of its teachings. (See: RJMI book, Canon Law, Infallibility, and Vigilance: (especially) The Case of the Catechumen and Baptism of Desire.)

Bible verses in and out of context

Bible verses can be taken out of context. Just because a Bible verse clearly seems to teach one thing does not mean there are no exceptions. For instance, Romans 5:12 teaches “...all have sinned.” (Rom. 5:12) That verse alone does not include Jesus and Mary. One can try and use that verse alone to try and prove Jesus and Mary had sin. But elsewhere the Bible teaches the exception that Jesus had no sin.

Therefore, “all have sinned” in Romans 5:12 does not literally mean all have sinned. Mary also had no sin, but this exception is not mentioned in the Bible. Instead, it was revealed to the original apostles, and thus it is found in the second font of revelation, that of Apostolic Tradition. By using Bible verses alone one would conclude Mary had sin.

With this in mind, “Is the Bible verse, John 3:5, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ and other verses that clearly seem to teach baptism by water is absolutely necessary to be taken literally?” In order to see if this can be taken literally one must compare it to other teachings in the Bible or Apostolic Tradition to learn if any exceptions have been revealed, and if so, have they been infallibly taught.

The Bible only reveals baptism of water is necessary for salvation and does not reveal elsewhere baptism of desire or blood. (See: The Bible and Baptism, p.19) Thus, one would have to look at Apostolic Tradition, the teachings of the original apostles, to try and find these revelations.

Baptism of blood was taught before baptism of desire. Because baptism of blood was taught by some early Church fathers saints teach baptism of blood substitutes for water baptism, for the sacrament, and bestows the grace of baptism. Thus, they would interpret John 3:5 to mean baptism by water includes baptism of blood for catechumens, which bestows the grace of baptism. Later, when baptism of desire for catechumens was first taught in the 4th century, saints also included baptism of desire to stand in for the sacrament of baptism. However, baptism of desire presents a dilemma in that this teaching clearly has no link with Apostolic Tradition. (See: “St. Ambrose First Mentioned Baptism of Desire,” p.39.) A deeper study would be needed to see if baptism of blood has a link with Apostolic Tradition, and if so, has a pope infallibly defined it.

To conclude, you will lose every debate in the eyes of any good willed person, and deservedly so, if you do not honestly address all the pertinent facts. Most who defend the opinion of the absolute necessity of baptism by water do not honestly address all these issues and lose all credibility with anyone of good will.

November 16, 2002
Baptism of Old Testament Elect

It is my opinion that those saved during the Old Testament era were not truly justified until Christ died on the Cross and remitted their sins. Instead, while waiting for Christ in the “Limbo of the Fathers” (Limbus Patrum)—which since the time of Abraham was known as Abraham's bosom—they were only justified in vow, but not in fact. (See: “Old Testament Justification,” p.68.)

It is also my opinion that Christ would not deprive the Old Testament elect of the great sacrament of baptism that He instituted for the remission of sins. I believe it was mandatory for them also. Could it be that the very Christ they prepared the world for, the very Christ they prefigured in the animal sacrifices, the very Christ they lived and died for in anxious anticipation of His coming to redeem them, would deprive them of the direct benefits of the shedding of His blood as the Spotless Lamb, which gave baptism its power and efficacy to wash away their sins? No! I firmly believe that they enjoyed this primary fruit of Jesus Christ's sacrifice that they waited so long for, that fruit being the sacrament of baptism that remitted their sins. What they waited and prepared for so long in figure was given them in reality.

There were many prefigurements of the sacrament of baptism in the Old Testament hinting at the reality of what was to come. The sacrament of baptism was prefigured in the water that saved Noah and his family from the perverse generation; the water of the Red Sea that saved Moses and the Israelites; the water that came from the rock that quenched the thirst of the Israelites; the rite of circumcision, etc. Could it be that all the just who lived when baptism was prefigured would not receive it when it came in reality?

Therefore, the Old Testament elect were baptized by water some time during the 40 days after our Lord rose from the dead and before He ascended into heaven taking them with Him. Thus when our Lord said, “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3:5) He literally meant all men.

After Christ died, He went down into Abraham’s bosom, which was the highest level of hell separated from the hell of the damned, to preach to the Old Testament elect. And then, upon His resurrection, took them with Him so that they were dwelling somewhere upon the face of the earth for the forty days before Christ ascended into heaven. During these forty days, many of the resurrected Old Testament elect appeared in their bodies.

“And Jesus again crying with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose, And coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, came into the holy city, and appeared to many.” (Mt. 27:50,52-53)

Of course, they would need their bodies until they were baptized. Christ did not spend all of the forty days after His ascension in the presence of the Apostles and disciples. Many days He was absent from them. Between His first and second manifestation to the Apostles, six days had passed. Where was Christ and what was He doing when he was absent from the apostles? Certainly a portion of His time was spent with the Old Testament faithful who were now dwelling upon the face of the earth. Christ was preaching to them and supervising their baptisms that were taking place by the hands of their brothers who were appointed by Christ. Sometime after their baptism and before their souls ascended into heaven, their bodies were returned to their graves until the General Judgment that takes place at the end of the world in which the receive back their bodies in a glorified form for all eternity.[25]

June 1, 2002
Old Testament Justification
Question/Statement:

Were God's chosen in the Old Testament era truly justified? Were their sins truly remitted when they lived, before Christ died on the Cross?

RJMI Answer:
The Church has not infallibly defined if sins were truly remitted during the Old Testament era. It is of the faith that the Old Testament elects’ sins were forgiven. But, it is my opinion that their sins were not remitted until Jesus Christ died upon the Holy Cross and shed His Most Precious Blood. This is not to be confused with Martin Luther's heresy that taught sins are not truly remitted during the New Testament era, but only covered.

The New Covenant was sealed by Jesus’ shed Blood when He died on the Cross; at that very moment the veil in the Temple was rent in two signifying the end of the Old and the being of the New Covenant. “And Jesus again crying with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And behold the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top even to the bottom…”(Mt. 27:50-51) The New Covenant was promulgated, made mandatory to all who would be saved, on Pentecost Sunday.

Under the New Covenant, the sins of the faithful are forgiven and remitted. However, during the Old Testament era forgiveness of sin was separate from remittance of sin. No man conceived in sin had his sins remitted until Jesus Christ died upon the Cross and shed His Blood. Jesus, “In, whom we have redemption through his blood, the remission of sins.” (Col. 1:14) It is by His bruises that sins were remitted. “Surely he hath borne our infirmities, and carried our sorrows ... But he was wounded for our iniquities, he was bruised for our sins: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his bruises we are healed.” (Isa. 53:4-5) Not until Jesus' passion, until He was bruised to the shedding of His Blood and death, could sins be remitted of those who were guilty of original and actual sin. This was the primary purpose of Jesus' birth. “She shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. For he shall save his people from their sins.” (Mt. 1:21) St. John the Baptist teaches it is Christ who takes away (remits) the sin of the world: “Behold the Lamb of God. Behold him who taketh away the sin of the world.” (Jn. 1:29) In the Canticle of Zachary, John's father, speaking of John's mission, states that God’s chosen people, the Israelites, did not yet have their sins remitted and that it will be John who teaches them what they must do to have their sins remitted: “And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt, go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways: To give knowledge of salvation to his people, unto the remission of their sins.” (Lk. 1: 76-77) The Old Testament Elect needed Jesus to come and die upon the Cross in order for them to be saved from their sins; that is, to have their forgiven sins remitted:

Fr. Michael Muller, The Catholic Dogma: ”The Law of Christ is new in its efficacy. The Old Law did not confer the grace of justification; it only prefigured and promised it in view of the New Law, which supplied the insufficiency by substituting reality for figures, and the gift of graces for promises. Thus the Law of Christ is the perfect accomplishment and realization of the Mosaic Law.”[26]

Fr. Leonard Goffine, 1880: “Where, during this time, was Christ's holy soul? In Limbo, that is, the place where the souls of the just who died before Christ, and were yet in original sin, were awaiting their redemption.” [27]

Faith in God and obedience to the Old Testament sacrifices and rituals that God instituted at the given time, forgave sins, it covered them, but it did not remit them. That is why the Old Testament elect who died could not enter heaven and had to wait in Limbo (Abraham's Bosom), a prison that is in the highest level of hell.

“Because Christ also died once for our sins... In which also coming, he preached to those spirits who were in prison...” (1Pt. 3:18-20)

Haydock Commentary: “Wi-on above verse - The true and common interpretation of this place seems to be, that the soul of Christ, after the separation from the body and before the resurrection, descended to a place in the interior parts of the earth, called hell in that which we call the apostles creed, (sometimes called Abraham's bosom, sometimes Limbus Patrum, a place where were detained all the souls of the patriarchs, prophets, and just men, as it were in prison) and preached to these spirits in this prison.”

Limbo, although a prison, was a place of peace and joy, but it was not heaven. Limbo is a place that is neither here nor there; a place in which the sin debt was forgiven but not yet remitted; a place where the Devil had no active claim over the elect but had a passive claim over them; a place where they were saved but not yet redeemed. The elect were detained in Limbo because they still carried the debt of sin that needed to be remitted. There they anxiously waited for the ultimate sacrifice, the one they prefigured from the time of Adam by the shedding of the blood of the most perfect animals offered up to the true God as sacrifices. This ultimate sacrifice was the spotless Lamb, Jesus Christ, whose Precious Blood would remit their sins and thus redeem them, break the bondage of the Devil, and open the gates of heaven to them.

The Devil had no active claim over the Old Testament elect that were in Limbo because their sins were forgiven (covered) even though they were not yet remitted. If Christ did not fulfill His promise and remit their sins by His death upon the Cross, then the Devil would have reclaimed the Old Testament elect, called in the debt, and brought them to eternal hell. “And if Christ be not risen again, your faith is vain, for you are yet in your sins.” (1Cor. 15:17) For example, a man named Bob owes a debt he cannot pay to the banker (debtor). The banker has the right to collect the debt and hold Bob accountable. A rich patron comes along and promises the banker he will pay Bob’s debt in full in ten years as long as the banker leaves Bob alone and does not hold him accountable. Now, Bob's debt is covered by the rich patron's promise, and Bob is protected from the banker holding the debt against him. But, Bob's debt has not yet been remitted until the rich patron pays it in ten years. The banker has no active claim against Bob and has no right to harass him or call in the debt. But the banker does have a passive claim against Bob because the debt is still outstanding, has not been paid. The passive claim would become active if the rich patron did not fulfill his promise by paying the debt in ten years; then, the debt would become active and the banker would call in the debt and hold Bob accountable. If the rich patron did fulfill his promise and pay the debt in ten years, then Bob would be totally free from the banker (debtor) and the debt. The banker would then have no claim whatsoever over Bob, active or passive. The banker is the Devil, the debt is sin, and Jesus is the rich patron. With Jesus Christ (God) as the rich patron the promise He made to the Old Testament elect to pay their sin debt is guaranteed and took place in the fullness of time when Jesus died upon the Holy Cross and shed His Most Precious Blood.

Justified in Vow

The Old Testament faithful were referred to as being just.

“By faith Abel offered to God a sacrifice exceeding that of Cain, by which he obtained a testimony that he was just...” (Heb. 11:4) “Noah found grace before the Lord. Noe was a just and perfect man in his generation.” (Gen 6:8-9) Being just and perfect during the Old Testament generation did not mean sins were remitted. It did not mean the Just were truly justified (sanctified). It meant their sins were covered and would surely be remitted upon Christ's death upon the Cross, “Who was delivered up for our sins, and rose again for our justification.” (Rom. 4:25) They were referred to as Just because the future remittance of their forgiven sins was certain, so certain that it was as if they were already remitted even thought they were not, because Jesus Christ is the One who promised to remit them. While they lived, the promise was unfulfilled but destine to be fulfilled upon Christ’s death, which would remit their sins.

“Now, faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not. All these died [RJMI: Old Testament elect] according to faith, not having received the promises but beholding them afar off and saluting them and confessing that they are pilgrims and strangers on the earth. ... And all these, being approved by the testimony of faith, received not the promise: God providing some better thing for us, that they should not be perfected without us.” (Heb. 11:1, 13, 39-40) But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law:
That he might redeem those who were under the law:
that we might receive the adoption of sons.” (Gal. 4:4-5)

Not until Christ died were the Old Testament elect who were under the law redeemed and made perfect. Only the Most Precious Blood of the Divine Lamb, Jesus Christ, remits sins, not the blood of bull and goats or circumcision.

“For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things; by the selfsame sacrifices which they offer continually every year, can never make the comers there unto perfect... For it is impossible that with the blood of oxen and goats sin should be taken away. ...We are sanctified by the oblation of the body of Jesus Christ once. And every priest [RJMI: Old Testament priest] indeed standeth daily ministering, and often offering the same sacrifices [RJMI: animal sacrifices], which can never take away sins.” (Heb. 10:1-4,10,11)

Haydock Commentary, Heb. 10:1: “Others by good things to come, understand this blessings of interior graces, with a remission of our sins in the sight of God, and true sanctification, of which all the sacrifices and sacraments of the old law, without faith in Christ were but a shadow: and now in the new law we have an express image of them, i.e. we have these blessings themselves. Wi.”

Even though the animal sacrifices did not remit sins—“take away sins”— they did forgive them (cover them). During the time of the Levitical priesthood God prescribed very specific sacrifices that had to be offered up by the Levitical priests for their sins and the sins of the faithful, accompanied by a confession from the penitents. Upon confession and the offering of the prescribed sacrifices penitents' sins were forgiven.

“If any one shall sin… he shall offer for his offence a ram without blemish... delivering it to the priest, who shall pray for him, offering the ram, and it shall be forgiven him.” (Lev. 5:15-16)

Clearly, then, we see the separation of forgiveness and remittance of sin during the Old Testament era. The animal sacrifices forgave sin, “it shall be forgiven him,” but were not sufficient to remit sin, because “it is impossible that with the blood of oxen and goats sin should be taken away.” (Heb. 10:4)

“For if the former had been faultless, there should not indeed a place have been sought for a second." (Heb. 8:7) Haydock Commentary, on Heb. 8:7: “For if that first had been faultless: If it had not been imperfect, and all those sacrifices and ceremonies insufficient for the justification, salvation, and redemption of mankind, there would have been no need of a second.”

Haydock Commentary, on Heb. 7:4-7: “...for if the former law and sacrifices offered by the priests of Aaron, had been sufficient for man's justification and salvation, there would have been no necessity of a new priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech... 7) ...But the new law and sacrifice of Christ, is according to the power of an indissoluble and never ending life, conferring inward graces, with the remission of sins, by which men are justified and saved...”

In order to remit sins the Old Testament sacrifices and rituals would had needed to confer sanctifying grace and they did not. Only the New Testament sacraments, instituted by Christ and made efficacious by His Precious Blood, confer grace.

Council of Florence, Exultate Deo, Nov 22, 1439; D. 695: There are seven sacraments of the new Law... which differ a great deal from the sacraments of the Old Law. For those of the Old Law did not effect grace, but only pronounced that it should be given through the passion of Christ; these sacraments of ours contain grace, and confer it upon those who receive them worthily.

Council of Trent, on Justification, cap 1; D. 793: The holy Synod decrees first that for a correct and sound understanding of the doctrine of justification it is necessary that each one recognize and confess that, whereas all men had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam [Rom 5:12; 1Cor. 15:22], "having become unclean"[Isa. 64:6], and (as the Apostle says), "by nature children of wrath" [Eph. 2:3], as it (the Synod) has set forth in the decree on original sin, to that extent were they the servants of sin [Rom. 5:20], and under the power of the devil and of death, that not only the gentiles by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses were able to be liberated or to rise therefrom.

If penitents were worthy, the Old Testament sacraments, the sacrifices and rituals, conferred the promise of grace but did not confer grace. It was the promise of sanctifying grace, because of their faith and obedience to God, which forgave their sins (covered them) and justified them in vow. They were not totally clean, only reputed as clean.

“Neither by the blood of goats, or of calves, but by his own blood, entered once into the sanctuary, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and oxen, and the ashes of an heifer being sprinkled, sanctify such as are defiled, to the cleansing of the flesh How much more shall the blood of Christ, who by the Holy Ghost, offered himself unspotted unto God, cleanse our conscience from dead works, to serve the living God? He is the mediator of the new testament: that by means of his death for the redemption of those transgressions which were under the former testament, they that are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance.” (Heb. 9:12-15)

While in Limbo, the Old Testament elects' transgressions were covered but were not yet redeemed until Christ died on the Cross. Being their sins were forgiven (covered), they were not treated as transgressors and punished with eternal hell, but they still needed to be redeemed from their covered transgressions (have their sins remitted), which the former testament could not do.

Haydock Commentary, on Heb. 9:12-14: “This is another difference and preeminence of Christ above the priests of the law of Moses, that they could only offer the blood of beasts; but Christ entered into heaven by the effusion of his own precious blood in his sufferings, and on the cross, by this having found an eternal redemption for mankind, having satisfied for the sins of all men in the sight of God, which the former priests, with all their sacrifice, could not do. For if the blood of goats... Another main difference between the sacrifices in the old, and that of Christ in the new law. Those imperfect carnal sacrifices could only make the priests and the people REPUTED clean, so that they were no longer to be treated as transgressors, and liable to punishments, prescribed and inflicted by the law: but the sacrifice of Christ has made our consciences interiorly clean, and sanctified them even in the sight of God. (Wi)”

Again, we see the difference between forgiveness and remission of sins. The animal sacrifices forgave sins, but did not make one totally clean, only reputedly clean. St. Paul teaches the Old Testament elect was not freed from their transgressions, which were only covered but not yet remitted. It was Christ's death that redeemed (remitted) their former transgression. “And therefore he is the mediator of the new testament: that by means of his death for the redemption of those transgressions which were under the former testament, they that are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance.” (Heb. 9:15) “And this is the testament which I will make unto them after those days, saith the Lord. I will give my laws in their hearts and on their minds will I write them: And their sins and iniquities I will remember no more.” (Heb. 10:16-17; Jer. 31:33)

Without faith in the true God and true confession of sins, which includes sorrow, a firm purpose of amendment, and penance, the Old Testament sacrifices and rituals avail nothing, they would not forgive sins (cover them), confer the promise of grace, and make one reputedly clean. Just as the New Testament sacraments bear no fruit to those who receive them unworthily, with improper intentions and motives.

Circumcision
Circumcision, being an Old Testament ritual (sacrament), could not remit sins, but did cover them and conferred the promise of grace. While it was instituted, it was necessary to make males justified in vow and eligible for salvation. Pope Innocent III in 13th century fallibly taught that circumcision remits original sin.

Pope Innocent III, 13th century, The Effect of Baptism (and the Character): “... Although original sin was remitted by the mystery of circumcision, and the danger of damnation was avoided, nevertheless there was no arriving at the kingdom of heaven, which up to the death of Christ was barred to all.” [28]

One logical flaw with his opinion is that women did not get circumcised. If circumcision was necessary to be justified (remit original sin) and be saved, then women could not be justified and saved. Most importantly, Pope Innocent's opinion has since been infallibly condemned in the above decree from the Council of Florence in 1439 that teaches, “the sacraments of the Old Law... did not effect grace.” Therefore, circumcision, being a sacrament of the Old Law, “did not effect grace” and thus could not remit original sin.

Those who believe the Old Testament elect were truly justified cannot say the Old Testament sacraments, the sacrifices and rituals, justified them. Rather, it would have to have been their faith in God that justified them, which implied faith in the Christ (redeemer) to come, which also demanded obedience to God by performing the prescribed sacrifices and rituals. It would then be their faith that would remit their sins by the merits of Christ's blood that would be shed in the future.

It is very important to note, only those during the Old Testament era who had explicit faith in the true God as revealed during their era—the God of Adam, of Noah, of Abraham, of Israel—and were obedient to Him could have their sins forgiven and covered and thus be saved. (See: The Salvation Dogma, “Old Testament Salvation”)

St. Peter's Pentecost Preaching
Faithful Jews who accepted Christ had to be baptized by water for their sins to be remitted. On Pentecost Sunday St. Peter preached to devout Jews and told them they needed to do penance and be baptized unto the remission of their sins.

“Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men... Ye men of Israel, hear these words... Do penance: and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 2:5, 22, 38)

If these devout (Just) Jews already had their sins remitted by faithful obedience to the Old Covenant, then St. Peter spoke falsely when he told them, “be baptized... every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins.” Their baptism would only have been an initiation rite that marked them as members of the Church without remitting their sins. This is one proof that the sins of the faithful were not remitted during the Old Testament era.

June 6, 2002
Saul's sins were not remitted when he was a Pharisee
Saul was a Pharisee who conversed in the law without blame:

“Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other thinketh he may have confidence in the flesh, I more, Being circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; according to the law, a Pharisee: According to zeal, persecuting the church of God; according to the justice that is in the law, conversing without blame.” (Phil. 3:4-6)

Yet when St. Paul was a Pharisee, he was not freed from original sin. He needed to be baptised by water for his sins to be remitted:

“And one Ananias, a man according to the law, having testimony of all the Jews who dwelt there, Coming to me, and standing by me, said to me: Brother Saul... Rise up, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, invoking his name.” (Acts 22: 12, 16)

*October 28, 2005
If the Old Testament elect were not sanctified, then my opinion that they needed to be baptized by water for their sins to be remitted is possible. (See in this book “Baptism of Old Testament Elect,” p.67.)

*June 6, 2002
Were there Exceptions?
St. Mary Magdalene
Jesus Christ forgave St. Mary Magdalene’s sins. Jesus “said to her: Thy sins are forgiven thee.” (Luke 7:48) Since Christ had not yet died on the Cross for the remission of sins, how could Mary's sins have been remitted? Mary's sins were not remitted, but were forgiven in the same way as for the Old Testament faithful. (See in this book “Old Testament Justification,” p. 68)

However, there is one major difference: Christ forgave Mary Magdalene's sins without the need of an animal sacrifice offered up by a Levitical priest, which was what the Old Mosaic Law required for the forgiving of sins. While this law was in force, Christ asserted His superiority over it by forgiving Mary's sins without the need of resorting to a Levitical priest and an animal sacrifice, which God had instituted for the forgiveness of sins. That is why the obstinate Pharisees said, “Who is this that forgiveth sins also?” (Lk. 7:49) The Pharisees were not angry with Jesus because they did not believe sins could be forgiven. They knew sins could be forgiven because God, by the Mosaic Law, gave them very specific instructions on what must be done in order for sins to be forgiven; that is, a penitent must confess his sins to a Levitical priest and the priest must offer to God an animal sacrifice for forgiveness of the penitent's sins. The Pharisees were angry because Jesus made Himself out to be God since only God can forgive sins and thus only God can institute a new means for forgiving sins. When Jesus forgave another man’s sins, the wicked Scribes accused Him of blasphemy, knowing that only God can institute a new way to forgive sins:

“And behold they brought to him one sick of the palsy lying in a bed. And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the man sick of the palsy: Be of good heart, son, thy sins are forgiven thee. And behold some of the scribes said within themselves: He blasphemeth.” (Mt. 9:2-3)

While confounding the obstinate and unbelieving Pharisees and Scribes, Jesus was proving that indeed He is God and thus has the power to forgive sins and to institute a new way to forgive sins. Under the New Covenant, sins would now be forgiven not by animal sacrifices, but by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, by faith in and obedience to Him and His New Covenant and His Catholic Church, and by the reception of the sacraments of baptism and penance. And under the New Covenant there is an additional benefit of sins being remitted, something which the Old Covenant could not do: “Be it known therefore to you, men, brethren, that through him [Jesus] forgiveness of sins is preached to you: and from all the things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.” (Acts 13:38) (See in this book “Old Testament Justification,” p. 68.)

The Prophet Jeremias

Statement:
The Bible says that the prophet Jeremias was sanctified in the womb of his mother:
“Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and made thee a prophet unto the nations.” (Jer. 1:5) This is proof that Jeremias' sins were remitted.

RJMI Answer:

The word sanctification as used in the Old Testament does not necessarily mean that sins were remitted. It also could mean to be set aside for a special purpose or mission:

Haydock commentary, on Jeremias 1:5: “Many think that Jeremias was purified from original sin before his birth... Yet to sanctify often means only to set aside. Ex 13:2.”

Jesus the Son of Sirach, in his Book of Ecclesiasticus, confirms that to sanctify in the case of Jeremias means to set aside or to consecrate: “Jeremias ...who was consecrated a prophet from his mother's womb.” (Eclcus. 49:8-9) Therefore, Jeremias 1:5 cannot be used as conclusive proof that Jeremias was sanctified because “to sanctify often means only to set aside.”

Sanctification and being “filled with the Holy Ghost”
The following cases deal with the term “being filled with the Holy Ghost.” Some wrongly believe that this always means the recipient is sanctified. Charismata are gifts of the Holy Ghost, such as prophecy, which can exist in men separate from personal sanctification:

The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, Holy Ghost: “The gifts of the Holy Ghost are of two kinds: the first are especially intended for the sanctification of the person who receives them: the second, more properly called charismata, are extraordinary favors granted for the help of another, favors, too, which do not sanctify by themselves, and may even be separated from sanctifying grace.”

The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, Charismata: "The gifts of the Holy Ghost are of two kinds: the first are specially intended for the sanctification of the person who receives them; the second, more properly called charismata, ...The charismata, being extraordinary favours and not requisite for the sanctification of the individual... the charismata were extremely useful, and even morally necessary, to strengthen the faith of believers, to confound the infidels, to make them reflect, and to counterbalance the false miracles… Theologians distinguish the charismata from other graces which operate personal sanctification..."

They are: ‘The word of wisdom, the word of knowledge, faith, the grace of healing, the working of miracles, prophecy, the discerning of spirits, diverse kinds of tongues, interpretation of speeches’ (I Cor., xii, 8-10). To these are added the charismata of apostles, prophets, doctors, helps, governments (ibid., 28).”

The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, Grace: “Yet there are also interior graces which do not procure the individual sanctification of the recipient, but the sanctification of others through the recipient. These, by the extension of the generic term to specifically designate a new subdivision, are antonomasia, called gratuitously given graces (gratiae gratis datae). To this class belong the extraordinary charismata of the miracle-worker, the prophet, the speaker of tongues, etc. (1Cor 12:4), as well as the ordinary powers of the priest and confessor. As the object of these graces is, according to their nature, the spread of the kingdom of God on earth and the sanctification of men, their possession in itself does not exclude personal unholiness.”

The Holy Ghost filled the evil prophet Balaam and made him speak the truth and bless Israel in spite of the fact that Balac paid Balaam to prophesy lies and curse the Israelites:

“And Balac being angry against Balaam, clapped his hands together and said: I called thee to curse my enemies, and thou on the contrary hast blessed them three times... Balaam made answer... If Balac would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the word of the Lord my God, to utter any thing of my own head either good or evil: but whatsoever the Lord shall say, that I shall speak.” (Num. 24:10,12-13)

In spite of Caiphas’ bad intentions, the Holy Ghost filled the evil Caiphas and made him speak the truth about Jesus: “Caiphas, who was the high priest of that year. Now Caiphas was he who had given the counsel to the Jews: That it was expedient that one man should die for the people.” (Jn. 18:13-14)

St. John the Baptist
It is my opinion that St. John the Baptist, like Jeremias, was not truly sanctified in the womb. From the following Bible verse, some believe that St. John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb of St. Elizabeth:

The angel that appeared to Zachary said that his son John “shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.” (Lk. 1:15)

As proven above, to be “filled with the Holy Ghost” does not necessarily mean to remit sins by the bestowal of sanctifying grace. The Haydock commentary on this passage confirms this:

Haydock Commentary, on Luke 1:15: “...from which words some conjecture, that S. John the Baptist, though conceived in original sin, yet might have been freed from the guilt of it before he came into the world.”

No pope has infallibly settled this dispute. The same words “filled with the Holy Ghost” used for John are also used for his parents, Ss. Zachary and Elizabeth:

“And Zachary his father was filled with the Holy Ghost.” (Lk. 1:67) “And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost.” (Lk. 1:41)

If the words “filled with the Holy Ghost” could only mean John's sins were remitted, then how come it does not mean the same thing when used for his parents? The words “filled with the Holy Ghost” regarding John's parents mean the gift of prophecy and not the remission of sins. After having been filled with the Holy Ghost, John's parents prophesied: Elizabeth prophesied regarding Mary and Jesus, and Zachary prophesied regarding the future greatness of his son John. Likewise, St. John was not sanctified during this event by being filled with the Holy Ghost, but was given the spirit of prophecy and consecrated as a prophet of God from the womb.

As used many times in the Old and New Testaments, the term “filled with the Holy Ghost” means the gift of prophecy. St. John, indeed, was filled with the Holy Ghost in this sense, as he prophesied from his mother's womb when he leaped at the presence of Jesus who was in Mary's womb:

“For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy.” (Lk. 1:44) Haydock commentary: “VER. 41. The infant leaped in her womb... According to the general opinion of the interpreters, this motion of the child at this time was not natural: and some think that God gave to S. John, even in his mother's womb, a passing knowledge of the presence of his Redeemer.”

Thus, it is my opinion that the words “filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb” mean that St. John was given the gift of prophecy and consecrated as a prophet while he was in the womb of his mother, but was not given the gift of sanctifying grace.

*June 6, 2002
Cornelius and his companions
Statement:

The Bible teaches that Cornelius and his companions were sanctified by baptism of desire before being baptized with water by St. Peter:

“While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word. And the faithful of the circumcision, who came with Peter, were astonished, for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also. For they heard them speaking with tongues, and magnifying God. Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?” (Acts 10:44-47)

RJMI Answer:

God would not undermine the sacrament of baptism that He instituted for the remission of sins by remitting Cornelius’ and his companions’ sins just prior to their receiving the sacrament of baptism, thus reducing the sacrament of baptism to an initiation rite for them. The gift of the Holy Ghost that was given to Cornelius and his companions, prior to being baptized by St. Peter, was not sanctifying grace. It was one of the Holy Ghost’s gifts, also known as charismata, of speaking in tongues as the Apostles did on Pentecost Sunday. Charismata are gifts of the Holy Ghost that can exist in men separate from personal sanctification. This gift of speaking in tongues was a confirmation to St. Peter that Cornelius and his companions were worthy of being baptized and that faithful Gentiles were now equal to the faithful Jews. Under the Old Covenant, Gentile converts were not given these extraordinary gifts and were not allowed leadership or religious positions.

*July 6, 2002
St. Paul - Statement:

The Bible teaches that St. Paul was sanctified, filled with the Holy Ghost, before he received the sacrament of baptism:

“And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house. And laying his hands upon him, he said: Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus hath sent me, he that appeared to thee in the way as thou camest; that thou mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight; and rising up, he was baptized.” (Acts 9:17-18)

Hence St. Paul received baptism of desire.

RJMI Answer:

As proven above, being filled with the Holy Ghost does not always mean sanctification. However, this passage does not say that Saul was filled with the Holy Ghost the instant he received his sight by a miracle. Two events are indicated. Ananias tells Saul that he will first receive his sight and after that, when Saul gets baptized, Saul will then be filled with the Holy Ghost. St. Paul himself testifies that his sins were not remitted until he was baptised by water:

“And one Ananias, a man according to the law, having testimony of all the Jews who dwelt there, Coming to me, and standing by me, said to me: Brother Saul, look up. And I the same hour looked upon him. But he said: The God of our fathers hath preordained thee that thou shouldst know his will, and see the Just One, and shouldst hear the voice from his mouth. For thou shalt be his witness to all men, of those things which thou hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou? Rise up, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, invoking his name.” (Acts 22: 12-16)

Therefore Saul's baptism by water, not his desire to be baptized, washed away his sins.

*October 28, 2005
Revisions, additions, and corrections
From June 3 to June 6
[Original Version 4/3/03] [6/1/03 – Saints on Baptism, St. Augustine] [11/03 - “Schismatic Penance and Remission of sins” moved to Baptism Controversy Supplement book] [1/05 - Edits to “When was Baptism Mandatory?” and addition to “St. Alphonsus' teachings on Baptism, Infant Baptism.”] [10/05 – “'Errors of Du Bay' Do Not Defend Baptism of Desire or Blood” and “Saul, a Pharisee, did not have his sins remitted” and “Were There Exceptions?:
St. Paul”] [11/05 – Addition to “Old Testament Justification”] [?? - Addition to “Roman Martyrology… are not infallible.] [6/06 - Addition to Old Testament Justification, a quote from Fr. Michael Muller]

July 2006
I revised and made additions to the chapter “Baptism Controversy Introduction.” It is now titled “Introduction.” I added a chapter titled “Allowed Opinions on Baptism.” I also made corrections regarding what Fr. Feeney believed about baptism. My errors were in the chapter titled “RJMI vs. the St. Benedict Center on Baptism.” I removed that chapter and replaced it with the chapter titled “Fr. Feeney's Opinion on Justified Catechumens is not Heretical.” Below is a brief list of my errors and corrections:

1) I erroneously implied that Fr. Feeney believed justified catechumens were outside the Catholic Church. Fr. Feeney did not believe that. He believed they are inside the Catholic Church but not as members.

2) I erroneously implied that Fr. Feeney believed justified catechumens would go to hell. Fr. Feeney did not believe they go to hell. He did not believe that they would not be saved but only that they could not be saved in their current condition. He believed God would get them baptized by water before they die and go to their particular judgment.

3) I erroneously implied that Fr. Feeney believed justified catechumens were not in the way of salvation. He believed they are in the way of salvation but that they were not yet saved and could not be saved until baptized by water.

See my chapter “Fr. Feeney's Opinion on Justified Catechumens is not Heretical” for an in-depth explanation.

What each St. Benedict Center believes regarding this, I do not know. I presume they believe as Fr. Feeney did. Beware of the current day St. Benedict Centers who have nothing of the spirit of Fr. Feeney, their founder. They do not condemn notorious sins or denounce notorious sinners and hence share in the guilt of the sins they do not condemn and the sinners they do not denounce. And they profess to be in religious communion with the apostate Vatican II Church and its leaders, whose crimes in these latter days of the Great Apostasy are notorious and manifest to all. For all these crimes and more, the current day Saint Benedict Centers are apostate and heretical sects. (See my book Against the St. Benedict Center.)

[1] I say that Mary needed to end her life in this world because I hold the allowable opinion that Mary did not die but fell asleep and was taken to heaven. I believe she did not die because death is the price of sin and Mary had no sin. Even though Christ had no sin also, He needed to die to remit men's sins. The same is not true of Mary. Mary's role as co-redeemer did not require her to die. Without Mary there is no redemption, but it was Christ who redeemed men by His death on the cross. (See my book The Blessed Virgin Mary is Mediatrix and Co-Redeemer.)
[2] Consideration viii: The death of the Just: First, Second, and Third Points.
[3] See: RJMI Book, Implicit Faith Heresy and The Baptism Schism, “Initial Letter to Fr. Pulvermacher, 3) Heresy – Men can be partially united to the Catholic Church” and “Answers by Fr. Pulvermacher..., Fr. P. evades his heresy that a man can be partially Catholic.”
[4] See: Exurge Michael, Issue 5, “Peter Scott's Hypocrisy, Heresy, and Schism.”
[5] St. Robert Bellarmine, “On Baptism,” cf. ch.5; The Sacraments, Rt. Rev. Msgr. Joseph Pohl, ed. Arthur Preuss, St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1942, I: 243.
[6] Catechism of The Council of Trent, “Sacrament of Baptism”, Made Obligatory After Christ's Resurrection, p. 171
[7] A Catholic Dictionary, Attwater, 1942, p 429.
[8] Pope Innocent III, Maiores Ecclesiae causas, ad Yubertum Archiepisc. Arelatensem, sub finem 1201: CIC Decr. Gerg. III, 42, 3: Frdbg II 644 sq; Rcht II 619 sq; Pth 1479: D. 410.
[9] “Oration on the Holy Lights,” XL:23, PG:36.
[10] RJMI Comment: Some of the saints in that day had taught that prayers and pious deeds by Catholics, such as giving alms, could relieve the suffering of the damned souls in hell, but not release them from hell. We read from The History of Dogmas, vol. 2, p. 198: “St. Chrysostom teaches that, by alms-giving and prayer, we may procure some relief for the departed who have died without baptism or who have been condemned by God.” (Footnote 276: Orat. catchet., 26, 35; cf. 40; De anima et resurrect., col. 72, 104, 105, 152, 157; cf. De mortuis, col. 524; Contra Arium et Sabellium; P. G., XLV, 1292, 1293.)”
[11] The History of Dogmas, vol. 2, p. 163-164.
[12] Here St. Augustine confirms the true meaning of Pope Pius IX works in his encyclical, Singulari Quadem: “Far be it from Us, Venerable Brethren, to presume on the limits of the divine mercy which is infinite; far from Us, to wish to scrutinize the hidden counsel and ‘judgments of God’ which are 'a great deep' and cannot be penetrated by human thought... For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains ‘we shall see God as He is’ (1 Jn. 3:2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is ‘one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5); it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.” Indeed, only at the General Judgment will the reasons be known as to why one was damned and one was saved; why God did not allow some to hear His word and others He did; and, why God allowed some catechumens to get baptized and others to die before they were baptized.
[13] Warning: Sadly, Br. Robert Mary who is a member of the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire is a heretic for patronizing and supporting the manifestly heretical Conciliar (Vatican II) Church and the apostate Antipope John Paul II, whom he refers to as being Catholic, while not condemning their heresy, schism and apostasy. What Br. Robert wrote above is a valid Catholic opinion which I agree with, but unfortunately it only takes one heresy to become a heretic and thus fall outside the Catholic Church and therefore on the broad road to damnation. Br. Robert Mary and Antipope John Paul II can each say many Catholic things but it is the non-Catholic things they say or do elsewhere that makes them heretics and therefore automatically (ipso facto) excommunicates them.
[14] It is not my purpose here to question the meaning of St. Ambrose's words. For the sake of the debate I take the position he did teach baptism of desire, although he may not have actually taught it. There are those who propose St. Ambrose was actually teaching that Valentinian’s pious desire to be baptized availed him to being baptized by water before he died, and thus he was absolved of all his sins. The argument goes, from a historical account of his death, that after he received his fatal wound he lived several hours and was being cared for by men in his army, of which there were many Catholics. Therefore, they knowing he was an unbaptized catechumen who is clearly in danger of death would have baptized him. This is a very feasible argument that Valentinian was baptized by water and a hard one to contradict. But, being St. Ambrose had no proof of his baptism, it does not prove St. Ambrose did not teach baptism of desire.
[15] It is my opinion that it is not possible for an unbaptized catechumen to have perfect contrition. (See: The Catechumen and Perfect Contrition)
[16] Catechism of Trent, Tan Edition, 1982, Introduction, p. xxxvi, John A. McHugh, O.P., Charles J. Callan, O.P.
[17] The Council of Trent, On penance, sess. xiv, chap. 4; D 898.
[18] St. Alphonsus Marie de Liguori, “Instructions on the Commandments and Sacraments,” trans, Fr. P. M’Auley, Dublin: G. P. Warren Co., c. 1846, 55, no. 8.
[19] It is argued that since the Vatican Council's definition of papal infallibility in 1870, all schismatics would then also be heretics for denying this dogma.
[20] A non-Catholic, not being in a state of grace, can be referred to as being righteous if he lives according to the law upon his heart and fervently seeks the true God. This disposition, this righteousness, will earn him God’s favor, and thus God will see to it that he hears what he needs to be saved and give him the grace to believe and confess the faith before he dies.
[21] The Catholic Doctrine of Grace, G. H. Joyce S.J., 1920, p. 43, footnote 2.
[22] It is my opinion that it is not possible for a unbaptized catechumen to have perfect contrition. (See: The Catechumen and Perfect Contrition)
[23] St. Alphonsus Liguori, Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7.
[24] The Catholic Encyclopedia, sup. i, vol. xvii, Code of Canon Law
[25] This paragraph was edited on 8/15/2004 to clearly express that the saints in heaven, except Mary, are not united with their bodies until the General Judgment at the end of the world.
[26] Fr. Michael Muller, The Catholic Dogma, §3. The New Law or the Law of Grace, p. 141.
[27] "Explanation of the Epistles and Gospels for the Sundays, Holydays and Festivals throughout the Ecclesiastical Year," Fr. Leonard Goffine, translated from the latest German edition of Rev. George Ott by Very Rev. Gerard M. Pilz, O.S.B., with may approbations of the Most Rev. Archbishops and Bishops of the United States, Copyright 1880, Erwin Steinback of firm Fr. Pustet and Co., New York and Cincinnati, printer to the Holy Apostolic See and the Sacred Congregation of Rites.
[28] CRC Decr. Greg. III, 42, 3: Frdbg II 644 f.; Rcht II 619 f.; pth 1479; D. 410.