'Implicit Faith in Christ' Does Not Suffice for Justificatio

By Brother André Marie (from  https://catholicism.org/ )

 

FATHER Thomas Crean, O.P., Dr. Alan Fimister, and Dr. John Joy have authored a twenty-five-page scholarly article, written in the scholastic format, in the pages of the theological journal, Divinitas. Called “Can a Person Be Justified by ‘Implicit Faith in Christ’?,” the article is available for purchase as a download from the Divinitas website (at $4.28, it’s a bargain).

The article’s abstract gives the scope of the work of these three scholars:

In this article the question is treated whether explicit faith in Christ is necessary for justification. The introduction specifies the state of the question, lays out the thesis that is being defended, and gives the reasons for the scholastic format of the article. The objections are then stated. The arguments stem from both speculative and positive theology involving all possible sources: Scripture, Magisterium, Church Fathers, etc. The respondeo affirms explicit faith in Christ as a necessity of means for justification, insisting on the gratuity and supernaturality of salvation. The contrary opinions of some later theologians are then briefly exposed. Lastly the objections are each answered individually.

The authors opted to use the scholastic format, first stating the objections to their thesis (eighteen of them!), then a sed contra (“on the contrary”), then the detailed development of their own thesis, followed by answers to the objections. All this is in the fashion of Saint Thomas Aquinas and other mediaeval scholastic theologians. Crean, Fimister, and Joy adopt this method not as an exercise in creative anachronism, but, as they say, in order to separate their own positive statement of the thesis they are upholding from their replies to objections against it.

Pope Pius IX Did Not Teach Salvation Outside The Church

 While we don't agree with Sedevacantism the Dimonds do excellent work on EENS. Here is an excellent job on the controversy of Pius IX:

Father Feeney and the Implicitum Votum Ecclesiae- (the implicit desire for the Church) Part I

by Fr. Brian W. Harrison OS
emeritus professor of theology at
the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico

Part A. Who Is In Fact ‘Outside The Church’?
[link to part 2]

Introduction

It is now over sixty years since the so-called “Boston Heresy Case” involving Fr. Leonard Feeney (1897-1978) shook the U.S. Church and sent more than a few tremors round other parts of the Catholic world. The case eventually influenced the doctrinal teaching of Vatican Council II’s principal document, the 1964 Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium. Dealing with the prospects for eternal salvation of those who are sincerely unaware of the truth of Catholicism, the Council references a rather low-key¹ censure of Feeney’s doctrine, sent fifteen years earlier by the Vatican’s Holy Office to Archbishop (later Cardinal) Richard Cushing of Boston.²

The key point in this doctrinal ruling was that the ancient dogmatic formula, “No salvation outside the Church (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)”, must not be understood to exclude from salvation all those who die as non-Catholics (that is, without consciously professing the Roman Catholic faith). The reason is that some of these persons, the Holy Office affirmed, developing Pope Pius XII’s teaching several years earlier in the 1943 Encyclical Mystici Corporis,³ may in fact be joined to the true Church by a link – seemingly tenuous, but sufficient for salvation – that consists in a merely implicit and unconscious desire (implicitum votum Ecclesiae) to enter the Catholic fold. This desire, however, will have to be such as includes supernatural acts of faith and charity.⁴

In spite of Vatican II’s footnote confirming this Holy Office decision, the controversy which flared as a result of Fr. Feeney’s severe interpretation of the aforesaid dogma has never really been laid to rest. At least, not in the United States, where small but convinced and articulate groups of Catholics continue to defend and propagate Feeney’s distinctive teaching. This can be adequately summarized in the following proposition postulating two requirements for reaching eternal life:

To reach eternal salvation, it is necessary (though not sufficient): (a) to have been baptized sacramentally⁵; and (b) to die sincerely professing the Catholic faith and one’s own personal submission to the Roman Pontiff.

Most of those who adopt this position are, however, rather less insistent and uncompromising about (a) than they are about (b). That is, most would say (as Fr. Feeney himself did after 1952) that in their personal opinion there is no such thing as a saving ‘baptism of desire’ or ‘baptism of blood’; but that they would not condemn as certainly unorthodox the contrary opinion, to wit, the consensus of approved theologians and papally-endorsed catechisms over the last thousand years to the effect that these two substitutes for sacramental baptism can certainly be sufficient for salvation in determined circumstances. It seems that in recent debates over “Feeneyism” in traditional Catholic circles, the lion’s share of the cut-and-thrust has been devoted to issue (a) – that is, to arguing for or against the validity of ‘baptism of desire’ and ‘baptism of blood’,⁶ – even though, for Feeney’s followers, this has usually been the more ‘negotiable’ of the two key issues. The present essay, in focusing attention on (b), will seek to redress the balance somewhat.

While most Catholic traditionalists⁷ do not agree with Feeney’s distinctive doctrine, those who do include, amongst others, communities of male and female religious in New England and California operating in a certain institutional continuity with Fr. Feeney’s ‘Saint Benedict Center’ (hereafter ‘SBC’), which was originally located near Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The canonical status of these defenders of the rigorist understanding of ‘the salvation dogma’ varies. One or two such groups – not institutionally connected at all with the SBC communities – are at least materially schismatic, since they not only denounce various Vatican II teachings as heretical, but also deny that any of the post-conciliar Popes has been a true Successor of Peter. Others are canonically regularized or at least tolerated by Church authority. For the two-part doctrinal thesis placed in bold type above, while not in accord with the Church’s contemporary magisterium,⁸ has never been formally condemned as contrary to infallible Church teaching, and (presumably for that reason) is not being treated by the Vatican as an offence that excludes one from membership in the Church, or even from reception of the Sacraments.

This writer’s participation in many written and oral discussions over the years has left him with the impression that while only a minuscule proportion of Catholics accept Fr. Feeney’s thesis regarding ‘the salvation dogma’, very few of the remaining vast majority are well equipped to refute it. If they are aware of it at all, they most often dismiss it out of hand as being so obviously narrow-minded and incredible in the modern ecumenical age that it is not even worth two minutes’ serious consideration. I myself tended to take that attitude until a decade or so ago. Then, as a theology professor, I started to receive requests for help from one or two other priests who were being besieged by anxious lay people primed with ‘Feeneyite’ literature. These priests frankly admitted their uncertainty as how best to help reassure such perplexed Catholics that the arguments found in such literature are fallacious. The fact is, Fr. Feeney was definitely no fool. He had by the 1940s developed a reputation as one of America’s most brilliant and learned Jesuits, and for that reason was seen as well equipped to defend the faith at the liberal intellectual hub of the nation: Harvard University and its vicinity. Thus it is that those few modern mainstream Catholics who take time out to read carefully the case presented by Feeney and his present-day followers are often taken aback to find themselves much more challenged than they expected to be.

Father Feeney and the Implicitum Votum Ecclesiae- (the implicit desire for the Church) Part 2

by Fr. Brian W. Harrison OS
emeritus professor of theology at
the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico
[link to part 1]

Part B. Reading Cantate Domino, Unam Sanctam, and the 1949 Letter
in a Hermeneutic of Continuity

IV. Who are the “heretics” and “schismatics” Florence refers to?

In Part A of this essay we have elucidated and articulated more precisely the principal point of conflict between the distinctive Feeney-SBC thesis and the magisterium’s explicit teaching since the 1940s. Both sides agree that no one can be saved outside the Church; but they are not in full agreement as to what the conditions are for being outside the Church. Specifically, SBC affirms, and the contemporary magisterium denies (albeit implicitly), that all those with an explicit and conscious will not to be subject to the Roman Pontiff are outside the Church (cf. section IV, #7 above). Our remaining task in this study is one which might look rather daunting: we need to show that the contemporary magisterium’s position on this point does not contradict the relevant infallible pronouncements of the Council of Florence and Pope Boniface VIII.

Now, Fr. Feeney and his SBC followers would probably say that I am trying to ‘square the circle’ here, so that my efforts to harmonize the medieval magisterial statements with the 1949 Letter are inevitably doomed to failure. Specifically, they would most likely claim that I am hoist on my own petard in trying to defend the sufficiency for salvation of an “implicit desire for the Church” in the hearts of non-Catholic Christians – persons who by definition explicitly refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff. For I have already admitted that we can never, on pain of Vatican I’s anathema, give a new and different meaning to the words of any Catholic dogma. But (my SBC critics are likely to argue) the words “heretics” and “schismatics” in the Florentine profession of faith were certainly understood by the 15th-century Fathers of that Council to include all separated Eastern Christians as well as the pre-Reformation ‘Protestants’ of their day (Hussites, Waldensians, Lollards, and other sectarians). There was no benign ecumenical talk back then of such folks being our “separated brethren”! Therefore (my critics will conclude) the Council of Florence, in consigning to the eternal fire all those dying as “heretics” and “schismatics”, included among these sons of perdition all persons who die professing membership in any non-Catholic community whatsoever, that is, all who die with an explicit will not to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. If this conclusion is correct, the very idea that a non-Catholic’s “implicit desire” for the Church could be sufficient for his or her salvation is heretical. And that is precisely the grave charge leveled boldly by Leonard Feeney at the 1949 Holy Office Letter.¹

To answer this objection, we must distinguish carefully between: (a) a judgment as to the definition of the word “heretic” (or “schismatic”); and (b) a judgment as to whether a particular person or group under consideration comes under that definition. Judgment (a) is about what is meant by the sins of heresy and schism respectively, and is, as such, doctrinal in character. But (b) is about who, among the individuals and groups we may be observing and assessing, should be judged (or at least presumed) guilty of those sins. It is therefore not a doctrinal judgment, but rather, a prudential judgment about a question of contingent fact. Now, in order to comply with Vatican I’s insistence that the original meanings of Catholic dogmas must always be retained, we need only retain the same judgment (a) as was made by the Fathers of Florence. That is, we must retain their own ‘job description’ of a heretic or a schismatic, but not necessarily their practical, prudential judgment as to who in fact fits that description.

The Fruits of Baptism of Desire ?

[editor- Because of the recent scandals, many priests are trying to convince people not leave. Among them, is Bishop Barron, who has a weak argument. But since he thinks  de facto: "all are save"-- why not leave? If we are saved in any faith and it doesn't matter what you believe. ? Barron's argument is to stay Catholic because it is "nice." But let's consider the problems with BoD. We take this from a forum on the topic https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-drew-subborn-please-proof-read/ ]



Baptism of desire (BOD) denies the necessity of the sacrament of baptism for salvation.

BOD mocks the sacrament of baptism because it is not a sacrament. It is not an outward sign instituted by Christ. It is not a gateway to the other sacraments, does not impart the baptismal character, all things the church teaches are part of justification and necessary for salvation, and which are the very characteristics of true baptism.

BOD promotes the Protestant heresy that faith alone saves.

BOD leads many Catholics to believe abortion is a source of hope for infants since infants are not guilty of actual sin.

BOD contradicts the Catholic teaching: One Lord, one faith, one baptism, since, BOD, by definition, is not the same as baptism, but something entirely different.

Advocates admit BOD does not make anyone a member of the Church. Since the church teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church, BOD cannot save.

BOD promotes laxity and indifferentism because many Catholics often rest in a person's desire for heaven rather than do the work to help get the person baptized.

BOD is nothing like baptism because the grace is not assured.

BOD is not true baptism because the water and words are missing.

Pope St. Leo the Great ends the debate

   Tradition doesn’t teach baptism of desire and the infallible teaching of the Church on the Sacrament of Baptism and John 3:5 excludes it.

This error was perpetuated in the middle ages through flawed passages in the fallible texts of Churchmen.

The most interesting pronouncement, disproving baptism of desire, by the dogmatic letter of Pope St. Leo the Great to Flavian, which excludes the exact concept of baptism of desire and baptism of blood.

Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic 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]

     Before we get into the tremendous significance of this pronouncement, we will give a little background on this dogmatic letter. 

This is Pope St. Leo the Great’s famous dogmatic letter to Flavian, originally written in 449, and later accepted by the Council of Chalcedon – the fourth general council of the Church – in 451 (quoted in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Georgetown Press, Vol. 1, pp. 77-82).

Fr. Feeney and Desire and Deception --video

What is Father Feeney's thesis and why was he excommunicated? Author Charles A. Coulombe of the book "Desire and Deception" , also discusses  baptism of desire and invincible ignorance. 

Father Faber on the Salvation of Non-Catholics

by Fr. Frederick W. Faber

If the Precious Blood had been shed, and yet we had no priesthood, no Sacraments, no jurisdiction, no sacramentals, no mystical life of the visible unity of the Church– life, so it seems, would be almost intolerable. This is the condition of those outside the Church; and certainly as we grow older, as our experience widens, as our knowledge of ourselves deepens, as our acquaintance with mankind increases, the less hopeful do our ideas become regarding the salvation of those outside the Roman Church.

We make the most we can of the uncovenanted mercies of God, of the invisible soul of the Church, of the doctrine of invincible ignorance, of the easiness of making acts of contrition, and of the visible moral goodness among men; and yet what are these but straws in our own estimation, if our own chances of salvation had to lean their weight upon them? They wear out, or they break down.

They are fearfully counterweighted by other considerations. We have to draw on our imaginations in order to fill up the picture. They are but theories at best, theories unhelpful except to console those who are forward to be deceived for the sake of those they love–theories often very fatal by keeping our charity in check and interfering with that restlessness of converting love in season and out of season, and that impetuous agony of prayer, upon which God may have made the salvation of our friends depend. (The Precious Blood, page 77)

Baptism of Desire: Its Origin and Abandonment in the Thought of Saint Augustine

by Brian Kelly 

[editor: We at Catholic Vox thought that this is a very good article and wished to share it. We have edited it slightly to make it more readable for our readers. We changed no content and link to the original original link here , we hope it helps-- Bill Strom]

Perish the thought that a person predestined to eternal life could be allowed to end this life without the sacrament of the mediator. (Saint Augustine)

This article will focus on the question of explicit baptism of desire — as it was understood by most western doctors of the Church from the time of Saint Augustine (+430) until Saint Alphonsus Maria de Liguori (+1787), the last declared theological doctor who wrote in favor of its saving efficacy. The subject matter will deal specifically with the origin of the theological speculation, as given by Saint Augustine in one of his early doctrinal letters, and then move on to prove from authoritative testimony that the African doctor reversed his opinion in his later anti-Pelagian writing.


Go Ye, Preach the Gospel to Every Creature, and Baptize

Let us preface the following with an affirmation of the extreme importance of this issue in that the conversion of non-Christians to the Catholic Faith, in our day, is no longer considered a mission necessary for their salvation. The mandate of our Savior to “Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned” (Mark 16:15-16), has been supplanted by a new gospel of salvation by sincerity through invincible ignorance. It is my intention to restore at least an appreciation for the zeal of the holy missionaries that went forth to convert the nations to Christ and to baptize the pagans and infidels who accepted the good news that is the gospel. These missionaries, whose exemplar since the sixteenth century is Saint Francis Xavier, were not distracted by any speculation about a baptism of desire. Xavier baptized three million pagans with his own hand. Biographers write that there were so many catechumens waiting to be baptized that assistants had to help him to lift his arm to perform the rite. Saint Francis Xavier never wrote a word about baptism of desire. Rather, he wrote these words from the Far East hoping to reach students aspiring for degrees: “How I would like to go to the universities of Paris and the Sorbonne and address many men who are richer in learning than in zeal, to let them know the great number of souls who, because of their neglect, are deprived of grace and are apt to go to hell. There are millions of nonbelievers who would become Christian if there were missionaries.” Was this missioner, considered the greatest after Saint Paul, misinformed?

Why the Council of Trent Does Not Teach Baptism of Desire

Proponents for the so-called Baptism of Desire (BoD) adduce a certain passage from the Council of Trent as by far their single most cogent argument in its favor. Certainly, if the Council of Trent had in fact taught BoD, then the case must be considered closed (“Roma dixit; res clausa est.” Rome has spoken; the matter is closed.) With that in mind, and fully prepared to accept whatever Holy Mother Church has taught on this subject, I determined to read the entire teaching of Trent, in Latin, from beginning to end, rather than simply being content with the single passage that’s invariably taken in isolation and out of context from the entire body of teaching. Translations, moreover, have this tendency to interpret as they go along, and, to a point, that almost cannot be helped. I asked the Holy Spirit to guide me in understanding the Church’s teaching and started reading. I actually began inclined in favor of a BoD for catechumens, but the more I read the more I realized that Trent wasn’t teaching BoD at all but something else altogether. I do not intend herein a comprehensive treatment regarding the notion of BoD but merely to explain why it’s clear that Trent did not teach BoD.

Let's be Honest

 from :Tim Harrington

Let's be honest. BoDers don't have a thing to stand on.

EENSers Say You DO need:

Water	Agrees with words of Jesus Christ
The Sacraments	Agrees with the Council Trent
The Church	Agrees with the infallible proclamations
The Faith	Agrees with sacred scripture

B.O.D.--ers Say You DON'T need:

Water	Disagrees with words of Jesus Christ
The Sacraments	Disagrees with the Council Trent
The Church	Disagrees with the infallible proclamations
The Faith	Disagrees with sacred scripture

*(BOD = Baptism of Desire)

Use this example when you discuss it with a priest.
Say a unbaptized secularist comes to a priest and says "I want to be a Catholic!"

Is he a Catholic then and there?
BoDer will say: "No, not yet"---(if yes then he doesn't need baptism.)

So the priest is welcoming and gives him a Catechism and class to attend--which our catechumen does excellent at. When he finishes the classes is he a member of the Church then?
BoDer: "No, not yet"---(if yes then he doesn't need baptism)

you: "But he has the desire--when does his desire make him a member of the Church?"

So then the catechumen wakes-up one day and walks on his way to get baptized in the church.
On that day when he wakes up is he a member of the Church?
BoDer: "No, not yet"---( if yes then he doesn't need to be baptized)

Now our catechumen is crossing the street in front of the Church to be baptized in say 45 minutes.
Is he a member then?
BoDer: "No not yet"---( if yes then he doesn't need to be baptized)

Just as he is taking his final step to cross the street he is hit by a car and is killed! Is he then a member?
BoDer: "Yes!"
How?
BoDer: "Because he was going to die and God has no power to avoid such catastrophes, so He invented BoD so he wouldn't look powerless!"


PLEASE lets be honest BoD makes no sense.

The Theory of Baptism of Blood - A Tradition of Men

THE THEORY OF BAPTISM OF BLOOD - A TRADITION OF MEN


A small number of the fathers – approximately 8 out of a total of hundreds – are quoted in favor of what is called “baptism of blood,” the idea that a catechumen (that is, one preparing to receive Catholic Baptism) who shed his blood for Christ could be saved without having received Baptism.



It is crucial to note at the beginning that none of the fathers considered anyone but a catechumen as a possible exception to receiving the Sacrament of Baptism; they would all condemn and reject as heretical and foreign to the teaching of Christ the modern error of “invincible ignorance” saving those who die as non-Catholics. So, out of the fathers, approximately 8 are quoted in favor of baptism of blood for catechumens. And, only 1 father out of hundreds, St. Augustine, can be quoted as clearly teaching baptism of desire since the proclamation of the Gospel-- the idea that a catechumen could be saved by his explicit desire for water baptism. This means that with the exception of St. Augustine, all of the few fathers who believed in baptism of blood actually rejected the concept of baptism of desire. Take St. Cyril of Jerusalem, for example:

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, 350 A.D.: “If any man does not receive baptism, he does not receive salvation. The only exception is the martyrs...”[Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1: 811.]

Here we see that St. Cyril of Jerusalem believed in baptism of blood, but rejected baptism of desire. St. Fulgence expressed the same.



St. Fulgence, 523: “From that time at which Our Savior said: “If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven,’ no one can, without the sacrament of baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church, without Baptism pour out their blood for Christ…”[Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2269.]

Not All of the Fathers Consistent with their own Affirmation

NOT ALL OF THE FATHERS REMAINED CONSISTENT WITH THEIR OWN AFFIRMATION



Despite the fact that there is a constant tradition from the beginning that no one at all is saved without water baptism, not all of the fathers always remained consistent with their own affirmation on this point. And that is where we come across the theories of “baptism of blood” and “baptism of desire.” But it must be understood that the fathers of the Church were mistaken and inconsistent with their own teaching and the apostolic Tradition on many points – since they were fallible men who made many errors.






Fr. William Jurgens: “… we must stress that a particular patristic text [a particular statement from a father] is in no instance to be regarded as a ‘proof’ of a particular doctrine. Dogmas are not ‘proved’ by patristic statements, but by the infallible teaching instruments of the Church. The value of the Fathers and writers is this: that in the aggregate [that is, in totality], they demonstrate what the Church believes and teaches; and again, in the aggregate [that is, in totality], they provide a witness to the content of Tradition, that Tradition which is itself a vehicle of revelation.”[Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1, p. 413. ]



The fathers of the Church are only a definite witness to Tradition when expressing a point held universally and constantly or when expressing something that is in line with defined dogma. Taken individually or even in multiplicity, they can be dead wrong and even dangerous. St. Basil the Great said that the Holy Spirit is second to the Son of God in order and dignity, in a horrible and even heretical attempt to explain the Holy Trinity.



St. Basil (363): “The Son is not, however, second to the Father in nature, because the Godhead is one in each of them, and plainly, too, in the Holy Spirit, even if in order and dignity He is second to the Son (yes, this we do concede!), though not in such a way, it is clear, that He were of another nature.” [Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2: 940 .]



When St. Basil says above that the Godhead is one in Father, Son and Holy Spirit, he is correctly affirming the universal, apostolic Tradition. But when he says that the Holy Spirit is second in dignity to the Son he ceases to remain consistent with this Tradition and falls into error (material heresy, in fact). And the fathers made countless errors in attempting to defend or articulate the Faith.



St. Augustine wrote an entire book of corrections. St. Fulgentius and a host of others, including St. Augustine, held that it was certain that infants who die without baptism descend into the tormenting fires of Hell, a position that was later condemned by Pope Pius VI. As Pope Pius VI confirmed, unbaptized infants go to Hell, but to a place in Hell where there is no fire.

Denzinger 1526: "The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk,--false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools."


But St. Augustine was so outspoken in favor of this error that it became the common and basically unchallenged teaching for more than 500 years, according to The Catholic Encyclopedia.



The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 9, “Limbo,” p. 257: “On the special question, however, of the punishment of original sin after death, St. Anselm was at one with St. Augustine in holding that unbaptized infants share in the positive sufferings of the damned; and Abelard was the first to rebel against the severity of the Augustinian tradition on this point.”[The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 9, “Limbo,” 1910, p. 257.]



This is why Catholics don’t form definite doctrinal conclusions from the teaching of a father of the Church or a handful of fathers; a Catholic goes by the infallible teaching of the Church proclaimed by the popes; and a Catholic assents to the teaching of the fathers of the Church when they are in universal and constant agreement from the beginning and in line with Catholic dogmatic teaching.



Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”[The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 29.]



Errors of the Jansenists, #30: “When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold it and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope.”- Condemned by Pope Alexander VIII[Denzinger 1320.]



Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: “This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.’”[The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 4 (1939-1958), pp. 178-179.]



The Catholic Church recognizes infallibility in no saint, theologian or early Church father. It is only a pope operating with the authority of the Magisterium who is protected by the Holy Spiritt from teaching error on faith or morals. So, when we examine and show how Churchmen have erred on the topics of baptism of blood this is 100% consistent with the teaching of the Church, which has always acknowledged that any Churchman, no matter how great, can make errors, even significant ones. Finally, I will quote a Pope, whose teaching ends all debate on the subject:

Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino,” Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Mistranslation of Trent concerning :Baptism of Desire

Mistranslation of Trent concerning: Baptism of Desire

OBJECTION- In Session 6, Chapter 4 of its decree on Justification, the Council of Trent teaches that justification can take place by the water of baptism or its desire:

"This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written:Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." ( Jn. 3:5) http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT6.htm#1

ANSWER- [Preliminary Note: If Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent were teaching what the baptism of desire advocates claim (which it isn’t), then it would mean that every man must receive baptism or at least have the actual desire/vow for baptism to be saved.


the Latin is :
"Caput 4. Insinuatur descriptio justificationis impii, et modus ejus in statu gratiæ Quibus verbis justificationis impii descriptio insinuatur, ut sit translatio ab eo statu, in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adæ, in statum gratiæ et »adoptionis filioram« Dei, per secundum Adam Jesum Christum Salvatorem nostrum; quæ quidem translatio post Evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis aut ejus voto fieri non potest, sicut scriptum est: »Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei"


According to this understanding ( i.e. "at least to have the actual desire/vow for baptism"), it would seem that it would be a serious error to say that any unbaptized person could be saved if he doesn’t have at least the desire/vow for water baptism. But 99% of the people who quote this passage in favor of baptism of desire don’t even believe that one must desire baptism to be saved! They believe that Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc. can be saved who don’t even desire water baptism.

Thus, 99% of those who quote this passage reject even what they claim it is teaching. Frankly, this fact just shows the dishonesty and the bad will of many baptism of desire advocates in attempting to quote this passage as if they were devoted to its teaching when, in fact, they don’t believe in it at all and are in error for teaching that non-Catholics can be saved who don’t even desire water baptism.]

Watering Down Water-- John 3:5

With His most solemn preface to a declarative statement, which indicates a gravely important truth absolutely necessary for belief, the Lord Jesus Christ declared:

"Amen, amen, I say to you unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (Jn.3:5-DRV/Vulgate)

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (KJV)


Watering Down Water