Baptismal Confusion
Please scroll down for
the sequential hyperlinks to all parts of the
book posted (there are seven
altogether), along with individual summaries
of the contents of each
part. For hyperlinks alone, please go here.
·
Part One of Baptismal
Confusion (Chapters 1-32)
What the confusion is not, and what the confusion really is.
Put simply, ‘baptism of desire’ vs. ‘water only’ for
catechumens --- which is it? (Chapters 1-3)
The infallible evidence for the two clashing
opinions. Strangely enough, both sides claim to be upheld by the
Council of Trent! It becomes plain that Trent never explicitly addressed
either WO or BOD. Lastly, a quick but close look at infallibility, what it is…
and what it is not. (Chapters 4-22)
The evidence from the martyrs. ‘Baptism of desire’
proponents like to think it helps them, however, there is just as much help for
‘water only’ enthusiasts. (Chapters 23-32)
·
Part Two of Baptismal
Confusion (Chapters 33-60)
Turning to the saints & doctors, everyone likes to think St.
Ambrose first upheld ‘baptism of desire’ (BOD), but this is only because
they already assume BOD to be true. His words are rather vague & contradictory.
(Chapters 33-37)
St. Alphonsus Liguori also approved
of BOD, supposing it explicitly defined at
·
Part Three of Baptismal
Confusion (Chapters 61-82)
Continuing with another doctor --- and even though he wasn’t
trying to address BOD as we understand it today --- St. Gregory Nanzianzen obviously disagreed with BOD and very much logically
opposed the essence of its argument. (Chapters 61-71)
Meanwhile,
Finally, one of
the most influential theologians of the 12th century, Hugh of St.
Victor, doesn’t like WO yet reveals that it’s only his opinion and
that some disagree with him. (Chapters 76-80)
The upshot? The idea of BOD grew in popularity from the AD 400s
until it reached a tipping point during the AD 1100s. Also, a
warning to WOers not to make more out of this point
than is warranted since solely an explicit magisterial ruling will resolve this
debate. (Chapters 81-82)
·
Part Four of Baptismal
Confusion (Chapters 83-105)
Turning to catechisms, we re-examine infallibility before we dive
in. (Chapters 83-84)
Having
re-examined this criteria, we then see that no catechism yet has ever
been infallible in every one of its words. For proof, we look at the
imprimatured & scholarly text of a famous 20th century
publication of the Catechism of the Council of Trent in English. (Chapters
85-88)
Now we begin our
tour of catechisms with the Catechism of St. Cyril. It says nothing about BOD,
insisting on water baptism’s urgency, BOB alone admitted to be an exception.
(Chapters 89-90)
The
aforementioned Catechism of the Council of Trent admits the possibility of BOD,
but not explicitly by name. However, since WOers go schismatic
over BOD, we then drive it home hard that it is a moral certainty that
We find
additional proof that
Lastly, we
re-visit St. Alphonsus Liguori,
an eminent post-Trent Church doctor & bishop whose writings also prove
--- with ironclad certainty ---
that
·
Part Five of Baptismal
Confusion (Chapters 106-132)
Next we examine the English Catechism of 1583, which was actually
first published in 1567. It mentions BOD, but
not explicitly by name. (Chapters 106-107)
We take a short digression
into a very confusing theological point about BOD. Specifically, what exactly is the necessity of water
baptism? Is it of means or of precept? (Chapters 108-110)
The Douay
Catechism of 1649 also teaches BOD, but not
explicitly by name. (Chapters 111-112)
The Penny
Catechism is especially curious for modern times in that it doesn’t
mention BOD at all, whether implicitly or explicitly. Period! (Chapters
113-114)
Then, suddenly,
near the beginning of the 20th century, Baltimore Catechism No. 3 mentions BOD explicitly by name.
Unfortunately, it teaches salvation heresy, too. (Chapters 115-118)
Rounding out the
catechisms examined, we look at Christian Doctrine Drills from the 1920s. It as
well mentions BOD explicitly by name.
(Chapters 119-120)
Now we can draw
some conclusions based on this catechetical evidence. First, BOD can’t
be part of the Ordinary Magisterium. Second, it can’t be part of
the Extraordinary Magisterium, either. And, third, at the very moment BOD
ascends to the throne of certainty in all people’s minds, the salvation heresy of modern times is also
universally believed. (Chapters 121-132)
·
Part Six of Baptismal
Confusion (Chapters 133-169)
Now we turn to Sacred Scripture, which is the least evidence for
either side. (Chapter 133)
Taking up BOD, we
see how waterless folks like to argue for the need for confession (Matthew
10:32), the importance of love (John 14:21) and the efficacy of a good heart
(Romans 2:29) as being enough, all by themselves, to get you salvation apart
from water. (Chapters 134-141)
We sum up these
BOD arguments in the old --- and no longer current --- argument for BOD based
on the passage of Mark 16:16 that St. Bernard of Clairvaux used. (Chapters
142-143)
Taking up WO, we
see how waterful people like to argue for the need for water (John 3:5), the
uniqueness of baptism (Ephesians 4:5) and the importance of visibility (1 Peter
3:19-21a) as making it impossible to save your soul without water. (Chapters
144-152)
Returning to
Mark 16:16, we review how BODers once used this passage, but note how it can
just as easily --- and quite logically --- be used by WOers for their position.
Neither Mark 16:16 nor any of the verses cited can conclusively
‘prove’ either side. But Mark 16:16 does make one thing
clear… that baptism is necessary for salvation. Yet is this a necessity of precept or
of means when it comes to the water of baptism? That’s
the real question. (Chapters 153-157)
Turning from
Sacred Scripture, the BOD camp sometimes invokes Pius IX’s Tuas libenter as a fallback that supposedly
‘proves’ you can’t be Catholic and doubt BOD. (Chapters
158-165)
Also, rarely,
the BOD camp might invoke St. Catherine of
·
Part Seven of Baptismal
Confusion (Chapters 170-197)
Now we turn to the conclusion, weaving all the various threads of
this long book into a comprehensive whole. Unfortunately for the impatient or
careless reader, there’s still some distance to go. It’s been confusing
Catholics for millennia --- that is to
say, is the sacramental water always necessary in order to truly
take part in a visible Sacrament of Baptism? (Chapter 170)
And so we
examine one last popular argument for ‘baptism of desire’ that is,
arguably, the weakest of all the
arguments when you really think about it carefully & ruthlessly. To wit, the ‘it’s-in-the-1917-Code-of-Canon-Law’
stance. Based mostly on one single canon amongst 2414 canons
altogether, are we really to think this canon (BODers
will occasionally tout one other canon, too) is infallible papal support
for BOD? We review the infallible definition of papal infallibility from the
Vatican Council and proceed to devastate this notion. (Chapters 171-175)
Having destroyed
the idea that the 1917 Code of Canon Law is an act of ‘papal
infallibility’ with three devastating points, we go on to show --- with
the fourth & last devastating point driven home like a sword into the
bowels --- how the 1917 Code daringly & imprudently innovated by adding a clause saying ‘accidentally dead’
catechumens could be buried in consecrated
ground in a Catholic cemetery without
a visible water baptism. This innovation defied ancient canon law, the proof for this demonstrated by
not one, or two, or even three, but, indeed, four expert theologians of the past century-and-a-half, who
knew very well ancient Catholics never
had the audacity to presume salvation for unbaptized catechumens.
(Chapters 176-186)
The true best
argument for BOD, and the true best argument against BOD.
Likewise, the true best argument for WO, and the true
best argument against WO. Nevertheless, today’s Great Apostasy changes
things re these two theological opinions. And where do I stand? I’ve
tried very hard to be impartial and present both sides knowledgeably. Still,
I’ve an opinion in the matter. Every real Catholic right now can choose
either opinion in their orthodox senses. Yet how did earlier Catholics wind up
thinking BOD couldn’t be wrong? A subtle change in our thinking about the
importance of will vs. intellect is the missing ingredient to explain it. A
real & legitimate pope must, of moral obligation, clear things up with an
adequately explicit exercise of the Charism of Infallibility as soon as possible
in the future. Meanwhile, if WO turns out to be infallibly true, then
we’ve an amazing & miraculous possibility of how God could choose to
act in the not-too-distant future. (Chapters 187-197)
+
+ +
Pilate’s
query met:
Note:
if you’ve come
to this webpage directly from a search
engine or other
website, then, when done viewing this webpage
--- and assuming
you wish to view more of this website’s pages ---
please type the
website’s address (as given above right before this
note) into the
address bar at the top of your browser and hit the
‘enter’ button on the keyboard of your computer.
Please go here about use of the writings
on this website.
© 2018 by
Paul Doughton.
All rights
reserved.