+++ 83. Turning to the Catechisms +++
Well, that was a lot to
devour concerning the saints & doctors of the Church.
But it was necessary since
knowledgeable BODers get most of their cocksureness
from them, especially from the scholastic theologians, and since WOers of a less knowledgeable disposition are pretty much
oblivious to the enormous weight of opinion against WO from the same.
Now we turn our attention to
catechisms. Catechism, as the word is used in latter times, is an organized set
of instructions about the Roman Catholic Faith put in writing. A catechism may
be huge & complex or simple & short, or somewhere in-between.
However, catechism during
the years of persecution --- i.e., in the first three hundred years of
Christianity --- was not written down. Leastwise, not
as far as I can tell. The danger of these precious teachings falling
into the hands of pagans and blasphemed as a result was too great. (Remember,
most pagans back then at first had no idea what the Catholic
Faith taught, unlike many non-Catholics today, who have at least a partial
understanding of the Church’s doctrines. Hence, nowadays, it is pointless
to try to hide these teachings from others like Catholics did in ancient centuries.)
And so Catholics were bound
to strict secrecy about most doctrines during these oppressive times, never to
reveal them to the unbelievers surrounding them. Priests who catechized (read:
taught) new converts back then did so out of the strength of sheer memory and
great sanctity. Once Emperor Constantine legalized the Catholic Religion of
Jesus Christ, though, we begin finding Catholics composing texts of catechism
in order to teach others, some of which are preserved to this day.
Why is this important?
Because, while learned BODers may cite many saints & theologians to back them
up, most run-of-the-mill BOD enthusiasts believe in ‘baptism of
desire’ because this is what they were taught to believe as a child or
catechumen. That is to say, they read a catechism --- or were instructed from a
catechism --- that told them BOD was real.
And, since most people
purporting to be Catholic have mistaken ideas about infallibility, then they
latch on to all kinds of errors when it comes to what is truly & supremely
authoritative, and what is merely authoritative… but not supremely or
infallibly so.
Such is the case during the
last 100 years in the United States, and, from at least the time of the Vatican
II pseudo-council of the 1960s which allowed the Great Apostasy of our days to
erupt out into the open by publicly denying common & explicit dogma, such
is the case with nearly everyone purporting to be Roman Catholic the world over
at present.
To wit, their catechism said
BOD is so. And their catechism is always the Church teaching authoritatively,
suppose they. And the Church is infallible, many of them know. Therefore, the
teaching of ‘baptism of desire’ must be
authoritatively & infallibly true.
This is what they think. Is
it really so?
Let us quickly review
infallibility to remind us of what it actually means, dispensing once again
with the mixed up ideas that people have as we go along. And then let us take a
careful look at some catechisms used during Church history, particularly in the
last few centuries, focusing on what they have to say about the role of water
in the Sacrament of Baptism.
Shall we dive in?
+++ 84. Infallibility Quickly Reviewed +++
Here again is what the Roman
Catholic Church infallibly taught about infallibility at the Vatican Council in
“We teach and define
that it is a dogma divinely revealed [that] the Roman Pontiff [the
Bishop of Rome, a Pope], when he speaks ex cathedra [from the chair, to wit,
from the throne of St. Peter], that is, in discharge of the office of pastor
and teacher of all Christians [when he teaches all Catholics
everywhere]… he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals
to be held by the universal Church [he clarifies a teaching on faith or morals
that should be believed by all Catholics], is… possessed of [he
has]… infallibility [i.e., he cannot be mistaken]…”
(Pius IX’s Pastor aeternus,
as crafted by the Vatican Council during Session 4 in AD 1870, Chapter 4,
Paragraph 9. Emphases & annotations added.)
What does it mean?
For a fuller treatment, go
to Chapters 22 & 52 in this book, Baptismal Confusion. Stated
quickly, though, here it is:
One, only a pope
is infallible. No one else can be infallible for him. If the words are
composed by someone else, then the pope must make those words his own --- as
if they are literally coming from himself, a legitimate Bishop of
Two, a pope can only be
infallible about faith or morals. No other kind of teaching is
guaranteed infallibility; consequently no other topic can be decided irreformably and thus permanently by the pope. Anything
else can be changed by a later pope, if only theoretically, should wisdom
dictate or should foolishness get the upper hand.
Three, the pope must be
teaching the whole Church. If he’s only speaking or writing
to one person, to a few, to a nation, or to a part of the Church in the world, without
requiring his words on the teaching to be issued to the entire Church, then
infallibility has not been invoked.
And, four, the pope must define
and hence clarify the teaching. Usually this means words to the
effect that he ‘defines’ or ‘declares’ or
‘pronounces’ or etc. It can also mean he condemns a teaching.
If he does not make plain that he intends to clarify, then infallibility
is not invoked.
Understanding this, it
should be clear to a reader that catechisms are not, then, automatically
infallible in and of themselves.
Why would this be?
Because no catechism has
ever yet come directly from a pope, as if it was he himself, the pope,
personally speaking to the Catholic Church as a whole in order to clarify our
understanding of faith or morals.
We repeat:
No particular catechism --- in and of itself --- is infallible yet in what it teaches.
Which does not
mean that a catechism cannot be infallible at all. For inasmuch as a catechism repeats
what the Infallible Magisterium of the Church has declared, or represents
such infallible teachings in its text accurately, then these repetitions or
representations in the catechism are infallible. Nonetheless, this does not
guarantee that every word or sentence in the catechism is thus without error.
For a catechism to be totally infallible about faith & morals, either a
pope would have to promulgate its text as if it came from him personally to
the entire Catholic world, or else, possibly, a pope would have to make
an official & explicit declaration to the whole Church that nothing in this
particular catechism regarding faith or morals is in error.
(Incidentally, the first
option is absolutely certain, i.e., it is without doubt a very real
application of papal infallibility. The second option, however, is merely
possible to hold as a theological opinion… but is not certainly
and without doubt an application of papal infallibility. Hence, solely the
first option would, at this point in time, be enough to put it beyond all
logical dispute that any particular catechetical text is infallible in every
single word concerning faith & morals.)
+++ 85. Proof No Catechism Yet Is Infallible,
Part 1 +++
Anyone who assiduously
studies the teachings of the Catholic Church invariably runs into The
Catechism of the Council of
Now, we will further
investigate this catechism in just a bit to see what it says about the
Sacrament of Baptism. What I want to focus on right at this moment, though, is
what the best known translation of The Catechism of the Council of Trent
into English during the last century has to say in its introduction about this
catechism’s authority to teach Roman Catholics about their Most Holy
Religion.
That is to say, just how
much authority does The Catechism of the Council of Trent have to tell
us that something is true and must be believed or obeyed in order to be
Catholic?
“The Roman Catechism
is unlike any other summary of Christian doctrine, not only because it
is intended for the use of priests in their preaching, but also because it
enjoys a unique authority among manuals. In the first place, as already
explained, it was issued by the express command of the Ecumenical
[General] Council of Trent, which also ordered that it be translated into
the vernacular [native language] of different nations to be used as a standard
source for preaching. Moreover, it subsequently received the unqualified
approval of many Sovereign Pontiffs [Popes]. Not to speak of Pius IV
who did so much to bring the work to completion, and of St. Pius V under whom
it was finished, published and repeatedly commended, Gregory XIII… so
highly esteemed it that he desired even books of Canon Law to be written
in accordance with its contents… Clement XIII said the Catechism
contains a clear explanation of all that is necessary for salvation…
and that no other catechism can be compared with it. He concluded
then, that the Roman Pontiffs [Popes] offered this work to pastors as a norm
[common standard] of Catholic teaching and discipline so that there
might be uniformity and harmony in the instructions of all [Catholics].
Nor have the Sovereign Pontiffs in our own days been less laudatory [full of
praise] of the Catechism. Pope Leo XIII, in an Encylical
Letter [official communication of the pope with all of his bishops throughout
the world] of September 8, 1899… recommended two books which all seminarians
[those men training to be priests] should possess and constantly read and
study, namely, the Summa Theologica of St.
Thomas [Aquinas] and ‘that golden book,’ the Catechismus
ad Parochos [Latin for ‘Catechism for
Parish Priests’, a shortcut title for The Catechism of the Council of
Trent for Parish Priests, italic emphases of the titles of these books in
the original publication]…
“In addition to Popes,
and Councils, many Cardinals, Bishops and other ecclesiastics [other leaders
& officials of the Church], distinguished for their learning and sanctity
[holiness], vied with one another in eulogizing the Catechism of Trent
[competed with each other in praising
“In particular,
Cardinal Valerius, the friend of St. Charles Borromeo [Charles was the editor and overseer of The
Catechism of the Council of Trent when it was written in Latin during the
latter half of the 1500s], wrote of the Catechism: ‘This work contains all
that is needful for the instruction of the faithful; and it is written
with such order, clearness and majesty that through it we seem to hear holy
Mother the Church herself, taught by the Holy Ghost, speaking to us…
It was composed by order of the Fathers of
“Salmanticenses
[a name for a group of Carmelite monks who were renowned theologians], the
great Carmelite commentators on St. Thomas, paid the following high tribute to
the Catechism: ‘The authority of this Catechism has always been of
the greatest in the Church, because it was composed by the command of
the Council of Trent, because its authors were men of highest learning,
and because it was approved only after the severest scrutiny [most careful
examination] by Popes Pius V and Gregory XIII, and has been recommended
in nearly all the Councils [local or regional councils, not general &
infallible councils of the Church, of which there has been only one --- the
Vatican Council from 1869 to 1870 --- since Trent] that have been held since
the Council of Trent…’
“‘Its
merits,’ says Dr. Donovan [an eminent theologian of the past 200 years],
‘have been recognized by the universal [catholic] Church. The first
rank [reputation of being the best of all books, apart from Sacred
Scripture] which has been awarded the Imitation [The Imitation of
Christ, a famous book of wisdom during the last 500 years, italic emphasis
of the book’s title in the original publication] among spiritual books, has
been unanimously given to the Roman Catechism as a compendium of
Catholic theology. It was the result of the aggregate labors of the most
distinguished of the Fathers of
+++ 86. Proof No Catechism Yet Is Infallible, Part
2 +++
My dear reader, I do not
mean to weary you with the long quote above.
I am simply trying to let
you see that Roman Catholic leaders & teachers for over the last 400 years
have considered The Catechism of the Council of Trent to be the greatest
of all catechisms ever produced from most ancient days until most recent
times. Indeed, after the inerrant & divine text of Sacred Scripture, they
think it the greatest of books ever written by the hands of mere men, in
addition to St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica
and Thomas a Kempis’ The Imitation of Christ. This is what the
Dominican monks & translators into English of The Catechism of the
Council of Trent drive home in spades via their introduction to the 1923
publication we just looked at!
Nevertheless, does this mean
that this best of all catechisms yet written --- put together by the express
command of an infallible council and published by the authoritative
approval of an infallible pope --- is then in and of itself an infallible
statement of faith & morals?
We read a bit more from the
Dominican translators’ introduction for an answer:
“Doctor John Hagan [a
highly respected theologian during the first half of the 20th
century], the present Rector of the
We highlight the key point
from Dr. Hagan’s testimony again:
“Its teaching is not
infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and
what is de fide [Latin for ‘of the faith’, i.e.,
infallible].’”(Ibid.)
And there you have it.
Despite the unequaled and
enormous authority of The Catechism of the Council of Trent for the last
450 years, it is not an act of papal infallibility. Remember,
too, that if for some reason we want to doubt Hagan’s learned theological
opinion in this matter of the catechism’s massive yet still fallible
authority, we have both the agreement of the Dominican monks who translated the
catechism into English (or else why would they have gone out of the way to
include Dr. Hagan’s comment in the introduction to their translation?)
as well as the imprimatur of New York City’s archbishop at the time (and
whatever his potential doctrinal failings, why would he let the catechism be
undermined when Church leaders of his day still praised it unreservedly?).
We reiterate:
The Catechism of the Council
of Trent --- in spite of its
unparalleled authority and unique position amongst writings produced by the
Roman Catholic Church --- is not an exercise of infallibility,
and is thus not guaranteed to be absolutely infallible in
everything that it teaches and says regarding faith & morals.
End of sentence.
+++ 87. Proof No Catechism Yet Is Infallible,
Part 3 +++
Now… think very
carefully, my dear soul.
The Catechism of the Council
of Trent is the greatest of
all catechisms ever made. It has unparalleled authority and an utterly
unique eminence in the annals of the Church, as we found out in Chapter 85.
Notwithstanding, the Holy
Catholic Church does not guarantee it to be infallible in
absolutely everything it says regarding faith & morals, as we discovered in
Chapter 86.
The Holy Roman Catholic
Church does, however, guarantee The Catechism of the Council of Trent to
be doctrinally reliable.
We can have solid moral
(as opposed to infallible!) certainty of that.
Meaning, we don’t have
to worry about it misleading any intelligent & learned person into
confusion or heresy when it comes to the common dogmas of the
Church (dogmas that are absolutely necessary for anyone of adequate mind to
know & believe in order to be Catholic to begin with and thus save his
soul, and which can be found, when a person rightly understands them, in the
Apostle’s Creed, the Ten Commandments and the Lord’s Prayer).
What’s more, it probably has few, if any, errors regarding deeper
dogmas of the Church (dogmas that a Catholic person would be wise to
know, but that, if literally impossible for someone to know properly, will not
keep him out of the Church or damn a man’s soul) or undefined teachings that have spread widely through the
membership of the Church (teachings not yet guaranteed by the Church’s
Infallible Authority, but that are generally believed to be true by most
Catholics).
All the same --- and we
repeat --- The Catechism of the Council of Trent is not
infallible.
But if this is true of the greatest
catechism ever yet produced, could any lesser catechism ever attain to
that which the greatest catechism has never yet achieved?
To wit, infallibility?
It’s simple logic,
dear soul…
If the greatest catechism
thus far is not infallible, then how can a lesser
catechism be infallible?
This fact is crucial because
it means that neither BOD (‘baptism of desire’) enthusiasts nor WO
(‘water only’) adherents can point to any catechism as ultimate
‘proof’ of their stance. For instance, if a particular catechism
teaches BOD or BOS (‘baptism of spirit’, what Catholics of the
early to middle 2nd millennium called BOD), then this cannot
make it ‘infallibly’ true just because the catechism says it’s
true.
And why is this again?
Because not a single
catechism yet has ever been an act of papal infallibility.
Therefore, we can neither
pretend, based on a catechism, that BOD or WO is a common dogma of
the Church from the beginning with Jesus & His Apostles, nor pretend,
based on a catechism, that BOD or WO is a deeper dogma of the Church
from some point in time after the beginning due to a pope, or a pope with his
council, solemnly & explicitly ruling in the matter.
Moreover, if another catechism
teaches us water baptism but doesn’t happen to mention BOD at all, then
this, too, cannot make WO ‘infallibly’ certain just because
the catechism talks about water without mentioning BOD. We reiterate to drive
the point home clearly --- we cannot be reasonable and at the same time
pretend that a catechism contradicts BOD just because it doesn’t mention
BOD:
The one thing does not
automatically, logically or justly follow from the other.
Or, to put it another way, simply
because there is an absence of mention of BOD when talking about water
baptism does not then mean that that the writer intended there to be a presence
of contradiction against BOD in what he said.
Because, logically speaking,
an utter & complete absence of mention is not the same
as a real & actual presence of contradiction in the words that a man
says.
No, all we can say is that
the first instance (a catechism teaches BOD) is evidence for BOD
while the second example (a catechism only teaches water baptism but
doesn’t mention BOD) is lack of such evidence on behalf of
BOD --- and not necessarily that it is thus some sort of
unquestionable evidence against BOD and for WO!
+++ 88. Proof No Catechism Yet Is Infallible: +++
The Dénouement and a Very Stern Warning to Readers
We cannot stress this
enough, my precious soul. The matter may seem picayune or somewhat trivial from
a hazy perspective, but the repercussions are potentially dire when you get
this topic wrong in the fight between BOD & WO.
We say it again:
The repercussions of getting
this matter of BOD vs. WO wrong are as deadly as a train heading down
the wrong track in the wrong direction.
That is to say, if you
don’t accept this warning against being ‘infallibly certain’
about BOD or WO --- and unjustifiably so, since the Church has never yet
clearly & explicitly ruled in the matter --- then you are in a perilous
spiritual condition.
Carry it too far, or
contemptuously dismiss my words despite their factualness and intelligence, and
you could wind up in hell forever as a stubborn schismatic
against other members of Jesus’ One & Only Catholic Church… and
all because they don’t agree with you about BOD or WO, a conflict that
has never yet been clarified explicitly with an act of the
Church’s Infallibility.
At the very least, dear
reader --- and if lacking enough in ability of mind that you are inescapably
ignorant in the matter to some degree --- you could still suffer a long
& terrible torment in purgatory for being cruelly uncharitable
toward your brother in Christ’s Catholic Body.
Why?
Because you mangle and destroy the Catholic Body of Christ.
How can this be?
The consequences are so dire
because the need for charitable unity
between the parts of a body is utterly crucial for any body, which,
by definition, is a body and a whole since all of its parts
are arranged to work harmoniously for the purpose of the whole and the survival
of each of its parts.
Yet how does this apply to
someone who professes the Catholic Faith?
The
Catholic Body of Christ is no different.
It is a body with parts
and it is hence just as crucial, and even more so, that we as members
remain in charitable unity with all of His other members in this
Sacred Body for the heavenly purpose of His Whole Body and the eternal
survival of each of His individual members within this Ecclesial Body.
Period.
(This kind of schismatic
behavior, by the way, is a consequence of Catholic fundamentalism. Catholic
fundamentalism is a scourge of confusion upon the world during our apostate
times as a result of both wickedness and ignorance in those who say they are
Catholics and purport to be ‘traditional’, but who are either not
Catholic or, if Catholic, are arrogant & impatient and tend toward schism
& division against other Catholics. You may find out more about Catholic
fundamentalists --- ‘CFs’, for short ---
at this link, my dear reader.)
+++ 89. The Catechism of St. Cyril of
Which brings us to the first
catechism under consideration in regard to the Sacrament of Baptism. To wit,
the Catechism of St. Cyril of
Not quite a catechism in our
more recent and narrower sense of the word --- for the different sections of
Cyril’s catechism are really just lectures he delivered in sequence up to
and just after the celebrated day of Easter around the middle of the AD 300s
--- it nevertheless goes thoroughly through most of the subjects that one would
expect to find in a catechism written later during the second millennium.
Indeed, we have already quoted from one of Cyril’s catechetical lectures
back in Chapter 24 where we found proof that catechumens (those who study the
Church’s teachings in order to join Her in water baptism) could still, in
ancient times after the celebration of Easter Sunday, be called
‘catechumens’ since they were still learning about the Catholic
Faith… and even though they had already been baptized very
early on Easter morning!
The point, of course, was
that in the earliest centuries prior to Christianity’s legalization in the
Roman Empire --- and when most persons outside the Catholic Church had no real
idea of what a true Christian (read: Roman Catholic) believed, religiously
speaking --- the most holy, deep & profound dogmas of the Catholic Church
were kept secret. This was so that unbaptized souls outside the Church
wouldn’t know & profane them, and so that newly baptized souls in the
Church could better grasp & appreciate them due to the graces they received
from the Holy Ghost dwelling within them after baptism in water.
In any case, the teaching of
ancient catechumens was not finished until after Easter and hence
after water baptism, who could still be called
‘catechumens’ despite being baptized in water since they were still
learning about the common teachings of the Catholic Faith.
Incidentally, Cyril of
Jerusalem was a priest in the diocese of
What did he have to
say about the Sacrament of Baptism in his catechetical lectures?
“If any man receive not
Baptism [if someone doesn’t get baptized in water], he has not
salvation [then he cannot enter into Heaven]; except only Martyrs
[the only exception to water baptism being those who are martyred
for Jesus’ Catholic Faith], who even without the water [of baptism]
receive the kingdom [enter Heaven].
For when the Saviour, in redeeming the world by His
Cross, was pierced in the side [by the spear of the Roman soldier], He shed
forth blood and water; [so] that men, living in times of peace, might be
baptized in water [so that, during times of peace without persecution, anyone
may be baptized in water], and, in times of persecution, in their own blood
[whereas when persecution strikes, anyone can be a martyr and enter Heaven even
without the water of baptism].” (Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical
Lectures, Lecture 3, Paragraph 10. All emphasis & annotations added.)
+++ 90. Yet Again BOD Wasn’t Touted in Ancient Times,
+++
and the Need for Water Baptism Upheld Much More Strictly
We begin to see a pattern
here --- don’t we? --- and repeated proof of what I have asserted.
Namely, that many Catholics
during the first millennium may have believed in BOB (‘baptism of
blood’) but nevertheless very blatantly spoke about baptism of water
as if it is surely the only way to enter Heaven… the sole
exception being the aforementioned BOB.
This is because the idea of
BOS (‘baptism of spirit’) or BOD (‘baptism of desire’)
--- as we understand it now during the last millennium --- simply did not
exist prior to the turn of the 5th century. And,
regardless of the idea of BOS or BOD existing after St. Augustine of
Hippo first explicitly taught the notion in AD 400, most Catholic leaders &
thinkers either did not know about it or did not care to teach it
until the tenth or eleventh centuries, when this theological opinion began to gain
critical mass in the minds of the learned in the Catholic Church.
Meanwhile, the urgent need
for water baptism that Catholic leaders spoke of during the first millennium is
in vivid contrast to the way most putative Catholic leaders have spoken
about the Sacrament of Baptism during the last one hundred years. To wit,
bishops and priests of the past century have talked as if baptism in water is
not very important, the lack of water being easily supplied by a mere
‘desire’ for it; indeed, as if most catechumens are already in the
state of justification and on the way to eternal salvation even before
getting the sacramental water of baptism due to their (presumably) sincere
resolution to receive it.
Yet does this jive with how
Catholic leaders of the first millennium talked about baptism?
No, it does not.
The evidence that it does
not?
Easy.
Look at the quote again from
St. Cyril of
And how does St. Fulgentius of Ruspe speak near
the turn of the sixth century back in Chapter 72? As if there is no way
to enter the
Or how does St. Ambrose of
Or how does St. Augustine of
Hippo speak during the fifth century, as we saw back in Chapter 40, after
his one single favorable reference to BOD in AD 400? As if there is no way
to enter the glory of Heaven without baptism in water… the only exception
being ‘baptism of blood’, and neither BOB nor BOD mentioned
explicitly as exceptions near the very end of his life!
Or how does St. Peter the
First Pope act during the first century in Chapter 30 toward the jailors he
converted suddenly to Catholicism in the midst of his martyrdom and for whom he
provided miraculous water? As if there is no way at all to enter the
reward of God’s Presence without sacramental water… neither BOB nor
BOD being mentioned explicitly as exceptions!
Or how does St. Martin of
Tours act during the fourth century in Chapter 31 toward the poor dead
catechumen who he raised back to life by his prayers? As if there is no way
at all to enter the rest of everlasting salvation without baptism in
water… neither BOB nor BOD being mentioned explicitly as exceptions!
And, well, you get the
picture.
Of all the Catholics whose
words we can still read, or whose lives we can still read about, no
one is claimed to explicitly uphold BOD during the first millennium
apart from St. Augustine (once, early on), St. Ambrose (possibly, but
it’s doubtful) and St. Cyprian (in a way, sort of).
Period.
Meanwhile, baptism of water
is trumpeted by these first millennium Catholics again and again as the sole
means of salvation, the only exception that they ever mentioned
(sometimes, but not always!) being ‘baptism of blood’.
End of sentence.
+++ 91. The Catechism of the Council of
We now jump over a thousand
years to the end of the AD 1500s.
We have already established
that BOD or BOS was not a common or accepted theological opinion during
the very first millennium. We’ve also seen that BOB (‘baptism of
blood’) was an acceptable --- and fairly common, though not universal --- theological opinion
amongst some of the learned by the AD 300s, while BOD didn’t become
accepted or common till after the turn
of the second millennium. And the two different things, whilst related, are not precisely the same. Thus, we
can expect to find support for BOB from the first millennium, as proven above
by the quote from St. Cyril’s catechism. Whereas this same ancient period
of time produces absolutely no support at all for BOD apart from Ss.
Augustine (once), Ambrose (doubtful) and Cyprian (kind of). This is especially
plain when you see how even clever BOD proponents can come up with no other
‘explicit’ evidence for BOD during the 1st
millennium than the aforementioned Augustine, Ambrose & Cyprian, their
so-called ‘evidence’ from that 1st millennium consisting
almost exclusively of quotes for BOB… and
not for BOD.
Yet what about nearer to our
times? What about in the last five hundred years?
That’s why we jump
twelve centuries to look at the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
What does this greatest of
all catechisms (although not infallible in every word!) ever made by the
Catholic Church have to say about the Sacrament of Baptism and its necessity?
After spending two
paragraphs exhorting priests that new adult converts are to be
“admonished not to defer [delay] the Sacrament of Baptism beyond the time
prescribed by the Church [which was usually up to a year or so of catechism for
the typical person]…”, the highly educated and very eminent
theological writers of the Tridentine Catechism then
go on to note:
“On adults,
however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer [it has not been
the practice of the Church to give or administer] the Sacrament of Baptism at
once [right away, before they receive adequate training], but [the Church] has ordained [commanded] that it be deferred [delayed]
for a certain [amount of] time. The
delay [in getting water baptism] is not attended with [does not involve] the
same danger as in the case of infants [babies or very young children],
which we have already mentioned [the first three subsections of the section on
the necessity of baptism were about babies and how they should get
baptized in water as soon as possible without any needless delay]; should any unforeseen [unavoidable] accident
make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters
[cleansed from sin in the saving waters of baptism] their intention and
determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail
[help] them to [get] grace and righteousness.” (The
Catechism of the Council of Trent. Quoted from the chapter on ‘The
Sacrament of Baptism’, from the section on the ‘Necessity of
Baptism’, and from the subsections entitled ‘They Should Not Delay
Their Baptism Unduly’ and ‘Ordinarily They Are Not Baptized at
Once’, page 179. All emphasis & annotations added in this quotation
and all further quotations from The
Catechism of the Council of Trent as found later in this book, Baptismal Confusion.)
+++ 92. WO Tomfoolery, Act 1 +++
My dear reader, if you are
not familiar with these things --- and if you are not a WO enthusiast who is
also a Catholic fundamentalist (CF) --- then you would not believe the pretzels
that WO-believing CFs twist their minds into in order
to explain away this evidence for BOD within the Catechism of the Council of
Trent.
That is to say, the most
stubborn or blind of WOers see this quote, from the most
authoritative catechism that the Church has ever yet produced, and then twist
their otherwise intelligent minds into absurdities of thinking, either
purposefully or carelessly neglecting to examine all of the evidence for both sides of the BOD vs. WO equation
when it comes to the Roman Catechism.
“Oh, the catechism is not
saying that catechumens who are adults can depend on BOD to save them if they
die accidentally before getting water baptism!” they exclaim.
“It’s just saying that good-willed catechumens will get the graces
and holiness that comes along with water baptism, somehow, if something happens to threaten them with not being able
to get water baptism. In other words --- come what may --- they’ll get
water baptism no matter what.”
Really? Is this really all that the Roman
Catechism is saying?
One wonders if they’ve
actually studied the words carefully and put it into context with what comes in
the text of the Catechism of the Council of Trent right before the quote above, where the Catechism stresses that
water baptism must not be
delayed for little babies.
If they have, then
there’s a simple yet puzzling problem for WO-touting CFs
to solve:
Why can’t the Catechism state it as plainly as WO-believing CFs can say it?
+++ 93. WO Tomfoolery, Act 2 +++
But facts are facts and
logic is logic.
And the facts are that the
Catechism of the Council of Trent plainly tells Catholics not to delay unduly the baptism of infants in water since small children have no other
recourse for entering Heaven except for the waters of baptism.
“The faithful are earnestly
to be exhorted to take care [to be
careful] that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be
done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except
Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who
permit them [allow small children] to remain without the grace of the Sacrament
[of Baptism] longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so
tender [so young] as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death [particularly
when very young children can die so much more easily than adults].” (The
Catechism of the Council of Trent. Quoted from the chapter on ‘The
Sacrament of Baptism’, section on ‘Necessity of Baptism’,
subsection ‘Baptism of Infants Should Not Be Delayed’, page 178.)
Whereas, in stark contrast
to this and just a page later, the same Catechism of the Council of Trent
plainly tells Catholics not to worry
unduly about the baptism of adults in water since adults are not in the same grave danger of losing Heaven without
the waters of baptism.
“On adults,
however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer [it has not been
the practice of the Church to give or administer] the Sacrament of Baptism at
once [right away, before they receive adequate training], but [the Church] has ordained [commanded] that it be deferred [delayed]
for a certain [amount of] time. The
delay [in getting water baptism] is not attended with [does not involve] the
same danger as in the case of infants [babies or very young children],
which we have already mentioned; should
any unforeseen [unavoidable] accident make it impossible for adults to
be washed in the salutary waters [cleansed from sin in the saving waters of
baptism] their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their
repentance for past sins, will avail [help] them to [get] grace and
righteousness.” (Ibid.
Quoted from the chapter on ‘The Sacrament of Baptism’,
section on ‘Necessity of Baptism’, subsection ‘Ordinarily
They Are Not Baptized at Once’, page 179.)
+++ 94. WO Tomfoolery, Act 3 +++
Dear soul, if your mind is
adequate & humble, then please do not dare to deny the obvious. Because
logic is logic, and plain
hard logic operating on the facts from the quotes above requires us to
admit the obvious.
Accordingly, that the authors of the Catechism of the Council of
Trent --- and with the solemn approval of a pope, who gave permission for this
Catechism to be published for priests worldwide a few years later after
the Council of Trent --- would never
bother telling us how important it is to baptize little children right
away while also saying (in stark contrast, a mere one page later) that
it’s not nearly as dangerous for adults to delay baptism in
water… unless they plainly thought something like ‘baptism of
desire’ to be another option for adults to enter the Kingdom of
Heaven without having received the waters of baptism!
It ought to be plain that
they --- and thus the Fathers who oversaw the Council and the popes who
approved both it and the text of the Catechism --- believed in something like
BOD.
But if it’s still
shocking or puzzling because you’re a ‘water only’ adherent
and tend to be fundamentalist in your espousal of Catholicity, then review what
we have already established in Chapters 12, 13 & 42. That is to say, about
St. Thomas Aquinas blatantly teaching BOD and the Fathers of the Council
of Trent admiring Aquinas so much that they laid a copy of his greatest
work, the Summa Theologica,
on the altar at their sessions, together with a copy of Sacred Scripture and
the decrees of the popes, in order to follow the teachings of these sources.
Knowing this, who can intelligently imagine that the Tridentine Fathers suddenly and rather mysteriously opposed
the teaching of ‘baptism of desire’ despite their mammoth
admiration for Aquinas… and all
without mentioning BOD or BOS explicitly by name even once in their
infallible words during the most wonderful of all Catholic councils yet?
Do you get it?
It doesn’t add up.
+++ 95. WO Tomfoolery, Act 4 +++
Which brings us to the final
WO argument of any significance from the testimony of the Catechism of the
Council of Trent on the Sacrament of Baptism. For one of the most clever of
them tries to convince us that the Roman Catechism is badly translated. He
argues that this Catechism was not meant to uphold BOD in its words on
Baptism since the text there has been ‘mistranslated’ into English,
so he says, when it comes to a single key word in the original Latin.
And what is that single key
word?
First the full passage in
Latin:
“Sed
quamvis haec ita sint, non consuevit
tamen Ecclesia Baptismi Sacramentum huic hominum generi statim tribuere, sed ad certum tempus differendum esse constituit; neque enim ea dilation periculum, quod quidem pueris imminere
supra dictum est, conjunctum
habet cum illis, qui rationis usu praediti
sunt, Baptismi suscipiendi propositum atque consilium, et male actae vitae poenitentia satis future sit ad gratiam et justitiam, si repentinus
aliquis casus impediat, quo minus salutary aqua ablui
possint.” (Catechismus Romanus ad parochos,
ex Ss. Concilii Tridentini decreto Pii V Pontif.
Maximi Jussu Editus [this is Latin for ‘Roman Catechism for
Priests’, etc.], as published by Caesaraugustae
in 1830 in
This passage is the same as
the one we already cited in English back in Chapter 92:
“On adults, however,
the Church has not been accustomed to confer [it has not been the practice of
the Church to give or administer] the Sacrament of Baptism at once [right away,
before they receive adequate training], but [the Church] has ordained
[commanded] that it be deferred [delayed] for a certain [amount of] time. The
delay [in getting water baptism] is not attended with [does not involve] the
same danger as in the case of infants [babies or very young children], which we
have already mentioned; should any unforeseen [unavoidable] accident make it impossible for adults to be
washed in the salutary waters [cleansed from sin in the saving waters of
baptism] their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their
repentance for past sins, will avail [help] them to [get] grace and
righteousness.” (The Catechism of the Council of Trent. Quoted
from the chapter on ‘The Sacrament of Baptism’, section on
‘Necessity of Baptism’, subsection ‘Ordinarily They Are Not
Baptized at Once’, page 179.)
+++ 96. WO Tomfoolery, Act 5 +++
Now, did you notice the
boldfaced word “impediat” in the first
quote above in Latin?
To wit:
“…et male actae vitae poenitentia satis future sit ad gratiam et justitiam, si repentinus
aliquis casus impediat,
quo minus salutary aqua ablui possint.”
(Catechismus Romanus ad parochos. Section on Baptism, Paragraph 36, Page 137.
Emphases added.)
This word, “impediat,” is from the Latin verb, ‘impedire’, conjugated into the third-person singular
present subjunctive form with the active voice. And ‘impedire’,
as several scholarly textbooks in Latin tell us, means “…to bring
low, prostrate…” as well as “…to prevent, to
impede…” and “…impede, hinder, prevent…” (First citation
found in Latin Grammar by Scanlon
& Scanlon, A.M., as originally published by B. Herder Book Co. in 1944 at
St. Louis, Missouri. Later republished by TAN Books & Publishers in 1976
& 1982 in Rockford, Illinois. Quote found on p.255. Second citation found
in Second Latin by Scanlon &
Scanlon, A.M., as originally published by B. Herder Book Co. in 1948 at
We say again --- “impediat”, which is conjugated from its infinitive
form of ‘impedire’, means “…to bring low, prostrate…”
as well as “…to prevent,
to impede…” and “…impede,
hinder, prevent…” (Ibid., pp. 255, 249 & 422. All
emphasis added.)
Why is it important to know
this?
Because the WO-touting CF
(Catholic fundamentalist) mentioned at the beginning of Chapter 95 likes to say
“impediat” is mistranslated as “impossible” in English
(also in boldface in one of the quotes above), whereas it is only right to
translate it --- says he --- as the word ‘impediment’.
His point?
That The Catechism of the Council of Trent is not saying that
anything could make it wholly “impossible” for a man to receive
water baptism, rather, that it’s just saying that if something is an ‘impediment’ to water baptism…
well, then, God will make sure that
you get water baptism no matter what. The ‘impediment’ will
never be able to stop you completely!
Yet is this a reasonable
contention?
Certainly not.
+++ 97. WO Tomfoolery, Act 6 +++
Read Chapter 93 again if you
haven’t gotten it. The makers of the Catechism purposefully juxtaposition
the absolute necessity of babies to receive water baptism since they
“have no other means of
salvation except Baptism” against the lesser, but still
important, preceptive necessity of adults
to receive water baptism because their “delay [in getting water
baptism] is not attended with [does
not involve] the same danger as in the case of infants [babies or very young
children], which we have already mentioned…” (The
Catechism of the Council of Trent, pp. 178 & 179.)
This, indeed, is why
the Catechism makes such a contrast between babies and adults, and refers back
to these babies when justifying the delay in getting water baptism that is
usually practiced with adult catechumens as they take time to be trained
properly in the Roman Catholic Faith. And if this is not the reason why,
then, logically speaking, a WO-believing CF has no rational way to explain why the Catechism makes this
contrast and refers back to these babies when justifying a delay in baptism for
adults!
Because, from the WO-touting
CF’s point of view, both
babies and adults absolutely
must get water baptism in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven since
there is no other way for either of them to save their souls… and
he thinks that the Council of Trent infallibly and ‘explicitly’
ruled out the possibility of BOD for anyone. But if so, then why in the world
would the Catechism of the Council of Trent talk like there’s a difference
between babies and adults when it comes to the necessity of water baptism, contrasting the two as they do
to make it look like babies have no other option whereas adults can delay water
baptism without seriously endangering their immortal souls?
Do you comprehend?
+++ 98. WO Tomfoolery, Act 7 +++
It simply doesn’t add
up. The WO explanation for the Catechism’s words here about the Sacrament
of Baptism makes no sense at all.
Yet where does this
WO-touting CF’s mistake lie?
He grasps at straws.
The Latin “impediat” can’t mean
“impossible”, he insists. It can only mean ‘to hinder’
or ‘to be an obstacle’ and thus an ‘impediment’…
but not to the point of impossibility. Consequently, thinks he, his
argument is won. The Catechism of the
Council of Trent couldn’t possibly be contradicting the
Council it came out of, which, he supposes, ‘explicitly upheld’ the
absolute necessity of water baptism.
End of story. Or is it?
The honest & sensible
reader knows where this is headed.
Given that “impediat” means “…to bring low, prostrate…”
as well as “…to prevent, to impede…” and
“…impede, hinder, prevent…”, then how is it an ironclad
conclusion that the word “impossible” is a mistranslation?
Latin’s ‘impedire’ (from which
“impediat” is conjugated) derives from
the Latin ‘pedis’ for ‘foot’
and implies the entangling of the feet
such that a person is brought low and
laid prostrate on the ground. In such a terrible & awkward position,
cannot someone, realistically speaking, be prevented, impeded and hindered
from accomplishing an important task… even
to the point of it becoming humanly impossible
to get it done?
Of course it is.
And the realization that the
Council of Trent did not
explicitly & infallibly uphold WO after all (see Chapters 11 to 15 again in
this book, my dear reader, if you’re still hazy or stubborn about this
point), coupled with the knowledge that the Catechism of the Council of Trent
was contrasting the absolute necessity of water baptism for
babies (a necessity that leaves no room for exceptions since babies
don’t have adequate minds yet with which they can ‘resolve’
or ‘desire’ to get water baptism) with a preceptive necessity for adults (a necessity that is crucial but can allow
for exceptions where it is an ‘impossibility’ to obey) makes this
fact about the Catechism a moral
certainty.
Story really ended.
+++ 99. The Nail in the Coffin… +++
But the nail in the coffin
for this irrational contention of a WO-believing CF is this:
It doesn’t matter one single bit whether you translate the
Latin word “impediat” as
“impossible” (as the early 20th century English
rendering of the Roman Catechism does, from which we quoted) or, rather, if you
translate it as ‘impediment’ (as this particular WO-touting CF
wants to do). The overall meaning of the
passage is still obvious and unchanged, regardless of it being rendered as
either “impossible” or ‘impediment’!
The proof?
Easy… just try it out
and see. Here again is the prefacing passage about the absolute necessity of
water baptism for babies:
“Since infant children
have no
other means of salvation except
Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who
permit them [allow small children] to remain without the grace of the Sacrament
[of Baptism] longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so
tender [so young] as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death [particularly
when very young children can die so much more easily than adults].” (The
Catechism of the Council of Trent. Quoted from the chapter on ‘The
Sacrament of Baptism’, section on ‘Necessity of Baptism’,
subsection ‘Baptism of Infants Should Not Be Delayed’, page 178.)
Next, a page later, the
passage about the lesser danger in delaying water baptism for adults:
“On adults,
however, the… delay [in getting water baptism] is not attended with
[does not involve] the same danger as in the case of infants [babies or
very young children], which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen
[unavoidable] accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the
salutary waters [cleansed from sin in the saving waters of baptism] their
intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past
sins, will avail [help] them to [get] grace and righteousness.”
(Ibid. Quoted from the chapter
on ‘The Sacrament of Baptism’, section on ‘Necessity of
Baptism’, subsection ‘Ordinarily They Are Not Baptized at
Once’, page 179.)
Now the exact same passage
as just above with ‘impediment’ used in place of
“impossible”:
“On adults,
however, the… delay [in getting water baptism] is not attended with
[does not involve] the same danger as in the case of infants [babies or
very young children], which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen
[unavoidable] accident make an impediment against adults being able to
be washed in the salutary waters [cleansed from sin in the saving waters of
baptism] their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their
repentance for past sins, will avail [help] them to [get] grace and
righteousness.” (Ibid., the word “impossible”
switched for ‘impediment’ and grammatically tweaked to make it
fit.)
+++ 100. …And That Coffin Nailed Firmly Shut +++
Is it beginning to be
starkly obvious, my dear reader?
The WO-believing CF’s
argument about “impossible” vs. ‘impediment’ is facetious.
The overall meaning of the passages is the same, regardless of which word you
use. For as the Catechism says in Latin in the passage we have been
examining:
“…Baptismi suscipiendi propositum atque consilium…” (Catechismus Romanus ad parochos.
Section on Baptism, paragraph 36, page 137. Emphasis added both in this quote
and the very next quote, too.)
Which in English means:
“…their intention
and determination to receive Baptism…” (Ibid., page 179.)
And what is an “intention” or
“determination” if not a vow,
resolution or desire?
In other words, that vow,
resolution or desire to receive water baptism --- that “intention and
determination” --- “will avail [help] them to [get]” the
“grace and righteousness” of water baptism even without the sacramental water. Which is
why the Church, then --- asserts these writers & editors of the Catechism
--- is content to hold off on administering water baptism to adult catechumens
since the “…delay [in getting water baptism] is not attended
with [does not involve] the same danger as in the case of infants [babies
or very young children]…” (Ibid.)
Meanwhile, these
“…infant children have no other means of salvation except
Baptism…” Consequently, “…we may easily
understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them [allow small
children] to remain without the grace of the Sacrament [of Baptism] longer than
necessity may require…” (Ibid., page 178.)
Yet why is it different for little children as opposed to grown
up adults?
Because baby children are not like grown up adults. They
do not have full-fledged
minds like you and I do. They are not
capable of fully understanding the teachings of the Catholic Church, and hence
have no ability to hold an
“intention and determination to receive Baptism…”!
Therefore, BOD is not
an option for them due to a lack of mind & understanding.
Ergo, from a BODer’s perspective, water baptism is a baby
child’s only option.
End of sentence.
+++ 101. Proof
Now, I have hammered the WO
side pretty hard here for the last few chapters. And for a good reason, too.
Because most of them are either ignorant or stubborn, or both, when it comes to
this hard evidence for BOD in the Catechism of the Council of Trent right after
the conclusion of the Tridentine Council itself.
And if I am going to prevent
them from being schismatics, dividing up from their
fellow Catholics as if they are ‘heretics’ because they believe in
BOD for catechumens or because these fellow Catholics believe it’s okay
thus far for a Catholic to believe in BOD for catechumens (and even if they
themselves do not personally believe in BOD), then I have to drive it home hard
how it is a moral certainty that the
Roman Catechism --- which is the greatest catechism that the Church has ever
yet produced, albeit not infallible --- upheld the notion of BOD (or BOS as it
was known back then) for catechumens.
The fact that the Catechism does
not mention BOD (or rather, BOS) explicitly by name is immaterial in this
particular case. This is because the Roman Catechism is not an act of
infallibility, and thus the rules for interpreting it are not so strict
(whereas, for infallible statements, one has to make completely and utterly sure that the words mean what you
think they mean since you cannot afford to be wrong when claiming that the meaning itself is infallibly
known!), and because, within a single page, the Catechism makes a vivid
contrast between the very critical
need for water baptism for baby children as soon as possible and the
relative lack of danger for adult
catechumens in delaying water baptism while they are catechized.
Ergo, it is a moral
(although not infallible) certainty that this Catechism is upholding BOD.
Nonetheless, should this
morally certain fact be fought over regardless of the solid evidence on its
behalf, we turn our attention briefly to a very famous and saintly prelate of
the Church who lived in the generation immediately following the Tridentine Council.
+++ 102. St. Robert Bellarmine +++
Viz., St. Robert Bellarmine.
Born the day of 4 October
1542 in
And, if that were not
enough, Robert entered the Jesuits in 1560, taking his vows before his
eighteenth birthday. The Jesuits, of course, were intimately connected to the
papacy --- having just been formed and approved as a new religious order ---
taking their orders directly from the pope and both teaching & defending
the Catholic Faith with an enormous knowledge and arguments that were totally
devastating to, and much feared by, their opponents.
Finally, Robert was a
confidante of supreme pontiffs, being a personal theologian to Popes Clement
VIII (1592 to 1605) and Paul V (1605 to 1621). Finally canonized as a saint in
1930, Bellarmine was declared a doctor of the Holy
Roman Church the very next year, 1931, and made the patron of those who are
catechists. His theological positions thus hold immense weight amongst learned
Catholics.
So what did this wonderful
saint & doctor of the Roman Catholic Church have to say about the subject
of ‘baptism of desire’, in the decades just after the Tridentine Council --- i.e.,
the Council of Trent --- had issued its canons & decrees concerning the
Sacrament of Baptism, justification and so forth?
“Concerning catechumens
[St. Robert here means, of course, catechumens in the typical sense, who
haven’t yet been baptized in water] there is a greater difficulty, because they are faithful [i.e., they
are seeking & learning the Catholic Faith] and can be saved if they die in
this state [without water baptism], and
yet outside the Church no one is saved, [just] as [no one was saved]
outside the ark of Noah… [St. Robert then poses a couple of possible
solutions to this difficulty of how someone could be saved without water
baptism --- and thus visibly outside
the Catholic Church --- whilst seeking the Catholic Faith as a catechumen.
However, he rejects both of them and proceeds to give what he thinks is the
correct solution.] …I answer
therefore that, when it is said ‘outside the Church no one is
saved’, it must be understood of those [to mean those people] who belong
to her [the Catholic Church] neither in actual fact nor in desire, as
theologians commonly speak on [about] baptism. Because the catechumens are in the Church, though not in actual
fact, yet at least in resolution, therefore they can be saved.”
(On the Church Militant, Book 3,
Chapter 2, by St. Robert Bellarmine. Published by an
unknown printer in Naples, Italy, in 1872 as an ‘opera omnia’ [containing all of his written works]. Quoted
from an English translation of St. Robert Bellarmine’s
original Latin text in the book, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, Page 76, by Fr. Francois Laisney, which can be found in a PDF file form online at
http://www.sspx.org/books/Is_Feeneyism_Catholic.pdf as of 13 August 2012. All
emphasis & annotations added in this and the next two quotes.)
+++ 103. Driving Bellarmine’s Words
Home +++
Dear reader, if you’ve
been paying attention and are not so wedded to the notion of ‘water
only’ that you can’t stand seeing hard evidence against it, then
you know very well that Bellarmine was not
upholding the WO position. Because he says about catechumens, those who are not
normally baptized in water yet:
“…when it is said ‘outside the Church no one is
saved’, it must be understood of those [to mean those people] who belong
to her [the Catholic Church] neither in actual fact nor in desire…
Because the catechumens are in the
Church, though not in actual fact, yet at least in resolution, therefore
they can be saved.”
(Ibid.)
We emphasize again:
“Because the catechumens are in the Church, though not in actual fact, yet at least in resolution,
therefore they can be saved.”
(Ibid.)
Incidentally, where Bellarmine says “…nor in desire…”, the
word “desire” translates the Latin term ‘desiderio’,
which is the more typical Latin term to be rendered as “desire” in
English (as opposed to the far less common rendering of ‘voto’ as “desire”). And where he says
“resolution”, this word translates the Latin term ‘voto’, which is usually a much more correct and
common rendering of ‘voto’.
(See Chapter 6, my dear
soul, for a reminder of the rather slipshod translation of ‘voto’ as the English word ‘desire’ in
recent times when it comes to BOD.)
In other words, St. Robert Bellarmine is telling us that catechumens, who are usually not
baptized in water --- although we found out in Chapter 24 how catechumens can,
for a short while, be rightly called catechumens just after their reception of water baptism while in ancient times they
got a bit of final training after
Easter Sunday --- can be thought of as in the Church through their
“desire” and “resolution” to be joined to Her via the
Sacrament of Baptism. And even though, “in actual fact,” they are
“not” visibly connected to Her without water baptism!
What is this if not
‘baptism of desire’, what earlier Catholics called ‘baptism
of spirit’?
The truth is plain.
St. Robert Bellarmine, distinguished
doctor of the Catholic Church, taught and believed in ‘baptism of
desire’ just years after
the Council of Trent and thus several years after WO-touting Catholic
fundamentalists (CFs) want to think ‘water
only’ had been ‘explicitly’ defined by the Tridentine Fathers and hence, say they, too, ‘baptism
of desire’ infallibly ruled out.
Yet how could this be when
St. Robert upheld the gist of BOD in one of his most famous works in the
decades right after the Council of Trent?
How could he have been the
personal theologian of two post-Trent popes and publicly espoused BOD if BOD had been both explicitly &
infallibly condemned by
How could he have been made
a cardinal of the Church and have doggedly argued against Protestant heresy,
eventually winning the titles of saint, doctor & patron of catechists ---
all of this happening after Trent --- if, in fact, BOD was ‘ruled out’ by the most fabulous of
all councils to date while he taught what Trent had supposedly
‘condemned’?
Unless a WO-believing CF is
going to claim that pretty much every single pope, bishop, priest, doctor,
theologian, monk, and etc., was a formal heretic after the Council of Trent on
the matter of water baptism --- and that the Great Apostasy has consequently
been out in the open at full tilt for the last four hundred and fifty years
--- then the conclusion is stark:
The Fathers of Trent neither directly addressed nor explicitly & infallibly
ruled out BOD.
+++ 104. St. Alphonsus Liguori Redux +++
But if a WOer
is still not convinced, still trying to explain away the evidence for ‘baptism
of desire’ from the Roman Catechism and from St. Robert Bellarmine himself in one of his most famous writings after Trent is supposed to have
‘ruled out’ the idea of BOD --- say the ‘water only’
proponents who tend toward Catholic fundamentalism --- then we return to a man
that we examined carefully in Chapters 49 to 60 of this book, Baptismal Confusion.
Namely,
Alphonsus Liguori, who
upheld ‘baptism of desire’ in his theological masterpiece just a
little over a century after Bellarmine’s death.
Now St. Alphonsus
lived from 1696 to 1787. And he, like Robert Bellarmine,
is both a canonized saint and a universal doctor of the Holy
Catholic Church. Hence, while not infallible in his theological opinions, these
opinions of his nevertheless carry a lot of weight because of the high honor
and respect that the Church pays him.
What’s more, he not
only very plainly upheld BOD in his Moral
Theology masterwork but cited the Council of Trent as ‘proof’
of his opinion, mistakenly thinking it ‘explicitly’ defined at this
marvelous Council!
(You’ll remember, dear
reader, how we dealt with this mistaken opinion in Chapter 59. There we showed
that it’s not just some anonymous & unlearned layperson
claiming that neither
And what did Alphonsus say, exactly, about BOD?
“Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God which,
through contrition or love of God above all things along with the explicit or implicit desire of true Baptism of water;
it supplies its power, according to Trent, with regard to the remission of the
fault [of sin], but not the impression of the character [of water baptism,
baptism being a special mark upon the body & soul and identifying us as
joined to the Body of Christ and thus real & visible members of His One
& Only Catholic Church], nor with regard to the complete taking away of the
punishment due [to] sin --- thus teach [Alphonsus
here mentions by name several Church theologians who teach BOD] Viva, the Salmanticenses, along with Suarez, Vasquez, Valentia; Croix and others [Alphonsus
then gives the citations for these references]… It is de fide [a Latin
phrase meaning that it is an infallible teaching of the Roman Catholic Faith] that men can be saved through baptism
of desire… according to Trent [Session 6, On Justification,
Chapter 4], where it is said that no man
can be saved ‘without the laver of regeneration or its
desire.’” (St. Alphonsus Liguori’s Moral
Theology, Book 6, Treatise 2, Chapter 1, Number 96. All emphases &
annotations added.)
+++ 105. Driving Alphonsus’ Words
Home +++
This is where it starts
getting ridiculous for a man to deny
that Church leaders, saints and doctors believed in or taught BOD after
Trent, my dear reader.
For not only have we the
examples of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus Liguori to tell us otherwise --- that pretty much every
Church leader, saint and doctor after Trent believed in BOD for
catechumens and that many, if not most, of them presumed Trent to have
‘explicitly’ upheld BOD for catechumens, too --- but Alphonsus even
gives us a short list of various theologians since around the time of Trent
(which took place during the 1500s) up until his own time (during the middle of
the 1700s) who back him up!
Accordingly:
“Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God which,
through contrition or love of God above all things along with the explicit or
implicit desire of true Baptism of water… thus teach [Alphonsus here mentions by name
several Church theologians who teach BOD] Viva,
the Salmanticenses, along with Suarez, Vasquez, Valentia; Croix and others [Alphonsus
then gives the citations for these references]…” (Ibid.)
The boldfaced-highlighted clause in the quote above is a list of
names of those theologians who taught the notion of ‘baptism of
desire’ for catechumens during the centuries surrounding the Council of
Trent, St. Alphonsus citing them as evidence for BOD
in order to back up his own agreement with this theological opinion.
The outcome is therefore
clear for an honest and intelligent Catholic man --- most, if not all, learned Catholics
thought Trent had upheld BOD for catechumens, if only in a proximate way, and
the Catechism of the Council of Trent was only reflecting this theological
opinion right after the end of that
most famous of councils in the middle of the 16th century.
Period.
There is no sense trying to
argue otherwise since the historical evidence is overwhelming. WO-touting CFs who argue otherwise, regardless, are either ignorant of
the facts (which are most of them, to be blunt) or else stubborn in spite of
the facts (most of the rest of them, unfortunately).
Whichever the case, it is pride that binds them in this
predicament.
For if ignorant, they are
too proud to admit that they don’t know everything and could be
wrong (and hence that it’s worth their while to examine the evidence
proffered by a book such as this). But if stubborn, then they are too proud to
admit that they can see this evidence and that it clearly proves them
wrong (and hence that they ought to humbly admit their mistake, taking full
responsibility for it like any decent Catholic person would do in the eyes of
others).
Oh, and
incidentally, if still bothered --- or bothered for the first time --- by St. Alphonsus’ mention of “…the
explicit or implicit desire of true Baptism of water…”, then see
Chapters 55 to 58 in this book, Baptismal
Confusion. You will find a full and orthodox explanation for what he was
saying, Alphonsus most very certainly not being a modernist or a
salvation heretic.
+
+ +
Part One of Baptismal Confusion (Chapters 1-32)
Part Two of Baptismal Confusion (Chapters 33-60)
Part Three of Baptismal Confusion (Chapters 61-82)
Part Five of Baptismal Confusion (Chapters 106-132)
Part Six of Baptismal Confusion (Chapters 133-169)
Part Seven of Baptismal Confusion (Chapters 170-197)
+
+ +
NOTE: If the reader has enjoyed, or
benefited from, this book, you may wish to examine
Baptismal Confusion: Sheepishly Shy or Gaunt as a Goat? and
Baptismal Confusion: Dilemmas of ‘Desire’; or, It Is Foolish
to Presume Either ‘BOD’ or ‘WO’, as of Yet in Our Era, to Be the
‘Inarguable’ Stance, Not Even Bothering to Honestly Study Each Sides’s
Evidence!
, in the Letters & Admonishments and Great Apostasy sections, respectively. The three
deal with similar dilemmas resulting from confusion, during the Great Apostasy, over the
Sacrament of Holy Baptism after the Vatican II Pseudo-Council, resulting in acrimony,
stupidity, cruelty, rashness, impatience, heresy & schism in the fight of
BOD vs. WO.
+
+ +
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.
© 2013 by
Paul Doughton.
All rights
reserved.