+++ 106. Fr. Laurence Vaux’s English Catechism of 1583 +++
We now turn to the very next
catechism in our survey. First published just one year later than the Catechism
of the Council of Trent was first published (1567, although the version quoted from
here was published in 1583), Fr. Laurence Vaux composed his catechism for the
sake of those English and French persons who considered themselves Roman
Catholic, some of whom were shockingly ignorant about the Faith. He especially
wrote it for the English who were, at this moment, grievously oppressed by the
lies of the Protestant Rebellion in
Fr. Vaux intended his
catechism to be short and easily read, although by our contemporary standards
it is lengthy and difficult. (Which shows us, by the way, how stupid we are to
think that our era is so much more ‘sophisticated’,
‘logical’ and ‘intelligent’ than people were back
then.) The point is, though, that --- unlike the Roman Catechism that came out
of
So what did he have to say
about the Sacrament of Baptism?
“Baptism is the most
necessary Sacrament of the New Testament [the time after Jesus’
resurrection from the dead and ascension into Heaven], instituted of [by]
Christ, specially to wash away original sin [the first sin committed by Ss.
Adam & Eve and into which all people are conceived as their descendants,
except for Jesus & Mary], and all other sin done before Baptism [all sins
actually committed by a particular individual himself prior to water baptism]. By Baptism we be [are] regenerated [brought
back to life] and born again of water and the Holy Ghost, and made Children of
God by adoption and [becoming] heirs [inheritors] of the Kingdom of Heaven.
Without Baptism, either in act or in will, none [no one] can be saved...
In two things especially [Baptism consists], the matter and form [the thing
used for the Sacrament of Baptism and how it’s said or done]. The matter
is water, a simple element. No Baptism can be in [done with] wine, rose water,
or any confect [kind of] liquor. The form is the words of Baptism, which are:
‘Ego te baptiso in
nomine Patris, et Filii, et
Spiritus Sancti’ [these are the Latin words for
water baptism], or, ‘I christen thee [baptize you], in the name of the
Father, and the Son, and the holy Ghost [these are the
same words in English]. Amen.’” (A Catechism or Christian Doctrine by Laurence Vaux, B.D., printed
for the Chetham Society in
+++ 107. What Fr. Vaux’s Catechism Tells Us +++
The import of Fr.
Vaux’s teaching?
First, that water baptism is
the “most necessary” of all the sacraments. Indeed, that
without it “none [no one] can be saved.” (Ibid.)
Again, this is a far cry
from the way of speaking about the Sacrament of Baptism that all Catholics for
the last century and a half have been subject to, where --- even if the laver
of regeneration (i.e., baptism) is admitted to be ‘necessary’ ---
this necessity has been constantly and unrelentingly undermined by frequent
qualifications or explanations that make it clear how very unnecessary the baptismal water actually is. In other words,
contrary to the great necessity spoken of above by Fr. Vaux, people who call
themselves ‘catholic’ today teach that practically anyone
can be saved without baptism in water... or even any real intent to be
Catholic.
Whereas Fr. Vaux’s
language is rather absolute.
For who does he say can be
saved without the Sacrament of
Baptism?
“…none [no one]…” (Ibid.)
And, again, why would this
be?
Because the Sacrament of
Baptism is the “most
necessary” of all the sacraments.
For by it, says he, a man is
“regenerated [brought back to life]”, meaning that he was dead & lifeless to begin
with. (Ibid.) And just as a man cannot exist on earth apart from physical birth the first time, exiting
alive through the water of his mother’s womb --- there being no God-given exceptions to this physical rule for earthly birth --- so,
too, a man cannot exist in Heaven apart from spiritual birth the second time, exiting alive through the water of
his Church Mother’s womb, there being yet no indubitable exceptions to this spiritual rule for heavenly birth.
Ah, but there’s an
additional thing to consider here, isn’t there?
For this is the era of
scholastic theology, and Fr. Vaux was undoubtedly well-trained in the teaching
and thinking of St. Thomas Aquinas. Ergo, what if a catechumen dies
‘accidentally’ without the water of this baptism? What then? This
is why he states:
“Without baptism, either
in act or in will, none [no one] can be saved.” (Ibid.)
We say again:
“…either
in act or in will…” (Ibid.)
And what does this mean?
If you are already familiar
with the teaching of the scholastic doctors and what we have previously
discovered in this book, then you will know the answer. It means that if you can’t get the water of
baptism prior to dying ‘accidentally’, then your “will” for it --- your resolution, vow
and desire to do the right thing, to be baptized in water when your time of preparation
and catechism in the Catholic Faith is finished --- can save you even
without the literal “act” of someone baptizing you
with the sacramental water. (Ibid.)
“Yet wouldn’t
this contradict the aforesaid urgent necessity for the Sacrament of
Baptism?” inquires a
genuinely-puzzled-but-thankfully-not-yet-fundamentalist WO aficionado. “I
mean, if the ‘will’ to get baptized in water suffices without
‘actually’ having to receive it, then how can it be ‘most necessary’ for a man
to get baptized in water as Fr. Vaux insists?”
+++ 108. A Confusing Dissonance of ‘Necessities’ +++
Which is a very fair
question.
Indeed, a most excellent,
probing and intelligent question.
After all, just what is the
true ‘necessity’ of a baptism that isn’t actually necessary?
And here is where the
inconsistencies of the BOD theological opinion begin to be apparent. Because
there is, thus far, no real unanimity
or thorough approach in the theological solution to this problem over
the centuries. Different theologians at different times and in different places
tend to come up with at least slightly different (and sometimes very different)
explanations for ‘baptism of desire’ and precisely how far its
efficacy extends. As a matter of fact, most theological writers don’t
acknowledge that there’s a problem to solve in the first place!
They simply ignore it into
oblivion because they themselves are oblivious to it.
The typical catechism or
theological textbook of the last four or five hundred years will, of course,
pay lip service to the ‘necessity’ of water baptism. They will even
sometimes say it’s a ‘necessity of means’.
To wit, a necessity that cannot
ever be ducked or excused --- there
is never any exception to its necessity.
Then, just a few words or
sentences or pages elsewhere, the same catechism or textbook will turn around
and make it clear that water baptism is not truly a necessity of means
by mentioning the alternative of BOD. I.e., if you can get baptized in water,
fine. You have obeyed God. Yet if not able to get it before you die while
intending to do so, then you may very likely be off the hook since
‘desire’ for baptism can work in its place. Hence, it is a
‘necessity of precept’ rather than a ‘necessity of means’,
so that if you can’t do it and are perfectly contrite of heart for your
mortal sins, then God won’t blame you and will make an exception
in your case.
Mind you, in my studies thus
far I have never found it said this simple or straight out --- that water
baptism is a necessity of precept instead of a necessity of means.
This is probably because BOD theologians are clever enough to know that the
Church has appeared to present baptism as
a necessity of means.
Hence, how can they
contradict what seems to be a perpetual teaching?
But it doesn’t take a
genius to see the facts.
Namely, that if you don’t actually have to be baptized in
water in order to have your original sin --- not to mention all your mortal
sins up until that moment of water baptism --- forgiven and your entrance into
Heaven permitted as a result, then how in the world can the Sacrament of
Baptism (the very real & physical matter of this sacrament
being actual water!) be a necessity
of means?
Because it isn’t the
only means when another means --- BOD --- exists to save you!
+++ 109. The Crux of the Matter: +++
Tangibleness
Which is where it gets
confusing. Because the cleverest of theological writers, following the lead of
the scholastic doctors, will then tell you that BOD doesn’t save you on
its own. It can only save you --- say they --- by operating through the Sacrament of Baptism.
There is some kind of an
‘invisible connection’ between BOD and water baptism, say they. The
two things (or three, if you include BOB) are somehow all united together into one
single entity, which is what they mean when they speak of the
‘Sacrament of Baptism’. I.e., they don’t mean just
‘baptism of water’ (BOW) when they talk about the Sacrament of
Baptism --- they mean BOW and BOD and BOB at the very same time.
It’s all inexplicably wrapped together into the one thing of water
baptism via ‘desire’ or ‘will’ or
‘resolution’, etc., even without any water actually being
involved for BOD or BOB.
Consequently, when an
intelligent & learned BOD partisan says ‘baptism of desire’
saves a catechumen who dies ‘accidentally’ without water baptism,
he doesn’t really mean that it’s BOD in and of itself that does the
saving. It’s not. Instead, he’s saying that the ‘Sacrament of Baptism’ saves
an unbaptized catechumen when he dies, whatever this ‘Sacrament of
Baptism’ really is, given that there’s no actual or literal
water involved.
And that’s the problem. Because what is the Sacrament of Baptism without water? How can it even
be the Sacrament of Baptism when its matter --- the visible thing that makes it
visibly what it is --- is missing? Indeed, BOD operating ‘through’
the Sacrament of Baptism is an invisible,
immaterial and waterless work… we can’t be sure when it occurs,
or to whom it happens, since it is utterly unseen by the physical eye and
unheard by the physical ear.
It is this intellectual leap
(or ‘cognitive sleight of hand’ as some of us would call it) that
allows smarter BOD enthusiasts to look at you with a straight face and insist
that the Sacrament of Baptism is ‘necessary’. Indeed, that it can
even be called a ‘necessity of means’.
So where does this reasoning
go awry?
The Sacrament of Baptism is not some undefined, amorphous
& ethereal concept. It is a tangible,
physical thing, defined both by the form (the words said audibly and hence tangibly
heard by the human ear during the administration of baptism, to wit, “I
baptize you… etc.”) and the matter (which is real and hence tangible
to the human eye and felt by the recipient when the sacramental water is
administered upon the forehead).
Ergo, how can an intangible ‘baptism of
desire’ be truly equivalent to a tangible ‘baptism of water’?
For that’s what it
means (no pun intended) to say that the two distinct things are really a single
entity, and that BOD consequently operates through
the Sacrament of Baptism!
And this is why,
incidentally, I cordially disagree with the mingling of these two different
things and insist, politely but logically, that BOD --- if it truly exists and
is not simply a figment of the theological imagination --- is never an
‘equivalent to’ or ‘substitute for’ water baptism.
Rather, it must be a divinely permissible exception to the otherwise
wholly unbreakable rule of a very tangible, physical & real water baptism.
+++ 110. A Confusing Dissonance of ‘Necessities’, Part
2 +++
Now, there is at least one
BOD-believing theologian of recent times who essentially admits what I have
said above. That is to say, he dispenses with the semantics and eventually,
after a lot of discursive prelude in favor of ‘baptism of desire’,
subtly calls it for what it is:
A necessity of precept if the sacramental water
isn’t absolutely necessary to
save your soul.
Yet then he turns around and
(earnestly, I’m sure, truly meaning what he says he means however
confused I think him to be in his theological opinion) claims that, despite BOD
being true, you can still call baptism of water a ‘necessity of
means’ since a man has no way to be totally sure BOD will happen for him.
Nevertheless, says he, from the point of view of God --- Who as God can dispense with the necessity
of sacramental water --- then He can make an exception, seeing perfect
contrition in the heart of a catechumen, and grant you forgiveness and entrance
into Heaven, regardless.
But is this a fair
assessment of the situation?
No, it isn’t. Because
‘necessity of means’ is, by
definition, a means that a man cannot ever dispense with. That is to
say, a man has no other option.
Meanwhile, this theologian does indeed present such a man (an unbaptized
catechumen who dies ‘unexpectedly’) with an additional option… ‘baptism
of desire’ (BOD).
It matters not that only God
can bestow this option (which is not quite true, given that BOD aficionados
tell us that the catechumen can
himself merit BOD via his perfect contrition for his sins), or that a
catechumen cannot count on it for certain prior to his death to save him (the same
can be said of water baptism, for how many of us can be totally sure of dying in the state of grace and thus saving
his soul even after he’s been baptized in water?). The point is ---
granted that ‘baptism of desire’ is true --- a catechumen of good will can
rightly dare to hope for BOD to save him if he were to die
‘accidentally’ without the waters of baptism.
Therefore, if BOD is an
option, how in the world can water baptism be a ‘necessity of means’?
Just because you can’t be sure of it happening for you doesn’t mean
you couldn’t possibly wind up benefiting from it at your death!
And so this traditionalist
theologian invokes yet another concept to justify his position:
Metaphysical necessity.
And what is this supposed to
be?
By ‘metaphysical necessity’
he means that something is so necessary that not even God Himself can dispense
with it. For instance, two plus two equals four. This is a ‘metaphysical
necessity’ and not even God can make it add up to anything else. Four is
the sum and that’s that.
His point?
He’s trying to say
that, since salvation without baptismal water is ‘impossible’ for a
man but possible with God, then water baptism is not a
‘metaphysical necessity’. But since BOD is ‘impossible’
for a man on his own --- without God making it occur --- then water baptism is
not merely a ‘necessity of precept’ either. To the contrary,
implies he, it is in the middle of the two extremes and therefore a
‘necessity of means’ for all human beings unless God makes
an exception for them.
Confusing?
Absolutely.
And it is confusing for one
simple reason --- because the Church has always seemed to teach that baptism
in water is a necessity of means. Whereas,
on the other hand, thinking men have always agreed, logically, that
‘necessity of means’ must leave no other option available for you. As a result, the idea of a ‘metaphysical
necessity’ is facetious. It has no real bearing in this debate. BOD being
‘impossible’ for a man to attain on his own is also irrelevant
since salvation is always a cooperative effort between God and man, in
the case of BOD depending both on a man’s perfect contrition as well as
God’s supernatural assistance.
We therefore find that the
one centrally vital point in the debate is this:
Has God ever made
it possible for a man to be saved without the sacramental waters of
baptism crossing his forehead as, simultaneously, the Trinitarian baptismal
words are spoken?
That’s the real
question.
That God can dispense with the need for baptismal
water is beside the point. The scholastic doctors loved to cite this
point --- that God isn’t ‘bound’ by His Sacraments --- but
this technically correct fact ignores the truly pertinent thing logically
begging to be asked:
What has God
Himself declared to be His Sovereign Will in the matter of the necessity
of the sacraments? Has He made each and every one of them absolutely
necessary for the purpose for which they were created, or has He allowed exceptions
in at least some cases? And, if so, which cases?
That’s the real issue.
So what has God decided in
the matter of BOD vs. WO?
There is no way to
resolve this debate until the Catholic Church speaks with a final, infallible & explicit voice
upon this subject… something She has never yet seen fit to do when
it comes to the topics of ‘baptism of desire’ or ‘baptism of
blood’. (Again, dear reader, please see Chapters 4 to 22 in this book if
you have doubts. There you will see that the Church has never yet grappled with
BOD or BOB explicitly by name or description in an infallible fashion.) Until
then, staunch WOers and fervent BODers
are jousting with words or indulging intellectual swordplay. Which
can be useful if done intelligently. (Although, if done stupidly and obstinately,
leads to Catholic fundamentalism, about which you may read
here.)
But it will never solve the
debate with finality for everyone in the One & Only Catholic Body of
Christ without an explicit and infallible
ruling in the matter.
End of sentence.
+++ 111. The
And so we turn to the next
item on our list, what is now called the ‘Douay Catechism’.
Written by Henry Tuberville, a priest who taught at the
Sporting a classic
question-and-answer style, the Douay Catechism is militant against
Protestantism. An Augustinian monk and German priest, Martin Luther, began this
heretical religion when he openly rebelled against the Catholic Church circa
1520. This division then spawned countless other religious divisions as decade
followed decade --- the English Protestants especially keen to persecute
Catholics wherever they could find them --- only a small minority of the
British remaining loyal to Rome by the mid-1600s. Moreover, these few were
sometimes poorly instructed in the Catholic Faith, or much infected with
manmade Protestant notions.
Fr. Tuberville
tackled these problems head on. He posed numerous Protestant attacks against
the Catholic Religion and responded to them with clear logic, pertinent
scripture and a very direct, even forceful, approach. In short, his catechism
neither inadvertently ignored nor purposely ducked anything that Protestants
could lob at Catholicism.
What did this Douay Catechism
have to say about the Sacrament of Regeneration?
Fr. Tuberville
posited the query, “Can a man be saved without baptism?”
Whereupon he rejoindered:
“He cannot, unless he
have it either actual [in actuality] or
in desire, with contrition [sorrow for your sins], or to be [or he is] baptized in his blood as [like]
the holy Innocents were, which [who] suffered for Christ [the infants murdered
by King Herod around Bethlehem to destroy the newborn child, Jesus, in order to
keep Him from taking Herod’s throne].”
A little later Tuberville asks, “What if a man die for the faith, before
he can be baptized?”
To which he responds:
“He is a true martyr,
and baptized in his own blood.”
(The Douay Catechism of 1649, based
on a
+++ 112. What Fr. Tuberville’s
Catechism Tells Us +++
What are we to make of these
quotes?
First of all, we see a
curious thing. Fr. Tuberville goes out of his way to
mention ‘baptism of blood’ (BOB) by name, something Catholics
hadn’t really done since the first millennium.
Why is this?
Probably because, after
nearly 110 years of heretical schism, the English government had martyred
hundreds of professing Catholics. Sometimes these martyrs were new converts to
the Catholic Faith, i.e., converted from Anglicanism or some other form of
Protestantism. And just like the martyrdoms of the early first millennium under
pagan
Whatever the reason, it
nicely contrasts BOB with BOD. To wit, Catholics who are well educated and
believe in exceptions to the necessity for water baptism have never thought BOB and BOD to be
the exact same thing. Whilst related and sharing a waterless condition, the two
things operate differently. Ergo, the mentioning of BOB alone (as was often the
situation in the 1st millennium) is not then automatic ‘proof’ that such early
Catholics believed in the idea of BOD, or that BOB being thought real is then
somehow ‘proof’ of BOD being real as well.
Yet Fr. Tuberville
doesn’t talk about BOB alone. He also mentions BOD, albeit not by name.
“Can a man be saved without
baptism? He cannot, unless he have it either actual [in actuality] or in desire, with contrition
[sorrow for your sins]…” (Ibid., Question 610)
Here we have the Council of
Trent terminology --- at least in the English translation of the word rendered
as ‘desire’ that everyone runs into nowadays --- plainly used to
uphold BOD. For while the Trent quotation does not have to be
interpreted to uphold BOD and there are, at a minimum, two other ways to
rationally interpret Trent’s words so as not to do so, the context
here makes the BOD support stark and leaves no other logical option for
interpretation.
For Fr. Tuberville
asks, “Can a man be saved without
baptism?” The “without” in “without baptism”
makes it clear that sacramental water is what is being referred to since, just
a few lines prior to this question, it is driven home how the “necessary
matter” of the Sacrament of
Baptism is “water” and,
therefore, absent this water, there is no baptism. Hence,
“without” means ‘without the sacramental water’.
(Ibid., Questions 610 & 606, Pp. 67-68)
And how does Tuberville answer the question of salvation without
baptismal water?
“He cannot,
unless he have it either actual [in actuality] or in desire…” (Ibid.)
We could reasonably
interpret
Not that this should
surprise us.
St. Thomas Aquinas and the
scholastic doctors reigned supreme, theologically speaking. BOD was thus
unquestioned. And everyone at this time presumed the Tridentine
Council to have spoken about BOD --- some even thinking this purported
reference to BOD to have been ‘explicit’ and
‘infallible’ --- a presumption seemingly confirmed by the Roman
Catechism that came out of
+++ 113. The Penny Catechism +++
Which leads us to our next
thing to examine --- the Penny Catechism.
A relatively short
question-and-answer book (it only has 370 questions, compared to 1132 questions
for the original Douay Catechism), it, too, was the work of English Catholics
living in northern
What can be known is this:
It came into common use in
And what does it have to say
about the Sacrament of Baptism?
“Baptism is a
Sacrament which cleanses us from original sin, makes us Christians, children of
God, and members of the Church.” (A
Catechism of Christian Doctrine, later known as the Penny Catechism,
Question 256. Published at a date unknown during the 20th century by
The Incorporated Catholic Truth Society in London, England. Found online as of
10 April 2013 at http://www.proecclesia.com/penny%20catechism/.)
A few questions later the
Penny Catechism asks, “Is Baptism necessary for salvation?”
To which this catechism
responds:
“Baptism is
necessary for salvation because Christ has said: ‘Unless a man is born again through water and the Spirit,
he cannot enter the
+++ 114. A Penny for Your Catechetical Thoughts +++
The import of these quotes?
First, we see the perpetual
teaching of the Church affirmed, that the Sacrament of Baptism cleanses a
person from original sin and makes him a member of Christ’s Body, the One
& Only Roman Catholic Church.
Secondly, the Penny
Catechism informs us of how water baptism is “necessary” for
our salvation. It even quotes from the Gospel of St. John, where Jesus tells
Nicodemus that human beings cannot
enter Heaven without being born again --- baptized
--- through both water (the
matter of the sacrament!) and Spirit
(Who bestows the saving graces of water baptism within us).
Curiously, though, it says nothing about ‘baptism of
desire’ or ‘baptism of blood’. Which is not to say,
then, that the Penny Catechism can ‘disprove’ BOD or BOB:
Remember,
logically speaking, an absence of mention of BOD & BOB is not the
same as there being a presence of contradiction against BOD &
BOB.
But what is it to
say?
That will come in just a
little bit, at the end of our section on written catechetical instructions.
+++ 115. The
And now we arrive at the
Baltimore Catechism.
Not really just one
catechism --- and, like so many writings that are amended, added to, abridged
and expounded upon over the better part of a century --- it is several very
different versions of a single catechism that was published, originally, in
the 1880s. The
This first version of the
Baltimore Catechism was often criticized. However, a much shorter version for
children came out a few years later, apparently in 1891.
(The dates and history of
each version of the Baltimore Catechism is rather murky and only extensive
scholarly research will bring out the precise facts as certain, something I
cannot yet make the time to do.)
Then, by 1901, a priest
named Thomas L. Kinkead authored a series of
explanations of the original Baltimore Catechism, intended as an accompaniment
to it and aimed, of course, toward those old enough to understand it. By 1921,
this same priest published a very long version of the Baltimore Catechism that
was meant to be a two year course in the Catholic Faith for post-Confirmation
classes. And, just to confuse things thoroughly, another greatly altered form
of the earlier versions was issued in 1941 under the same title, not to mention
various other editions published up until the 1960s.
In order to keep things
straight, by the late 20th century the original version of 1885 was
called Baltimore Catechism No. 2. The much shorter version for children put
forth by 1891 was called (although out of sequence with the actual dates of
publication) Baltimore Catechism No. 1. The series of explanations written by
Fr. Thomas Kinkead as keyed to the original was
called (again, out of chronological sequence) Baltimore Catechism No. 4, and
his later longest form of all published by 1921 was called Baltimore Catechism
No. 3.
It is this last mentioned
version that we shall quote from.
+++ 116. What
to Say About the Sacrament of Baptism
The Baltimore Catechism
asks, “What is Baptism?”
To which Fr. Kinkead rejoinders:
“Baptism is a
Sacrament which cleanses us from original sin, makes us Christians, children of
God, and heirs of heaven.”
A page later it poses the
question, “Is Baptism necessary to salvation?”
To which Fr. Kinkead responds:
“Baptism is necessary
to salvation, because without it
we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
Yet another page later it
asks, “How many kinds of Baptism are there?”
To which Fr. Kinkead replies:
“There are three
kinds of Baptism: Baptism of water,
of desire, and of blood.”
Still one more page on, it
queries, “What is Baptism of desire?”
To which Fr. Kinkead answers:
“Baptism of desire
is an ardent wish to receive
Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained [commanded] for our
salvation.”
A few questions after this,
it asks, “Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the
effects of Baptism of water?”
And Fr. Kinkead
assures us:
“Baptism of desire
or of blood is sufficient to produce
the effects of the Baptism of water [i.e., forgiveness of sins], if it
is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.”
Then, in the very next
question, it inquires, “How do we know that the Baptism of desire or of
blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the Baptism of
water?”
Whereupon Fr. Kinkead informs us:
“We know that Baptism
of desire or of blood will save
us when it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water, from Holy
Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition [perfect
sorrow] can secure the remission [forgiveness] of sins; and also that Our
Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for
His teaching.” (A Catechism of
Christian Doctrine, later known in this version as Baltimore Catechism No.
3, Questions 621, 631, 644, 650, 653 & 654, pages 38-41. Published by Benziger Brothers, Inc., at New York City in, apparently,
1921, with the imprimatur of Abp. Patrick J. Hayes. PDF file of this book found
online as of 4 May 2013 at http://www.u.arizona.edu/~aversa/baltimore_catechism.pdf.
All emphases & annotations added in this and other quotes from Baltimore
Catechism No. 3.)
+++ 117. The Import of Fr. Kinkead’s
Teaching +++
The import of Fr. Kinkead’s baptismal teaching in Baltimore Catechism
No. 3?
First, we notice he
describes baptism in almost the same words as the Penny Catechism we looked at
just a few chapters earlier. To wit, “Baptism is a Sacrament which
cleanses us from original sin, makes us Christians, children of God, and
heirs of heaven.” (Ibid., Question 621) These are Fr. Kinkead’s words. Whereas the Penny Catechism told us,
“Baptism is a Sacrament which cleanses us from original sin, makes us
Christians, children of God, and members of the Church.” (Penny
Catechism, Question 256. Please see Chapter 113 in this book, Baptismal Confusion for further info.)
The underlined clauses in
both quotes are the only differences between the descriptions of baptism that
the two catechisms give us.
Which ought not to surprise
us. For, in a nutshell, this is how the Church has always described the Sacrament of Baptism. Fr. Kinkead
lifted it wholesale from Baltimore Catechism No. 2 (where it is Question 152
and was the first of the Baltimore Catechisms published in 1885) and the writer
of the original Baltimore Catechism --- whoever he was --- was probably very
much aware of, and influenced by, the Penny Catechism that was so well known at
that time in the 1800s amongst English-speaking Catholics, even in America.
And what kind of importance
does Fr. Kinkead ascribe to baptism?
“Baptism is necessary
to salvation, because without it
we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (
Again, this in a nutshell is
how the Catholic Church has always explained baptism. For while he
doesn’t distinguish between ‘necessity of means’ and
‘necessity of precept’, he very correctly tells us how baptism is
necessary, and that “…without
it we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
That is to say, human beings
need baptism to save their
souls.
Period.
But then he turns around and
says there are ‘three different kinds’ of baptism, doesn’t
he? ‘Baptism of water’, ‘baptism of desire’ and
‘baptism of blood’. (Ibid., Question 644)
This is where it gets a
little troubling. Because the well-instructed Catholic knows how
Yet Fr. Kinkead
surely knew his scholastic doctors, and the scholastic doctors were aware of
this Holy Ghost-inspired passage of Sacred Scripture. Which is why we cannot be
just and hang the long-gone priest with his words here at this juncture. It is
not said very precisely --- it is, in fact, said really badly --- but we can
safely assume that Fr. Kinkead understood the three
different ‘kinds’ of baptism to be ‘invisibly
connected’ and therefore merely an inexplicable part of a single
‘Sacrament of Baptism’… whatever this ‘Sacrament of
Baptism’ is when two of its different ‘kinds’ have no visible
matter of water. This is as I explained in Chapter 109 of Baptismal Confusion just a little while back.
Nevertheless, what is
‘baptism of desire’?
Fr. Kinkead
calls it “…an ardent wish
to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained [commanded]
for our salvation.” (Ibid., Question 650)
Again, this is spot-on
scholastic teaching. Without giving us a full and perfect description of BOD,
it succinctly expresses the concept in a couple of clauses. You must want or
intend to get water baptism, and “…do all that God has ordained for
our salvation.” (Ibid.) In others words, know what God’s Catholic
Church teaches us and do all you can to obey it!
But is this enough to save
our souls?
According to Fr. Kinkead, it is. “Baptism of desire or of blood
is sufficient to produce the effects
of the Baptism of water [i.e., forgiveness of sins], if it is impossible
to receive the Baptism of water.” (Ibid., Question 653)
How can we be sure
it’s enough?
Fr. Kinkead
insists, “We know that Baptism of desire or of blood will save us
when it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which
teaches that love of God and perfect contrition [perfect sorrow] can secure the
remission [forgiveness] of sins…” (Ibid., Question 654)
There it is. Per the
priestly writer of Baltimore Catechism No. 3, we can be certain BOD will save
us because the Bible tells us so.
Case closed.
Or is it?
+++ 118. A Curious Puzzle +++
My purpose here is not to
weary the reader with tedious quotes. Nor is it to belittle Fr. Thomas L. Kinkead. The man is long-gone from this earth and has faced
his final judgment before God Almighty some time ago.
It is, though, to draw a stark
contrast. Previous catechisms that we looked at either say nothing about
BOD or else say very little in passing, not
even mentioning the subject by name.
Then, suddenly, here at the
beginning of the 20th century, Fr. Kinkead
decides to go into ‘baptism of desire’ specifically by name at some
length and give us all kinds of information about it.
Why is this?
Prior to the Council of
Trent during the 1500s, the teaching of BOD was pretty much restricted to
highly trained theologians. Then, with the Roman Catechism that came out of
Then, here, after all of
this, centuries later at the beginning of the 1900s, a priest suddenly gets a
national platform and decides to go into quite some detail about the subject
specifically by name. He seems to go out of his way to teach the topic to
laypersons throughout the United States --- or wherever Baltimore Catechism No.
3 will be read by English-speaking Catholics --- and assures us that
‘baptism of desire’ can save us since the Bible teaches us it will
do so.
Again… why is this?
Why is it so important to this priest, or to the bishops that imprimatured his catechism, that every English-speaking
Catholic know about BOD, and why does he cite Sacred Scripture as support for
his claims without actually giving us any exact biblical references?
The latter part of the
question we will review in a short while. The first part of the question we
will not try to answer, at least not yet, but we will make a poignant observation:
This is why
ostensible Catholics in the United States by the mid-20th century
had bought into the idea of ‘baptism of desire’ --- because their
Baltimore Catechism that they had been raised upon had told them that BOD was
real and rather easily attained by any catechumen who wished it, dying
‘accidentally’ before he could receive the regenerating waters of a
holy baptism.
And these American Catholics
of the mid-1900s assumed, naively, that a catechism is infallible. Or that the
imprimatur that it has from a bishop made it infallible. (Please review
Chapters 84 to 88 of this book, Baptismal
Confusion, to see proof again, my dear reader, that no catechism has ever
yet been infallible in its totality of words, and Chapter 22 once more to see
with whom and when the gift of infallibility actually operates.) Or, at any
rate, that the priest or bishop who taught them from this catechism was
infallible. Or so forth and so on.
This Baltimore Catechism is why
most English-speaking BOD believers are so wedded to the idea of ‘baptism
of desire’ and sternly condemn those who dare to question it or doubt it.
Most BODers have little or no knowledge of scholastic
doctors or anything else that we’ve gone into in some detail in this
book, Baptismal Confusion. But they do know that the catechism they
grew up with taught it and explained it in a bit of detail, assuring them that
it is upheld by Scripture.
Such is the story of BOD.
Oh, and one more thing
before we finish up with this section on catechisms. Beware Baltimore Catechisms No. 2, 3 & 4, as well as
later editions that are even more egregious with Modernism. They are very fine
about many things, teaching safely and rightly. However, they do contain salvation heresy, telling readers that
people can die in ‘ignorance’ as they practice a false religion,
going to Heaven regardless of being visibly outside Christ’s
This teaching of
‘salvation in the state of ignorance about catholicity’ is not
true. It contradicts what the True Church and Her members have always
specifically taught since the beginning about the tangible profession and
visible hope of salvation --- earliest Catholics meaning something very
different by the ancient formula of ‘no salvation outside the
church’ than the novel interpretation that people going by the name of
‘catholic’ attach to it in the last century (‘no salvation visibly outside the church unless you really
don’t know that there’s no salvation outside this very visible
church’) --- and it will damn your soul if you believe it.
+++ 119. Christian Doctrine Drills +++
We now turn to our last
example, Christian Doctrine Drills.
Not quite a catechism in the
sense that has been usual for at least the last 500 years (it’s more a series
of brief lists about things necessary to know to be Catholic than a work of
prose explaining the Catholic Faith), it nevertheless covers everything
essential to profession of the True Religion of Eternal Rome. It is also, as
far as I can tell --- and regardless of it first being published in 1925,
apparently, not even a century before our times --- written anonymously.
That is to say, thus far I
can find no information about who composed it; there is nothing in the
published text itself that tells the reader who the author is. Perhaps lengthy
scholarly research would be able to dig up more data. Unfortunately, I
haven’t the leisure to do so.
But the text does tell us
that Bp. Albert Meyer officially approved it, albeit only decades later after
it was first issued in the 1920s. And Bp. Meyer, who went on to become a
cardinal, too, was archbishop of Chicago from 1958 onward till his death from a
malignant tumor in 1965 (he was also bishop of Superior and archbishop of
Milwaukee, both in Wisconsin, prior to this).
The point is, this catechism
has ecclesial authority behind it
despite its anonymity.
And what does it have to say
about the Sacrament of Baptism?
“Drill 27 --- Matter
and Form of the Sacraments[.] Baptism: --- Matter is water. Form: ‘I baptize
thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.’
…Sacraments of the Dead[.] Baptism --- Penance[.] Called
‘Sacraments of the Dead’ --- may be received by persons in the
state of sin because the immediate object of these Sacraments is the conferring
of grace on those in such a condition. BAPTISM[.] Drill 29 --- Three Kinds of
Baptism[.] 1. Water 2. Desire 3. Blood[.] Drill 30 --- Give a Scriptural Proof
of Baptism[.] ‘He that believeth [believes] and is baptized shall be saved.[..]’
--- St. Mark XVI:16.” (Christian
Doctrine Drills, Pages 9-11. Published by D.B. Hansen & Sons in
Chicago, IL, in 1925. All annotations added.)
+++ 120. The Enthronement of Desire +++
And that’s it.
That’s all this little catechism teaches us about baptism.
The import of these skeletal
instructions?
Again, it confirms what any
Catholic already knows --- the matter of baptism is water and the form for
baptism is, “I baptize thee [or ‘you’ in more contemporary
English] in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost [or
‘Holy Spirit’ as many would say nowadays].” This is what
makes baptism baptism and without these very visible things of matter and form there
can be no visible or tangible
sacrament. Baptismal water and the Spirit go together inextricably, causing a
man to be ‘born again’ from out of spiritual death into spiritual
life.
But, secondly,
‘desire’ is presented, too, as one of three different
‘kinds’ of baptism, the other two being ‘water’ and
‘blood’.
Finally, and third,
Jesus’ statement in Mark 16:16a (“He that believeth and is baptized
shall be saved…”) is touted as biblical proof for baptism. Note,
though, how nothing in this precise scriptural quote explicitly
supports BOD (‘baptism of desire’) or BOB (‘baptism of
blood’) by name… only that baptism
along with belief are two foundational things necessary for salvation.
Now the first and third
points are of ancient origin. It is indubitable for a real Catholic that Christ
& His Apostles taught the necessity of right belief (the common dogmas of
the Catholic Faith) and right baptism (matter of water and form of words
performed together simultaneously) in order to save an immortal human soul.
Whereas the second point is
of later origin. For although St. Augustine clearly taught a simplified version
of our more recent BOD in AD 400, this particular notion of BOD did not,
inarguably, exist prior to the fifth
century and apart from
Augustine’s theological speculation. Due to Augustine’s immense
reputation, it then spread slowly yet surely into the thinking of other
theologians in the Church till, near the beginning of the 2nd
millennium, it achieved critical mass and became a dominant opinion amongst
learned ecclesial leaders & teachers. And near the middle of this same
millennium it began to be introduced into the thinking of lesser minds in the
Church… but never, apparently, by explicit name until the turn of
the 20th century when, at last, the idea of BOD began to be taught
both explicitly and rigorously to practically every person brought up in, or
seemingly converted to, the Most Holy Religion of Catholic Rome.
This is, as it were, the enthronement of BOD as a
presumed ‘dogmatic certainty’ in the minds of those who go by the
name of Catholic in our times… and
even though, in reality, the Church has never yet clearly asserted the truth
of this teaching with Her full infallible authority.
+++ 121. The Distinction Between the Ordinary +++
and the Extraordinary Magisterium
We have already established
from Chapters 34 to 82 in this book, Baptismal
Confusion, how ‘baptism of desire’ was not something explicitly taught by Christ & His Apostles
from the very beginning during the 1st century. That is to say, BOD cannot be an explicit teaching held
in common by every member of the Catholic Church from earliest times. For if it
were an explicit teaching from the beginning --- and thus necessary for a
person to know it and profess it in order to be Catholic along with all of the
other common dogmas --- then the early Church fathers of the first millennium
would have, each of them, clearly
affirmed it by name or exact description in their writings. Indeed, it
is this unanimity (or, at least, almost
total unanimity) of the fathers of old, along with the ancient creeds, that
allows us, as Catholics, to know with moral certainty what teachings were explicit & common to the Church from
the start, making a man Catholic.
This is the Ordinary
Magisterium.
The teachings of the
Ordinary Magisterium are infallible but do not need a pope --- or a pope
in conjunction with an ecumenical council --- to explicitly & solemnly
teach them in order for us to be sure they are infallible dogmas. The simple
fact that all Catholics everywhere from most ancient times (including
popes and bishops!) have professed them, is sufficient.
That is to say, it is the catholicity
(members of the Church everywhere, regardless of
location) along with the apostolicity (members of the Church everywhen,
since the beginning) of these teachings which assures us that they are
dogmas both explicitly known and held in common by members of the Church,
making them members and thus truly Catholic to start with.
And, as we have noted
before, there are dozens of early Church fathers. Whereas only three of them --- Ss. Cyprian (sort of),
Ambrose (possibly) and Augustine (at first) --- are ever said to have
explicitly taught some kind of notion of ‘baptism of desire’ (BOD)
or ‘baptism of spirit’ (BOS). How, then, can BOD or BOS have been
explicitly taught or held in common by all members of the Church since the
beginning with Christ & His Apostles?
Meanwhile, we established
from Chapters 4 to 22 of this book, Baptismal
Confusion, how the papacy --- or the papacy in conjunction with an
ecumenical council --- has never yet
clearly affirmed BOD by name or adequate description in their solemn
pronouncements. Both sides of the argument, whether ‘baptism of
desire’ aficionados (BODers) or ‘water
only’ enthusiasts (WOers), love to invoke the
Council of Trent. They will also, many of them, invoke other ecclesial
declarations or condemnations.
The catch is, these
declarations or condemnations never
make either BOD or WO inarguably clear & explicit, mentioning these
teachings explicitly by name or with an adequately concise description (or, as
in the case of Michel de Bay, making it clear which statements are fully
condemned --- see Chapter 20)… every intelligent, learned &
honest man must admit that the Church was not trying to address BOD or
WO head on in these statements, and every intelligent, learned & honest man
who is determined to do so may therefore, logically, interpret the statements to
mean something other than BOD or WO and hence argue with reasonable
conviction that the controversy is not settled with infallible
certainty.
This is the Extraordinary
Magisterium.
The teachings of the
Extraordinary Magisterium are infallible and must have a pope --- or a
pope in conjunction with an ecumenical council --- to explicitly & solemnly
teach them in order for us to be sure they are infallible dogmas. It is this
clear and authoritative statement to all Catholics everywhere from that point
in time onward that makes us able to know them as infallible.
Which leaves us with the catechisms
that we have examined from Chapters 83 to 120 in this book, Baptismal Confusion, none of which are
acts of infallibility in and of themselves. That is to say, they may, each of
them, repeat or convey statements from the ordinary or extraordinary
magisterium that are infallible, but not
every word or sentence or paragraph in these catechisms is guaranteed to be
infallible. Please review Chapters 84 to 88, my dear soul, if you’re hazy
or skeptical about this point.
The first catechism, the
Catechism of St. Cyril of Jerusalem from the AD 300s, confirms what we already
knew, how the vast majority of Catholics during the 1st millennium never
knew about or believed in the theological opinion of BOD or BOS, ‘baptism
of blood’ (BOB) being the only exception clearly mentioned to an
otherwise wholly & absolutely necessary ‘baptism of water’
(BOW).
Then we examined the
Catechism of the Council of Trent from the sixteenth century, as well as the
English Catechism of 1583 and the Douay Catechism of 1649. All three of these
catechisms do indeed mention ‘baptism of desire’ (the Catechism of
the Council of Trent doing so for, as far as I can ascertain, the first time ever for a catechism in
Church history) --- yet not explicitly by name. Each of them only refers
to BOD via a partial description, in passing and inferentially.
Whereupon we glanced at the
Penny Catechism from the nineteenth century. And, curiously, this catechism
avoids mention of BOD altogether, neither talking about it explicitly by name
nor by partial description in passing or inferentially! In its pages BOW is it;
not even BOB gets a nod.
Last we examined Baltimore
Catechism No. 3 and Christian Doctrine Drills from the early twentieth century.
And here, finally, we get a clear & explicit mention of BOD by name, as
well as, in the Baltimore Catechism, a bit of a detailed description of the
concept, too.
So what can these catechisms
and their words --- or lack thereof --- tell us about BOD?
+++ 122. Catechetical Recap No. 1: +++
BOD Can’t Be Part of the Ordinary Magisterium
First, BOD cannot be a part of the Ordinary
Magisterium and consequently explicitly necessary for all persons of adequate
mind to know & profess in order to be Catholic to start with.
Period.
Were this not so, then both
the Catechism of St. Cyril of Jerusalem from the fourth century and the Penny
Catechism from the nineteenth century are horribly deficient in what they teach
us --- since they both totally fail to mention BOD --- thereby
misleading untold numbers of souls into what they think is the Catholic Faith whole
and entire, but which is, in reality, but a semblance and a cheat, lacking a common dogma that is something
eternally vital to know and profess,
being Catholic from the get-go.
Yet how can we believe this?
St. Cyril was a saint,
doctor and father of the ancient Church, as well as the bishop of
How could his catechism be hideously deficient, how could it have
been preserved to this day as a valuable writing and precious source of
Catholic teaching since earliest times?
Meanwhile, the Penny
Catechism has been popular amongst English-speaking Catholics for nearly two
hundred years, having been called for by the British episcopacy repeatedly and
possessing the imprimatur of the bishop of
How could this catechism be hideously deficient, how could it be
used as a valuable means of teaching and precious source of Catholic dogma
since the early 1800s till our own time?
The conclusion is plain,
reinforcing what we already knew from studying the Church fathers:
‘Baptism of
desire’ is not a
teaching explicitly known and professed by all Catholics since the time of
Jesus & His Apostles, and is thus not
a part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
+++ 123. Catechetical Recap No. 2: +++
BOD Can’t Be Part of the Extraordinary Magisterium, Either
However, and second, BOD cannot be a part of the
Extraordinary Magisterium and now explicitly necessary for all persons of
adequate mind to know & profess --- be it both urgent and possible for them
to learn it --- in order to remain truly Catholic for the rest of their lives.
End of sentence.
Were this not so, then,
arguably, the Penny Catechism is seriously deficient. For pretty much all BOD
enthusiasts like to think that the Council of Trent during the AD 1500s ‘explicitly’
defined BOD with infallible authority. But if so, then why does the Penny
Catechism --- first published in the AD
1800s --- say not a word about it?
Whereas, in stark contrast,
this same Penny Catechism tells us that the Blessed Virgin Mary is immaculate
(something only infallibly defined in 1854) and, in later editions of
the 20th century, mentions, too, that She was gloriously assumed
into Heaven (something only infallibly defined by 1950). And yet this
catechism, short as it is, can’t find time to mention, at least in
passing, that baptism remits sins even without water via a good desire or a
solemn resolution?
It doesn’t quite add
up.
Not only that, if Trent
supposedly ‘explicitly’ defined the teaching of ‘baptism of
desire’ --- making it into something important for all Catholics of adequate
mind to understand --- then why did the Catechism of the Council of Trent
(first published in 1566), the English Catechism of 1583 (first published in
1567 despite practically exclusive use of the 1583 edition later on) and the
Douay Catechism (first published in 1649) mention BOD only in barest passing…
and not even explicitly by name?
This is a revealing fact.
After all, if BOD is real
and could be the difference between eternal life and everlasting death should a
person die without getting water baptism… and this has been
‘explicitly’ defined by an infallible Church… then why in the world wouldn’t a
catechism after the Council of Trent take a little time to explain the
teaching in some detail and make certain the catechumen knows how to take
advantage of BOD just in case he might need it prior to dying without the
sacramental water? Why wouldn’t they explain, for instance, that the
unbaptized catechumen must have perfect (as opposed to imperfect!)
contrition in his heart for his sins to profit from BOD?
The answer is simple:
Because the Catholic Church
has not yet explicitly defined
the teaching of BOD.
Ergo, nothing has
been settled for absolute certain about the notion. By the time of the Council
of Trent in the mid-1500s the teaching had entered the thinking of learned
bishops, priests, monks & theologians. They were morally certain that ‘baptism of desire’ existed.
Yet infallibly
certain?
No.
For although in the wake of
Trent it became a natural assumption that the Tridentine
fathers had referred to BOD in its decree on justification, however
tangentially --- and hence that it was at least ‘proximate’ to
dogma --- there was no explicit mention by name of BOD in the decrees or
canons of Trent and certainly no detailed explanation of the whole notion.
As a result, anyone’s
knowledge of BOD was based squarely on the teaching
of the scholastic doctors earlier in the second millennium, from the
1100s, 1200s & 1300s, and not on
an explicit infallible decree of the Holy Catholic Church from the pope
or from a pope in conjunction with a general council.
What does this mean?
It means that catechetical
writers after
Nonetheless, they did not
feel compelled to say anything more about the subject --- not even mentioning
it by name in the three catechisms quoted from above during the first one
hundred years after Trent --- or to explain in detail how BOD is supposed to
operate, since the mechanics of ‘baptism of desire’ or
‘baptism of spirit’ is a thing purely of theological speculation and not at all anywhere yet defined
explicitly or explained with explicit infallibility by the Holy Roman Catholic
Church.
But, of course, this mindset
had changed by the beginning of the 20th century.
+++ 124. Catechetical Recap No. 3: +++
BOD Rules at the Same Time Salvation Heresy Reigns
And here we arrive at the third
and final point.
Namely, that although BOD or
BOS was never a part of the Ordinary Magisterium (taught explicitly from
the time of Jesus & His Apostles as part of the common dogmas that every
man must know & profess in order to be Catholic to start with), and
although BOD or BOS has never yet been a part of the Extraordinary
Magisterium (taught explicitly by a pope, or a pope in tandem with a general
council, from that point in time onward as part of the solemn dogmas that every
man should know & profess in order to remain Catholic, but that, if he
truly cannot know and is inculpable in his ignorance, will not prevent him from
saving his soul as a Catholic), the
notion of ‘baptism of desire’ (BOD) or ‘baptism of
spirit’ (BOS) --- the former being the newer title in English that
we’re used to in the last few centuries, the latter being the title, as
derived from Latin, that the scholastic doctors used prior to the last few
centuries --- has, nevertheless, become ‘enthroned’, as it
were, in the minds of all people claiming to be Catholic in the last hundred
years or so.
That is to say, everyone has
either assumed that BOD or BOS
is morally certain and hence proximate to dogma, or else they
have assumed that BOD or BOS
is infallibly certain and
hence actually is dogma.
Whichever the case, the idea
of ‘baptism of desire’ or ‘baptism of spirit’ had
become enthroned in the
theological thinking of these people.
Now here’s the curious
thing. Indeed, a tragic thing:
At almost the same time this
was occurring… people being taught BOD explicitly like it’s
certainly true at the beginning of the 20th century… they were
also being taught the heresy of ‘salvation in the state of invincible
ignorance’. Recollect my warning at the end of Chapter 118 that Baltimore
Catechism No. 3 teaches, in its section about the Church, that a person can die
in the state of salvation while in the practice of a false religion, visibly outside the Church, and
in spite of the Catholic Religion blatantly and infallibly teaching us, from the
very first century, how there is most definitely ‘no Salvation outside the Church’. This is in
addition to the Baltimore Catechism teaching, in the section about Baptism,
that BOD is true.
And while it’s not in
the scope of this book to wrangle over the Salvation Heresy of our modern era
--- that’s for another book and will be the result of another herculean
effort --- it has to be faced head on and grappled with. As I said in the very
first chapter:
“The confusion over the Sacrament of
Baptism is not about ‘no Salvation outside the Church’.
“Most
people who call themselves Catholic and consider themselves traditional mix the
two things up. These two very different topics are indirectly related but otherwise wholly separate.”
Yet now, my dear reader, we
have come to a very puzzling juncture and face a truly vexing problem. It is a
dilemma we cannot duck. We must dive in.
Because this is where the
two distinct topics finally meet and become “indirectly related”.
+++ 125. The Dark Heart of Our Apostasy… +++
Salvation Heresy is not new.
It existed in the first few centuries of Christianity, too. That’s why
St. Cyprian of
However, Salvation Heresy
back then is not quite what it is today.
In the first five or six
hundred years of Catholicism, Salvation Heresy meant something along the lines
of, “Gnosticism can save you.” Or, “Arianism
can save you.” Or, “Donatism can save
you.” Or etc., etc., fill in the blank. Not that the heretics or schismatics themselves would have called themselves by
these names; usually these terms are what steadfast Catholics wound up calling
them, as a label of convenience to distinguish the separate categories.
The point is, ‘no
Salvation outside the Church’ was a reminder, way back then, that no other religion or church could save
you. You had to be visibly inside the Roman Catholic Church and
visibly professing the Catholic Religion whole and entire.
Period.
The extraordinary &
solemn magisterium even infallibly re-affirmed this common dogma numerous
times. Apart from the Athanasian Creed of the 4th
century (which, were it not thought infallible at the time, is unquestionably
infallible with the official approval of, say, for instance, Session 8 at the
Council of Florence in 1439), the 4th Lateran Council upheld it in
1215, Pope Boniface VIII defined it with an absolute rigor in 1302 with his
bull, Unam sanctam, and
the Council of Florence defined it with an equal rigor in 1442 in Cantate domino.
But then a strange thing
happened.
Around the turn of the 16th
century, certain theologians --- who were supposed to be Catholic --- began to
speculate that, since ‘invincible ignorance’ of what is sin makes
one guiltless of that sin, then ‘invincible ignorance’ of the
Catholic Faith would make one guiltless of not professing that Faith or visibly
belonging to its very visible and unique Church. Not only that, but, in tandem
with this ‘invincible ignorance’, a truly ‘sincere’ and
‘earnest’ belief in one’s false religious teachings --- far
from damning you --- would, instead, make God let you into Heaven!
And even though such a
person is visibly outside the
Roman Catholic Church.
This is the modern form of
Salvation Heresy.
Specifically, it is the
heresy of ‘salvation through ignorance’ or, to put it more exactly,
‘salvation in the state of invincible ignorance’.
Such heretics do not
necessarily claim to deny the ancient dogma of ‘no Salvation outside the
Church’. To the contrary, they often insist that they uphold it… but in its ‘proper’ sense.
Which, when you get right down to it, means in a way very much different than what Roman
Catholics used to mean by it. To wit, what they mean when they say ‘no
Salvation outside the Church’ is not what members of the Catholic
Church before modern times always meant by the infallible statement. Prior to
modern times, what Catholics meant was simple and straightforward --- ‘no Salvation if you die visibly
outside the Catholic Church practicing a false religion or in the practice of
no religion at all’.
Now what is meant is this:
“No Salvation outside
the Church unless you don’t
really know that there’s no Salvation outside the Church. Then,
of course, there is plenty of Salvation available for you… and even though you’re not
actually and visibly inside the Roman Catholic Church.”
+++ 126. …And the Filthy Innards of That Religious Lie +++
Now, these things
don’t matter to most salvation heretics. They couldn’t care less
what the Church has taught infallibly since most ancient times. They are Modernists, and Modernism
teaches that it’s not important
what religion you are. Maybe this is because there is no God, and
hence religion is just a fantasy. Or maybe it’s because --- if you must
insist on believing in a Creator --- this Creator doesn’t care what
religion you are. He’s just glad that you’re ‘trying your
best’ to be a ‘good’ person.
Such persons are sadly
beyond the reach of the Catholic Faith, barring a great miracle to blow away
their unbelief into smithereens and show how ridiculous their anti-Catholicism
is. They’re happy to believe in any religion, or no religion at all, just as long as it’s not the
Roman Catholic Religion… the real Catholic Religion of Eternal
Rome, the One that has taught since the beginning that there is no
Salvation outside Her Very Visible Sanctuary & Very Visible Teachings.
However, some salvation
heretics insist that they’re Catholic --- and they’re quite serious
about this claim. Perhaps they’re learned theologians and hence
it’s their living that’s at stake. After all, if your field of
study is supposed to be the Catholic Faith and you have a very impressive
degree after your name and yet you’re not really Catholic… then who is?
Or perhaps they’re
traditionalists in the SSPX or the CMRI, or etc., and hence it’s their
reputation that’s at stake. After all, if you’re supposed to be so
dead serious about Catholicism that you reject the changes that came on the
heels of Vatican II and might not even accept the men who everyone says are
popes and yet you’re still not really Catholic… well, then, who is?
These people have a problem.
Because they know the Roman
Catholic Church has taught there’s ‘no Salvation outside the
Church’. And they know very well that they don’t believe this simple dogma. And yet they say ---
they insist! --- that they’re Catholic. As a result, they can’t
just reject ‘no Salvation outside the Church’ without admitting
they are not truly Catholic.
How to get around this?
Enter ‘baptism of desire’.
BOD understood rightly says
that, somehow, unbaptized catechumens are connected to the Church through the Sacrament of Baptism. It has
to be this way or else the idea of BOD opposes what the Church has taught ---
and the Church has always seemed to teach that water baptism is a necessity of
means for a man’s salvation, joining
him to the Church, and the Church has always, with absolute clarity, taught
explicitly from the beginning that membership in Her Visible Body and
profession of This Body’s Visible Faith is absolutely necessary for a man
of sound mind to hope to be saved, to enter Heaven.
Yet do you remember the
notion of an ‘implicit’ desire for baptism?
Understood rightly, this
applies to a man who --- while humanly incapable of full catechesis in the
Catholic Faith --- nevertheless knows that Catholicism is true, that there is a
God, that this One God is nevertheless Three Persons, that one of these Persons
became a Man to die for our sins, and that His Body, His Church, is the Roman
Catholic Church, outside of which no one can hope to be saved. Hence, this
hypothetical man wants to be Catholic.
He fully intends to learn everything that he can, and must, know in
order to please his Creator. It isn’t his fault that he couldn’t
learn everything; it isn’t his fault that he died before he could do so.
And, if he died not knowing that water baptism is necessary --- and therefore
unbaptized --- God won’t refuse to let him into Heaven. An
‘implicit’ desire for baptism, coupled with perfect contrition for
his sins, will remit these sins and join him invisibly to the Church, allowing him to save his soul.
This is the orthodox
understanding of ‘implicit’ BOD.
Somewhere in the last five
centuries or so, however, this orthodox understanding of ‘implicit’
BOD got stretched beyond its orthodox boundaries and applied to people that
don’t even know or believe that Catholicism is true, or that there is a
God, or that He is Triune, or that one of His Persons became a Man and died for
our sins, or that His Body is the Roman Catholic Church, outside of which no
one can hope to be saved.
+++ 127. These Filthy Innards Fully Exposed +++
Such people are, or could
be, ‘invincibly ignorant’ of the Catholic Faith, the new modernist
thinking went. They really can’t know that it’s necessary to
be Catholic in order to be saved. Hence, they aren’t guilty of being
outside the Catholic Church. What’s more, such people are, or could be,
completely ‘sincere’ about their false religion or rejection of the
Catholic Religion. They really do think that they’re right. Nonetheless,
if they did know that Catholicism was
true, this same ‘sincerity’ would compel them to be Catholic. They
thus want to do the right thing.
It’s not their fault that they aren’t Catholic. It’s not
their fault if they aren’t baptized in water. They therefore have an
‘implicit’ desire for baptism and they are invisibly connected to the Roman Catholic Church.
This is how such theologians
or traditionalists, who insist that they’re Catholic, rationalize their
denial of the dogma, ‘no Salvation outside the Church’. This is how
they pretend to be Catholic while rejecting what the Catholic Church teaches
--- and always has taught --- that there is absolutely no Salvation for the man
of sound mind who does not know and does not profess the Roman Catholic Faith.
Incidentally, these
modernist theologians or self-styled traditionalists pretend that their
understanding of the Salvation Dogma is only a ‘deeper’
understanding of this ancient teaching, and, therefore, that they are not
denying what was taught before modern times.
Whereas, in reality, these modernists dare to change the
dogma, ‘no Salvation outside the Church’, from what it has always meant from the beginning ---
‘no Salvation outside visible membership in the Catholic Church and
visible profession of the Catholic Faith whole and entire’ --- into
something that denies the real & ancient meaning, by saying instead
that it means, ‘no Salvation outside the Catholic Church unless you really don’t know that
there’s no Salvation outside the Church, in which case you actually can be saved outside the very
visible confines and visible profession of the Roman Catholic Church’.
And we repeat:
This is not just a ‘deeper’ understanding of the
ancient dogma, ‘no Salvation outside the Church’. This is a denial
of the ancient understanding of the dogma altogether. Anyone of intelligent
mind who thoroughly reads the Church Fathers or Christian writings from
earliest times knows very well
that ancient Catholics did not understand the Salvation Dogma to make
any exceptions for ignorance during New Testament times, that, to the
contrary, ancient Roman Catholics knew and believed ignorance of
Catholicism to be equivalent to damnation in Hell forever if a person died in that ignorance, not
actually becoming visibly Catholic prior to eternity.
+++ 128. The Proper Interpretation of ‘no Salvation
+++
Outside the Church’ Proved Again from Two
Doctors, Part 1
At this point some readers
may be contemptuous or skeptical.
“How
ridiculous!” they might exclaim. “I know for a fact the Church teaches
that people who are invincibly ignorant of the true religion may, if good
willed, save themselves despite their visible lack of the Catholic Faith. This
is clearly taught! Only a Feeneyite would deny
it.”
This is what they say, more
or less.
The flaw in their thinking?
That their theological
opinion is a ‘clear’ Church teaching.
It is not.
It is a theological opinion
that flies in the face of clear Church teaching prior to its arrival in
the last millennium. To wit, before ‘salvation-in-the-state-of-ignorance-and-sincerity’
came onto the scene, Catholics had always understood ‘no Salvation
outside the Church’ to mean there is no salvation possible for a man of
sound mind without hearing about the Catholic Faith and believing
that it is true, and thereby consequently obeying it.
Period.
That this false theological
opinion of ‘salvation-in-the-state-of-ignorance-and-sincerity’ has
come to dominate the thinking of those people who claim to be Catholic is a
sign of our times --- of the fact that we are living near the end of our
present world, in a condition of religious darkness when salvation heresy is
more-and-more assumed to be true, and more-and-more proclaimed boldly as if it
were true… and as if Catholics must believe it.
As
“For there shall be a
time [there will come a day], when they will not endure sound doctrine
[right teaching]; but, according to their
own desires, they will heap to themselves [be attracted to] teachers,
having itching ears [wanting to believe religious lies]: and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables [they
will believe false teachings].” (2 Timothy 4:3-4 DRC,
emphases & annotations added)
And as St. Paul also noted
about this time near the end:
“And then that wicked one shall be revealed… Satan,
in all power, and signs, and lying wonders [miracles that trick you into
believing falsehoods], and in all seduction of iniquity [temptation into sin]
to them that perish; because they
receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error [leave
them enslaved to their love for false religion], to believe lying [the
untrue teachings of these false religions]: that
all may be judged [condemned to hell forever] who have not
believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.” 2
Thessalonians 2:8a, 9b-11 DRC, emphases & annotations added)
At the heart of our darkness
is the religious lie that anyone of sound mind can be saved whether or not they
are Catholic. This is the maelstrom at the center of our Great Apostasy, around
which the storm of unbelief rages. This is the falsehood that tickles itching
ears --- the itchy ears loving to hear teachers that teach it --- and which
Satan is only too happy to support with “all power, and signs, and lying
wonders,” in this way deceiving “…them that perish; because
they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.”
(Ibid.)
And so we find this lie of
‘salvation-in-the-state-of-ignorance-and-sincerity’ taught more and
more boldly during the last 250 years. Indeed, at the beginning of the 20th
century, it entered into the primary tool used to teach English-speaking Catholics,
leastwise here in
“Q. 509. [Question
509] Are all [Is everyone] bound [obligated] to belong to the Church? A.
[Answer 509] All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the
Church to be the true Church and remains out of it [does not become a
member of it] cannot be saved.
“Q. 510. Is it ever
possible for [some]one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church
to be the true Church? A. It is possible
for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true
Church, provided that person: 1. Has been validly baptized [this,
incidentally, is a requirement relaxed even further and not insisted upon at
all in official catechisms of the mid-1900s onward that are written in
English]; 2. Firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the
true religion, and 3. Dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul [ditto
for this what has just been said regarding the requirement of a valid baptism]...
“Q. 512. How are such
persons [those who don’t know the Catholic Church is the true
Church] said to belong to the Church? A. Such persons are said to belong to the ‘soul of the church’;
that is, they are really members of the Church without knowing it…”
(A Catechism of Christian Doctrine,
later known in this version as Baltimore Catechism No. 3, Questions 509, 510
& 512, pages 28 & 29. Published by Benziger
Brothers, Inc., at New York City in, apparently, 1921, with the imprimatur of
Abp. Patrick J. Hayes. PDF file of this book found online as of 4 May 2013 at
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~aversa/baltimore_catechism.pdf. Emphasis &
annotations added.)
+++ 129. The Proper Interpretation of ‘no Salvation
+++
Outside the Church’ Proved Again from Two
Doctors, Part 2
Nonetheless, such a
theological opinion was never
uttered in a particularly notorious way prior
to the last millennium, and it was certainly never boldly, clearly & repeatedly taught prior to the last 250 years. And yet, we
must add, it is leaders or teachers asserting this theological opinion with
clearness & boldness during the past century that makes these readers feel
cocksure in their contemptuous skepticism toward ‘no Salvation outside
visible membership in the Church’.
After all, how could their
copy of Baltimore Catechism No. 3 be wrong?
Or the traditional priest
who leads their traditional parish?
Or the nun who catechized
them as a child?
The point is, their
confidence comes from bold and clear teaching of the last two or three hundred years --- and not from a tradition that goes back unbroken for 2000 years to Jesus & His Apostles,
or which the Magisterium has both
explicitly and infallibly taught at any point in time since then.
Find this difficult to
believe, my dear reader?
Then we reach back to
Chapter 56 in this book to see hard proof for our position and most devastating
evidence against those who are contemptuous. For as St. Alphonsus
Liguori --- an official doctor of the Church ---
assured us in the 1700s:
“Still we answer the
Semi-Pelagians [a type of heretic during the 1st
millennium], and say that infidels [people without the Catholic
Faith] who arrive at the use of reason [are no longer small children and
old enough to start thinking for themselves], and are not converted to
the [Catholic] Faith, cannot be excused, because though they
do not receive sufficient proximate grace [grace that is all around you and
obvious, such as what people raised in good Catholic countries would have by
virtue of the Catholic testimony all around them], still they are not
deprived of remote grace, as a means of becoming converted. But what is this
remote grace? St. Thomas [Aquinas] explains it, when he says that if anyone
was brought up in the wilds, or even among brute beasts, and if he followed the
law of natural reason, to desire what is good, and to avoid what is wicked, we
should certainly believe either that God, by an internal inspiration [an
inspiration of the heart or mind], would reveal to him what he should believe, or
would send someone to preach the [Catholic] Faith to him, as [just like] he
sent Peter [the first pope] to Cornelius [a Roman commander first converted to
the Old Testament Religion before becoming a Catholic --- see Acts 10 in the
Bible]. Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas
Aquinas, see the very next quote below], God, at least remotely, gives to
infidels [those who aren’t Catholic], who have the use of reason, sufficient
grace to obtain salvation [to become Catholic and die in the state of grace],
and this grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement
of the will, to observe the natural law [the basic law of religion &
morality that God places in every person’s heart who has the use of
reason and whether or not he’s Catholic to start with]; and if
the infidel cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of
nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive,
through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace
the [Catholic] Faith, and [thus] save his soul.” (St. Alphonsus Liguori’s The
History of Heresies, Refutation 6, No. 11. All emphasis & annotations
added.)
And as the greatest of all
Church doctors, St. Thomas, testified to us all the way back in the AD 1200s
--- St. Alphonsus Liguori
himself referring to this Thomistic testimony in the
quote above --- by first stating an objection and then giving the correct
rebuttal to that objection:
“Objection:
It is possible that someone may be brought up in the forest, or among wolves;
such a man cannot explicitly know anything about the [Catholic]
faith… Reply [the objection
rebutted and answered correctly]: It is the characteristic of Divine Providence
to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation… provided
on his part there is no hindrance.
In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of
natural reason, God would either reveal to him through internal
inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the
[Catholic] faith to him…” (St. Thomas Aquinas’ Quaestiones Disputatae de Veritate, Question 14, Article 11.
Emphases & annotations added.)
Consequently, my dear
reader, you see how neither
Alphonsus nor Aquinas can be said to have taught or supported the
heresy of ‘salvation-through-invincible-ignorance-and-sincerity’!
Nor has the Solemn Magisterium of the Church ever upheld this religious lie.
Many of our popes state what is plainly the opposite, one of whom in AD 1302
proclaimed infallibly:
“Urged by faith, we
are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic,
and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly
and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither
salvation nor the remission of sins... Therefore, if the Greeks
[Eastern Schismatics, who practice what is called
‘eastern orthodoxy’ in more recent times] or others should say that
they are not confided to Peter and to his successors [that they are not
subject to the Roman Papacy], they must confess not being the sheep of
Christ [admit that they aren’t truly Christians since they aren’t
truly followers of Christ], since Our Lord says in John ‘there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.’
...Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim,
we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject
to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII’s
Unam sanctum, emphasis & annotation
added)
+++ 130. Why, Then, Does Everyone Today Assume the
+++
Church Teaches
‘Salvation-Through-Ignorance-&-Sincerity’?
Why, then, does everyone
nowadays assume the Church teaches
‘salvation-in-the-state-of-invincible-ignorance-and-sincerity’…
including people who look Roman
Catholic due to their being so very traditional about everything else
that is Catholic, aside from the dispute over how a man saves his
immortal soul?
Most people calling
themselves ‘catholic’ today, during the Great Apostasy, could not
care less that there’s no Salvation outside the Church. They aren’t
traditional or even conservative. Thus, they believe there is Salvation for anyone apart from being Catholic (indeed,
they may think there’s no threat in the first place from which someone
needs to be ‘saved’!), and it bothers them not in the least if they
find out Catholics never believed this religious lie prior to modern times.
However, people calling
themselves ‘catholic’ today, during the Great Apostasy, who are traditional or learned, know
very well the Church has never taught that anyone of sound mind can save
his soul apart from being a freely conscious and visible member of the Catholic
Body of Jesus Christ. They also know that they claim to believe everything this
Catholic Church teaches.
How are they to solve such a
dilemma, reconciling ‘no Salvation outside the Catholic Church’ in
its ancient and correct sense with ‘salvation for those who don’t
know or believe that the Catholic Church is the only way to save your immortal
soul’?
It is as we said in Chapter
127 just four pages earlier:
Learned or traditional people going by the name of
‘catholic’ stretch the notion of an ‘implicit desire for
baptism’ beyond its original orthodox limits and now apply it to adults
of sound mind who don’t even know about the Catholic Faith. Or who,
knowing Roman Catholicism exists, don’t think Catholicism is true. Such
persons, say they, are Catholic without knowing it.
Voilá!
Problem apparently solved.
And yet it is not.
Because this ‘solution’
doesn’t merely ‘build’ on the Salvation Dogma, making it even
more clear and better understood, but, rather, denies the original understanding of the Salvation Dogma
altogether.
We repeat:
The idea of ‘salvation-in-the-state-of-invincible-ignorance-and-sincerity’
via a heretically twisted application of a supposed ‘implicit desire for
baptism’ does not simply build on the original understanding of
the dogma of ‘no Salvation outside the Catholic Church’, but, to the contrary, starkly denies and
bluntly contradicts this original understanding altogether!
End of sentence.
What’s more, this
teaching of the original, strict, narrow & ancient understanding of
‘no Salvation outside the Church’ has nothing at all to do
with being a ‘Feeneyite’. The Salvation
Dogma stands or falls apart from Fr. Leonard Feeney, who lived and taught up
until the middle of the 20th century. Fr. Feeney, at least thus far,
is no official saint or doctor of the Catholic Church. Nor was he a Sovereign
Pontiff with papal power to define infallibly. Hence, the Salvation Dogma in
its unchanging sense does not depend on him or his teaching of it.
Consequently, calling someone a ‘Feeneyite’
because he upholds ‘no Salvation outside the Church’ in its plain
and original sense is a red herring. It is pretending someone is
a heretic for professing a simple dogma that the Catholic Church has infallibly
taught us since the very beginning with Jesus & His Apostles during the
first century nearly 2000 years ago.
Yet a ‘heresy’
by whose
standards?
The Church’s original
and ancient teaching, or a modernist’s reinterpretation
of it?
It doesn’t take a brainiac to see the truth. Salvation heresy is heresy
because it contradicts the
original and ancient teaching of ‘no Salvation outside the Church’
by pretending that ignorance
can not only always safeguard you from guilt for the mortal sin of not
believing in God’s One & Only Religion of Roman Catholicism, but, in
tandem with a supposed ‘sincerity’ for false religion, will instead
often propel these unbelievers
into an invisible ‘membership of the soul’ in the Singular Catholic
Body of Jesus Christ which no one --- including a person of sound mind who is
supposedly an unwitting ‘member’ of this Church Body --- knows
anything about.
It’s like being made a
‘citizen’ of the United States as a grown adult of sound mind
without knowing you’re an American citizen and despite being born of
foreign parents, not to mention living your whole life halfway around the
world, in the Himalayas as a citizen of Tibet.
Could anyone believe such a
person is a ‘citizen’ of the
Of course not.
+++ 131. Because It’s the Spirit of Our Era +++
Yet what about our question,
which is part of the title of the previous chapter?
I.e., why is it everyone
nowadays going by the name of ‘catholic’ assumes the Church
to teach the religious lie of ‘salvation-in-the-state-of-invincible-ignorance-and-sincerity’
without having to become a visible member of the One, Holy, Roman,
Catholic & Apostolic Church?
Because it’s the spirit of the age --- the Spirit of Modernism --- and fewer
and fewer people paid attention when leaders of the Church spoke up against
salvation heresy. Then, coming closer and closer to our times, the leaders
themselves spoke less and less about this heresy or spoke in terms that were
increasingly vague and confusing. Indeed, as the 20th century
dawned, some --- and later most --- of these leaders openly advocated salvation via ignorance without
any real consequences to their own selves, such as censure from higher
authority. With the 1960s and the Vatican II Council, this falsehood was publicly
enshrined under the guise of an ‘official teaching’ of the
Church, an ‘official
teaching’ that most certainly could not be truly
‘official’ since this new and novel Vatican II teaching did not
merely ‘build’ upon the ancient teaching concerning the necessity
of visible membership in the Roman Catholic Church for salvation, but
which, instead, denied the need for visible membership altogether!
Most if not all of the hierarchy then fell like stars from the heavens by
formally, publically and repeatedly approving this heresy, suffering automatic
excommunication under Canon Law from the Catholic Church. In so doing they
lay Jesus’ Ecclesial Body in the tomb just like the hierarchy of the
+++ 132. And How This Spirit Affects People Who Still +++
Continue to Call Themselves ‘Catholic’
Some people calling
themselves Catholic nowadays have this Spirit of Modernism very egregiously,
and think just about everyone goes
to Heaven whether or not they’re Roman Catholic --- or think that
there’s no Hell, and thus no threat of going to Hell, to begin
with. They also do not believe or practice very much that still looks and
sounds like it’s actually Catholic.
Such people are Liberal Novus Ordoists.
(LNOs
for short, ‘novus ordo’
Latin for the ‘new order’ or ‘new way’ of their
religion.)
Other persons calling
themselves Catholic today have this Spirit of Modernism but not as
egregiously, looking and sounding a lot more like what Roman Catholics have
always looked and sounded like. They
think not everyone goes to Heaven --- and admit that Hell exists --- yet
often speculating that many, if not most, human beings save their souls
visibly outside the Church, not knowing that they’re
‘catholic’ and hence ‘invisibly’ connected to the
Church.
Such persons are Conservative Novus Ordoists.
(CNOs
for short.)
Yet others calling
themselves Catholic during our time of the Great Apostasy have this Spirit of
Modernism but much less so, still believing and practicing most of what Roman
Catholics have always believed and practiced, particularly the ancient Latin
Mass. Howsobeit, they very often think just like CNOs when it comes to who ends up in Heaven without
actually being Catholic, although the most cautious of them admit that hardly
anyone who is not Catholic is likely to avoid damnation entirely with all
of the wickedness & rebellion of our present era.
Such individuals are Traditional Novus Ordoists.
(TNOs
for short.)
This is the full spectrum of
the spirit of our age as it applies to ‘catholicism’,
that is to say, how Modernism has infected those who still want to think of
themselves as ‘catholic’.
But let us
continue with our consideration of BOD vs. WO.
+
+ +
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 Four of Baptismal Confusion (Chapters 83-105)
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.
© 2015 by
Paul Doughton.
All rights
reserved.