+++ 133. Turning to Sacred Scripture +++
And so we turn to Sacred
Scripture.
This is the final thing that
we will look at, which both BODers and WOers try to use, acting like it ‘proves’ their
side right without any reasonable doubts.
It is also the weakest of
all the evidence for either side.
Notwithstanding, we
don’t want to let anyone --- from whichever camp --- pretend that any of
their arguments have not been adequately addressed and hence that they stand
unvanquished, thereby pretending to be wholly ‘vindicated’ in their
fallible opinion.
We therefore tackle this
part of the controversy as well.
The situation is pretty
simple. We can find neither position explicitly
spoken of in the Bible (all of which was written prior to AD 110), in terms used only much later in theological
history (especially after the year
AD 1000). Nor can we find either position explicitly & thoroughly described in the Bible. Neither
BOD nor WO is mentioned anywhere straight
out and explicitly, or in a thoroughly descriptive fashion, in any verses
of Sacred Scripture.
Period.
Howsoever, this does not
discourage them.
BOD enthusiasts have often
invoked scriptural passages that focus on charity or profession, but don’t happen to mention baptism.
This, they think, ‘proves’ their waterless stance.
Meanwhile, WO aficionados
love to focus on verses that talk about the need for baptism, without mentioning any exceptions. This,
they assume, ‘proves’ their waterful
stance.
In reality, though, neither side is indisputably
‘proven’ by these tactics. As St. Peter the First Pope observes,
Sacred Scripture in “certain things” is “hard to be
understood”. (2 Peter 3:16c DRC) And, as any humble & intelligent
Catholic acknowledges, only the Church,
exercising Her divinely given infallibility
while speaking perfectly clearly &
explicitly, can make us absolutely sure --- without any doubts possible
--- of what these potentially difficult passages might mean.
134. BOD Scriptural Item No. 1:
+++ Confession Before Men (Matthew 10:32) +++
For instance, ‘baptism
of desire’ enthusiasts often invoke Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew.
“Every one therefore
that shall confess me before men, I
will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew
10:32 DRC, emphasis added)
“Aha!” says the
BOD camp. “Jesus doesn’t say anything here about baptism of water
always being necessary. He only says you need to confess. That is to say, you
only need to publicly profess the Catholic Faith and --- provided you really
can’t get baptized before you die and that you have perfect contrition
for your mortal sins --- God will take you into Heaven nonetheless as a
Catholic in good standing. There you are. BOD. The Bible teaches it
plainly!”
In reality, though, the
Bible does not teach BOD here
plainly.
Nowhere in this short verse does Jesus mention ‘baptism of
desire’ or ‘baptism of spirit’ specifically by name. Hence,
BOD advocates assume that
‘baptism of desire’ is what He is talking about.
What’s more, nowhere
in this short verse does Jesus assure us, with explicit and exhaustive
terminology, that nothing else other than ‘confession’ or
‘profession’ of the Catholic Faith is needed to save a man’s
soul if he can’t get water baptism. Ergo, BOD partisans assume that this is what Jesus meant, no
doubts possible in their minds and thus no caution on their part necessary in
drawing a conclusion that could be mistaken, making absolutely, infallibly and
explicitly certain that their waterless BOD interpretation is correct.
To the contrary, several
verses elsewhere in the Bible --- some of them even recording words from
Jesus’ lips --- speak of baptism in water as necessary in addition to the need for profession
of the Catholic Faith. But more on this critical point later, as we go through
other verses that either the ‘baptism of desire’ camp or the
‘water only’ crowd like to tout.
True, some early Church
fathers cite Matthew 10:32 as support for ‘baptism of blood’.
Unfortunately for the BOD
camp, not all early Church fathers
asserted the BOB position, nor
has BOB (or BOD, for that matter!)
ever been upheld specifically by name or description in the Ten Commandments,
Lord’s Prayer or Apostle’s Creed. Consequently, a Catholic is not required to believe in BOB as
if it is infallibly true, being a common dogma of the Holy Church from the
beginning. It would take universal
--- or nearly universal --- assertion of a belief by the early Church fathers,
or perfectly clear mention of
this belief in the Ten Commandments, Lord’s Prayer or Apostle’s
Creed, for such a belief to rest upon rock solid ground as infallibly & explicitly taught by Christ & His
Apostles in the first century.
What’s more, adding
insult to injury for the fervent BODer, we recall
this crucial point:
For even if BOB was infallibly true from
universal testimony of all the Church fathers, this would still not mean that BOD is infallibly
true. The two different things, while closely related, are also very much distinct from each other. (Please
re-read Chapter 29 in this book should you remain hazy about this distinction,
my dear reader.) The scholastic doctors of the 2nd millennium
theologically enfolded BOD within BOB, that is true, but they did so only well after the fathers of the 1st
millennium and
And, as if that were not enough,
consider this…
BOD enthusiasts cite a verse
like Matthew 10:32 because it happens to mention the need for profession of the
Catholic Faith without also happening to mention the need for water
baptism.
All the same, logically
speaking, does the failure to mention a
particular thing in a particular passage or speech then mean that the thing not
mentioned is, therefore, certainly not important or certainly not
necessary?
Anyone trained in the
exercise of rigorous logic knows the answer to this query:
No. Just because something isn’t mentioned doesn’t
conclusively prove, all by itself, that the thing not mentioned is either
unimportant or unnecessary, or not absolutely needed.
End of sentence.
+++ 135. Protestants Do the Same Thing With +++
Their ‘Faith Alone’ Heresy
Indeed, this same logical
ploy (or, rather, illogical ploy) of
the BODers when it comes to Scripture and their
theological opinion of ‘baptism of desire’ is exactly what
Protestant heretics do with the Bible when trumpeting their false teaching of
‘faith alone’. Because the Protestant takes verses in the Bible
that happen to mention the need for faith and then --- not seeing these
particular verses mention a need for anything else, such as good works --- assumes,
out of thin air, that Scripture
‘proves’ Protestant belief in ‘faith alone’ as an
inarguably ‘biblical’ doctrine.
And even though the Bible nowhere in any of its verses
says the word ‘alone’ in conjunction with the word
‘faith’.
Nowhere!
And even though the Bible elsewhere in some of its verses
says that there is a definite need for other things, too, in addition to faith --- such as good works.
Likewise ‘baptism of
desire’. The Bible nowhere in any of its verses says the word
‘alone’ in conjunction with the words ‘desire for
baptism’ or ‘confession’ or ‘profession’ or
‘perfect contrition’ or etc., etc. Meanwhile, the Bible does elsewhere
in some of its verses say that there is a definite need for baptism, too, in addition to desire for baptism or
confession or profession or perfect contrition.
The upshot?
Matthew 10:32 is circumstantial evidence for BOD.
Meaning, it is reasonable, at the present time, to interpret it as support for BOD, but that it can
be, equally as well, reasonable, at the present time, to interpret it as
something that does not support
BOD. There is no one --- and only one
--- interpretation that the context, grammar & words of this verse
logically demands us to adopt in opposition to all other interpretations.
Without both explicit and
infallible guidance from
Rather, how
you interpret this verse depends on your theological opinion to start with.
Do you already believe in
BOD, or are you inclined to believe in BOD?
Then Matthew 10:32 will look
like pretty good evidence to you since you can easily interpret its words to
mean what you already want them to mean, that BOD is true.
Or do you despise BOD, or
are you inclined to be skeptical about BOD?
Then Matthew 10:32 will look
flimsy and insignificant in your sight since you can easily interpret its words
to mean what you already want them to mean, that WO is true.
It all depends on where you
stand on the matter of BOD vs. WO to begin with.
136. BOD Scriptural Item No. 2:
+++ All You Need Is Love (John 14:21) +++
Yet BOD enthusiasts
aren’t finished. They also like to invoke Jesus in the Gospel of John.
“And he that loveth [loves] me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him, and will manifest
[reveal] myself to him.” (John 14:21c-d DRC, emphasis &
annotations added)
“Aha!” crows the
BOD enthusiast. “Jesus doesn’t say anything about an absolute need
for baptism in water here. He only insists that you love Him. Hence, if you
have perfect contrition for your mortal sins --- which is what a perfect love
for Jesus accomplishes in your soul --- then, even if you can’t get water
baptism for some reason, God will love you, will count all of your mortal sins
as remitted, and will take you into Heaven when you die. That’s BOD.
It’s clearly stated in the Bible!”
And yet it’s not clearly stated here in the
Bible.
Again, nowhere in
this short verse does Jesus mention ‘baptism of spirit’ or
‘baptism of desire’ specifically by name. Hence, BOD advocates assume that ‘baptism of
desire’ is what He is talking about.
What’s more, nowhere
in this short verse does Jesus assure us, with explicit and exhaustive
terminology, that nothing else other than ‘love’ of Him or
‘perfect contrition’ for your sins is needed to save a man’s
soul if he can’t get water baptism. Ergo, BOD partisans assume that this is what Jesus meant, no
doubts possible in their minds and thus no caution on their part necessary in
drawing a conclusion that could be mistaken, making absolutely, infallibly and
explicitly certain that their waterless BOD interpretation is correct.
Ironically, Jesus’
words right before the quote above pose a puzzle for the BOD position.
“He that hath [has]
my commandments, and keepeth them [keeps
them, i.e., obeys them]; he it is
that loveth me.” (John 14:21a-b DRC,
emphasis & annotations added)
Ah… so a real love
of Jesus involves an actual obedience to Jesus. That is to say, you can’t love Jesus if you don’t have and don’t obey --- keep --- His
Commandments.
Indeed, just a little
further on Jesus repeats this in a slightly different way:
“He that loveth me not, keepeth not my words.” (John 14:24a DRC, emphasis added)
Again the connection between
loving Jesus and obeying His Commandments!
The point?
+++ 137. How Is ‘Desire’ Without Water
‘Love’ of Jesus +++
When Not Getting Baptized Fails to Obey His Command?
Jesus’ words here in
this passage of Sacred Scripture make the BOD position a bit doubtful to those
who take them at face value. I mean, Jesus directly equates love of Him with obedience to Him. Fail to have His Commandments, or fail to obey them even if you do have them, and you can’t really love Him.
That’s the plain, obvious and simple gist of His words in John 14:21a-b.
And what is one of the
things Jesus commands us in
Sacred Scripture?
“And Jesus coming,
spoke to them, saying: ‘All power is
given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye [all of you] all
nations; baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe
[obey] all things whatsoever [everything no matter what] I have commanded
you: and behold [look] I am with you all days [all of the time], even to
the consummation [end] of the world.’” (Matthew 28:18-20 DRC,
emphasis & annotations added)
That’s right --- Jesus
says everyone should be baptized. This is the first of “all things
whatsoever” that He “commanded” us here at the end of St.
Matthew’s Gospel, telling the leaders of His Ecclesial Body to do so for
“all nations”.
And if water baptism is a commandment,
then how can someone truly love Jesus
when he doesn’t know this
commandment or doesn’t obey it
when he does know about it?
Don’t get me wrong,
dear reader. I am not pretending that I am infallible and that these verses
from Scripture must mean absolutely that BOD is ruled out. No, what I am saying
is that there is more than one way to
rationally interpret the verses that the BOD camp touts, and that their
interpretation of some verses can seem to be, occasionally, at odds with the
plain & simple interpretation of other
verses in the Bible.
That’s all.
A really clever and learned BOD
enthusiast can probably explain these puzzles away.
Fine. There’s just one
problem.
Because whose interpretation of all of these verses is to be
believed… and with absolute
certainty?
Is it the ‘baptism of
desire’ interpretation or the ‘water only’ interpretation?
That’s the real question.
And only a ruling from Holy
Mother Church that is both explicit
and infallible can solve this question with finality, giving Roman
Catholics absolute certainty in the matter of ‘baptism of
desire’… as opposed to espousing what is simply a strongly-held opinion on the
topic.
Ergo, once more, we’re
confronted with the realization that this verse in the Gospel of John is merely
circumstantial evidence for
BOD. At this point in time, you can reasonably interpret it to mean support for
‘baptism of desire’ or, at this point in time, you can just as
reasonably interpret it to be a lack of such support for BOD. Neither the
context, nor the grammar, nor the words of this brief verse demand all by
themselves, logically speaking, that one --- and only one --- interpretation is
the absolutely certain & correct interpretation for this verse.
To the contrary, it all
depends on what you already think
about BOD.
Love BOD?
Then you will find a way to
rationally interpret John 14:21 as support for it.
Hate BOD?
Then you will find a way to
rationally interpret John 14:21 as evidence against it.
To top it off, the ancient
Church fathers are silent about this verse in regards to BOD since BOD
wasn’t even on their radar during the first millennium, with the
exception of Ss. Cyprian (kind of), Ambrose (maybe) & Augustine (at first).
And they do not, every one of them, teach about this verse in regards to BOB.
So nothing they say about John 14:21 can truly guide us in the matter of properly
understanding BOD with an infallible certainty that rests upon what was
explicitly taught by Jesus & His Apostles back in the very first century.
Once again, it all depends
on where you stand on BOD vs. WO to begin with.
138. BOD Scriptural Item No. 3:
+++ Circumcision of the Heart (Romans 2:29) +++
But BOD enthusiasts are not
finished. They invoke
“But he is a Jew, that
is one inwardly; and the
circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter;
whose praise is not of men, but of God.” (Romans 2:29 DRC, emphasis
added)
“Aha!” exalts
the BOD partisan. “Circumcision was the counterpart, in Old Testament
times, of water baptism during New Testament times. And to be a Jew in Old
Testament times --- before Jesus ever came, ushering in the New Testament ---
meant to be a part of the Old Testament religion. Ergo,
And yet it’s not obviously stated here in the
Bible.
Again, nowhere in
this short verse does Paul mention ‘baptism of spirit’ or
‘baptism of desire’ specifically by name. Hence, BOD advocates assume that ‘baptism of
desire’ is what he is talking about.
What’s more, nowhere
in this short verse does Paul assure us, with explicit and exhaustive
terminology, that nothing else other than ‘circumcision of the
heart’ or ‘baptism of the spirit’ is needed to save a
man’s soul if he can’t get water baptism. Ergo, BOD partisans assume that this is what Paul meant, no
doubts possible in their minds and thus no caution on their part necessary in
drawing a conclusion that could be mistaken, making absolutely, infallibly and
explicitly certain that their waterless BOD interpretation is correct.
As a matter of fact, a
little later in his letter to the Catholics of the Diocese of Rome, Paul seems
to teach differently from what BODers conclude from Romans 2:29, the Apostle talking about
baptism as if it really is
necessary for a “newness of life” --- life forever --- and that it
is not simply a matter of an
inner ‘circumcision of the heart’:
“Know you not that all
we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death? For we are buried together with him by
baptism into death; that as [that
just as] Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we
also may walk in newness of life.” (Romans 6:3-4 DRC, all
emphasis & annotation added)
Indeed,
After all, does Paul here in
these verses plainly mention anything about the condition of the heart, loving
Jesus or professing the Catholic Faith?
Then why not conclude that
baptism alone is important?
Yet we are not so foolish. One
is not wise to take verses out of context from the Bible and then, ignoring all
other passages that might say something in
addition to what your preferred verses say --- or even appear to say
something that is in contradiction to
what your preferred verses seem to say --- pretend that these verses can only
mean what you already prefer
them to mean.
This is neither logical, nor
intelligent, nor honest, nor just.
No, all we’re trying
to do --- all that I am attempting to make you see, dear reader --- is that
quoting a passage of Scripture out of context from the rest of Sacred Scripture
cannot, all by itself, ‘prove’ with any kind of ‘absolute
certainty’ the point that you’re trying to assert.
Ergo, other passages in the
Bible have to be considered, too. And sometimes these other passages can add to
what the first passage says, or even appear to conflict with it.
The result?
A wise person must be careful and humble in understanding
Sacred Scripture. Infallible certainty of a passage cannot be presumed unless Holy Mother Church has spoken with explicit
& infallible authority about that passage, whether ordinarily or
extraordinarily, explaining it adequately
and clearly so that no one, including the learned, can mistake its meaning.
Then, and only then, can a
person act as if the meaning is absolutely
certain.
Prior to the this kind of
explicit & infallible assurance about a passage in the Bible, a wise Roman
Catholic can have but a degree of fallible
certainty about what particular scriptural words mean. A fallible
certainty that can allow ---
provided he is not explicitly contradicting what the Church teaches explicitly
and infallibly --- yet another Catholic to interpret
these scriptural words differently from that first Catholic. For if not
infallible, either interpretation could be correct (even both at the same
time!) or incorrect (ditto ‘both at the same time’ remark).
+++ 139. BOD Partisans Assume “Not in the +++
Letter” to Mean ‘Not in the Sacrament’
Which leads us to observe
what St. Paul also says in another letter of the New Testament.
“Not by the works of
justice, which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and
renovation of the Holy Ghost…” (Titus 3:5 DRC, emphasis added)
Anyone who knows Catholicism
--- and who knows an English vocabulary that has become a bit old-fashioned and
forgotten by the start of the 21st century --- knows that the
ancient phrase of “laver of regeneration” is a synonym for
‘water baptism’. Consequently, Paul is literally telling us in
Titus 3:5 that baptism of water is very much a part of what very much saves
a man who is truly Catholic, the other part of the equation being the
“renovation of the Holy Ghost…”
To wit, when a person rightly
receives the Sacrament of Baptism, he is baptized both by water and by the Holy Spirit, the two things together making it possible for the person to be saved!
End of sentence.
Knowing this, what then is
potentially wrong with the BOD
interpretation of Romans 2:29? And what would the WO interpretation of Romans
2:29 be… and why is this WO
interpretation both rational and, very possibly, the correct one in
opposition to the BOD interpretation?
Let us remind ourselves of
the verse in dispute. We read:
“But he is a Jew, that
is one inwardly; and the
circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter;
whose praise is not of men, but of God.” (Romans 2:29 DRC, emphasis
added)
And again, what is the
potential problem with the BODers’
interpretation?
When
That is to say, they assume that a person could be Catholic
--- and thus somehow belong to Jesus’ One & Only Body, the Catholic
Church --- without the sacramental water of baptism since God via Paul
in the Bible seems to say a person could be Jewish without the rite of
circumcision.
The catch?
God during the Old Testament
--- before Christ sacrificed
Himself upon the Cross --- did not require visible membership in His Church
in order to be justified in His Sight and hence saved from the fires of Hell.
We repeat:
God did not during Old Testament times, prior to Jesus’
Sacrifice upon the Cross, require the human race to be a visible part of His
Holy People in order to save their immortal souls.
As a consequence, extensive
evangelization and massive conversion of non-Jewish persons all across the
world was never a part of the Old Testament Church. Which is not
to say that evangelization or conversion of non-Jewish persons to the Old
Testament Church never occurred, simply that it was never an extensive effort and there were thus never massive conversions prior to the coming of Christ and His
Death & Resurrection.
Why is this?
Because the
What was the
To perfect and prepare a unique & holy people for the coming of
their Messias… i.e., Jesus Christ, Whose Body --- the Roman
Catholic Church --- is indeed
God’s Sole Means of Salvation for the precious soul of every human
being during the New Testament!
+++ 140. Obedience Is Better
Than Sacrifices +++
This changes everything.
For realizing what we have
just seen in the chapter above, how can we facilely assume that it is
irrefutable ‘proof’ of the ‘baptism of desire’
position?
But if not irrefutable
‘proof’ of this theological opinion, then what in the world was St.
Paul saying in Romans 2:29, if not upping the idea of BOD?
He was pointing out that an ethnic Jew couldn’t save himself
merely by being born Jewish.
And he did so by way of
pointing out that even non-Jews, who didn’t have the Old Testament
Religion with all of its rites & ceremonies, could, nevertheless, be holy
in God’s Sight if they followed the
natural law written on their hearts and avoided mortal sin. (Romans 2:15)
That is to say, if they
refrained from believing in false religions and worshipping false gods, if they
honored their parents and obeyed their rightful authorities, if they did not
murder, did not commit adultery, did not steal, did not bear false testimony against
another, and did not covet that which should not be coveted.
Such people may not have
known that the Old Testament Church was instituted by God upon the earth, nor
did God require them to know this… but they could know, and God required
them to know, using their adequate minds and being humble of spirit and
genuinely eager to do good, that various manmade religions were false and that
they must follow the natural law that He through His Holy Spirit impressed upon
their hearts as obvious, needful, and morally right.
This much they could know and do, even without the
full religion of Old Testament times.
What’s more, St. Paul
was saying what is said elsewhere in Sacred Scripture --- that God is not
impressed by people who call themselves by His Name and yet do not care to obey
His Commandments. In short, “obedience is better than
sacrifices…” (1 Kings 15:22c DRC)
Call yourself Catholic?
Think just being Catholic will save you?
Well, certainly, during the New
Testament era, a man cannot save his soul visibly outside the Sanctuary of the
Roman Catholic Church. Yet does this mean that every member of the Catholic
Church will get into Heaven?
Not a chance.
A Roman Catholic person must also obey God’s Commandments,
refraining from the willful commission of what he should know is a
deadly mortal sin.
Again --- obedience is better than sacrifices.
Ergo, can such a bad &
mortally sinful Catholic please God by coming forward at Holy Mass to the altar
rail to receive the Sacrifice of the Blessed Sacrament while in the state of mortal
sin?
Absolutely not!
Why?
Because
obedience is better than sacrifices.
+++ 141. The Difference Between the Old Testament +++
and the New Testament When It Comes to Salvation
Now, during New Testament
times, God has poured out His Graces & Mercies upon the whole human race in
an extraordinary fashion. No one
of adequate mind is therefore now with decent excuse if he doesn’t become
Roman Catholic before he dies and so save his immortal soul.
That is to say, God will
make sure, one way or another, that a truly good-willed person who is
determined to do what is right --- to do what his Creator commands --- will
find the Roman Catholic Religion before he dies.
But during the Old
Testament?
That’s a different
story.
And
Likewise the non-Jew in
mirror contrast.
If the non-Jew obeyed the natural
law written on his heart (Romans 2:15) --- refraining from believing and
worshipping in false religions, honoring his parents and any rightful
authority, not adulterous, not stealing, and etc. --- then God would count his
obedience as Jewishness. I.e., God would consider this non-Jew to be a
spiritual child of Abraham, the ancient friend of God.
Such a man, while not
ethnically Jewish or a visible member of the
This is what the Apostle
Paul meant by “…circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter;
whose praise is not of men, but
of God.” (Romans 2:29b-c DRC, emphasis added)
Because God sees the heart.
He knows the intentions and
motives of human beings. And while such non-Jewish people may have
superficially looked, from afar, to Jewish members of the Old Testament Church
like they were only pagans, sinners and worshippers of false gods, God --- Who
knows the secrets of men’s hearts --- could see which of them were
actually His, not consenting to the worship of false gods in false religions,
striving to do His Holy Will, obeying the natural law that was written upon
their hearts.
Now it is different.
Now we have the New
Testament, the final fullness of God’s Roman Catholic Testimony on
the earth. And to whom much is given,
much is required. (Luke 12:48) For while the scripture just cited, Luke
12:48, explicitly refers to the person who has greater knowledge of
God’s Commandments, the principle in this verse is nevertheless
applicable to people who don’t know the Roman Catholic Faith since
the Holy Spirit now convicts the hearts of people everywhere on earth, after the Day of Pentecost, that there
is indeed a One True Religion that their Creator requires them to
actually find, know and profess in order to actually save their
immortal souls.
Or, to put it another way,
the good-willed man before
Christ could follow the natural law and please God adequately enough to save
his soul. Whereas now, during the New Testament after Christ, God has so richly bestowed His Graces upon the
earth that no man of adequate
mind, who is of truly sincere and unmistakably good will, could possibly fail
to find the sole means of his own salvation, since Almighty God --- Who knows everything and plumbs the hidden
depths of a man’s motives or thoughts --- will make sure that he gets the explicit testimony of the Roman
Catholic Faith, whether by angelic messenger or human effort or both.
(Please review Chapters 55,
56, 128 & 129, my dear reader, to see theological proof of the absolute
necessity of visible profession of the Catholic Faith in order for a man of
sound mind to save his soul. Contrary to what modernists assume --- even those who
look ‘traditional’ and dare to call themselves
‘catholic’ --- the scholastic doctors of old did not uphold a modern &
twisted notion of an ‘implicit’ desire for baptism, saying that a
man of sound mind can save his soul without
an explicit knowledge of, and actual resolution to obey, the Roman Catholic
Faith. Not to mention Sacred Scripture in Acts 10 where St. Cornelius, despite
having no chance, humanly speaking,
to hear of Catholicism, first receives an angelic messenger telling him where
to go and who to talk to, and then encounters a human messenger (St. Peter
himself!) in order to hear the testimony of the Catholic Religion and thereby
obtain the sole means to save his precious and immortal soul. In other words,
even Sacred Scripture, during the New
Testament, shows that some real form of explicit knowledge of the Catholic Faith is necessary for
salvation!)
At any rate, no real
Catholic is duty-bound to interpret Romans 2:29 like a ‘baptism of
desire’ adherent does. It once again comes down to what you already
believe to start with.
Love BOD?
Then you will find a way to
rationally interpret Romans 2:29 as support for it.
Hate BOD?
Then you will find a way to
rationally interpret Romans 2:29 as evidence against it.
Such is the story of ‘baptism
of desire’, especially in the last seventy years since the dispute
between BOD and WO, in its present form, first arose in earnest.
142. All Aboard!
+++ Mark 16:16 and the Trans-Gospel Express +++
And so we come to our fourth
and last example of scriptural passages used in support of the BOD position.
Not that this exhausts the verses that BODers put
forth; there are several others the BOD camp likes to cite, too. But it rounds
things out, and the BOD arguments from Scripture tend to revolve around certain
fixed themes and ideas with these verses used most often. Hence, these four
examples are sufficient for the purpose at hand, which is to show how tenuous
is the basis for BOD in Sacred Scripture.
Curiously, I have not found
this fourth example used in recent times. It is, in fact --- as far as I can
tell in my studies thus far --- cited only once on behalf of ‘baptism of
desire’ some nine hundred years ago. Probably there’s another
citation somewhere, but I haven’t found it.
Why, then, do I bother with
it?
First the passage itself:
“And he [Jesus] said
to them: ‘Go ye [all of you] into the whole world and preach the gospel
[the Catholic Faith] to every creature. He
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth
not shall he condemned.’” (Mark 16:15-16 DRC, emphasis
& annotations added)
The attentive reader will
remember how we cited St. Bernard of Clairvaux’s
letter to Hugh of St. Victor back in Chapters 38, 39 & 80. We have not yet,
however, quoted all of his letter... only part of it. So what part of
Bernard’s letter might we have left out that is relevant here?
The part where he uses Mark
16:16 as support for BOD!
“Notice also that,
when the Savior said ‘whoever believes and is baptized will be saved,’
He cautiously and alertly did not repeat the phrase ‘who was not
baptized,’ but only
‘whoever does not believe will be condemned.’
[Mark 16:16] This intimated [implied] that sometimes faith alone [a
catechumen professing the Catholic Faith alone without receiving the sacramental water of baptism before he
dies, not the heresy of
‘faith alone’ where people think they can get into Heaven without
any good works… St. Bernard was
most definitely not a
Protestant heretic way back in the 1100s, some 300 to 400 years prior to the
start of Protestantism in the 1500s!] would suffice for salvation, and that without it, nothing would be
sufficient.” (St. Bernard’s Letters, Letter 77,
Paragraph 9. All emphasis & annotations added.)
We repeat the most pertinent
part of the quote above from Bernard’s letter:
“This intimated
[implied] that sometimes faith alone would suffice for salvation, and that without it, nothing would be
sufficient.” (Ibid.)
There you have it. St.
Bernard very plainly teaches that the sacramental water of baptism is not always necessary for the
salvation of a soul, that sometimes a person can have Catholic Faith without having received the
water of baptism before he dies and yet still go to Heaven.
A ‘baptism of
desire’ position that not every Catholic shares, based on Mark 16:16. As
a matter of fact, based on Mark 16:16, a learned Catholic can even take the
exact opposite stance --- the position of ‘water only’! But more on
that in a few chapters when we will see how WOers use
Sacred Scripture, trying to outdo BODers in finding
biblical evidence for their side.
What, then, is the value of
Mark 16:16 to the argument between BOD and WO?
We’ll address that
query in a moment. First, though, a more basic question:
Because what is the value of
Mark 16:16 to the Roman Catholic Religion?
And the answer:
Mark 16:16 is like an express train, piercing through all of the
details and putting the Catholic Gospel of Jesus Christ as simply as possible.
Anyone of sound mind can understand it. Even a child can grasp it.
Which is why I bother with
this verse. For how can a man
save his soul?
By believing in Christ’s Roman Catholic Mind (His One
& Only Catholic Faith) and being baptized
into His Roman Catholic Body (His One & Only Catholic Church).
That’s how. Belief and
baptism… it’s that simple. More complex in all of its details, but,
in a nutshell, these two crucial things are how we save our souls. Like
two peas in a pod, they inextricably go together… and Jesus’ words
in Mark 16:16 show this plainly.
+++ 143. Why Mark 16:16 Might Be Evidence for BOD +++
Yet does Mark 16:16 uphold
the case for BOD?
St. Bernard of Clairvaux thought so. This is because, after Jesus mentions
the necessity of both belief and
baptism for salvation in the first
part of Mark 16:16, He then goes on to talk about, in the last part of the
verse, belief all by itself as causing a man to escape
damnation, without mentioning baptism again. Ergo, thought St. Bernard, belief
must be more important than baptism… which is mentioned only once.
Impressive?
Yes --- if you have no other rational explanation for
why Jesus mentioned baptism only once while mentioning belief twice,
the second time all by itself without reference to baptism.
And yes again --- if you think St. Bernard is infallible
in his writings and could never be wrong about his theological opinions,
or if you think the fact that
St. Bernard is both a canonized saint and an official doctor of
the Catholic Church makes it practically impossible, or at least impious,
to argue logically, factually & respectfully against one of his opinions.
But unassailable and beyond
doubt?
No --- because saints, even doctors, are not
infallible (remember St. Bernard’s very mistaken opinion about
the Blessed Virgin Mary not having been free of stain from original sin
from the very start and thus immaculate at Her Conception!), and there is another rational & orthodox explanation for why Jesus
mentioned baptism only once and belief twice in Mark 16:16.
Period.
Nevertheless, St.
Bernard’s touting of Mark 16:16 as evidence for BOD makes sense. Why?
Because neither Jesus nor anyone else in Sacred
Scripture says, with perfectly explicit language, that a back-up option
like ‘baptism of desire’ is not possible.
End of sentence.
Meanwhile, let us note a
curious thing. As I said before, I have not found anyone other than St. Bernard
of Clairvaux who touts Mark 16:16 in support of BOD.
Certainly there seems to be little or no use of this verse by BODers in recent times. To the contrary, BOD aficionados of
the past century or two love to focus, more than anything else, on the three
verses I listed prior to grappling with Mark 16:16 --- to wit, Matthew 10:32,
John 14:21 and Romans 2:29.
Which again tells us something
critical about this topic.
Namely, that there is no
unbroken tradition about ‘baptism of desire’ going all the way
back to Jesus & His Apostles. Specifically in the case of Sacred Scripture,
that there is no unbroken tradition of certain
verses, and only these particular verses, being cited and interpreted as
meaning indubitable support for the BOD teaching.
To the contrary, various
believers in BOD at various places and various times have used various
justifications for their belief. For instance,
This, by the way --- and
ironically so --- is in contrast to the ‘water only’ camp, which
can, at least, cite one verse that appears to support their WO stance and has
been cited constantly since earliest times as a scriptural proof for water
baptism’s crucial necessity.
But more on that in the very
next chapter.
The point is, there is no unanimity or continuity about
BOD when it comes to Sacred Scripture over the past two thousand years. Rather,
it is the personal & independent thoughts of various men in various places
throughout the various centuries which causes them to cite various verses that
they, personally, claim upholds the notion of ‘baptism of desire’.
And while many of these men might be preeminent --- lots of them even saints
and doctors of the Church during the past millennium --- they are not, any of them, popes capable
of promulgating or condemning a teaching infallibly.
Hence, whatever their
greatness of sanctity or knowledge, their opinion about BOD is still only
that… just an opinion that
they personally came up with on their own, or that they, personally,
decided to adopt as their own opinion, too, under the influence of a
BOD-believing teacher.
Consequently, no real
Catholic is duty-bound to interpret Mark 16:16 like a ‘baptism of
desire’ adherent does. It once again comes down to what you already
believe to start with.
Enchanted with BOD?
Then you will fixate on a
way to rationally interpret Mark 16:16 as support for it.
Disdainful of BOD?
Then you will fixate on a
way to rationally interpret Mark 16:16 as evidence against it.
End of story… or so it
would seem.
In reality, though, the Mark
16:16 Trans-Gospel Express will soon return headed in the opposite direction
and shed a great deal of light on this surprisingly murky subject!
144. WO Scriptural Item No. 1:
+++ Born of Water and the Spirit (John 3:5) +++
And so we turn to the
‘water only’ camp.
What have they to say for
their side when it comes to Sacred Scripture?
Not as much as the
‘baptism of desire’ side, but this is probably because WOers have not been around as long --- in their current
form --- as BODers have. That is to say, BOD has
dominated the thinking of Catholic theologians, leaders and laypersons for the
past 800 years or so. Only since the 1940s has the contrary opinion of WO arose
again and began to dominate the thinking of those few who are still truly
Catholic after the Vatican II Council of the 1960s heralded the Great Apostasy
and a rebellion against everything Catholic that we live through right now.
Yet what have they to say?
Let us dive into the WOers’ first exhibit.
“Jesus answered:
‘Amen, amen, I say to thee [you], unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the
“Aha!” crows the
WO purist. “Jesus says nothing about ‘baptism of desire’ as
an option. He only says you need to be born of water and the Spirit, the latter
--- spiritual baptism --- automatically occurring in conjunction with the
former, which is water baptism. This is the one single way someone enters the
And yet it’s not plainly stated here in the
Bible.
Nowhere in this short verse does Jesus mention ‘baptism of
spirit’ or ‘baptism of desire’ specifically by name. Hence,
WO advocates assume that
‘baptism of desire’ is something that He’s referring to ---
if only indirectly --- and thus forbidding the notion of BOD by what He
directly says regarding the Sacrament of Baptism and its necessity.
What’s more, nowhere
in this short verse does Jesus assure us, with explicit and exhaustive
terminology, that the sacramental water of baptism is always crucial for
salvation without any exception. Ergo, WO partisans assume that this is what Jesus meant, no doubts possible in their
minds and thus no caution on their part necessary in drawing a conclusion that
could be mistaken, making absolutely, infallibly and explicitly certain that
their waterful WO interpretation is correct.
Indeed, WOers
overlook a parallel wording from elsewhere in Sacred Scripture that is most
revealing in our situation. To wit, Jesus’ statement concerning the Holy
Eucharist.
“Amen, amen, I say
unto you: except [unless]
you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you shall not have [eternal] life in
you.” (John 6:54 DRC, all emphasis & annotations added)
Pretty simple, my dear
reader. If you’re truly Catholic --- or at least partly Catholic and
calling yourself Catholic --- then you know the Eucharist is literally
Jesus’ Flesh & Blood under the appearance of bread & wine. Hence,
in this verse, it is clear that Jesus is telling us a person cannot
enter into Heaven if he doesn’t first eat the heavenly bread of
the Eucharist.
Now, a question for you:
Does God refuse to let a man, professing the Catholic Faith
whole & entire, into Heaven who dies before he can eat the Eucharist
but just after he has been baptized in water?
The answer is plain:
No. The Catholic Church has never taught this interpretation
of John 6:54, and has always
assured Her members that a newly baptized human being, who professes the
Catholic Faith whole & entire and who dies right away in the state of
grace, immediately enters Heaven were that person to die prior to being able to receive the Holy Eucharist, yet only after receiving the sacramental waters
of Holy Baptism.
Period.
And why would this be?
Because there can be exceptions to the stated rule.
In other words, it is not
always possible or convenient to state things fully and exhaustively. As we saw
back in Chapters 14 & 15 of this book, something can be stated simply in
order not to get too complicated or take too much time, and yet not
explain --- or be intended to explain --- this something completely, listing
all possible exceptions to what has just been said, or, to the contrary, ruling
out all possible loopholes and making it clear that this is absolute.
Consequently, the conclusion
is stark. If Jesus in John 6:54 can simply state the necessity of eating the Eucharist without mentioning the relatively rare exception of a baptized man
dying before he can partake of the Eucharist while still going to
Heaven, then why can’t the same
interpretation be applicable to Jesus’ equally simple statement
regarding the necessity of receiving the
sacramental waters of Baptism in John 3:5 without mentioning an individual who, while trying to become Roman
Catholic, dies accidentally before he gets baptized in water yet still
goes to Heaven in the end?
Do you see?
+++ 145. St. Thomas Aquinas Made This Very Argument +++
As a matter of fact, St.
Thomas Aquinas made this very argument.
That is to say, this
scholastic teacher --- who many consider to be the greatest of all doctors
& theologians in the Church --- paralleled the Eucharist with Baptism and
invoked BOD to explain the degree of necessity that the Blessed Sacrament holds
for a man’s salvation. For he posed the question:
“Whether the Eucharist is necessary for salvation?”
And the Angelic Doctor
answered:
“In this sacrament, two things have to be considered, namely,
the sacrament itself [what the
Eucharist appears to be in our visible world] and the reality contained in it [what the Eucharist actually is from a
spiritual and invisible point of view]. Now it was stated above that the
reality of the [Eucharistic] sacrament is the unity of the Mystical Body
[being literally, albeit invisibly, the normal way a person continues to be
joined with and alive within Christ’s Roman Catholic Body after his
baptism by eating His Body’s Eucharistic Flesh], without which there can be no salvation; for there is no
entering into salvation outside the Church, just as in the time of the
deluge there was none [no one alive] outside the Ark, which signified [the Ark
metaphorically represented] the Church, according to 1 Peter 3:20-21. And
it has been said above [see Aquinas’ Summa
Theologica, Book 3, Question 68, Article 2, from
which a quote can be found back in Chapter 42 of this book, Baptismal Confusion], that before receiving a sacrament,
the reality of the sacrament
can be had through the very desire
[vow or intent] of receiving the sacrament. Accordingly,
before the actual reception of this sacrament [the Eucharist], a man can
obtain salvation through the desire of receiving it, just as he can
obtain it before baptism through the desire of baptism, as stated
above. [Ibid.]
“Yet there is a difference in two respects. First of all,
because baptism is the beginning
of the spiritual life, and [hence] the door of the sacraments [the way a man is
allowed to receive the other sacraments by being made a part of the Body of
Christ, His Church], whereas the Eucharist is, as it were, the consummation [fulfillment] of the
spiritual life, and the end
[goal] of all the sacraments, as was observed above: for by the hallowings [making someone holy] of all the sacraments,
preparation is made for receiving or consecrating the Eucharist. Consequently, the reception of baptism is necessary
for starting the spiritual life [the life of grace and being headed for
Heaven], while the receiving of the Eucharist is requisite for its
consummation [eating the Eucharist is necessary to make this spiritual life
of grace fully realized in a Catholic person first here on earth and then later
in Heaven], [but] not for its
simple possession; it is sufficient to have it in desire [literally
Thomas Aquinas’ words are “in voto”
in his original Latin text --- the very Latin word we’ve looked at so
closely when considering the rather sloppy term of ‘baptism of desire’
in English, see Chapter 6 to review this fact --- which means he’s saying that a vow
or intent to consume the Eucharist is enough, in God’s Sight, to let
that person enter into Heaven and so fulfill his spiritual life], [just] as
an end [a goal] is possessed in desire and intention [that is to say, this goal
can be had, in a very real yet invisible & supernatural way, through a
desire and intention to receive the Holy Eucharist].
“Another difference is because, by baptism, a man is ordained to the Eucharist [God
through baptism makes a person worthy to eat the Eucharist], and therefore from
the fact of children being baptized, they are destined by the Church to the
Eucharist; and just as they believe through the Church’s faith, so they desire the Eucharist through the
Church’s intention, and as a result, receive its reality
[baptized children, via the Church’s faith & intent on their behalf,
get the eternal life that the Eucharist imparts even without being able to know
to resolve to receive it]. But they are not disposed [made ready] for
baptism by any previous sacrament, and consequently, before receiving baptism, in
no way have they baptism in desire, which
adults alone can have [due to adults having adequate minds to intend to
receive baptism, whereas babies don’t have adequate minds and thus cannot
ever intend to be baptized], consequently, infants cannot have the
reality [invisible graces] of the sacrament without receiving the sacrament [of
baptism] itself [thus babies cannot benefit supernaturally from ‘baptism
of desire’ since they can’t ever want it and intend to receive it
and, as a result, can never get the graces for salvation that God would give
them if they could want it and intend to get it, something the Church cannot
yet do on their behalf since they aren’t even a part of Christ’s
Body, the Catholic Church, prior to their actual reception of water baptism]. Therefore this sacrament [the Most Holy
Eucharist] is not necessary for salvation in the same way as baptism
is.” (St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa
Theologica, Book 3, Question 73, Article 3. All
emphasis & annotations added.)
And so we see that
Why would this be?
According to the aforesaid scholastic theologians, it’s
because the so-called ‘reality’ of the sacrament is somehow rooted
in the sacrament itself. Hence, get this invisible ‘reality’ of the
supernatural graces of the sacrament via a ‘desire’ or
‘resolution’ for it and you have everything essential (albeit not
everything in total) that the sacrament itself gives you. And even though you don’t
literally have the visible sacrament itself… although the scholastic
theologian will insist that, due to a mysterious linkage he posits between the
‘thing itself’ (the visible sacrament) and the ‘reality of
the thing’ (the sacrament’s invisible graces), that the sacrament
(the ‘thing itself’) can still be, in ‘reality’ --- the
‘reality’ of its graces --- absolutely ‘necessary’ for
a man’s salvation.
So say the scholastics.
In reality, though --- and with no pun intended --- I would go so
far as to say that the so-called ‘reality’ of a sacrament (that is
to say, the ‘invisible graces’ of this visible sacrament) is
received in these relatively rare situations simply because God in His Charity
deigns to make an occasional exception
to the necessity that He’s otherwise given to these literal & visible
sacraments under normal circumstances.
That is to say, if, indeed, ‘baptism of desire’ is true
and not just a mistaken opinion.
Yet why would the scholastic theologians have gone to all the
trouble of devising an explanation for BOD that involves a rather complicated
& arcane system of differentiating the ‘thing itself’ from the
‘reality’ of the sacrament and then --- on top of all this ---
insisted that this invisible ‘reality’ is, nevertheless, somehow
connected to, and rooted in, the visible sacrament itself despite the visible
sacrament being not always actually & literally necessary?
That’s a fascinating question.
We’ll deal with it before this book is over.
+++ 146. A Small Excursion into BOB +++
Having said this, and having remarked early on that Sacred
Scripture actually provides the weakest of all arguments for either BOD
or WO… notwithstanding, it bears noting how John 3:5 is the best
of all these scriptural arguments.
Why?
Because there is an unbroken and universal tradition since the
first century of Catholics referring to John 3:5 as a law for the necessity of
the Sacrament of Baptism. Furthermore, it is obvious to the careful &
intelligent student that earliest Christians interpreted John 3:5 as an absolute requirement --- to wit, that there is never any exception to the need for water baptism.
Indeed, the only exception ever noted during the first millennium
--- apart from Ss. Cyprian (kind of), Ambrose (maybe) and Augustine’s
(for a while) upping of BOD in their writings --- is BOB. For instance, the
attentive reader will remember our encounter with St. Cyril’s catechism
in Chapters 89 to 90, and with St. Fulgentius’
teachings in Chapters 72 to 74 of this book, Baptismal Confusion. Both of these saintly men referred to the
necessity of water baptism in bluntly absolute terms, their sole exception
being ‘baptism of blood’, or BOB for short.
This exception of BOB we can only trace back to the early third
century with a mention of it in the writings of Tertullian. It arose because a
few Christians witnessed what they thought were the martyrdoms of people who
professed the Roman Catholic Faith but who, they supposed, hadn’t been
able to get the sacramental waters of baptism. Consequently, assumed they, God
must make an exception for these good-willed souls who gave up their very lives
for Jesus Christ but simply hadn’t, through no fault of their own, been
able to receive water baptism. God’s Mercy more than made up for this
supposed lack, said such BOB-believing Catholics in ancient times.
Yet whatever the merits of this theological opinion of BOB --- and
the supposed problem that it apparently solved of good-willed people dying for
the Catholic Faith without having been baptized --- it had no provable,
explicit and universal origin in the first century.
True, when a Church Father upholds BOB he will often quote
Jesus’ words in the Gospels where He speaks of His Passion &
Crucifixion as a “baptism”. (Mark 10:38-39 & Luke 12:50 DRC)
However, since we have no universal
agreement of the ancient Church Fathers in teaching the BOB position, then
we can have no real certainty that
Jesus intended, by these words of His, to uphold the ‘baptism of
blood’ teaching. It is after-the-fact interpretation of His words
here to mean ‘baptism of blood’ and not infallible or even
moral certainty of His words’ actually meaning BOB that is at play in
this situation. There is no real proof that anybody from the first
century thought Jesus’ words about His Suffering as a
“baptism” to mean support for ‘baptism of blood’.
Rather, earliest Christians very sensibly interpreted His “baptism”
to be an analogy for the suffering He went through, a metaphor that can be
applied to His followers, Catholics, in their reception of the Sacrament of
Penance and the profit to their souls of suffering for one’s sins and
thereby receiving remission for their spiritual debt.
The point is, roughly half of the early Church Fathers speaks of
water baptism as an absolute necessity, with no exceptions ever, period. And
the other approximate half of the Church Fathers mentions, for the most part, a
mere single exception --- BOB --- whilst still often speaking like water
baptism is a very strict & absolute necessity apart from this sole
exception.
What is one to conclude?
Very simple.
It is a logical deduction
that pretty much all earliest Christians --- those from the first 100 years
after Christ, at the very least --- believed in the absolute necessity of baptism in water, with no exceptions
ever.
Again, recall the reaction of St. Ambrose’s diocesan flock at
the end of the 4th century to the untimely death of a catechumen, Valentinian, before he could be baptized. They were
‘grieved’ and ‘disturbed’ that this had happened,
thinking him to have lost the hope of Heaven because he died without the
sacramental water of baptism. (See Chapter 37 for further details.)
Or recollect the miraculous resurrection that St. Martin of Tours
worked on behalf of one of his catechumens during the same time period of the
latter half of the fourth century… and all because this catechumen failed
to receive water baptism before he died. (See Chapter 31.)
Or remember the miraculous provision of unexpected water at St.
Peter’s prayers in the middle of the first century… and all so that
two of his jailors could be baptized in water while in an otherwise waterless
dungeon. (See Chapter 30.)
The upshot?
Earliest Christians obviously presumed Jesus’ words in John
3:5 to mean that the baptismal water is an absolute
necessity for salvation. Which means, when you get right down to it, that
they thought the sacramental waters
of baptism to never have an exception,
that it was always necessary
to get literal baptism in water in order to enter the Everlasting Abode of
Heaven.
147. WO Scriptural Item No. 2:
+++ One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism (Ephesians
4:5) +++
Yet WO purists are not done. They quote
“I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you [beg you]
that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called [that you live as
good Catholics and not bad Catholics], with all humility and mildness, with
patience, supporting one another in charity [with mutual love]. Careful to keep
the unity of the [Holy] Spirit in the bond of peace. One body and one
Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling [as Catholics who
have the hope of Heaven forever]. One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”
(Ephesians 4:1-5 DRC, emphasis & annotations added)
“Aha!” exults the WO partisan. “
And yet it’s not plainly stated here in the
Bible.
Nowhere in this short verse does Paul mention ‘baptism of
spirit’ or ‘baptism of desire’ specifically by name. Hence,
WO advocates assume that
‘baptism of desire’ is something that he’s referring to ---
if only indirectly --- and thus forbidding the notion of BOD by what He
directly says regarding the Sacrament of Baptism being one and singular.
What’s more, nowhere in this short verse does Paul
assure us, with explicit and exhaustive terminology, that the sacramental water
of baptism is always crucial for salvation without any exception. Ergo, WO
partisans assume that this is what
Paul meant, no doubts possible in their minds and thus no caution on their part
necessary in drawing a conclusion that could be mistaken, making absolutely,
infallibly and explicitly certain that their waterful
WO interpretation is correct.
Indeed, the WO purist assumes something here that is in direct contradiction to the truth
of the matter.
Namely, the WOer assumes that the
intelligent & learned BOD believer really does think that there are three different ‘baptisms’.
This is not the
case.
The learned BODer follows the lead of the
scholastic doctors and considers the Sacrament of Baptism to be one and singular, not three and plural. So, while the majority
of BODers may speak casually & routinely of
‘three’ baptisms, the proper & fully correct understanding of
the ‘baptism of desire’ position is this:
That there is only one Sacrament of Baptism with three different ways of partaking in this one
single Sacrament.
Still, this misconception of there being ‘three’
different baptisms is a heavy criticism against the BOD position. For
while the learned BODer may comprehend ‘baptism
of desire’ correctly, just about
everyone else who believes in BOD thinks of it incorrectly. And, as
we saw from a survey of various catechisms --- specifically, Baltimore
Catechism No. 3 and Christian Doctrine Drills from the early 20th
century (please see Chapters 115 to 120 in Baptismal
Confusion to review these items) --- people raised as ostensible Catholics
during the past century, in the U.S.A. at least, were not taught
thoroughly or precisely about the subject of BOD… leaving them to
conclude, quite naturally, that there really are ‘three’ baptisms
instead of just the one.
That is a big problem and has led to heresy (but more on that
later, toward the end).
+++ 148. Another Problem With ‘One’
Baptism +++
Yet we are not finished with
“One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” (Ephesians
4:5)
And if one Lord,
how is that the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord and the Spirit is Lord? Would
this not make three different
Lords altogether?
The intelligent reader knows where I am headed with this. Every
Catholic believes in the dogma of the Trinity. It is one of the common dogmas
that any person of adequate mind must know & profess in order to be
Catholic in the first place, that there are Three Persons in One God.
But let’s say someone doesn’t know, or doesn’t
believe despite knowing. And let us say this hypothetical someone reads this
verse, claiming to respect the words of the Bible. And let us say he runs with
this quote, reasoning wrongly that the “One” in “One
Lord” disproves Trinitarian
dogma. After all, says he, would not the Father, Son & Spirit each being
Lord then mean that there are three Lords in total?
And would this then not contradict the words of
the Bible that there is “One Lord”?
Consequently, thinks he, the Trinity is false and God is only One
Person. Any passages in Sacred Scripture that seem to demonstrate otherwise
must be interpreted as symbolic or modal, which is essentially what Sabellius taught in ancient times and why his heretical
idea became known as either Sabellianism or Modalism. That is to say, ancient Modalists
thought God the Father merely ‘appeared’ on earth as God the
Son, like some sort of supernatural theatre made visible, and not that there
were two distinct Divine Persons co-existing at the same time from all of
eternity, the Father remaining in Heaven while His Eternally Begotten Son
incarnated as a Man here below in this material life.
The point?
Just as no real Catholic can interpret St. Paul’s
words here in this passage to mean that the Trinity is not true, so, too, no
intelligent & honest Catholic can interpret St. Paul’s words here
to mean --- with absolute certainty --- that ‘baptism of desire’ is
not true.
For just as the “One” in “One Lord” does not have to mean that God is
only One Person, so, too, the “one” in “one baptism” does not have to mean that the
Sacrament of Baptism has only one way to receive its essential graces.
We repeat:
Just as the “One” in “One
Lord” does not require us to
interpret it to mean that there’s only One Person in the Deity, so,
too, the “one” in “one baptism” does not require us to interpret it to mean that there is only
one way, via the sacramental water, to receive the essential graces of the
Sacrament of Baptism.
Be careful, though. Because the stubborn and ignorant ‘water
only’ purist --- who is a Catholic fundamentalist in his ignorance &
stubbornness, about which you may read more
here ---
will try to argue that we
have explicit & infallible
assurance of the Holy Trinity. Whereas, he might say, there is no explicit & infallible assurance
of ‘baptism of desire’. Ergo, concludes he, Paul’s words in
Ephesians 4:5 are somehow ironclad ‘proof’ that BOD does not exist.
This is nonsense.
It assumes something cannot be true just because it isn’t
mentioned explicitly & infallibly. Then, turning to words in the Bible
that, while holy and inerrant, are certainly not explicit and thorough
enough about this subject of ‘baptism of desire’, he then assumes,
out of thin air, that this non-explicit & non-thorough statement
‘proves’, with ironclad sureness, that the thing is true (the
graces of baptism come though sacramental water alone) that he already
wants to believe in even before there is adequately explicit &
infallible teaching from the Roman Catholic Church to actually prove his
WO contention with rock hard certainty!
Do you see the glaring problem with this, my dear reader?
You
cannot logically or rightly assume to be true, with absolute
certainty, what is not yet infallibly & explicitly declared to
be true!
Ergo, Ephesians 4:5 cannot --- repeat, cannot --- be ironclad proof for ‘water only’.
At the very most, it can be significant circumstantial evidence for WO. However, a learned BODer can just as easily explain the verse as being in
harmony with the position of BOD. Once again, and as we saw with the verses
cited by the BOD camp, it always depends on what you already believe to begin with.
Love WO?
Then Ephesians 4:5 looks like pretty impressive evidence for
‘water only’.
Hate WO?
Then Ephesians 4:5 seems perfectly compatible with ‘baptism
of desire’.
This is the typical story of BOD vs. WO, especially in the past
seventy years.
149. WO Scriptural Item No. 3:
+++ The Water of Baptism Saves You (1 Peter
3:19-21a) +++
Nevertheless, WOers can cite an
additional scripture on behalf of their stance.
“In which also coming he [Jesus] preached to those spirits
that were in prison [when crucified, Jesus preached Catholicism to souls who
had died during Noe’s Flood, but who, via
perfect contrition, merited Purgatory instead of Hell forever]: which had been some
time incredulous [they at first were unbelieving and accepted neither the True
Religion nor Noe’s warnings about the Flood,
but believed and did penance as the Flood began], when they waited for the
patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was
a building [when God waited patiently for Noe to
finish the Ark]: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water [only Noe’s
family survived]. Whereunto baptism being of the like form
[water is essential to both Baptism and the Flood] now saveth [saves] you
also…” (1 Peter 3:19-21a DRC, emphasis & annotations
added)
This is one of the most fascinating passages of Sacred Scripture.
Fascinating, because it gives a unique glimpse into what happened
to the millions or even billions of people who lived at the time of the Great
Flood, beyond the fact that all but eight of them died; and because it tells
us, too, what Jesus did while His Soul descended into the heart of the earth in
Hell after His Crucifixion but before His Resurrection.
For not everyone killed during the Flood went to Hell forever.
Some of them, at least, made acts of perfect contrition for their mortal sins
just after the horrors of the Great
Flood began, yet just prior to them
actually dying in that terrible Flood. This then justified their souls in
God’s Sight. Notwithstanding, the huge temporal debt they accrued for
practicing false religions or other mortal sins still had to be paid in that
part of Hell which is temporary… to wit, Purgatory.
This time of purging for their souls was thousands of years long
and very painful. It only ended when Jesus appeared to them after His
Crucifixion, He mercifully gathering them together, along with the other souls
of the just who had been waiting patiently for His arrival at the edge of Hell
in the Limbo of the Fathers, also known as Abraham’s Bosom. (Luke 16:22)
There He preached, to everyone not condemned to Hell perpetually, the fullness
of the Catholic Faith --- viz., He catechized
them in the Roman Catholic Religion.
Now, having explained all of that, I don’t know any
‘water only’ individuals who use this passage to support their WO
position.
Why then cite this scripture on behalf of WO?
Two reasons.
One, I want symmetry between the two sides, scripturally speaking.
And since BODers invariably during our era cite three
passages on behalf of ‘baptism of desire’, then, the WOers citing but two passages regularly, we need an extra
citation to make up for the inequality.
And, two, 1 Peter 3:19-21a is a very sensible scripture for WOers to cite. Or, rather, it would be if only they knew
about, or thought about, using it.
That they do not use it --- and probably don’t even know
about its existence since most people who call themselves Catholic are
extremely ignorant when it comes to Sacred Scripture over the past few
centuries --- is their loss.
We, however, will not allow them to endure that loss in this book.
+++ 150. Baptism Is Visible, and Thus Material
+++
Because the battle between ‘water only’ and
‘baptism of desire’ is ultimately about whether the sacramental
water is absolutely necessary. And ‘baptism of desire’
people come off sounding --- although they may not intend to be this way ---
like they don’t think the water of baptism is really all that important.
After all, it’s the invisible
graces that are essential, right?
From their point of view, yes. The water is practically incidental;
the graces absolutely crucial!
Hence, why emphasize the importance of a merely visible water?
And yet… God Himself
chose to make the means of our salvation visible.
This is an inescapable fact.
For what does the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church tell us?
“…when they [the people alive during the Great Flood]
waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe,
when the ark was a building [when God waited patiently for Noe
to finish the
Noe and his family “were
saved by water.”
A water that floated the wood of the
Which is why Peter says, “Whereunto baptism… now saveth you also.” (1 Peter 3:21a DRC)
Because it is a baptism that, being “of the like form” to the water of
the Flood, can float a man safely upon the water of God’s Wrath in the
Sacrament of Baptism, he clinging to the wood of the Cross and professing the
Catholic Religion which alone Jesus taught the human race to believe. Which is
how, then, a person is “saved by
water.” (Ibid., 3:21a, 20d DRC)
And water is a visible & material thing, is it not?
Indeed, it is the very matter
of the Sacrament of Baptism.
Now I ask you:
Did St. Peter say, about the eight souls in Noe’s
family, that they “were saved by invisible
graces”? (1 Peter 3:20d Imaginary BOD Version, emphasis added)
Or that, “baptism being of the like form,” this baptism
“now saveth you also through the work of invisible graces”? (Ibid.,
1 Peter 3:21a Imaginary BOD Version, emphasis added)
Of course not. Peter said no such thing about invisible graces all
by themselves sufficing.
To the contrary, water is the matter of Baptism just as
water was the matter of the Flood. In either case, water is visible
& material. God could
have chosen to save Noe through some kind of ‘invisible
means’ all by itself without the visible water of the Great Flood or the
material wood of Noe’s
But He didn’t.
And the Holy Ghost speaking via St. Peter nowhere says in this passage that the water which saved Noe’s family, or the water that baptizes a
catechumen, is metaphorical or incidental. Or, for that matter (pun almost
intended), that water is only one of three different ways to participate in the
Sacrament of Baptism… whatever this
Sacrament is without any actual water involved.
The upshot?
While not ironclad when it comes to upholding the WO side, this
scriptural passage does not lend itself easily to the notion of
‘baptism of desire’ and is much
more conducive to the position of ‘water only’.
+++ 151. On the Other Hand +++
On the other hand, while we’ve hit hard in the previous
chapter at the BOD side, this is not, then, good reason for the WO side to wax
triumphant --- as if they couldn’t possibly be wrong.
Far from it.
Because Sacred Scripture is not
perfectly clear or exhaustive about BOD or BOS. It simply does not ever address the issue explicitly by
name, and it never explains the topic
with an exhaustive approach in terms that make it irrefutably clear that
it’s talking about ‘baptism of desire’ or ‘baptism of
spirit’… and not something
else entirely.
Period.
Consequently, if the
Catholic Church has not taught
universally, infallibly & explicitly about the topic since the
beginning (which is the Ordinary
Magisterium), and if the Church
has not taught solemnly,
infallibly & explicitly about the topic at some point in time after
the beginning (which is the Extraordinary
Magisterium), then any member of
the Catholic Church with adequate mind and sufficient learning is free to come
up with a theological opinion
in the matter as long as that theological opinion does not explicitly deny what our Church has explicitly taught
either universally (since the
beginning) or solemnly (at some point
in time after the beginning).
End of sentence.
So has the Church taught universally or solemnly in an explicit
manner when it comes to the proper interpretation of 1 Peter 3:19-21a regarding
‘baptism of desire’ vs. ‘water only’?
Of course not.
If She had, then one side or the other would be trumpeting it to
the highest heaven. Ergo, the WO camp is free to adopt the interpretation of 1
Peter 3:19-21a that I offer in the chapter just above. I would advise them to
do so. It can only strengthen their position.
However, BOD purists are just as free to adopt an interpretation
that contradicts the one I offer above. As long as this hypothetical
interpretation does not explicitly deny anything that
Is there such a possibility?
+++ 152. The Print of the Other Hand Made Clear
+++
Well, let’s put on our thinking caps.
The “water” in 1 Peter 3:19-21a certainly lends itself
more easily to a literal and hence ‘water only’ interpretation.
Nevertheless, were we to be more metaphorical --- which is permissible since
this does not, automatically, explicitly deny what the Church has explicitly
taught --- then we could emphasize the apparent fact that Noe
and his family were not, strictly speaking, the sole people saved during the
Great Flood.
That is to say, yes, only Noe and
his family survived the Flood physically.
Howsoever, and as we demonstrated above in Chapter 144 of this
book, Baptismal Confusion, it is
logically clear from St. Peter’s words that at least some of the others
had enough time before they died, and enough good will, that they made acts of perfect
contrition for their terrible, terrible sins. As a result, they ended up in
the part of Hell which is temporary --- Purgatory. And there they stayed,
paying a long and horrific price for the immense temporal debt of their sins
until Jesus arrived, ushering them into the presence of the just souls in the
Limbo of the Fathers (also known as Abraham’s Bosom, Luke 16:22), where
He preached to all of them about the Catholic Faith, enabling them to enter
Heaven.
The point?
An act of perfect contrition is precisely what the
scholastic doctors have said is the saving efficacy of BOD. To wit, if unable
to get water baptism before you die, then an act of perfect contrition for your
mortal sins allows God to wipe out their eternal debt and consider you just in
His Holy Sight. This passage from 1 Peter could seem to illustrate that very
thing.
Indeed, since the number of souls saved invisibly via perfect contrition during the Flood would almost
surely be far more than the mere eight souls saved visibly within the Ark, a determined BODer
could even argue how this implies that far more people are saved in the state
of ‘desire’ for water baptism than are saved by the actual
application of the sacramental water itself!
Probable?
Not likely. Jesus did say that most souls go to Hell forever and
that only a “few” are saved. (Matthew 7:14c DRC. See Matthew 7:13-14
for the full context.) Therefore, how could tons more souls end up saved by a
‘desire’ for the water of baptism than are saved via the
application of the sacramental water, and the overall number saved still be
considered “few” in relation to the number of souls damned if
everyone, left and right, is getting into Heaven through BOD?
All the same, within the bounds of reason, the argument is somewhat
plausible. If BOD is true --- and being careful not to deny the need for
visible profession of the Catholic Religion whole & entire, which the
Church has solemnly & infallibly assured us is absolutely needed, and which
St. Thomas Aquinas himself upholds (see Chapters 56 & 129 again if you
doubt this, my dear reader) --- then, yes, it is possible to argue that more
souls are being saved by ‘desire’ for the water of baptism than are
being saved through the application of the sacramental water itself.
But remember what the real aim of this present chapter is. It is
not to vindicate the BOD side. It is simply to remind the WO side that their
position is not ‘infallible’ or ‘ironclad’ based solely
on some passages from Sacred Scripture.
Neither side can be vindicated solely from the Bible. This is
because the Bible is often difficult to understand and it takes someone interpreting
it correctly in order to know what it actually means.
As a result, only an adequately explicit &
solemnly infallible decree from the Supreme Authority of the Holy Roman
Catholic Church can resolve BOD vs. WO with an absolute finality.
Until then, both sides are crossing swords in a duel that cannot
ultimately be won by either side on its own. True, one side might die off and
go away. One side might faint with weakness. Or one side might, unexpectedly,
announce it now agrees with the other side and cease to fight.
It doesn’t matter; none of these events can end the argument
all by itself with ultimate finality.
Because none of these acts --- whether dying off, fainting,
giving up, or etc. --- are protected by the infallible charism of the
Holy Ghost. Ergo, the opposition wilting away or giving up is not
infallible proof that the other side is right. A person may choose to see giving up as
‘proof’ of that side being wrong… yet a personal opinion about why this defeat
happens is not guaranteed
infallibility either!
Thus, until a Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Church decides to
speak up clearly & explicitly about this topic, resolving disagreement for
good, then the topic is always open to theological dispute from anyone with
sufficient intelligence and learning to do so.
153. All Aboard!
+++ Mark 16:16 and the Trans-Gospel Express, Part
2 +++
Which is where we wind our way back to Mark 16:16.
Remember this passage, from the series of verses used by BODers, back in Chapter 137?
“And he [Jesus] said to them: ‘Go ye [all of you] into
the whole world and preach the gospel [the Catholic Faith] to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized
shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall he
condemned.’” (Mark 16:15-16 DRC, emphasis & annotations
added)
BOD partisans don’t refer to this verse nowadays on behalf of
their side. Notwithstanding, in the AD 1100s, St. Bernard of Clairvaux --- who was a believer in BOD, or, rather,
‘baptism of spirit’ (BOS) as it was called back then --- did cite
Mark 16:16 on behalf of his BOS stance.
And what, again, did he say?
“Notice also that, when the Savior said ‘whoever
believes and is baptized will be saved,’ He cautiously and alertly did not
repeat the phrase ‘who was not baptized,’ but only ‘whoever does not believe will be condemned.’
[Mark 16:16] This intimated [implied] that sometimes faith alone [a
catechumen professing the Catholic Faith alone without receiving the sacramental water of baptism before he
dies, not the heresy of
‘faith alone’ where people think they can get into Heaven without
any good works… St. Bernard was
most definitely not a
Protestant heretic way back in the 1100s, some 300 to 400 years prior to the
start of Protestantism in the 1500s!] would suffice for salvation, and that without it, nothing would be
sufficient.” (St. Bernard’s Letters, Letter 77,
Paragraph 9. All emphasis & annotations added in this and the next two
quotes.)
This quote shows us two things. First, Bernard did indeed believe
in BOD. And, second --- contrary to the Modernism dominant during our times
when people claim to be Catholic but say a person of sound mind can be saved in
the state of ‘ignorance’ about Roman Catholicism --- he truly did
believe that profession of the Catholic Faith is absolutely necessary for
salvation.
For what does he point out?
“This intimated [implied] that sometimes faith alone [the Catholic
Faith alone without water baptism, and not
the heresy of Protestant faith alone without good works!] would suffice for
salvation, and that without it, nothing would be sufficient.”
(Ibid.)
We repeat:
“…and that without it, nothing would be sufficient.” (Ibid.)
Bernard’s words reveal that the notion of ‘salvation in
the state of ignorance’ about Catholicism is a novelty of modern times,
an idea never taught by the doctors and fathers of old.
(Refer again to Chapters 56 & 129 to see that both Thomas
Aquinas and Alphonsus Liguori
denied that a man of adequate intelligence in the state of a supposed
‘invincible ignorance’ could save himself without knowing &
professing the Catholic Faith. A Catholicism that, they assured us, God would
make certain a good-willed man finds, whether through the testimony of another
human being or through the communication of a celestial angel.)
+++ 154. A Stumbling Block for Protestants +++
Yet enough about the salvation heresy of modern times. Because
we’re concerned primarily about the implications of Mark 16:16 for the
Sacrament of Baptism. And when I converted to the Catholic Faith, one former
colleague of mine wanted to argue the necessity of baptism.
You see, I cited Mark 16:16 along with three other biblical
passages to make it plain how baptism washes away sins and gains salvation. Mark
16:16 is especially easy and plain. After all, Jesus does say, “He that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved…”
(Mark 16:16a DRC, emphasis added)
How much clearer can it be?
This Protestant, though, in order to get around Jesus’ stark
words, turned to His very next words and argued that, since Jesus only mentions
‘not believing’ as condemning someone in the end, then baptism
doesn’t really count for anything and ‘belief’ is all that
matters. Or, to put it differently, baptism is a ‘works’ and
can’t save you --- ‘faith alone’ is what gets you into
Heaven.
Unanswerable?
No.
As I pointed out to my former colleague, it is Protestants who have
a problem with this verse… not Catholics. I mean, think about it. Jesus
said, plainly and straight out, “He that believeth and is baptized
shall be saved…” (Ibid.) Not, “He that believeth shall be
saved,” with not a word about baptism. (Mark 16:16a, Imaginary Protestant
Version)
So why did Jesus mention baptism
as saving a person, in conjunction with belief?
If Protestants and their ‘faith alone’ notion are
correct, then Jesus should never have talked about “baptism”
in connection with being “saved…”
Ever --- period!
And yet it’s in their bibles.
Meanwhile, Catholics don’t have a problem with Mark 16:16. We
don’t have to ignore Jesus’ stark words in Mark 16:16a just to
protect the fantasy of ‘faith alone’. We take Sacred Scripture at
face value. And when you do that, it becomes clear that Sacred Scripture
reveals both faith and works to be crucial to a
man’s salvation.
In other words, it’s not
just ‘faith’ or ‘belief’ all by itself that saves you.
Good works are important, too, together with
faith.
Shocking?
To a conservative Protestant, yes. To a person not wedded to the
manmade teachings of Protestantism, no. And the Bible is clear… it never
puts the word ‘alone’, ‘only’, ‘solely’, or
something similar, with the word ‘faith’ in its text. As a matter
of fact, James 2:24 says the exact opposite, bluntly contradicting the idea that faith without works can save
a person!
But what we want to focus on here right now is the reason for Jesus
mentioning belief with baptism in the first part of Mark 16:16, while
mentioning only belief without baptism in the second part of the verse.
Protestants want to think it’s because baptism doesn’t matter. And
yet, again, if this is the case, then why
does Jesus mention baptism at all to begin with in the first part, saying,
“He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved…”?
(Ibid.)
Their explanation makes no sense. They simply ignore His first
words into oblivion.
But do Catholics have a better explanation?
As a matter of fact, we do.
+++ 155. And Why Mark 16:16 Might Not
Actually Be +++
Evidence for BOD
As I explained to my former colleague, the Catholic Church teaches
that water baptism is how we begin our journey on the Path to Heaven. Through
the mighty graces God bestows upon this sacrament, we are made new creatures
and all our sins are wiped away. For the first time in our existence, we can
hope concretely for the salvation of our souls. Truly, as Jesus said to
Nicodemus:
“Amen, amen, I say to thee [you], unless a man be born again, he cannot see the
Yet how is this second birth accomplished?
The water of baptism. As Jesus also said to Nicodemus a couple of
verses later:
“Amen, amen, I say to thee [you], unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he
cannot enter into the
And just as a man cannot crawl back into the physical womb to be
born all over again the first time,
so a human being cannot return into the spiritual womb to born all over again
the second time --- that is to say,
there is no repeating the Sacrament of Baptism. Once you receive it
rightly, you are forbidden to do it again. To repeat your baptism is a
sacrilege and would be as ludicrous as a person trying to crawl back into his
mother’s womb to be born once more physically like he was the first time!
Such a thing is impossible and even disgusting.
Hence, a human being must be baptized rightly
only once.
Ah, but Jesus’ words in Mark 16:16 make it plain that baptism
is just one part of the whole equation for salvation. The other part is belief.
To wit, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved…”
(Mark 16:16a DRC)
Belief and baptism --- like two peas in a pod, they go together. It is what God has
designed us to do in order to save our souls.
Nevertheless, while baptism has to be done rightly only once
in your life, for a person with an
adequately intelligent mind, belief must be professed correctly every single
day onward from that moment of baptism, especially at death.
We repeat:
While you only have to be baptized rightly once in your life to start your
journey toward Heaven, to complete your journey unto salvation the person with
an adequately intelligent mind must believe rightly from that moment of baptism
onward every single day for the rest
of your life… and especially at the very end when you die!
Without this belief, you are condemned as an unbeliever --- and
regardless of your baptism.
Is it beginning to sink in, my dear reader?
This is why Jesus mentions both
belief and baptism in the first half of Mark 16:16, and why
He mentions only belief in the second half of Mark 16:16.
It is an explanation that is perfectly logical, perfectly plausible
and perfectly orthodox. It also solves the mystery of Jesus’ words about
belief & baptism in an utterly simple and natural way. There is no
straining or twisting of the verse’s words to try to make it all add up
correctly.
And, lo and behold, it solves the mystery without any reference to
‘baptism of desire’.
+++ 156. Some Factually Awry +++
Yet Well-Deserved Criticism
Some, though, will impugn me for suggesting that St. Bernard of Clairvaux might have been wrong in his interpretation of
Mark 16:16.
“Who do you think you are?” they will exclaim.
“Bernard was a saint and a doctor. You are neither! You’re not even
an official theologian, let alone a clergyman with any kind of jurisdiction.
How dare you disagree with the teaching of such a great man?”
To which I say:
“You’re right. I am no one important. I deserve to be
castigated. I am wicked, and I am ignorant. I have no holy orders and I
can’t tout an academic title of great significance when it comes to
theology. I am not equal to Bernard or to any other saint and doctor. I am the
least of human beings in this world. I can’t expect anyone to pay
attention to me, apart from their mockery.”
The thing about truth, however, is that it does not favor position
or status.
That is to say, a powerful man can know what is true, and a
powerless man can know what is true. Highly educated people can know something
is true, and uneducated people can, regardless of their lack of education, know
that this very same something is true. A rich woman is able to see the truth,
and a poor woman, despite her poverty, is also able to see the very same truth.
Highly respected people can know a thing is true, and much despised people can,
in spite of their greatly maligned reputation, know that this same thing is
true. Whatever someone might be in this world, anyone with a sound mind
can apply their mental powers and be able to recognize that a particular thing
is true.
Of course, it works the other way as well. Powerful, rich, educated
& respected persons can believe in a falsehood…
so can powerless, poor, uneducated & maligned persons, too. And, naturally,
a truly good and wise education will help everybody see the truth more easily or more often.
Nonetheless, anyone can see the truth,
and anyone can be fooled into
propagating a falsehood. The only man protected from the latter
possibility when teaching what was a previously undefined theological position
is a legitimate bishop of
We reiterate:
Only a legitimate Roman bishop (a real pope
of the Roman Catholic Church!) is guaranteed infallibility when he teaches a
previously undefined theological position --- and then only when he is clarifying something regarding faith
or morals for the benefit of the entire Church and speaking as this
One True Church’s supreme authority.
Again, please see Chapters 22, 52 & 84 in this book, Baptismal Confusion, if you are still
doubtful or confused about the exercise of the charism of infallibility, my
dear reader.
Hence, however much I deserve the mockery of others since I am a
wicked man and a poor messenger, the message that I carry --- the theological
opinion I present --- could nevertheless turn out to be true. And that
possibility, yea or nay, can only be determined, short of a papal definition,
by examining it carefully and thinking things through logically, staying within
the simple boundaries of a clear & explicit Catholic orthodoxy.
We say again:
However much I am a bad messenger --- someone
that everyone mocks and no one wants to listen to --- the message that I
carry could, nevertheless, turn out to be true. This possibility can
only be figured out, short of a papal definition, by examining the message carefully (no matter what your prejudices to
begin with) and thinking it through
logically (including the side of things you may already want to
believe is false before you investigate carefully!) while careful to stay loyal to the simple, clear,
common, explicit & unchanging infallible teachings of God’s One
& Only Roman Catholic Church.
Period.
That said, one more point needs to be made.
Namely, that I am not
necessarily suggesting that Bernard of Clairvaux was
wrong in his interpretation of Mark 16:16.
The wise scholar of Sacred Scripture knows there are often two or more
correct interpretations of a single passage in the Bible. Such could be the
case here. It could be that my Protestant-defying interpretation is perfectly
correct and that St. Bernard’s BOD-upholding interpretation is perfectly
correct, too, at the same time. The two different positions may not be mutually exclusive of one
another.
In which case, my message is merely that there may be at least one
other way to interpret Jesus’ words in the passage of Mark 16:16 rightly,
in addition to St. Bernard of Clairvaux’s way.
+++ 157. The Trans-Gospel Express Summed Up +++
The upshot?
Wherever someone falls in the debate --- whether upon the BOD side
or the WO side --- of this any real Catholic can be sure:
Baptism is necessary
for salvation.
How so?
Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved…” (Mark 16:16a DRC, emphasis added)
Indeed, this is why scholastic theologians, when teaching the BOD
opinion, nevertheless insisted that it does not
operate apart from the Sacrament of Baptism. That is to say, inasmuch as
so-called ‘baptism of desire’ works, it can work solely because it is connected to, and
thus contained within, the Sacrament of Baptism.
Which is why, too, Catholic theologians will sometimes claim --- or
at least often imply --- that the Sacrament of Baptism is a necessity of means,
and not just a necessity of precept.
Remember the distinction in theology between ‘means’
and ‘precept’?
A ‘necessity of precept’ is something you’re commanded
to do, but which, if truly impossible to obey, will not always make you lose the benefit of getting that thing
done. Whereas a ‘necessity of means’ is something you’re both
commanded to do and for which there is never
another option to getting it done… if you want the benefit, you
must fulfill the command.
Earliest Catholics thought water baptism was a necessity of means.
This is because Jesus never mentions any exceptions in the Gospels, and, for at
least the first one or two hundred years after the time of Christ, nobody in
His Roman Catholic Body ever dared to teach that there was an alternative
option to the waters of baptism.
Evidence of this is easy to see.
Recollect how members of St. Ambrose’s diocese responded to
the loss of Valentinian in AD 392, barely
three-and-a-half centuries after the time of Christ?
Per Ambrose, they were ‘disturbed’ and
‘grieved’ at the news of his death without water baptism. (St.
Ambrose’s Funeral Oratory for Valentinian II, Paragraphs 51 & 53.) A grief and disturbance that they could not have felt unless
Ambrose himself, during the previous twenty years that he had been their
bishop, had upheld water baptism as absolutely necessary. After all, Ambrose
did clearly assert in one of his books prior to the anguish over Valentinian “…for no one ascends
into the
You’ll also recall how
Ambrose said prior to Valentinian’s death:
“Therefore the three
witnesses in Baptism are one: the water, the blood, and the Spirit; for if you take
away one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist. For what is water without the cross of
Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor does the mystery of regeneration [water baptism] exist at
all without water…” (St. Ambrose’s On the Sacraments, Ch. 4, No. 4. All
emphases & annotation added.)
This is proof positive the opinion of BOD was not taught or held in common by Catholics of that ancient
era, and it even appears --- given the absolute strictness of his words --- as
if our saint and doctor rules out
the possibility of that other waterless option, ‘baptism of blood’,
too!
This is why the scholastic theologians adopted the explanation of
BOD that they did. They were serious, smart and well-read. They knew that the
most ancient of Catholics considered water baptism a necessity of means. Yet
they also knew that a few catechumens appeared to die without the baptismal
water, many of whom seemed to be sincere and of good will.
How to explain this dilemma?
Enter ‘baptism of desire’. Posit that BOD is not
separate from the Sacrament of Baptism, or an exception to the rule, but that
it is merely an extension of the sacrament and the rule… merely
another way that the Sacrament of Baptism works.
Hey, presto! You seem to have solved the problem.
But really you have not. Because now the question simply becomes:
Is the sacramental water a ‘necessity of
means’ or a ‘necessity of precept’?
And as we’ve noted before… what exactly is the Sacrament of Baptism when neither its
form (the words said during a baptism)
nor its matter (the water used to baptize) are actually present?
We say again:
What
is the Sacrament of Baptism without its water or its words?
As St. Ambrose said about the sacramental water prior to Valentinian’s vexing death:
“Nor does the mystery of regeneration
[water baptism] exist at all without water…” (Ibid.)
This is the mystery to be solved.
And the solution of the scholastic theologians --- that somehow a good
resolution, intent or desire to receive water baptism, allied with perfect
contrition of the heart for your sins, gets you the Sacrament of Baptism
without the water and the words --- is how Catholic theologians of the past 700
years can sometimes insist that the Sacrament of Baptism is a ‘necessity
of means’ while at the same time observing how the water of the Sacrament
of Baptism is not always necessary for a person to enter into Heaven.
As a result, the truly relevant question is as we have said above:
Is
the sacramental water a necessity of means or only a necessity of
precept?
That’s the crucial query
that has never yet been answered with an absolutely clear, inarguable and
explicit use of the Church’s Infallible Authority.
And yet that’s the one
thing we need in order to end this vicious debate.
+++ 158. The Tuas Libenter Fallback Position +++
The BOD camp is not quite
finished, however.
A few BOD aficionados admit that
the Catholic Church has never solemnly, infallibly & explicitly
upheld the ‘baptism of desire’ stance. Indeed, that, despite the
tantalizing potential hints, there is no blatantly explicit support for
BOD in the Councils of Trent or
Unfortunately, these few BODers then pretend none of this matters --- they claim that you still must agree
with BOD since everyone that matters has already stated that BOD is certainly
true.
Ergo, they insist, ‘baptism
of desire’ is an infallible teaching… and even though no pope has
ever clearly, explicitly & infallibly defined BOD or clearly, explicitly
& infallibly condemned the opposite. This is just the distinction between
the Ordinary Magisterium and the Extraordinary Magisterium brought into play as
a strategy to win a heated theological debate.
Remember the difference between
these two things?
We explained it in Chapter 121.
The gist of the explanation is
simply this:
Jesus & His Apostles gave us
the Deposit of Faith, explicitly teaching all of the common
dogmas we need to know and must profess in order to be Catholic in
the first place. This Deposit --- these common dogmas --- have been universally
taught both everywhere and everywhen
throughout the world since the first century. No pope or council needs to define it for us to be able to
recognize it as infallibly true… it has always been explicitly taught as necessary for our
salvation. Therefore, a solemn definition on behalf of any one of these dogmas
merely safeguards less wary souls against contrary teachings that are damnable
religious lies.
This is the Ordinary Magisterium.
Meanwhile, there are many things
in the Deposit of Faith that are not explicit. Not everyone during the first century was required to know
or profess that these implicit things are true. Nor is everyone since then necessarily required to know that
these things are true. Nevertheless, a pope or a council (with the pope’s
blessing of supreme authority, of course) will sometimes bring out these implicit
teachings and make them explicit at some point in time after the
first century. Such things are then necessary to know and profess if a Catholic is given a chance
to learn it, and if this
Catholic is in a situation where it is urgent for him to figure it out. The
Church by Her Supreme Authority makes these things infallibly certain…
but not every Roman Catholic
throughout the world since century one has to know them in order to save their precious souls.
This is the Extraordinary
Magisterium.
Why is this distinction important
to understand?
Because a few tenacious BODers invoke Pope Pius IX’s
Tuas libenter.
This is a letter the pope officially sent to Archbishop Scherr
of the Diocese of Munich, Germany, on December 21, 1863. The pope through this
letter warned Catholic theologians in Germany not to place modern scholarship
above the teachings or magisterial authority of the Church --- reminding them
how infallibility is not restricted to solemn definitions alone --- and BODers use it as a last ditch effort to cow WOers into their waterless fold.
“For even if it is a matter
of that subjection which must be given in the act of divine faith [even if
we’re simply talking about the obedience and belief which must be given
to the dogmas of the Catholic Faith in order to truly profess Catholicism], it must not be limited to those
things which have been defined by the express decrees of councils or of the
Roman pontiffs and of this apostolic see [the Extraordinary Magisterium], but must also be extended to those
things which are handed on by the ordinary magisterium of the whole church
dispersed throughout the world as divinely revealed [the Ordinary
Magisterium, natch], and therefore are held by the universal
and constant consensus [general agreement] of Catholic theologians to
pertain to the faith.” (Pope Pius IX’s
Tuas libenter,
Paragraph 5, as found quoted in the article, The Infallibility of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium: A Critique of
Some Recent Observations, by the theologian, Dr. Lawrence J. Welch, in the Heythrop Journal of January 1998, Volume 39, Issue 1, Pp.
23-24, and printed by Blackwell Publishers Ltd. in Oxford, UK, and in Boston,
MA. This in turn was a quote from a translation made by the theologian, Fr.
John P. Boyle, O.J., in an earlier Heythrop Journal
of October 1979, Volume 20, Issue 4, Pg. 397, as published by the same. PDF
file downloaded at www.docwelch.net/research/heythrop.pdf
on 25 July 2014. Emphases & annotations added.)
+++ 159. The Subtle But Serious Fallacy in Trying
to +++
Make Tuas Libenter Look Like It Supports BOD, Act 1
The clever and attentive reader knows
where the BOD camp is headed with this.
“Aha!” exclaims a BOD
enthusiast who is absolutely determined to believe that BOD is an
‘infallible’ doctrine. “Pius plainly says we are to profess
not only those teachings the Church has ‘defined by… express decrees…’.
We’re also required to profess those things taught to us by the
‘universal… consensus of Catholic theologians...’ (Ibid.) How
can the issue be any clearer? ‘Baptism of desire’ is obviously
taught by every theologian. No one of any training or importance in the Church
disagrees. This is a universal consensus! Case closed.”
And yet the case is not closed.
As we’ve noted before, most
BODers are not very learned or well-versed in the
rudiments of logic and good reasoning. Most of them probably don’t fully
understand the difference between the Ordinary Magisterium and the
Extraordinary Magisterium, which we have explained in Chapter 153 just above,
or in Chapter 121 further back in this book, Baptismal Confusion.
But even if they do fully
understand this distinction, they are so passionately devoted to BOD that they
will reach for any reasoning --- however flimsy or fallacious --- to make it
look like they have ‘proven’ their position as the infallible &
explicit stance of the Catholic Church.
How have they done this here?
Notice the quote from Pius IX in
the response above:
“…universal…
consensus of Catholic theologians…” (Ibid.)
This is their standard strategy
when wielding Tuas libenter,
meant to make it look like the fact that pretty much all Catholic theologians
have believed in so-called ‘baptism of desire’ since the time of
the scholastic doctors then means, as a result, that BOD cannot possibly be
false. That, indeed, because of this general acceptance since the 1300s, BOD
must be a divine revelation from Christ Himself to the Catholic Church and thus
an infallible dogma of the Ordinary Magisterium.
Impossible to rebut? Not at all.
Note carefully what Pius says altogether and not just the partial (or sometimes a rather
poorly translated) quote that clever BOD enthusiasts love to cite:
“…universal and
constant consensus of Catholic theologians…” (Ibid.,
all emphasis added here and in the next two quotes below)
Now, the word
“universal” means ‘general’
or ‘everyone’.
Nevertheless,
in the context of the Ordinary Magisterium, does the word
“universal” mean only ‘everyone everywhere’ or does it not also mean --- in reference to
all the teachings that are ordinarily infallible but not
extraordinarily defined --- ‘everyone everywhen’?
It’s amazing how people
overlook this simple, logical point. Because the answer is staring them right
in the face:
Namely, no, the word “universal” --- as applied to
infallible teachings that have never been solemnly and extraordinarily defined
--- cannot merely mean
‘everyone everywhere’.
It must mean ‘everyone
everywhen’
in addition to ‘everyone everywhere!
After all, can we just make up
anything and say it’s ‘dogma’?
Of course not.
Christ & His Apostles gave us
the Deposit of Faith during the first century. The explicit teachings of this Deposit are the source of the
Ordinary Magisterium, teaching us everything any person of sound mind needs to
know in order to be Catholic to begin with and thus have a chance to save his
immortal soul. No one of an adequate mind can fail to fully know it (under
normal circumstances) or dare to deny a single bit of it (in any circumstances)
and enter Heaven.
Period.
+++ 160. The Subtle But Serious Fallacy in Trying
to +++
Make Tuas Libenter Look Like It Supports BOD, Act 2
The fuller quote from Tuas libenter
drives this truth home:
“…universal and
constant consensus of Catholic theologians…”
The word “constant”
means ‘ongoing’, a thing unbroken and continuous since the beginning
of the Catholic Church. Such is the case with the Deposit of Faith; such is the
case with the Ordinary Magisterium.
These explicit teachings in the Deposit of Faith are those dogmas
taught infallibly both everywhere and
everywhen. It’s why the Four
Marks of the Church (One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic) include not just Catholicity
but also Apostolicity. To wit, these common and ordinary dogmas are not
simply taught to us everywhere
the Catholic Religion has spread (it’s
Catholic because it’s everywhere
the same throughout the whole world), but are taught to us everywhen the Catholic Religion
has spread (it’s Apostolic
because it’s everywhen
the same since the beginning in the first century with Jesus & His
Apostles).
Do you comprehend?
The ordinary, common dogmas of
the Catholic Faith do not
change, my dear reader. They are the same not only in every place throughout
the world, but also the same in
every time since the beginning. And if they’re infallibly
true all the way back in the first century with Jesus and His disciples, then
they’re infallibly true right now during the 21st century with
us. Were any religious teaching not true, either then or now, then that
teaching is not infallible.
And yet everything taught to us explicitly back in the first century as
part of the Deposit of Faith is without doubt infallible. This is the Ordinary
Magisterium, the ordinary way we as Catholics can know our infallible
religion. Anything made explicit since
then --- but which was only a teaching that was implicit in the Deposit of Faith during the first century --- is
the Extraordinary Magisterium, the extraordinary way we as
Catholics can know our infallible religion.
This is brass tacks basics, my
dear reader. The point?
The ‘baptism of
desire’ camp fails to admit this lack of apostolic constancy
when claiming --- wrongly --- that BOD is a part of the Ordinary Magisterium
because of a (seemingly) unanimous agreement of priests and theologians about
BOD in the past 700 years.
They are either ignorant of the
fact that BOD is not a constant and explicit teaching of the Church from
the beginning with Christ & His Apostles, or else, aware of the fact, play
dirty and pretend that universal acceptance of BOD since the 1300s means
BOD somehow magically became part of the Ordinary Magisterium during the second
millennium even without this teaching constantly & explicitly
taught since apostolic times or solemnly defined later on.
+++ 161. The Subtle But Serious Fallacy in Trying
to +++
Make Tuas Libenter Look Like It Supports BOD, Act 3
Is it fair to conduct an
intelligent debate in this way?
Absolutely not.
Unfortunately, their attempt does
not end there. The Tuas libenter crowd
has another card to play up its collective sleeve. For they quote as well where
Pius the Ninth says:
“But, since it is a matter
of that subjection [obedience] by which in conscience all those Catholics are
bound [constrained] who work in the speculative sciences [theoretical
scientists whose ideas are based, at least in part, on tacit assumptions, and
thus can never reproduce all their claims in a controlled setting and so
completely ‘prove’ them --- for instance, geologists who deal with
ancient rocks that they want to believe are millions or billions of years old
based on assumptions about radioactive decay or sequences of strata], in order
that they may bring new advantages to the Church by their writings, on that
account [for that reason], then, the men
of that same convention [these same types of theoretical scientists who are
Catholic] should recognize that it is not
sufficient [that it’s not enough]
for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church [those
teachings of the Church that are infallible because they come from either the
Ordinary or Extraordinary Magisterium],
but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to [necessary
for them to obey] the decisions
pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations [various
offices in the Vatican who are composed of men under the authority of the Pope,
but who do not themselves exercise the Pope’s infallible authority], and
also to those forms [types] of doctrine which are held by the common
and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so
certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrines, although
they cannot be heretical [so sure of these theological conclusions that any
opinion opposed to them, while not heretical], nevertheless deserve some
theological censure [condemnation].” (Pope Pius IX’s Tuas libenter, Paragraph 6, as found in the 30th
Edition of the Enchiridion Symbolorum by Denziger & Bannwart, S.J.,
which was translated by Roy J. Deferrari and
published originally by Herder & Co. in 1954 at Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany, but, in
later publications, is based on a further revision by Karl Rahner,
S.J. and published more recently by Loreto Publications in Fitzwilliam, NH.
Quote as derived from the section regarding the documents of Pope Pius IX,
Paragraph 1684. All emphasis & annotations added.)
Are you paying close attention to
what you have just read, my dear reader?
And do you understand the
implications?
BODers
who wield Tuas libenter want
you to think that… while it isn’t ‘heretical’ to
disbelieve in BOD or to uphold WO… you
are nevertheless quite wickedly rebellious to disagree with the
‘baptism of desire’ opinion that has been dominant for the past 700
years, and to be censured and reprimanded for daring to assert the less
common ‘water only’ stance!
+++ 162. The Subtle But Serious Fallacy in Trying
to +++
Make Tuas Libenter Look Like It Supports BOD, Act 4
Unanswerable?
Not by a long shot.
Look at what the BOD camp is conceding
by resorting to this last argument:
Namely, that, since it is most
assuredly not heretical to
believe in ‘water only’, then, as an utterly ironclad and
inescapable logical conclusion, BOD can’t
possibly as of yet be an explicitly and infallibly defined dogma!
Period.
Because you can’t have it
both ways, my dear soul. The BOD camp can’t have its cake and eat it,
too. Either BOD is an
infallible & explicit teaching and hence WO is a heresy, or else BOD is not an infallible & explicit teaching and hence WO is not a heresy.
Case closed.
After all, what does Pius IX
actually say?
“…[I]t is also
necessary to subject themselves to [necessary for them to obey]… those
forms [types] of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent
of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions
opposed to these same forms of doctrines, although they cannot be heretical [so
sure of these theological conclusions that any opinion opposed to them, while
not heretical], nevertheless deserve some theological censure
[condemnation].” (Ibid., emphases & annotations added)
We reiterate:
“…although they cannot be
heretical…” (Ibid.)
Here Pius IX makes a somewhat
mysterious and vague reference to teachings that are “common and
constant” amongst Catholics, but which, apparently, are not quite part of
the Ordinary Magisterium and thus infallible.
I would guess that this
distinction of his is probably accurately applied to something like the notion of
the Limbo of the Babes --- a belief that is, seemingly, not quite explicitly
upheld since the first century amongst all Catholics, but which is, just as
seemingly, pretty much believed and taught in its essence amongst most, if not
all, Catholics, since earliest times, being a natural logical consequence of
those teachings that are both explicit and infallible from the very start.
Hence, denial of the Limbo of the Babes would be, if not quite heretical all by
itself, certainly worthy of strong theological censure.
Or, for instance, the teaching of
Darwinistic evolution.
For while this modern notion of
how everything came to exist doesn’t directly deny creation by the Triune
Catholic God, necessarily --- and whereas later Catholic leaders of the 20th
century seemed to get quite cozy with Darwinism, intellectually speaking --- it
certainly does logically call into question the Dogma of Original Sin. After
all, if Darwin teaches that our universe is both steeped in and founded upon
bloodshed, violence, pain and mortality as a part of everyday existence since
life began on this world due to a competition for resources and the so-called
‘survival of the fittest’, then exactly how is the commission of
original sin by Adam & Eve supposed to have ushered in the punishment of
death & suffering for the very first time?
Meanwhile, we have shown
repeatedly that the theological opinion of BOD was not taught
universally all the way back to the time of Christ & His Apostles during
the very first century. Hence, BOD is most definitely not a “constant” teaching in the Church, either
in the ordinary magisterial sense or in the broader, somewhat less crucial,
sense that Pius IX apparently applies in the example just above. To the
contrary, BOD was never taught at the beginning, this opinion only
inarguably asserted in a truncated version of its present form with
Consequently, BOD cannot be
directly relevant to what Pope Pius IX was saying in the latter part of the
quote that we have just focused on four to six paragraphs above.
Cannot!
+++ 163. The Subtle But Serious Fallacy in Trying
to +++
Make Tuas Libenter Look Like It Supports BOD, Act 5
Indeed, at this juncture, one
thing alone remains for the BOD partisan to argue.
“…[I]t is also
necessary to subject themselves to [necessary for them to obey] the decisions pertaining to doctrine
which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations [various offices in
the Vatican composed of men under the authority of the Pope, but who do not
themselves exercise the Pope’s infallible authority]…”
(Ibid., emphases & annotations added)
Namely, Pius IX also mentioned
how we should submit ourselves to the doctrinal decisions put forth by the
Pontifical Congregations --- those men who, although they are not the pope and thus not wielding his supreme or
infallible authority, notwithstanding, do indeed operate with a pope’s delegated authority (albeit not supreme or infallible!) from
the Vatican in Rome.
The implication?
BODers want you to
think that a Pontifical Congregation in the
Mind you, I have never yet found such a ruling from
a Pontifical Congregation that is explicitly against the ‘water
only’ position.
For a good reason, too.
Because if the BOD stance has
dominated for the last 700 years --- especially since the 1400s --- then how
likely is it that a Pontifical Congregation felt compelled to defend a fallible
doctrine that nobody has dared to doubt until very recently in a significant
way? And if such a ruling against WO exists regardless, then why hasn’t
an educated and persistent BODer found this decision
and trumpeted it loudly for everyone else to see?
As far as I’m able to tell
thus far, there is only one time that BOD came close to being officially,
publicly & explicitly addressed by someone in the
We dealt with this in Chapter 20
of Baptismal Confusion, you’ll
remember.
Is this papal document relevant?
Yes and no.
Yes, because it does seem to
address the core teaching of BOD, which is that perfect contrition for your
mortal sins does remit those
mortal sins, including original sin, even before
water baptism is administered.
And yet, no, because BOD is not mentioned explicitly by name
in this papal document, and the document itself, although chiding Michel du Bay
in general, does not condemn
any particular proposition in Ex
omnibus afflictionibus specifically
with an indisputable intent, least of all BOD by name, and even allows for the
chance that some of these propositions, at a bare minimum, could be true if understood rightly.
But, of course, isn’t the
apparent support --- even if only implied and not by name or with specific
intent --- of the core teaching of BOD about perfect contrition, then, at
least, the equivalent to a decision
from a Pontifical Congregation against WO?
And here we must entertain the possibility
that a Pontifical Congregation has rendered an explicit decision against the WO
position. For I do not have nearly enough time to pore through untold thousands
upon thousands of documents issued from the Vatican during the last eight
centuries, nor is everything yet easily available for everyone to peruse,
especially when it comes to decisions issued more than a hundred years ago.
Ergo, it is possible such
a fallible yet still very authoritative document exists. And, in any case, the
words from Pius V against Michel du Bay are close to being the equivalent to
such a thing.
End of sentence?
+++ 164. The Subtle But Serious Fallacy in Trying
to +++
Make Tuas Libenter Look Like It Supports BOD, Act 6
Not quite.
To be intelligent and just, we
have to ask ourselves just what it was that Pius IX was warning against in Tuas libenter.
Did it have anything to do with
‘baptism of desire’ or ‘water only’?
Hardly.
And no one who is educated or
honest can pretend otherwise.
Neither BOD nor WO were contested
publicly at this time, and certainly not by men of “speculative
science” as Pius the Ninth put it --- i.e., scientists and their
theories, as we would call it nowadays.
Pius wrote to Archbishop Scherr regarding German theologians, around half of whom
employed the new ‘historical’ approach to theology then coming into
vogue. This was in contrast to the more ‘scholastic’ method used
for the previous half millennium. These theologians had just gotten together
for a conference that had been neither called for, nor approved by, ecclesial
authority. Nonetheless, they seemed to be sincere. They seemed to be trying to
present a united front toward non-Catholic scholarship, which was attacking the
teachings of the Church left and right. Everyone back then was caught in a
tidal wave of Modernism sweeping through academia. No intellectual during this
era of the mid-1800s could escape the shocks, challenges, pressures and
temptations coming like a neverending flood of the
‘latest ideas’ from modern thinkers.
At first Pius IX heard good
things about this conference, belying his misgivings. But then his nuncio gave
a detailed report and his worst fears were confirmed. The leading theologian
involved --- a certain Ignaz Döllinger, who
later split from the Church over the solemn definition of papal infallibility
at the Vatican Council in 1869 to 1870 --- had denounced censures from the
Roman Curia (i.e., from Pontifical Congregations), and appeared to assert a
kind of supreme academic leadership for German theology. The conference also
issued a resolution saying infallibility was limited to those teachings the
Church has defined explicitly (to wit, the Extraordinary Magisterium and
nothing else).
Dear reader, is it beginning to
dawn on you?
Are you starting to see what the
pope was aiming for in Tuas libenter?
This is why Pius drove home the
infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium in addition to the infallibility of
the Extraordinary Magisterium.
And it is why, in light of Herr Döllinger’s
defiance of the Roman Curia --- the men under a pope with delegated authority
to oversee the Church as part of various Pontifical Congregations --- Pius
upheld the need to obey doctrinal decrees coming from a Congregation at the
For what were Ignaz
Döllinger
and many of his fellow German theologians doing?
Not only discounting infallible teachings
that were part of the Ordinary Magisterium while not yet part of the
Extraordinary Magisterium, but, in addition to this, embracing modernist ideas
that were destructive of (or at least dangerous to) Catholic theology and
which, perhaps, the Successor to Peter had never yet gotten around to
chastising, but which a Pontifical Congregation either had addressed or
probably would address, and which the most prominent German theologian of the
time (Döllinger)
had said they didn’t need to pay attention to!
+++ 165. The Tuas libenter BOD Strategy: +++
the Dénouement, With a Sober Warning to
the BOD Camp
This is the milieu in which Tuas libenter was
written. This is what Pius’ letter to Archbishop Scherr
in 1863 was all about. It has nothing
directly to do with ‘baptism of desire’.
Moreover --- and ironically so,
given the role that the issue of infallibility played at this conference of
German theologians, and given that Döllinger split from the Church after the
Vatican Council because of its definition of papal infallibility --- Tuas libenter is not an exercise of the Roman
Bishop’s infallibility. Hence, even if it did say something directly and
explicitly about BOD, it would not
be the absolute final word and thus irreformable.
All the same, we cannot be wise
Catholics and lightly discard what Pius the Ninth says.
Because, yes, normally, a good
Catholic should obey what the
Roman Curia decrees. Just because it isn’t coming from the pope
personally or carrying the aura of solemn infallibility, doesn’t then mean that a Pontifical Congregation at
the
Far from it!
And, yes, if a decision from the
Roman Curia were to turn up that seems to explicitly uphold BOD or explicitly
denounce WO, then this decision would be still more strong evidence for the BOD
position… and a heavy tick against the side for ‘water only’.
This, indeed, is what Pius the Fifth’s (Fifth’s, not
Ninth’s!) stance against the French theologian in Ex omnibus afflictionibus appears to amount to with Propositions
31 & 33 near the end of the 16th century. For even if it
doesn’t explicitly mention BOD (‘baptism of desire’) or BOS
(‘baptism of spirit’), not to mention WO (‘water
only’), and even if it doesn’t make clear which propositions can be
understood in a ‘proper’ sense and how much any particular
proposition is opposed by the Successor to Peter in its ‘improper’
sense, it’s plain Michel de Buy wasn’t in favor with Pope Pius V,
and that this theologian seemed to challenge the pith of BOD with his apparent
denial of the teaching, commonly believed during the 2nd millennium,
that perfect contrition can remit a person’s mortal sins ---
including the mortal sin of original sin that we’re all conceived into,
apart from Jesus & Mary --- prior to the reception of the
sacramental waters of baptism.
So, yes, a decision from a Vatican
Office for BOD or against WO that later turns up --- or, for that matter, Pius
V’s dissing of Michel de Buy in the late 1500s
--- would appear to be rather significant support for the BOD
aficionado’s position.
Nevertheless, an impossible-to-dispute
support?
Or ‘proof’ that no doctrinal
evidence or valid logic exists for WO, too?
Or reason to call WOers ‘rebellious’ merely because they dare to
argue for the ‘water only’ opinion… a stance that does not deny any explicit and infallible
doctrine whether ordinary or extraordinary, and which, apparently, no decree of the Vatican has ever yet
explicitly censured?
Such an assertion goes too far.
Remember, we’re talking about
the BOD enthusiast’s last ditch effort when it comes to papal
documentation. He uses Pius IX’s words in Tuas libenter as
if they mean BOD has become ‘infallible’ just because it became the
majority opinion of Catholic theologians by the AD 1300s… which is a blatant falsehood and
misrepresents the Ordinary Magisterium.
Consequently, the BODer then tweaks his ploy and implies that a Pontifical
Congregation has censured the WO theological opinion. And even though this is
as much as admitting that WO has never
yet been explicitly condemned with infallible authority, and even
though no one has ever yet ---
to my knowledge --- produced a Vatican decree clearly opposing ‘water
only’.
Ever, period!
Which is why, then, I warn the
BOD crowd:
Don’t do this.
Pretending
WO is ‘heretical’ or ‘rebellious’ is schismatic.
And schism is an objectively mortal sin that rips apart and destroys the
life of Christ’s One & Only
Catholic Body, a sin just as objectively mortal as a heresy that
tears to shreds and destroys the life of Christ’s
One & Only Catholic Mind.
+++ 166. St. Catherine of
One last thing.
We’ve gone through just
about every argument the BODers can throw at
‘water only’ concerning infallible teachings, papal documentation,
ecclesial history, the martyrology, biblical verses,
etc., etc. However, there is one small item a ‘baptism of desire’
aficionado occasionally brings up.
To wit, St. Catherine of
Siena’s words regarding BOD in her book, The Dialogue.
“I also showed the baptism of
love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood
[BOB], shed for Me, which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism [water
baptism], and also in those who are
baptized in fire [BOD], not
being able to have Holy Baptism [water baptism], but desiring it
with the affection of love.” (St. Catherine of
St. Catherine was born in the
city of
It was then that she gained
devoted admirers and followers. It was then, too, that some of them became her secretaries.
Aside from correspondence with rulers, popes, or the like, she dictated to them
The Dialogue, which reads like an
extended conversation between her and God the Father.
Part of this conversation regards
BOD in the quote above, described as a ‘baptism of fire’ (a description rooted in Acts 2:1-4 where we
read about the Holy Ghost coming down from Heaven upon the heads of the
disciples in Jerusalem the morning of Pentecost like flames of fire).
What are we to make of this
testimony?
+++ 167. Catherine’s Testimony Is Good
Evidence +++
for BOD --- But Not Authoritative & Final
Right off the bat we have to
admit the obvious:
It’s actually pretty good
evidence for BOD.
I mean, think about it. Catherine
of Siena is a canonized saint. We certainly can’t suspect her of
deliberately lying. Too, a perusal of her words reveals her to be very
intelligent and infused supernaturally with the grace of wisdom. Hence, how
likely is it that she got mixed up or confused about what God told her?
It would seem to be improbable.
Nevertheless, impossible?
No, indeed.
And why is that?
Because a saint is not guaranteed infallibility.
Nor is the scribe
who took down her words guaranteed to be infallible, so that we also have to consider
the possibility --- however unlikely we may want to think it --- that the
secretary recording her words at this point got them accidentally mistaken in
this passage.
Or that this secretary purposely
(and, perhaps, with a perfectly good intention) changed her words to reflect his own theological training
about BOD.
Of course, from a merely human
perspective, do I think these last two scenarios probable?
Not really.
All the same, without the
heavenly guarantee of infallibility, it’s possible.
Period.
The upshot?
Again, St. Catherine of
But the final incontestable word
on BOD?
Absolutely not.
Because the theological opinion
of BOD held in its acceptable and orthodox sense --- as applied to good-willed
catechumens who, supposedly, happen to die before they can receive water
baptism --- is not beyond rational contesting.
And it is not beyond rational
contesting because it was never an explicit part of the Deposit of Faith
given to us by Christ & His Apostles back in the first century. Ergo,
granted that a sincere and intelligent Catholic has serious rational doubts
about BOD, not to mention serious and rational points in favor of WO, then the
subject most definitely is
theologically contestable.
The only way it could ever get
put beyond rational debate is if a future pope, while exercising his supreme
power as the Visible Head of Christ’s One & Only Roman Catholic Body,
very clearly rules for BOD and against WO under the protection of his charism
of infallibility.
+++ 168. One Last Thought +++
One last thought.
For just as Ss. Bernard of Clairvaux and Thomas Aquinas mistakenly opined against the
Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary (instead believing Her to have
been, at some instant after Her Conception
but before Her Birth, miraculously
and wholly sanctified by the Holy Ghost), so, too, it would seem that St.
Catherine of Siena made the same mistake.
This is not, indeed, stated
anywhere in her book, The Dialogue.
To my knowledge, it is not stated anywhere in any writings existing today that
purport to come from her.
However, there was an account of
her having, apparently, given an opinion against belief in the Immaculate
Conception.
“There is also a revelation
attributed to S. Catherine of Sienna,
that the Blessed Virgin was conceived
in original sin, and which is mentioned by S. Antoninus.”
(Pope Benedict XIV’s Heroic Virtue, Vol. 3: a Portion of the Treatise of Benedict XIV on the
Beatification and Canonization of the Servants of God, Pg. 400. Published
in 1852 by Thomas Richardson & Son from London in the United Kingdom, as
translated into English from the original Latin that Benedict XIV composed
during the 18th century at some point prior to 1758. Found online at
https://archive.org/stream/heroicvirtue03beneuoft/heroicvirtue03beneuoft_djvu.txt
as of 15 December 2014. Emphases added.)
As far as I can tell, this is the
only source easily available to most people in our part of the world to examine
nowadays --- and I stress how “easily” is a relative term, it still
being difficult to find and even though we have the Internet --- which refers
to this “revelation” that St. Catherine apparently had concerning
Queen Mary’s Conception. What’s more, Benedict the Fourteenth cites
a canonized saint, Antoninus (who lived from 1389 to
1459, right after Catherine died), as an earlier source for this account.
Now a saint is not to be blithely
discounted.
All the same, St. Antoninus could not have gotten his account directly
from Catherine in the flesh during her lifetime, who died in 1380 a mere nine
years prior to Antoninus’ birth. And the
author of Heroic Virtue, Pope
Benedict XIV, mentioned, as well, certain eminent persons who doubted the
accuracy of this account.
“But as there is no trace
of that revelation among the visions and revelations of S. Catherine, collected
by the Blessed Raymund of Capua, there arises no
slight suspicion, that this has been added to them, and is therefore to be
accounted apocryphal [doubtful], as is shown at length by Cardinal Gotti, and Martin del Rio.” (Ibid. Annotation added.)
Still, this account of
Catherine’s “revelation” had to have come from somewhere.
Who first originated it --- and
why?
At any rate, St. Antoninus having lived right on the heels of St.
Catherine’s life, this account therefore must have existed very soon
after her death in 1380.
Which then makes the account seem
a little more plausible.
Indeed, not just plausible but ---
and whether or not the account of her having this revelation is actually true
--- pointing to the fact that we can be virtually certain Catherine did not believe the Blessed Virgin
was without sin from Her Conception.
Remember… St. Catherine was
a Dominican.
And the Dominicans, for two or
three centuries, followed the lead of their premiere theologian, St. Thomas
Aquinas, who eventually had opined quite decisively that, while Mary was sanctified
from every sin, this sanctification only occurred at some point in time after Her Conception yet before Her Birth. (My dear reader,
please refer again to Chapter 46 in this book, Baptismal Confusion, if you have forgotten, or are antagonistic
toward, the historical fact of Thomas Aquinas’ mistaken opposition to the
teaching of Mary’s Immaculate Conception.)
Leading to the very odd situation
where the Dominicans, who had
an unparalleled reputation for honoring the Blessed Virgin Mary and promoting
Her Most Holy Rosary, notwithstanding, were
the most staunch opponents of the teaching of the Immaculate Conception
prior to its clear, solemn and infallible definition in 1854.
In fact, what is doubly odd is
that the Dominicans were, at least a few of them, the most staunch opponents of
the Aristotelian-based theology of their fellow Dominican, Thomas Aquinas, that
existed after his death --- until his canonization in 1323 seemed to put his
teaching beyond pious dispute. (Please refer to Chapter 44 in this book, Baptismal Confusion, if you doubt or
have forgotten the historical fact of heated dispute over Aquinas’
teachings, my dear reader.) And yet this Thomas, who some of them had not
liked, is the very same Thomas whose opinion about the Blessed Virgin’s
Conception they then as a whole doggedly upheld for centuries till the tide of
contrary theological opinion grew so strong that three successive popes during
the 1600s essentially cut off any further public debate in the matter for all
Catholics, period.
+++ 169. One Last Thought, Part 2 +++
Rather bizarre?
Almost.
Nevertheless, we find that this
is what God will sometimes allow members of His Catholic Body to undergo on
earth in order to test and refine them. That is to say, disagreements and
battles of the intellect --- even regarding matters of theology --- are often
how he afflicts His servants in order to purify them or humble them.
In any case, what this foray into
sanctoral history leaves us realizing is that
Catherine --- who was an earnest and obedient Dominican --- would certainly never go against the authoritative
stance and dominant teaching of her religious order, during the 1300s, without
the weight of an even higher authority or more widely dominant teaching
standing squarely behind her. At her death in 1380, the correct theological
opinion about Queen Mary’s Conception had not yet come to hold sway. At a
bare minimum, within her religious order, St. Thomas Aquinas’ incorrect
position regarding the circumstances of Her Sanctity was still unquestioned.
Ergo,
how in the world could we expect St. Catherine to have held the correct
theological opinion at this moment in time?
It isn’t likely…
although Benedict XIV, in putting together his book, Heroic Virtue, nearly four centuries later during the 1700s,
probably wanted to spare Catherine’s reputation from any stain of
reproach, or, perhaps, simply did not realize how implausible it was for her to
have contradicted what was then the universally accepted teaching amongst
Dominicans.
The outcome?
Once again we see a simple truth demonstrated.
Namely, that a canonized saint
--- no matter how holy or revered --- cannot substitute for an explicit &
infallible teaching of the Church.
We repeat:
The
theological stance of a canonized saint, when it comes to a teaching not yet
infallibly taught in a clear way to the Catholic Church as a whole, can never, never, never fully substitute
for such an explicit and infallible doctrine.
Never!
And why, again, would that be?
Because a saint
who is not a pope does not exercise the charism of infallibility.
Ergo, while this saint’s
theological opinion can be counted as strong evidence for a particular
position, it cannot solve the
debate with finality, and a Catholic who takes the contrary position with
intelligence and respectfulness --- being cautious to stay within the bounds of
orthodoxy, especially doctrines taught both simply and clearly from the very
first century --- cannot be
faulted merely because he dares to disagree with that saint’s vaunted
opinion.
Cannot!
End of sentence.
Which doesn’t mean the
saint is wrong. Indeed, if I were a betting man, I would usually gamble on the canonized saint’s theological opinion
when a fallible teaching is disputed.
But every single
time?
Not necessarily.
Because, once in
a while, saints can hold the incorrect position regarding fallible
matters.
And the debate over the
Immaculate Conception is an amazing example of this.
Case closed.
+
+ +
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 Five of Baptismal Confusion (Chapters 106-132)
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.