As concerns the theory of baptism of blood and desire, It is a dogmatic fact that the only allowable exceptions to an ex cathedra dogma are those doctrines that (i) were previously defined by an ex cathedra decree or (ii) taught by a unanimous consensus of popes or Church Fathers. In other words, the only exceptions to a dogma are those teachings that previously existed in the Extraordinary Magisterium or were always part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.
This fact alone, all by itself, is enough to end the debate forever. I could immediately end this proof right here, because with the dogmatic fact that the only allowable exceptions to an ex cathedra decree are previously defined as dogmas or teachings promulgated by a unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers, "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" heretics have no ground to stand on. They have no means or argument for inserting their man-made teachings into the Church's infallible and irreformable dogmas. Neither "baptism of desire" nor "baptism of blood" belong to the Extraordinary or the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, and therefore, they cannot be exceptions to the following dogmatic decrees. In other words, they are heresies, non-allowable opinions which contradict multiple infallible Magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church.
This fact alone, all by itself, is enough to end the debate forever. I could immediately end this proof right here, because with the dogmatic fact that the only allowable exceptions to an ex cathedra decree are previously defined as dogmas or teachings promulgated by a unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers, "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" heretics have no ground to stand on. They have no means or argument for inserting their man-made teachings into the Church's infallible and irreformable dogmas. Neither "baptism of desire" nor "baptism of blood" belong to the Extraordinary or the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, and therefore, they cannot be exceptions to the following dogmatic decrees. In other words, they are heresies, non-allowable opinions which contradict multiple infallible Magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church.
**
From this point, WCM will provide a selection of quotes with which he wishes to demonstrate the 'proof' that Baptism of Desire and Blood are purely heretical concepts. I find it mildly amusing that none of these quote come forth and blatantly say that BoD/BoB are condemned. In fact, it's even more amusing when one considers the quotes are taken after 1274, when the 'Summa Theologica' was finished. It is quite likely the Popes and Magisterium, after this date, had a knowledge of Thomas' view and theology.
**
Pope Pope ClementV, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312, ex cathedra: "Besides, one baptism which regenerates all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as 'one God and one faith' [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be commonly the perfect remedy for salvation for adults as for children."
**
There is but one Baptism into Christ, yet there are three forms. Let us assume that, for the moment, Thomas Aquinas is correct. He states...
Objection 1. It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Ephesians 4:5): "One Faith, one Baptism." Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.
Reply to Objection 1. The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.
If the Angelic Doctor is accurate in his Summa Theologica, to separate the baptisms would be error. It flows along the same lines as the Trinity, in that there are 3, yet they are one.
**
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: "But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains."
**
This does not address the issue of BoD/BoB whatsoever, as they would be a removal of all Mortal and Original Sin
Objection 1. It seems that not all sins are taken away by Baptism. For Baptism is a spiritual regeneration, which corresponds to carnal generation. But by carnal generation man contracts none but original sin. Therefore none but original sin is taken away by Baptism.
Reply to Objection 1. As the Apostle says (Romans 5:15-16), the sin of Adam was not so far-reaching as the gift of Christ, which is bestowed in Baptism: "for judgment was by one unto condemnation; but grace is of many offenses, unto justification." Wherefore Augustine says in his book on Infant Baptism (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i), that "in carnal generation, original sin alone is contracted; but when we are born again of the Spirit, not only original sin but also wilful sin is forgiven."
**
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Exultate Deo", Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: "Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, 'unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,' as the Truth says, 'enter into the kingdom of heaven' [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water."
**
I find no difficulty in the above quote. Perhaps if we were to nitpick and consider "The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.", we could find reason to say that BoD/BoB is impossible, as they do not possess part of the valid matter required for baptism, that is, water. However, again, this poses no problem if we realize that BoD/BoB are part of Baptism of Water, as stated above. The effect of Baptism of Water can be supplied by a true BoD/BoB.
**
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441, ex cathedra: "The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; ... and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
**
To be quite blunt, I'm not sure how to address this. Not because it causes a difficulty in accepting BoD/BoB, but because I can find no translation of this particular passage outside of the material provided by MHFM.
I can find the document easy enough.
http://catholicism.org/cantate-domino.html
It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
I would offer the following.
'It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock;'
Joined to the Church = Enter into the flock. However, one is joined to the church through a Valid Baptism, which requires 3 things.
For Baptism to be valid it must be administered with the proper 1) form; 2) matter, and 3) intention. Unless we can prove that BoD/BoB are invalid, as has yet to be done, we can not state with certainty that a Valid BoD/BoB prior to the death and judgment of any individual is impossible.
'and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.'
To which I respond...
'...unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.'
'...unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.'
Only those who have entered into the church can 'persevere' or 'remain' in her bosom. These two verbs clearly relate to having been part of the Church and then leaving. Earlier in the quote..
'and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation'
Again, 'remaining' is used. I am not so foolish as to think that the Scholars of Florence would be so careless as to allow such grammar to be used if it was without purpose.
**
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, "Decree on Justification", Ch. 5-7, 1565, ex cathedra: "People are disposed for that justice when, by that repentance ... they are proposing to receive baptism ... This disposition and preparation precede [do not result in] the actual justification ... The causes of this justification are: ... the instrumental cause, the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which justification comes to no one. ... Consequently, in the process of justification, ... all these are infused at the same time: faith, hope, and charity. For faith, unless hope is added to it, and charity too, neither unites him perfectly with Christ nor makes him a living member of his body. ... From apostolic tradition, catechumens seek this faith from the church before the sacrament of baptism when they ask for the faith that gives eternal life; and this, without hope and charity, faith cannot give."
**
This is an address to Catechumens. It has no bearing on a individual who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church, and is in Invincible Ignorance. However, I will delve deeper...
Chapter 5 addresses 'necessity, in adults, of preparation for Justification, and whence it proceeds.' We can assume that it therefore is in response to adults, but not necessarily those with no knowledge of Catholicism. In fact, this chapter provides no difficulty to BoD/BoB. It is only in the context provided it seems to offer difficulty.
Chapter 6 addresses 'The manner of Preparation.' Clearly intended for people seeking and coming to the truth, that is, Catholicism. Again, still does not address BoD/BoB.
Chapter 7 addresses ' What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.'
This could possibly be the end of BoD, as the final part is "From apostolic tradition, catechumens seek this faith from the church before the sacrament of baptism when they ask for the faith that gives eternal life; and this, without hope and charity, faith cannot give."
But Trent provides a 'backdoor' in saying that Faith, without Hope and Charity, can not provide eternal life. So, are we to assume that Faith, with Hope and Charity, can? And if so, does this support BoD/BoB, which would have all 3 of those?
**
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 2, "On the Sacrament of Baptism", 1565, ex cathedra: "If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for [the sacrament of] baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema."
**
met⋅a⋅phor
/ˈmɛtəˌfɔr, -fər/ [met-uh-fawr, -fer]–noun
1. a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.” Compare mixed metaphor, simile (def. 1).
2. something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.
Jesus says unless a Man be born again of 'Water' and 'The Spirit'. A man can not be born of ashes and the spirit, nor cooking oil and the spirit, nor saliva and the spirit. It requires 'True and Natural Water'. It is a question of Valid Matter, exactly why women can not become priests, and the Eucharist can not be consecrated from Gold Fish.
If this is the case, this quote would clearly be pointed at addressing the protestant notion of Baptism with other items.
“... Besides, the Word is the principal part of baptism. If in an emergency there’s no water at hand, it doesn’t matter whether water or beer is used.” ~ Martin Luther
BoD/BoB do not distort baptism into a metaphor, as they are one in the same.
**
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5, "On the Sacrament of Baptism", 1565, ex cathedra: "If anyone saith that [the sacrament of] baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation; let him be anathema."
**
Self explanatory, we have yet to prove BoD/BoB is not a valid baptism.
**
Let's be honest. The dogmas are clear. They unequivocally teach that there is one baptism, celebrated in water, in the name of The Father, of The Son, and of The Holy Ghost, which is absolutely necessary for justification and salvation. The dogmas, in conjunction with the dogmatic fact that the only exceptions to a dogma are those teachings that previously existed in the Extraordinary or the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, make it impossible to believe or teach that "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" are allowable opinions.
**
If we are to be honest, we still have provided no Infallible Declaration that BoD/BoB are heretical. We have given many declarations which, when interpreted fallibly by ourselves, could prove it to be.
I would dub these interpretations "The Protestant Condition', as what we are doing with Dogmatic Proclamations by Popes and Councils are no different than what Luther did with the Bible. If I am to interpret the Bible in light of nothing but the Bible, I can clearly support many of Luther's views. However, we must interpret the Bible in Light of Church Fathers and Apostolic Tradition, and submit to that truth which is protected by the Church. The same is true of Councils and Encyclicals. If we are to rely on the these by themselves, we can twist them to what we want them to mean, for our own reasons, whether they be pure or not.
**
Why? Because there are no allowable exceptions to these dogmas. "Baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" are the mother of all heresies, which logically gave the salvation-outside-the-Catholic Church heretics the little wiggle room they needed to begin spreading their spiritual vemon, including the lies that non-Catholics worship the same God as Catholics, the Church of Christ exists outside the Catholic Church, Catholics can pray in communion with non-Catholics, spiritiual convergence instead of conversion, etc. The world is headed to hell fast, and it's all thanks to these two baptism heresies, which have been repeatedly condemned by Ecumenical Council after Ecumenical Council.
**
I believe we could call this 'Poisoning the Well', as the author, although taking great steps to attempt to support there point, has yet to truly do so without any room of doubt. His accusations are therefore all false, as we have yet to address whether Muslims and Jews worship the same God, whether Christianity can exist outside the Catholic church, etc, etc, and until such proof is provided, it is unfair to make such accusations and presume them heretical.
**
So what's the hang-up? Why the persistent belief in "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood"? Two reasons: (1) fallible texts exist that teach the "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" heresies, and (2) some saints taught the "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" heresies.
While God the Holy Ghost is the author of the Magisterial teachings, He is not the author of Roman Martyrology, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, and The 1917 Code of Canon Law. While these texts are for the most part reliable sources of Catholic doctrine, they are not infallible. They have men as their authors and, as such, contain error, bad teachings, and outright heresy.
While God the Holy Ghost is the author of the Magisterial teachings, He is not the author of Roman Martyrology, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, and The 1917 Code of Canon Law. While these texts are for the most part reliable sources of Catholic doctrine, they are not infallible. They have men as their authors and, as such, contain error, bad teachings, and outright heresy.
**
A small point, if these texts can be fallible, how much more could one's own interpretation?
**
It's very simple. There is a hierarchy to Catholic teaching authority. The teachings of the Extraordinary Magisterium are the highest, most solemn pronouncements of the Catholic Church. They unequivocally teach that sacramental water baptism is abolutely necessary for salvation.
**
Yet to be proven without dispute.
**
This is especially true since it is a dogmatic fact that a fallible text, authored by man, cannot insert an exception into a dogmatic decree, authored by God. So stack up one million quotations from man against a single quotation from God, and a Catholic is obligated to believe God's teachings, even though a million other quotations may tell the Catholic not to listen to God.
**
Any fallible writing would fall into this category, whether it support or deny BoD/BoB. No quotation provided has unequivocally stated BoD/BoB heretical.
**
But all this is well-known, amazingly even to the "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" heretics. They all know that they are supposed to obey God over men, but they don't understand why. They don't understand why there are three books out there, admittedly all fallible, admittedly all written by men, that haven't been condemned by popes. Very simply, it is a dogma that popes can be evil men, as wicked as the devil, himself, and still remain pope, so long as they don't become a public heretic.
Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Sess. 15, July 6, 1415, "Condemned Articles of J. Hus", ex cathedra: “If the pope is wicked, and especially if he is foreknown to damnation, then he is a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition and is not the head of the holy church militant since he is not even a member of it.” -- CONDEMNED
And there have been evil popes, lazy popes, non-diligent popes, who let these texts be promulgated, some for hundreds of years. And most certainly, Catholic doctrine instructs us to resist and not obey the evil pope in his wicked commands.
St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621): "Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed."
St. Catherine of Siena († 1380): “Alas, Most Holy Father! At times, obedience to you leads to eternal damnation.”
You see a pope doesn't lose his office and become an antipope until he becomes a public heretic.
The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 188: "Through tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric ... [h]as publicly defected from the Catholic Faith."
Therefore, a pope can promulgate a book containing a heresy or two and still remain a pope, so long as he doesn't pen the text nor promulgate the book in forma specifica. And people guess what. Not Roman Martyrology, not The Catechism of the Council of Trent, and not The 1917 Code of Canon Law were ever promulgated by any pope in forma specifica. They were all promulgated in forma communi, which means that the pope simply approved others' work and did not review it so closely as to claim authorship to the documents. It's that simple. Popes are busy people. But through laziness, honest mistakes, or evil intention, popes have over looked these heresies. However, when it really mattered, these same popes unanimously condemned "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" through their ex cathedra decrees and never once taught these heresies as part of the Extraordinary Magisterium. Since "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" are contrary to the infallible dogmas, they are NOT allowable opinions. They are pardonable opinions, as material heresy may excuse one for the mortal sin of heresy, but make no mistake, heresy, even material heresy, is NOT allowable.
Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Sess. 15, July 6, 1415, "Condemned Articles of J. Hus", ex cathedra: “If the pope is wicked, and especially if he is foreknown to damnation, then he is a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition and is not the head of the holy church militant since he is not even a member of it.” -- CONDEMNED
And there have been evil popes, lazy popes, non-diligent popes, who let these texts be promulgated, some for hundreds of years. And most certainly, Catholic doctrine instructs us to resist and not obey the evil pope in his wicked commands.
St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621): "Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed."
St. Catherine of Siena († 1380): “Alas, Most Holy Father! At times, obedience to you leads to eternal damnation.”
You see a pope doesn't lose his office and become an antipope until he becomes a public heretic.
The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 188: "Through tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric ... [h]as publicly defected from the Catholic Faith."
Therefore, a pope can promulgate a book containing a heresy or two and still remain a pope, so long as he doesn't pen the text nor promulgate the book in forma specifica. And people guess what. Not Roman Martyrology, not The Catechism of the Council of Trent, and not The 1917 Code of Canon Law were ever promulgated by any pope in forma specifica. They were all promulgated in forma communi, which means that the pope simply approved others' work and did not review it so closely as to claim authorship to the documents. It's that simple. Popes are busy people. But through laziness, honest mistakes, or evil intention, popes have over looked these heresies. However, when it really mattered, these same popes unanimously condemned "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" through their ex cathedra decrees and never once taught these heresies as part of the Extraordinary Magisterium. Since "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" are contrary to the infallible dogmas, they are NOT allowable opinions. They are pardonable opinions, as material heresy may excuse one for the mortal sin of heresy, but make no mistake, heresy, even material heresy, is NOT allowable.
**
Still no sufficiently addressed to prove BoD/BoB are unanimously condemned by the popes. The quotes provided, when understood in context, do not condemn the theological teaching. On a personal note, which I have tried to avoid, I find it comical the author condemns and praises Bellarmine in the same work. See below.
**
But then why are there canonized saints who taught "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood"? A few reasons. First, all but two of these saints lived before the dogma that there is "one baptism which regenerates all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as 'one God and one faith' [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." So all but one of these saints lived and died before the dogmas were defined that condemned "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood".
But what about St. Alphonsus Liguori and St. Robert Bellarmine, who both lived after all these dogmas condemning "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood"? Doesn't his canonization prove that these heresies are allowable opinions? No, absolutely not! Their canonizations prove that they are pardonable, that you can still get to Heaven if you are a material heretic. Their fallible canonizations certainly doesn't disprove the infallible dogmas. Yes, folks that's right. Canonziations are not infallible. Please read Are Canonizations Infallible?
People, understand that I am not saying St. Alphonsus Liguori and St. Robert Bellarmine are not saints in Heaven. I believe they are. But all the "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" heretics keep making the same mistake. They continually put the works of men, ahead of the words of God. Roman Martyrology, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, and The 1917 Code of Canon Law are all fallible texts that contain multiple heresies. And canonizations, too, are fallible and can be reversed by the Church. Don't let fallible works of man determine what your faith will be. The guaranteed-to-be-perfect infallible dogmas is where you want to lay your spiritual foundation. And this is especially true since it is a dogmatic fact that the only exceptions to a dogma are those teachings that previously existed in the Extraordinary or the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. No other exceptions allowed, people, and "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" are neither part of the Extraordinary nor the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.
Again so while a person may escape God's wrath and be pardoned for material heresy, it most certainly does not mean that the heresy believed is now allowable. It may be pardonable, but never allowable. There are four excuses that make heresy pardonable: (1) insanity, (2) ignorance/confusion, (3) retraction before death, and (4) mistranslation. So until you get all of the canonization papers of St. Alphonsus Liguori and St. Robert Bellarmine, you just can't say, "Well, none of these apply." Again, such a person who relied more heavily on their canonizations than the dogmas would be giving more credence to the fallible works of men, than they would be giving credence to the infallible words of God. And that is NOT allowable.
Morever, St. Alphonsus was clearly confused about what the Council of Trent taught. From his writings, it can be seen that St. Alphonsus wrongly believed that Session 6, Chapter 4 was teaching desire alone is sufficient for justification, when in fact Session 6, Chapter 4 teaches the absence of desire will not result in justification. Yes, even Doctors of the Church make mistakes.
St. Alphonsus Liguori, Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7: "Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, 'de presbytero non baptizato' and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'"
Reading the Council of Trent in context, clearly we can see that what is being taught is that the desire for baptism before reception of the sacrament is not sufficient for justification. St. Alphonsus took Session 6, Chapter 4 out of context and missed the true meaning of the Council's teaching.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Ch. 4-7, "Decree on Justification", 1547, ex cathedra: "And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God [John 3:5]. ... People are disposed for that justice when, by that repentance ... they are proposing to receive baptism ... This disposition and preparation precede [do not result in] the actual justification ... The causes of this justification are: ... the instrumental cause, the sacrament of baptism ..."
Clearly, St. Alphonsus was confused about what was "de fide" and what was not. The Council of Trent is teaching that either without water or without desire, then no justification, meaning both water and desire are necessary, as John 3:5 teaches. I mean look at the words, "This disposition and preparation precede the actual justification". Case closed. The Council Fathers are clearly teaching that repentance and desire for baptism, referred to as "[t]his disposition and preparation", only precede justification and do not result in it. Since God the Holy Ghost does not lie, "baptism of desire" is not being taught in Session 6's "Decree on Justification".
But what about St. Alphonsus Liguori and St. Robert Bellarmine, who both lived after all these dogmas condemning "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood"? Doesn't his canonization prove that these heresies are allowable opinions? No, absolutely not! Their canonizations prove that they are pardonable, that you can still get to Heaven if you are a material heretic. Their fallible canonizations certainly doesn't disprove the infallible dogmas. Yes, folks that's right. Canonziations are not infallible. Please read Are Canonizations Infallible?
People, understand that I am not saying St. Alphonsus Liguori and St. Robert Bellarmine are not saints in Heaven. I believe they are. But all the "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" heretics keep making the same mistake. They continually put the works of men, ahead of the words of God. Roman Martyrology, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, and The 1917 Code of Canon Law are all fallible texts that contain multiple heresies. And canonizations, too, are fallible and can be reversed by the Church. Don't let fallible works of man determine what your faith will be. The guaranteed-to-be-perfect infallible dogmas is where you want to lay your spiritual foundation. And this is especially true since it is a dogmatic fact that the only exceptions to a dogma are those teachings that previously existed in the Extraordinary or the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. No other exceptions allowed, people, and "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" are neither part of the Extraordinary nor the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.
Again so while a person may escape God's wrath and be pardoned for material heresy, it most certainly does not mean that the heresy believed is now allowable. It may be pardonable, but never allowable. There are four excuses that make heresy pardonable: (1) insanity, (2) ignorance/confusion, (3) retraction before death, and (4) mistranslation. So until you get all of the canonization papers of St. Alphonsus Liguori and St. Robert Bellarmine, you just can't say, "Well, none of these apply." Again, such a person who relied more heavily on their canonizations than the dogmas would be giving more credence to the fallible works of men, than they would be giving credence to the infallible words of God. And that is NOT allowable.
Morever, St. Alphonsus was clearly confused about what the Council of Trent taught. From his writings, it can be seen that St. Alphonsus wrongly believed that Session 6, Chapter 4 was teaching desire alone is sufficient for justification, when in fact Session 6, Chapter 4 teaches the absence of desire will not result in justification. Yes, even Doctors of the Church make mistakes.
St. Alphonsus Liguori, Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7: "Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, 'de presbytero non baptizato' and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'"
Reading the Council of Trent in context, clearly we can see that what is being taught is that the desire for baptism before reception of the sacrament is not sufficient for justification. St. Alphonsus took Session 6, Chapter 4 out of context and missed the true meaning of the Council's teaching.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Ch. 4-7, "Decree on Justification", 1547, ex cathedra: "And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God [John 3:5]. ... People are disposed for that justice when, by that repentance ... they are proposing to receive baptism ... This disposition and preparation precede [do not result in] the actual justification ... The causes of this justification are: ... the instrumental cause, the sacrament of baptism ..."
Clearly, St. Alphonsus was confused about what was "de fide" and what was not. The Council of Trent is teaching that either without water or without desire, then no justification, meaning both water and desire are necessary, as John 3:5 teaches. I mean look at the words, "This disposition and preparation precede the actual justification". Case closed. The Council Fathers are clearly teaching that repentance and desire for baptism, referred to as "[t]his disposition and preparation", only precede justification and do not result in it. Since God the Holy Ghost does not lie, "baptism of desire" is not being taught in Session 6's "Decree on Justification".
**
A great step must be made here. First, we must assume that the current authors explanation of Trent is more accurate the St. Alphonsus'. Secondly, we must assume that Alphonsus was never condemned by as many as or more than 15 popes, all of whom were too negligent, to lazy or insufficiently informed to rectify this error in the Catholic Church which was the source of much division.
Additionally, we have to great take steps to build something from that which does not exist. Not only that, there is no necessity for the part in the square brackets, as it does not exist in the original.
"Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified; lastly, the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one's proper disposition and co-operation. For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet is this done in the said justification of the impious, when by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit, in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein: whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity. For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body. For which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision, availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by charity. This faith, Catechumen's beg of the Church-agreeably to a tradition of the apostles-previously to the sacrament of Baptism; when they beg for the faith which bestows life everlasting, which, without hope and charity, faith cannot bestow: whence also do they immediately hear that word of Christ; If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Wherefore, when receiving true and Christian justice, they are bidden, immediately on being born again, to preserve it pure and spotless, as the first robe given them through Jesus Christ in lieu of that which [Page 36] Adam, by his disobedience, lost for himself and for us, that so they may bear it before the judgment-seat of our Lord Jesus Christ, and may have life everlasting."
We see that baptism is the instrumental cause, but unless we parse and re-assemble that which we wish, we can not say that BoD/BoB are invalid. We have yet to prove Thomas Aquinas was Heretical in teaching the BoD/BoB are the same yet different from Baptism of Water. Until it is infallibly proven they are heretical, this is moot, as they could easily supply the requirement for Baptism.
**
Likewise, St. Robert Bellarmine was similarly mistaken in his understanding of the Council of Trent. St. Robert Bellarmine in his work De Ecclesia Militante states "there are those who belong to the soul [of the Church] and not the body, as catechumens or the excommunicated, if indeed they have charity, which can happen." Wow, this is a word for word contradiction of the Council of Trent.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, "Decree on Justification", Ch. 7, 1565, ex cathedra: "The causes of this justification are: ... the instrumental cause, the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which justification comes to no one. ... Consequently, in the process of justification, ... all these are infused at the same time: faith, hope, and charity. For faith, unless hope is added to it, and charity too, neither unites him perfectly with Christ nor makes him a living member of his body. ... From apostolic tradition, catechumens seek this faith from the church before the sacrament of baptism when they ask for the faith that gives eternal life; and this, without hope and charity, faith cannot give."
Clearly the Council of Trent is teaching that the faith of the catechumen does not save, as the catechumens "ask for the faith that gives eternal life" before the sacrament of baptism. Also, the Council Fathers are clear, the faith of the catechumen does not have the charity, which is infused into the soul of the catechumen at the sacrament of baptism, a charity that St. Robert Bellarmine says is necessary for him to be a living member of the Church.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, "Decree on Justification", Ch. 7, 1565, ex cathedra: "The causes of this justification are: ... the instrumental cause, the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which justification comes to no one. ... Consequently, in the process of justification, ... all these are infused at the same time: faith, hope, and charity. For faith, unless hope is added to it, and charity too, neither unites him perfectly with Christ nor makes him a living member of his body. ... From apostolic tradition, catechumens seek this faith from the church before the sacrament of baptism when they ask for the faith that gives eternal life; and this, without hope and charity, faith cannot give."
Clearly the Council of Trent is teaching that the faith of the catechumen does not save, as the catechumens "ask for the faith that gives eternal life" before the sacrament of baptism. Also, the Council Fathers are clear, the faith of the catechumen does not have the charity, which is infused into the soul of the catechumen at the sacrament of baptism, a charity that St. Robert Bellarmine says is necessary for him to be a living member of the Church.
**
The provided interpretation errs in the following sense. The council does confirm that faith does not provide eternal life, not without Hope and Charity. These are in fact provided by many things, the most instrumental being Baptism. However, until, again, BoD/BoB is proven heretical beyond doubt, this causes no scandal, as they would provide this infusion.
**
Clearly St. Alphonsus was confused and St. Robert Bellarmine was ignorant of the Council of Trent's dogmas, and the "ignorance/confusion" excuse works to pardon their material heresies. But again material heresy can never be said to be allowable. Is it pardonable under some circumstances? Yes. Is it allowable? Never! Heresy is never allowable. You just don't have access to his papers of canonization, so you can't say none of the excuses for material heresy would apply to him, especially since the written evidence shows of his confusion regarding the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4. Moreover, canonization are fallible. His canonization may someday be revoked. We just don't know. His canonization is a disciplinary teaching. I believe him to be a saint in Heaven, but am I absolutely sure of it? No. Why? Because canonizations are not infallible. Am I absolutely sure that sacramental water baptism is necessary for salvation? Yes, because God the Holy Ghost doesn't lie.
**
It is very easy to assume that the Doctors of the Church were confused and ignorant. But I would offer, rather, they were not, and we ourselves are being facetious in our assumption that we, 400 years or more after the councils, have a more intimate understanding of the churches doctrine than the Doctors of our Faith.
**
One additional point for all the heretics, who like to presume that their own "alleged" confusion will forgive them for their heretical denial of Church dogma, is that Canon Law tells us confusion isn't to be presumed. Instead, Canon Law tells us that the evil will is to be presumed. That is, God through Canon 2200 §2 is telling you heretics that on judgment day you are going to carry the burden of proof. Is this what you want to bet your salvation on?
The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2200 §2: "Positing an external violation of the law, dolus [evil will] in the external forum is presumed until the contrary is proven."
The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2200 §2: "Positing an external violation of the law, dolus [evil will] in the external forum is presumed until the contrary is proven."
**
As stated prior by the author, Canon Law is not infallible. He has no place using this in his defense, by his own admittance.
**
We can presume St. Alphonsus was innocent because his presumption of guilt was removed in the external forum by his canonization. Notice the words "until the contrary is proven" in the canon above. One can no longer presume St. Alphonsus' evil will because the Church has told us through the fallible, disciplinary teaching of his canonization that he is innocent. So until you "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" heretics get a similar statement made about you from a valid pope, all us Catholics are going to denounce you as heretics, because Canon 2200 tells us to do so. At this time, you have no excuse. Your claim of ignorance or confusion won't suffice. Your allowance for these man-made teachings, even if you personally don't believe in them, is a outright denial of the dogmas. As such, your guilt and evil will is presumed, and God will perform the ultimate and final judgment, a judgment in which you carry the burden of proving your innocence. Good luck.
It's this simple. Dogmas are infallible and written by God the Holy Ghost. The dogmas teach sacramental water baptism is absolutely necessary for justification and salvation. Amazingly, nobody disputes this. Moreover, it is a dogmatic fact that a less-than-unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers, which is all that "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" were taught by, does not allow for an exception to a dogma. Do you hear that? No plausible exception here. Moreover, no post-Council of Vienne pope ever penned or promulgated in forma specifica any written document supporting "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood". But several popes did pen dogmas condemning these heresies. Only one post-Council of Vienne saint lived and died what looks to be teaching "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood". His canonization is NOT infallible, and the Church tells us his guilt was pardoned for one of the four reasons previously listed. Get it, he was pardoned for his heresy, but that doesn't make his heresy an allowable opinion for you.
God the Holy Ghost teaches that "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" are condemned heretical beliefs, not allowable opinions. It would be foolish to the highest degree to wager your salvation, and the salvation of your chidren, on fallible sources of Catholic teaching, hoping for God's pardon, when clearly the infallible sources, to which NO exceptions can apply, show you to be heretical and outside the Catholic Church.
This much is certain: There is no salvation Outside the Catholic Church.
It's this simple. Dogmas are infallible and written by God the Holy Ghost. The dogmas teach sacramental water baptism is absolutely necessary for justification and salvation. Amazingly, nobody disputes this. Moreover, it is a dogmatic fact that a less-than-unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers, which is all that "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" were taught by, does not allow for an exception to a dogma. Do you hear that? No plausible exception here. Moreover, no post-Council of Vienne pope ever penned or promulgated in forma specifica any written document supporting "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood". But several popes did pen dogmas condemning these heresies. Only one post-Council of Vienne saint lived and died what looks to be teaching "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood". His canonization is NOT infallible, and the Church tells us his guilt was pardoned for one of the four reasons previously listed. Get it, he was pardoned for his heresy, but that doesn't make his heresy an allowable opinion for you.
God the Holy Ghost teaches that "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" are condemned heretical beliefs, not allowable opinions. It would be foolish to the highest degree to wager your salvation, and the salvation of your chidren, on fallible sources of Catholic teaching, hoping for God's pardon, when clearly the infallible sources, to which NO exceptions can apply, show you to be heretical and outside the Catholic Church.
This much is certain: There is no salvation Outside the Catholic Church.
**
Self Interpretation, with no backing, just purely hypothetical on the authors part. As well as fallible. Until the arguments provided are adequately addressed, he has no place in passing judgment, nor in assuring damnation to all those who would trust God's Church.
