JMJ
There is an unfortunate tendency in this greatest of all crises in the life of the Mystical Body of Christ, for people to be too quick to make dogmatic decisions of their own creation shortly after coming to the realisation that something has gone terribly wrong in the Church. Often, one makes the commitment to be a Catholic and adhere to the True doctrines and discipline of Holy Mother Church in opposition to the Whore of Babylon which currently occupies the structures that were built upon the blood of the Martyrs. Suddenly, however, one encounters groups of people who are all too willing to take upon themselves the role of infallible interpreter of all doctrine; people who excommunicate, pontificate and adjudicate on their own authority, finding new revelations where none existed before and eliminating or ignoring all things whatsoever arise contrary to their new discoveries.
Let us take, for example, the recent unpleasantness regarding baptism of desire and baptism of blood. There are organizations, referred to above, that have decided this issue absolutely (sic). They see that there are statements in Scripture and Tradition that seem to indicate that one position is in opposition to its contrary. Their solution? They must decide which one is true - as if Holy Mother Church were negligent in this regard. They then proceed to excommunicate anybody who even appears to disagree with their Dogmatic Teaching!
Two points are in order here:
1 - I have never met anybody who believed in baptism of desire who did not believe that to be the teaching of the Church. Nor have I met anybody who rejected baptism of desire who did not believe THAT to be the teaching of the Church. At worst, such individuals are in error - NOT heretics.
2 - The solution to the situation of seemingly contradictory teachings of Our Holy Mother the Church, is NOT to decide which teaching is true, but rather, to search for the reconciliation of the two. That is to say, seek the understanding of both positions such that they are in agreement with each other. For with absolute certainty, THAT IS THE CASE. In no way, can the Church contradict Herself. This is not the same as the Hegelian notion of dialog so beloved by the conciliarist church of antichrist. The premise of which is to find some middle ground that all can agree upon; the truth being secondary to everyone being in agreement. NO. The point of this approach is to understand the infallible teachings of the Church with integrity because we KNOW both aspects of the teaching to be CERTAIN.
As an example of the danger one faces when deciding which teaching of the Church is true - I say this only in mockery of the approach - I present the following, written by Mr. Patrick Henry. I have reorganised it and depersonalized it for presentation here, with his explicit permission.
Please pray for understanding to Our Blessed Mother, Mary Ever Virgin and St. Joseph, Her Most Chaste Spouse.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rejecters
Patrick Henry
(abridged and edited with his kind permission by Karl D. Keller)
(abridged and edited with his kind permission by Karl D. Keller)
You know that Robert and
Frederick Dimond, Bishop Webster, and many others reject the teachings of the
Catholic Church regarding baptism of desire and baptism of blood. Some of them do not like to be referred to as
Feeneyites, nevertheless they are all very adamant about rejecting baptism of
desire and baptism of blood. Therefore,
I will refer to them as the Rejecters simply because that is what they
are. Rejecters receive this title as a
compliment and glory in it because it succinctly, concisely, and crisply
describes their belief which rejects that anyone has ever been saved by what is
known as baptism of desire and baptism of blood.
I look for the truth by
asking questions. When I finished
answering my questions, I am not
convinced that Robert and Frederick Dimond and Bishop
Webster are correct. Therefore, what I
am asking you and all of the other Rejecters to do is to please answer every question I ask that is
numbered between these types of brackets {
}. My answers to all of my questions between these types
of brackets { } are “yes.” A "no" answer requires and
explanation as to why the answer is "no" as will be seen from the
context.
I intend to provide the
reasons why I think that the Rejecters’ conclusion is not correct. The Rejecters’ conclusion being that:
The Church teaches as a dogma that no one has ever entered heaven
that did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism by water.
(The emphasis here, as
elsewhere throughout this letter, is usually added by Patrick Henry – except
the emphasis in the quotes of Mr. Dimond are usually his own).
Pope Pius IX reminded us
that:
“For any man to be able to
prove his Catholic faith and affirm that he is truly a Catholic, he must be
able to convince the Apostolic See of this.”
When you have finished
answering my questions you will no longer believe the Rejecters’ heresy, or
else you will never be able to prove your Catholic faith and affirm that you
are truly a Catholic and at the same time be able to convince the Apostolic
See of this. I will also explain why
the Rejecters’ heresy teaches that the Catholic Church is responsible for "spiritual
abortions".
Later, you will again see the
following choices we all have to make regarding these issues of baptism,
EITHER:
Saint
Thomas Aquinas and Saint Alphonsus Maria Liguori correctly understood and
taught Catholic doctrine on this issue, and therefore, “it is de fide that men are
also saved by Baptism of desire.”
RESULT: If this first choice is
correct, the Rejecters deny a dogma of the Church. Therefore, if they are pertinacious in that
belief until death they will be cast into hell forever.
OR:
The Church infallibly defined
that no one has ever entered heaven who did not receive the Sacrament of
Baptism by water and therefore, “it is de fide that men are never
saved by Baptism of desire.”
FIRST RESULT: If this second choice is correct, Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Alphonsus
Maria pertinaciously denied a dogma of the Church until their deaths, and were
therefore cast into hell forever.
{1} Do you agree that anyone who believes Saint Thomas Aquinas and
Saint Alphonsus Maria are now in the eternal fires of hell is a heretic on the
sure road to damnation?
SECOND RESULT: Someone could erroneously believe that although Saint Thomas
Aquinas and Saint Alphonsus Maria pertinaciously denied a dogma that they were
not heretics.
{2} Do you agree that anyone who holds the belief that: “they are not heretics who pertinaciously
deny any dogma of the Church,” is himself a heretic?
THIRD RESULT: Others might hold a similar belief that although Saint
Thomas Aquinas and Saint Alphonsus Maria pertinaciously denied a dogma, they
were not heretics. Nevertheless, all those who today believe the exact same thing are now formal, pertinacious heretics
because the late, excommunica-ted Father Leonard Feeney and other Rejecters
have enlightened us. The Church once
accepted the teachings of these Doctors of the Church as the truth when She
canonized them. Now however, everyone
will be damned if they pertinaciously hold onto the same truths as explained by the Doctors of the infallible Church.
{3} Do you agree that
everyone who holds this belief denies what the Catholic Church teaches?
FOURTH RESULT: Others might choose to believe that at the time Saint
Alphonsus Maria was canonized by Pope Gregory XVI the Catholic Church did not
know what the Rejecters would later figure out, namely, that it was heretical to teach that men are also saved by baptism of desire,
as explained by Saint Alphonsus Maria in his Moral
Theology. After all it was through
this same Pope Gregory XVI, that Jesus Christ solemnly declared Saint Alphonsus
Maria’s Moral Theology error-free
in areas of morals. Remember also that the Rejecters
reminded us that no one figured out that Saint Alphonsus Maria was a heretic
until the excommunicated Father Leonard Feeney first exposed it!
{4} Do you agree that this belief denies the dogma that the Church
knows when She speaks infallibly, and that She cannot err?
I think all logical people
who answer my questions will conclude with me that all Rejecters reject more
than one dogma of the Church. Here are
some things that will be presented again later in this letter. Be-cause eternity in heaven or hell is at
stake, the only logical thing to do is reject the Rejecters’ heresy and
believe: “Now it is de fide that men
are also saved by Baptism of desire.”
(a)
Saint Alphonsus Maria was not separated from
that Church which clearly tells us in Her sacred liturgy that his soul was never
soiled with the stain of mortal sin, let alone him becoming a heretic or ever
teaching contrary to any dogma of the Church.
We are absolutely assured by the infallible Church that he preserved the
true faith and the state of sanctifying grace although he obstinately,
tenaciously, determinedly, persistently, and pertinaciously defended his
statement until death that: “Now it is de
fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire.” That statement is either true or false, and therefore
either correctly states a dogma or else Saint Alphonsus Maria was a formal
heretic for denying an infallible pronouncement of the Church. Saint Alphonsus Maria either absolutely spoke
the truth with the statement, “Now it is
de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire,” or else he
absolutely totally rejected the Catholic faith. “Either
the Catholic faith is held in its entirety, or rejected totally!”
(b)
It is totally against reason that a heretic who
obstinately and pertinaciously teaches contrary to a dogma of the Church should
be found in the presence of all the people rapt in ecstasy, with remarkable
gifts of prophecy, reading of hearts, bilocation, and miracles as the liturgy
of the Catholic Church teaches us about Saint Alphonsus Maria.
(c)
If Saint Alphonsus Maria’s statement is correct,
then the Rejecters reject a dogma
of the Church.
(d)
If the Rejecters believe one can remain in the
unity and bosom of the Church, who obstinately, tenaciously, determinedly,
persistently, and pertinaciously believes, teaches, defends, supports,
maintains, and insists until death that his statement is de fide – although it
is in direct opposition to an infallible pronouncement, then the Rejecters reject a dogma of the Catholic
Church.
(e)
If the Rejecters believe Saint Alphonsus Maria’s
statement is heresy, then the Rejecters reject
the dogma that the Catholic Church teaches the true faith through Her
sacred liturgy.
(f)
If the Rejecters believe Saint Alphonsus Maria’s
statement is heresy and yet he remained in the Catholic Church, then the
Rejecters reject the dogma
that heretics are not members of the Catholic Church.
(g)
If the Rejecters believe Saint Alphonsus Maria’s
statement is heretical, then the Rejecters reject
the dogma that there is no salvation for those who are heretics and
outside of the Church.
(h)
Rejecters therefore reject the dogma that there is no salvation outside of the
Church.
(i)
Rejecters also reject the dogma that the Church is infallible and cannot
err.
(j)
Rejecters also reject the dogma that the Catholic Church always knows when
She speaks infallibly.
(k)
All who reject any dogma of the Catholic Church
will not be saved.
(l) Because eternity in heaven or hell is at stake, the only logical
thing to do is reject the Rejecters’ heresy and believe: “Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire.”
{5} Do you believe that
everyone must believe the dogmas of the Church to enter heaven?
{6} Do you agree that every Doctor of the Catholic Church and
canonized saint believed each and every dogma of the Church at the time of
their death?
Saint Francis De Sales
reminds us of this truth:
“To say the Church errs is to say no
less that God errs, or else that He is willing and desirous for us to err;
which would be a great blasphemy.” (The
Catholic Controversy, p. 70).
The Catholic Church can never
change Her dogmas because they are immutable. She is guided by God the Holy Ghost and
therefore, never makes a mistake!
“The faith shall never vary in any
age, for one is the faith which justifies the Just of all ages. It is unlawful to differ even by a single
word from apostolic doctrine.” Pope
Saint Leo the Great, Magno Munere.
“The Catholic Faith is such that
nothing can be added to it, nothing taken away.
Either it is held in its entirety, or rejected totally. This is the Catholic faith, which, unless a
man believes faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.” Pope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi.
“Nothing can ever pass away from the
words of Jesus Christ, nor can anything be changed which the Catholic Church
received from Christ to guard, protect, and preach.” Pope Pius IX, Ubi Primum.
“Nothing new is to be allowed, for
nothing can be added to the old. Look
for the faith of the elders, and do not let our faith be disturbed by a mixture
of new doctrines.” Pope Saint Sixtus
III, De Jejun.
“Let nothing of the truths that have
been defined be lessened, nothing altered, nothing added; but let them be
preserved intact in word and in meaning.”
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos.
“The faith which God has revealed
has not been proposed like a theory of philosophy, to be elaborated upon by
human understanding, but as a divine deposit to be faithfully guarded and
infallibly declared. Therefore, that
sense of sacred dogmas is to be kept forever which Holy Mother Church has once
declared, and it must never be deviated from on the specious pretext of a more
profound understanding. Let
intelligence, and science, and wisdom increase, but only according to the same
dogma, the same sense, the same meaning.
If anyone shall have said that there may ever be attributed to the
doctrines proposed by the Church a sense which is different from the sense
which the Church has once understood and now understands: let him be
anathema.” First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith,
ch. 4, DNZ: 1800.
“For it is not allowable for anyone
to change even one word nor allow one syllable to be passed over...” Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Epistle 55.
“Wherefore, if there be revealed to
us anything new or different, we must in no way give consent to it, not even
though it were spoken by an angel.”
Saint John of the Cross, The
Collected Works of Saint John of the Cross.
“Our faith is identical with that of
the ancients. Deny this, and you
dissolve the unity of the Church. We
must hold this for certain: that the faith of the people at the present day is
one with the faith of the people of past centuries. Were this not true, then we would be in a
different church than they and, literally, the Church would not be One.” Saint Thomas Aquinas, On the Truth of the Catholic Faith, Q. #14, art. 12.
{7} Do you agree that the Church cannot err and therefore, cannot teach today
anything contrary to what She taught in the past?
{8} Do you agree that the Church does not define dogmas and then not
know that they are binding on all Catholics to believe them?
{9} Do you agree that
because the Catholic Church cannot err, She knows when She speaks infallibly?
The Catechism of the Council of Trent
and Saint Alphonsus Maria
Let us review some things
from the Introduction to the Catechism of the Council of Trent:
“All those who had part in the work
of the Catechism were instructed to avoid in his composition the particular
opinions of individuals and schools, and to express the doctrine of the
universal Church, keeping especially in mind the decrees of the Council of
Trent. On November 2, 1563 the
Council of Trent enjoined on all bishops to see that the Catechism should be
faithfully expounded to the people by all parish priests. January 17, 1566 Pope Saint Pius V succeeded
Pope Pius IV. One of the first acts of
the new Pontiff was to appoint a number of expert theological revisers to
examine every statement in the
Catechism from the viewpoint of doctrine.
This Catechism is unlike any other
summary of Christian doctrine, it enjoys a unique authority among manuals. It was issued by the express command of the Ecumenical Council of Trent. It subsequently received the unqualified approval of many Sovereign
Pontiffs. In his Bull of June 14, 1761,
Pope Clement XIII said that the Catechism contains a clear explanation of all that is necessary for salvation and useful
for the faithful, that it was composed with great care and industry and has
been highly praised by all, that by
it in former times the faith was strengthened, and that no other catechism can
be compared with it. He concluded, then,
that the Roman Pontiffs offered this work to pastors as a norm of Catholic
teaching and discipline so that there might be uniformity and harmony in the
instructions of all.
Pope Leo XIII wrote that, ‘This work
is remarkable at once for the richness and exactness
of its doctrine, and for the eloquence of its style; it is a precious summary
of all theology, both dogmatic and moral.
He who understands it well, will have always at his service those aids
by which a priest is enabled to preach with fruit, to acquit himself worthily
of the important ministry of the confessional and of the direction of souls,
and will be in a position to refute the
objections of unbelievers.’ Pope
Saint Pius X declared that pastors should give catechetical instructions, and
for this purpose they should use the Catechism
of the Council of Trent.
In addition to Popes and Councils,
many Cardinals, Bishops, and other very distinguished and learned
ecclesiastics, distinguished for their learning and sanctity, vied with one
another in eulogizing the Catechism of Trent.
Among other things they have said that not since the days of the
Apostles has there been produced in a single volume so complete and practical a
summary of Christian doctrine as this Catechism, and that, after the Sacred
Scriptures, there is no work that can
be read with greater safety and profit.
Cardinal Valerius, the friend of
Saint Charles Borromeo, wrote of the Catechism: ‘This work contains all that is
needful for the instruction of the faithful; and it is written with such order,
clearness, and majesty that through
it we seem to hear holy Mother the Church
herself, taught by the Holy Ghost, speaking to us. ... It was composed by
order of the Fathers of Trent under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and was
published by the authority of the Vicar of Christ.’
Salmanticenses, the great Carmelite
commentators on Saint Thomas, paid the following high tribute to the Catechism:
‘The authority of this Catechism has always been of the greatest in the Church, because it was composed by the command of
the Council of Trent, because its authors were men of highest learning, and
because it was approved only after the
severest scrutiny by Popes Pius V and Gregory the XIII, and has been
recommended in nearly all the Councils that have been held since the Council of
Trent.’
The preceptor of Saint Francis de
Sales said: ‘The Catechism of the Council of Trent was inspired by the Holy
Ghost.’ Dr. John Hagan, Rector of the
Irish College in Rome, writes thus: ‘The Roman Catechism is a work of
exceptional authority. At the very least
it has the same authority as a dogmatic
encyclical, it is an authoritative exposition of Catholic doctrine given
forth, and guaranteed to be orthodox
by the Catholic Church and her supreme head on earth. The compilation of it was the work of various
individuals; but the result of their combined labors was accepted by the Church as a precious abridgment of dogmatic and
moral theology. All official
documents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of
Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas
the Roman Catechism comprises
practically the whole body of Christian doctrine, and is addressed to the whole
Church. Its teaching is not infallible;
but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de fide.’ Translated into English with notes by Fr. John A. McHugh and Fr.
Charles J. Callan. Imprimatur 1923.
Further comments by Patrick
Henry: reflect seriously on how Pope
Saint Pius V appointed expert theological revisers to examine every statement in the catechism from
the viewpoint of doctrine. Consider
that this catechism was: 1) Approved only after the severest scrutiny by Pope Saint Pius V and Pope Gregory the
XIII. 2) Approved and guaranteed
to be orthodox by the Catholic Church and her supreme head on earth.
3) Absolutely guaranteed to be free from error by the Apostolic See. Let us recall that: “For any
man to be able to prove his Catholic faith and affirm that he is truly a
Catholic, he must be able to convince the Apostolic See of this.” How is it possible for a
Catholic to convince himself that this Catechism
of the Council of Trent contains heresy?
There is no pope, Doctor of the Church, or canonized saint that made the
statement that this catechism has heresy in it, for how could any logical man
say such a thing?
Nevertheless, more and
more people are falling into the mistake of the Rejecters as they reject the
orthodox teachings of this Catechism! On
pages 179 and 180 this catechism states what the Rejecters claim is heresy:
“On adults, however, the Church has
not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has
ordained that it should be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of
infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make
it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention
and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will
avail them to grace and righteousness.
Nay, this delay seems to be attended
with some advantages. And first, since
the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through
hypocrisy and dissimulation, the intentions of such as seek Baptism, are better
examined and ascertained. Hence it is
that we read in the decrees of ancient Councils that Jewish converts to the Catholic
faith, before admission to Baptism, should spend some months in the
ranks of the catechumens.
Furthermore, the candidate for
Baptism is thus better instructed in the doctrine of the faith which he is to
profess, and in the practices of the Christian life. Finally, when Baptism is administered to
adults with solemn ceremonies on the appointed
days of Easter and Pentecost only
greater religious reverence is shown to the Sacrament.”
At this time I will quote
Saint Alphonsus Maria in his commentary on the works of the Council of
Trent. Therein he clearly explains some
of the things the Catholic Church teaches regarding baptism of desire:
“Who can deny that the act of
perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an
implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist? He who wishes the whole wishes the every part
of that whole, and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without Baptism, an
infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to
observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive Baptism:
and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at
least an implicit desire of that sacrament.” - Saint Alphonsus Liguori on the Council of Trent, 1846, Pg. 128 -129
(published by James Duffy, Dublin, 10 Wellington Quay).
Saint
Alphonsus Maria was canonized by Pope Gregory XVI and declared a Doctor of the
Church by Pope Pius IX. It was through
Pope Gregory XVI that Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost solemnly declared Saint
Alphonsus Maria’s Moral Theology
error-free in areas of morals.
Now
to review, from St. Alphonsus Maria’s Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7:
“Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means
ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water, of
desire, and of blood.
We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very
probably instituted before the Passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was
baptized by John. But Baptism of
desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above
all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism
of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as
to the impression of the character or as to the removal of all debt of
punishment. It is called ‘of wind’
because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a
wind. 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.’
Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e.
death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this baptism is comparable to true
Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment
as it were ex opere operato. I say as it
were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality [“non ita
stricte”] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its
resemblance to the passion of Christ.
Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates
the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That
is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view is at least
temerarious. In adults, however,
acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually, from a supernatural
motive.
It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it
is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the
Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him
for the coming of Christ.”
Sacred Scripture Says There Are Three
Baptisms
The Rejecters say there are
not three baptisms, but the Holy Ghost said there are three baptisms. Some people refuse to accept what the Holy
Ghost teaches us. Saint Paul’s
Letter to the Hebrews was inspired by the Holy Ghost. In chapter 6 verse 2, the Holy Ghost tells us
there are three baptisms. Saint Thomas
reminds us of this in the Summa, Pt.
III, Q. 66 Art 11.
“On the contrary, On Heb. vi. 2, Of
the doctrine of Baptisms, the gloss says: He uses the plural, because there is
Baptism of Water, of Repentance, and of Blood.”
Saint Thomas explains, for those
who will listen, how there are three baptisms, but only one of them is a
sacrament. Under Objection 2 of this Q.
66, Art 11, Saint Thomas tells us:
“Further,
Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above. Now none but Baptism of Water is a sacrament. Therefore, we should not reckon two other
Baptisms.”
“Reply
Obj. 2. As stated above (Q. 60, A.
1), a sacrament is a kind of sign. The
other two, however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature
of sign, but in the baptismal effect.
Consequently, they are not sacraments.”
To re-word the sentence one
can say: “The other two (baptism of desire and baptism of blood) are like
baptism of water in the baptismal effect.”
Now do you understand why there are still only seven sacraments,
although some have erred in saying
that if baptism of desire and baptism of blood are
like baptism of water then there must be nine sacraments?
Saint Thomas agrees with the
liturgy of the infallible Church when he writes of baptism of desire in the Summa Part III, Q. 68, Art. 2:
“Whether a man can be saved
without Baptism?
Objection
1: It seems that no man can be saved without
Baptism. For our Lord said (John iii.
5): Unless a man be born again of water
and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. But those alone are saved who enter God’s
kingdom. Therefore none can be saved
without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.
Objection
2: Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it
is written: We believe that no catechumen,
though he die in his good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer
martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism. But if it were possible for anyone to be
saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who
are credited with good works, for they seem to have the faith that worketh by charity (Gal. v. 6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved
without Baptism.
Objection
3: Further, as stated above (A. 1; Q. 65, A.
4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary without which something cannot be (Metaph. v). Therefore it
seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.
On the
contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv)
that some have received the invisible
sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it
is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible
sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit. Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism
pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain
salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible
sanctification.
I answer that, The sacrament of
Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways.
First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who
neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates
contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the
free-will. Consequently those to whom
Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally
nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation
be obtained.
Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism
may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man
wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before
receiving Baptism. And such a man can
obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for
Baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith
that worketh by charity, whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible
sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly.
Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he
did not lose the grace he prayed for.
Reply to
Objection 1: As it is written (1 Kings xvi.
7), man seeth those things that appear,
but the Lord beholdeth the heart.
Now a man who desires to be born
again of water and the Holy Ghost by Baptism, is regenerated in heart
though not in body; thus the Apostle says (Rom. ii. 29) that the circumcision is that of the heart, in
the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God.
Reply to
Objection 2: No man obtains eternal life
unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a
man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that
martyrdom contains all the sacramental
virtue of Baptism, i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and
punishment. Suppose, therefore, a
catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die
in his good works, which cannot be without faith
that worketh by charity), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith
come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, but he himself shall be saved,
yet so as by fire as is stated 1 Cor. iii.15.
Reply to
Objection 3: The sacrament of Baptism is said
to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at
least, Baptism of desire; which, with
God, counts for the deed (Augustine, Enarr.
In Ps. lvii).”
Saint Thomas Aquinas explains
why the Church requires infants to be baptized very soon, although the liturgy
has adults wait up to a year. Look in
the Summa Part III, Q. 68, Art. 3:
“I answer that, in this matter we
must make a distinction and see whether those who are to be baptized are
children or adults. For if they are
children, Baptism should not be deferred.
First, because in them we do not look for better instruction or fuller
conversion. Secondly, because of the
danger of death, for no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament
of Baptism.
On the other hand, adults have a
remedy in the mere desire for Baptism, as stated above (Art. 2). And therefore Baptism should not be conferred
on adults as soon as they are converted, but it should be deferred until some
fixed time.” (As seen in the Objections,
Saint Thomas is speaking of the fixed time of Easter and Pentecost – P. H.)
{10} Do you agree that
Saint Thomas just taught us the truth when he stated that: “Adults have a remedy in the mere desire for
Baptism?”
{11} Do you agree that
according to Robert and Frederick Dimond, Bishop Webster, and the other
Rejecters, Saint Thomas did not teach the truth but rather heresy; and that
their books, letters, and theology reject this statement of Saint Thomas as
heretical?
{12} Do you agree that
the Catholic Church, through her infallible liturgy accepts this statement as
true, “Adults have a remedy in the mere
desire for Baptism?”
{13} Do you agree that
if the statement of Saint Thomas is heretical, the liturgy of the Church would not have adults wait six months
or longer for baptism?
{14} Do you agree that
if the statement was heretical, the sacred liturgy of the infallible Church
would not declare Saint Thomas to be a canonized saint and a Doctor of the
Church?
Remember: In the sacred
liturgy we profess the Catholic faith explicitly and openly; and saints are
canonized during the sacred liturgy. The
Divine Office and Holy Mass are certainly part of the Catholic sacred
liturgy. The infallible Church prays the
Divine Office and Holy Mass in honor of Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint
Alphonsus Maria Liguori.
{15} Do you agree that
the Catholic liturgy teaches us that the infallible Church believes in baptism
of desire because of the two different ways She treats children as opposed to
adults concerning baptism?
Pope Leo XIII, in his
encyclical, Aeterni Patris, quotes a
number of other popes who wrote about Saint Thomas. He concludes by saying:
“While to these judgments of great Pontiffs on Thomas
Aquinas comes the crowning testimony of Innocent VI: ‘His teaching above that of others, the canonical writings
alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a
truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving
from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected
of error.’”
{16} Do you agree that
Popes Leo XIII and Innocent VI are teaching the truth in the above quote?
{17} Do you agree that
Jesus Christ spoke the truth when He taught us to hear and obey His popes: He who heareth you, heareth Me (Luke 10:
16)?
Pope Pius VI wrote in the decree Super soliditate, November 28, 1786:
“The Church is certainly the one flock of Jesus Christ, Who
is reigning in heaven, its one Supreme Pastor.
He has left it a visible Pastor here on earth, a man who alone is his
supreme Vicar, so that in hearing him, the sheep hear in his voice the voice
of Jesus Christ Himself, lest seduced by the voice of strangers they be led
astray into noxious and deadly pastures.”
{18} Do you agree with
Pope Pius VI that in hearing the voice of Popes Leo XIII and Innocent VI we are
actually hearing Jesus Christ teaching us?
Pope Leo XIII continues to
teach us in his encyclical, Aeterni
Patris:
“The chief and special glory of Thomas, one which
he has shared with none of the Catholic Doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent
made it part of the order of conclave to lay upon the altar, together with
Sacred Scripture and the decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, the “Summa” of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek
counsel, reason, and inspiration.”
{19} Do you agree that
the Fathers of Trent found the true
teaching of the Catholic Church concerning baptism of water, blood, and desire
in the Summa of Saint Thomas Aquinas?
{20} Do you agree that
if the Fathers of Trent did not find
the true teaching of the Catholic
Church concerning baptism of water, blood, and desire in the Summa of Saint Thomas Aquinas, that they
would have condemned him as a heretic if this teaching were contrary to the
infallible pronouncement of Pope Leo the Great in 451?
The Rejecters state that
Saint Thomas taught heresy concerning baptism of blood and desire.
{21} Do you agree that
the teachings of Saint Thomas Aquinas on this matter of baptism were not
declared heretical or erroneous by the time the Council of Trent ended, nor any time thereafter?
If you answered no to this question, please provide
proof that it was officially declared heretical by the time the Council of
Trent ended. If you say it was only
officially declared heretical after the Council of Trent ended, please provide the
date and other relevant information.
Thank you.
{22} Is it heretical to
think the truths as explained by Saint Thomas concerning baptism, has now
become false because the excommunicated Father Leonard Feeney, Robert Dimond,
and others suddenly claim they figured things out to be the opposite?
{23} Do you agree that
Catholics should pray the Mass prayers codified by Pope Saint Pius V?
{24} Do you agree that
this presents a serious contradiction for those who do not believe in baptism
of blood and desire since it was Pope Saint Pius V who declared Saint Thomas a
Doctor of the Church?
{25} Do you agree that
Pope Saint Pius V would not have declared Saint Thomas a Doctor of the Church
if he did not also believe in baptism of blood and desire as explained by Saint
Thomas?
{26} Do you agree that
Pope Saint Pius V, although he first gave the catechism the severest scrutiny, would not have issued
the order for the publication and use by all priests of the Catechism of the Council of Trent if he
did not also believe in baptism of desire as we have seen it explained in this
catechism?
{27} If Pope Saint Pius
V was a manifest heretic for believing in baptism of blood and desire; then
would it be wrong to call him a saint, and pray his Mass prayers and the Divine Office he
approved?
In addition to answering my
questions, please do this for me: provide an infallible statement from the
Catholic Church that Pope Saint Pius V, Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint
Alphonsus Maria Liguori are now burning in hell for being pertinacious,
manifest heretics because they believed in baptism of blood and desire! My research has never found such a
document. However, you and I both know
that the Church does have documents condemning your “Saint,” Father Leonard
Feeney, to be excommunicated by name.
Furthermore, we both know Father Leonard Feeney died as a non-Catholic
for being a member of the diabolical, non-Catholic, Novus Ordo religion. Where does the Church teach that those who
died members of diabolical, non-Catholic religions are saints either in heaven
or on earth?
AN INFALLIBLE DOGMA UNKNOWN FOR OVER
1600 YEARS
I do not know exactly when
Robert Dimond, Bishop Webster, and all of the Rejecters claim the Church first
taught infallibly that there is no such thing as baptism of blood and
desire. Many of them claim it happened
when Jesus Christ pronounced the words, “Amen, amen, I say
to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God.”
Regardless, Robert Dimond claims it happened at least by the year 451
when he writes about how Pope Saint Leo the Great Ends the
Debate:
“Pope Saint Leo the Great, dogmatic
letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451: ‘Let him heed what the blessed
apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the
sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the
same apostle’s words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of
life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but
by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot (1
Pet. 1:18). Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle:
and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin (1 Jn. 1:7);
and again, this is the victory which conquers the world, our faith. Who is
there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of
God? It is He, Jesus Christ, who has
come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the
Spirit who testifies. For there are
three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) IN OTHER
WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER
OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS
SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.’”
Following the quote of Pope
Saint Leo the Great, Robert Dimond gives his comments:
“Before we
get into the tremendous significance of this pronouncement, we will give a
little background on this dogmatic letter. This is Pope Saint Leo the Great’s famous dogmatic
letter to Flavian, originally written in 449, and later accepted by the Council
of Chalcedon – the fourth general Council of the Church – in 451 (quoted in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils,
Georgetown Press, Vol. 1, p. 81). It is
one of the most important documents in the history of the Church. This is the famous letter which, when read
aloud at the dogmatic Council of
Chalcedon, caused all of the fathers of the Council (more than 500) to
rise to their feet and proclaim: ‘This
is the faith of the Fathers, the faith of the apostles; Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo.’ The very letter in itself embodies the term ex cathedra (speaking from the
Chair of Peter), as proven by the reaction of the fathers at Chalcedon. This dogmatic letter of Pope Leo was accepted
by the Council of Chalcedon in its definition of faith, which was approved
authoritatively by Pope Leo himself. It
is unquestionably dogmatic and Magisterial.
And if that
were not sufficient to prove that Pope Leo’s letter is without question infallible, consider the fact that
it was also approved by Pope Vigilius at the Second Council of Constantinople
(553) and by Pope Saint Agatho at the Third Council of Constantinople
(680-681). It was also confirmed infallibly
by a number of other Popes, including: Pope Saint Gelasius, Pope Pelagius II,
553 (Den. 246) and Pope Benedict XIV, 1743 (Denz. 1463). Because of the tremendous significance of
Pope Leo’s letter to the topic at hand, we will quote an extract from Pope
Saint Gelasius which shows how no one can contradict, in the slightest way,
this dogmatic epistle of Pope Leo to Flavian.
Pope Saint
Gelasius, Decretal, 495: ‘Also the epistle of blessed Leo the Pope to Flavian…
if anyone argues concerning the text of this one even in regard to one iota,
and does not receive it in all respects reverently, let him be anathema.’
(Denz. 165)
Here we
have Pope Saint Gelasius speaking ex cathedra to condemn anyone [Including Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Alphonsus Maria - Patrick
Henry] who would depart, even in regard to
one iota, from the text of Pope Leo’s dogmatic epistle to Flavian.
Now, in the
section of Pope Leo’s dogmatic letter quoted above, he is dealing with the
sanctification by the Spirit.
‘Sanctification by the Spirit’ is the term for Justification from
the state of sin (the state of grace). No
one can get to heaven without Sanctification by the Spirit, as everyone
professing to be Catholic admits. Pope Saint Leo affirms, on the authority
of the great apostles Sts. Peter and John, that this Sanctification by the
Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood. It is only by receiving the blood of
Redemption, he proves, that one can be changed from the state of Adam (original
sin) to the state of grace (justification/sanctification). It is only by this Blood that Sanctification
by the Spirit works.
It is a
divinely revealed truth that no one can be freed from the state of sin and
sanctified without the application of the blood of Redemption to him. Of this no Catholic can doubt.
Baptism of
desire/blood advocates – as well as the Saint Benedict Center, since they
believe in justification by desire – explain that the blood of Redemption,
which effects the Sanctification by the Spirit, is applied to the soul by the
desire for baptism or by his martyrdom, without water baptism. They assert that the Spirit of Sanctification
and the blood of Redemption are able to bring a soul to this Justification/Sanctification
without water baptism. But this
is exactly the opposite of what Pope Leo the Great defines
dogmatically!
Pope Saint
Leo defines that in Sanctification, the Spirit of Sanctification and the Blood
of Redemption cannot be separated from the water of baptism! You must be baptized with water to receive
the Spirit of Sanctification and the blood of Redemption, according to this dogma. There can be no Justification by the
Spirit and the Blood without the water! This excludes the very concept of baptism of
desire and baptism blood, which is that sanctification by the Spirit and
the Blood without water is possible.
A sinner
cannot be sanctified by the Spirit and the Blood, which he must in order to be
saved, without the water of Baptism. In
light of this dogmatic letter, baptism of desire and baptism of blood cannot be
held, for these theories separate the Spirit and the Blood from the water in
sanctification.”
{28} Do you agree that according to Robert Dimond, the Apostolic See has taught as a dogma since at least 451AD that not one soul has ever been saved by baptism of desire or baptism of blood?
Saint Boniface I – 418 to 422
– wrote in Retro maioribus tuis,
March 11, 422:
“To the Synod [of Corinth] … we have directed such writings
that all the brethren may know… that there must be no withdrawal from Our
judgment. For it has never been allowed
that that be discussed again, which has once been decided by the Apostolic
See.”
Review also the quotes given above on pages three and four reminding
us that the Catholic Church can never err, and “Therefore, that sense of sacred dogmas is to be kept forever
which Holy Mother Church has once declared, and it must never be deviated
from on the specious pretext of a more profound understanding. Let intelligence, and science, and wisdom
increase, but only according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same
meaning. If anyone shall have said
that there may ever be attributed to the doctrines proposed by the Church a
sense which is different from the sense which the Church has once understood
and now understands: let him be anathema.”
First Vatican Council, Dogmatic
Constitution on the Catholic Faith, ch. 4, DNZ: 1800.
{29} Do you agree that if Robert
Dimond’s conclusion is actually the truth, then since 451 no Doctor of the
Church, saint, or any Catholic has ever been allowed to teach that men are also saved by baptism of desire and baptism of blood?
{30} Do you agree that according to Mr. Dimond, all who hold, believe, and teach that men are also saved by baptism of desire and
baptism of blood; reject, deny, and declare not to be true what the Catholic Church positively knew She taught as a dogma
since 451AD?
Mr. Robert Dimond continues
to write:
“Some may wonder why some early
Church fathers, saints, and theologians
taught baptism of desire and blood even after the time of Pope Leo’s
pronouncement. The answer is simple: They were unaware of Pope Leo’s
definitive pronouncement in this regard. They were erring in good faith.
They were fallible human beings. They were not aware that their position was
contrary to the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.”
taught baptism of desire and blood even after the time of Pope Leo’s
pronouncement. The answer is simple: They were unaware of Pope Leo’s
definitive pronouncement in this regard. They were erring in good faith.
They were fallible human beings. They were not aware that their position was
contrary to the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.”
Please stop and realize what
Robert Dimond is teaching! Yes, stop and
say a fervent prayer for the grace to understand the truth. Mr. Dimond says the Fathers, saints, and
theologians were unaware of Pope Saint Leo’s definitive pronouncement. He also strongly implies that the
Church, guided by the Holy Ghost, does not always know when She speaks
infallibly. Really!
{31} Do you agree that
the Catholic Church never once condemned any of the Fathers, Doctors of the
Church, saints, and theologians as heretics for denying, refuting, and
believing the exact opposite of what
every Rejecter claims to be an infallible dogma of the Church?
If the Rejecters’ heresy was indeed the truth, then consider the
great shame, embarrassment, scandal, discredit,
and disgrace of which they accuse the Church.
{32} If the Rejecters’
heresy was in fact the truth, then
do you agree
that the Church of the living God, the
pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3: 15) neglected to fulfill the
duty imposed upon Her by Almighty God to correct the mistakes of the Fathers,
Doctors of the Church, saints, and theologians by clearly reminding them of
Pope Saint Leo’s definitive pronouncement?
First: What proof do we have that
Saint Bernard, Saint Thomas Aquinas, and Saint Alphonsus Maria never read what
Pope Saint Leo the Great wrote? Only
Robert Dimond’s word, although he reminded us that: “It is one of the most important documents in the history of the Church!”
Second: Therefore, let us conclude
that Saint Thomas and Saint Alphonsus Maria read and understood perfectly well
what Pope Saint Leo the Great wrote!
{33} Do you agree that
Mr. Robert Dimond is literally teaching the world that these two exceptionally
well-learned Doctors of the Church were super stupid, hopelessly unintelligent,
excessively dimwitted, extremely dull, completely brainless, and so utterly
dense that they were totally unable to understand that the Church infallibly
defined through Pope Saint Leo the Great that no one could ever be saved
without baptism of water?
{34} Do you agree that
if Robert Dimond and the other Rejecters hold the correct, precise, and exact
Catholic faith they should not have the least difficulty in
convincing the Apostolic See that Saint Alphonsus
Maria was so super stupid, hopelessly unintelligent, excessively dimwitted,
extremely dull, completely brainless, and so utterly dense that he was totally
incapable of understanding what Pope Saint Leo the Great wrote, and what the
ecumenical Council of Trent taught concerning baptism of water, blood, and
desire?
Third: We have to consider just who
was the brilliant super brain, who turned out to be more intelligent, bright, clever,
smart, gifted, talented, knowledgeable, and brainy enough to figure out what
all the saints and Doctors of the Church failed to understand?
{35} Do you agree that
of course it is none other than Mr. Robert Dimond?
If you do not believe me,
provide the proof of one other Church Father, saint, theologian, Doctor of the
Church, or pope who understood, clarified, defended, expounded, comprehended,
recognized, fathomed, empathized and explained what Pope Saint Leo the Great
wrote the same way that Robert Dimond did!
Fourth: Every single Church Father,
saint, theologian, and Doctor of the Church that lived from Pope Saint Leo the
Great until Robert Dimond came along were fallible human beings who taught
the exact opposite of Robert Dimond. To quote Robert Dimond: “They were not aware that their position was
contrary to the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.” Nevertheless, the Catholic Church never
corrected even one of them and reminded them that Pope Saint Leo the Great
infallibly pronounced their position as heretical!
Fifth: Wow!
{36} Do you agree that
according to Robert Dimond, since 451AD there has not as yet lived one pope,
Doctor of the Church, canonized saint, or theologian that knew when the Church
spoke infallibly?
If you disagree then please
provide proof from that pope, Doctor of the Church, canonized saint, or
theologian that explains, clarifies, and supports what Pope Saint Leo the Great
wrote as just explained by Robert Dimond.
Sixth: Robert Dimond teaches this
terrible blasphemy: The infallible Catholic Church Herself did not know that
the position of these Church Fathers, saints, theologians, Doctors of the
Church, and popes was contrary to Her infallible teaching!
Seventh: According to Robert Dimond
and the other Rejecters, it should be obvious that the Church did not know when
She spoke infallibly because the Church canonized saints who until their death
pertina-ciously, resolutely, and obstinately taught exactly the opposite of what Robert Dimond says Pope
Saint Leo the Great defines dogmatically!
Eighth: Therefore, according to the
Rejecters the Church canonized those who pertinaciously, resolutely, and
obstinately denied Her infallible dogmas!
{37} Do you agree that
according to the Rejecters this Catholic Church never admonishes, censures, or
condemns as heretics many of those who reject Her infallible dogmas, but rather
She declares them to be Saints and Doctors of the Church?
Remember that Robert Dimond
wrote:
“In light of this dogmatic letter,
baptism of desire and baptism of blood cannot
be held, for these theories separate the Spirit and the Blood from the
water in sanctification.”
Although Robert Dimond says
they cannot be held, we know the
Church has upheld the teaching of the Doctors of the Church and the Catechism of the Council of Trent as
teaching the truth concerning baptism of desire and baptism of blood.
Why did the Catholic Church
not condemn, denounce, and convict as heretics those who rejected Her
infallible dogmas, unless according to the Rejecters no pope or Doctor of the
Church knew what She taught infallibly in 451AD?
I now draw your attention to
what one Rejecter wrote:
“You will note that the
attached Webster letter provides specific Church infallible
documentation to clarify what is probably the single most divisive issue since
the Baptism heresy was first exposed by the
late Fr. Leonard Feeney, S.J., S.T.D.”
Yes, you have revealed an
important fact that can be taken two ways.
First, that not even one council of the Church, pope, Doctor of the
Church, saint, or theologian prior to Father Feeney knew of the new heresy started by Father
Feeney. Second, it was indeed Father
Feeney who first exposed and
started the Boston heresy, commonly called the Feeneyite heresy, and more
precisely, accurately, and truthfully defined as the Rejecter heresy. I have yet to read the writings of any
Rejecter bringing forth the direct quote of even one council of the Church,
pope, saint, bishop, priest, or lay person from the time after the Council of
Trent up until Father Leonard Feeney that does not agree with Saint Alphonsus
Maria when he taught: “Now it is de fide
that men are also saved by Baptism of desire.” Bishop Webster pretty much confirms the
statement I just made.
On page two of Bishop
Webster’s letter he writes:
“All the
traditional priests, including myself, have misunderstood exactly what Trent is
saying here.”
What a revealing statement! Do
not all Catholics, especially “bishops”, need to know and understand the
infallible dogmas that the Church has taught for over 400 years? Now if the Catholic Church always taught infallibly that which Bishop Webster
claims was declared by the Council of Trent as an infallible pronouncement, then how can it be that nobody knew
about it? Why was there nobody in the
world who could understand the infallible
teachings of the Catholic Church for 400 years before Father Leonard Feeney first exposed it? If the Rejecters now teach the truth, then it
has always been the truth. Yet nobody knew of this infallible pronouncement of the Council of Trent before Father
Leonard Feeney first exposed it about 400 years after the Council of Trent declared it
– this according to Bishop Webster!
{38} Do you agree that
this fact in itself should be enough to convince every Catholic that Father
Feeney first displayed, presented,
and revealed the new Rejecter heresy which teaches
contrary to the statement accepted by the Church that it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire?
{39} Do you agree that every pope –
including Saint Pius V, Doctor of the Church – including Saint Alphonsus Maria,
canonized saint, and theologian that lived since Trent, understood the Council
of Trent as teaching in agreement with the statement: Now it is de fide that men
are also saved by Baptism of desire?
On
page 1 of The Magisterium and Baptism of Desire
Bishop Webster states the following:
“It is an act of heresy to try and
prove an infallible pronouncement false!”
Bishop Webster repeats it
again on page 5:
“It is an act of heresy to try to
prove an infallible pronouncement false!
It is an act of heresy to say an infallible pronouncement does not mean
what it says.”
First: Bishop Webster goes on
with his article to explain that Trent made the infallible pronouncement that one must receive baptism of water to
enter heaven.
Second: If I understand Bishop Webster
correctly he is clearly stating that no one has ever been saved by means of
baptism of desire, and one becomes a heretic to teach it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire.
{40} Do you agree that
Saint Alphonsus Maria pertinaciously, resolutely, and unyieldingly taught until
his death that, “Now it is de fide that
men are also saved by Baptism of desire?”
{41} Do you agree that
according to the statements of Bishop Webster, Saint Alphonsus Maria committed
an act of heresy?
{42} Do you agree that
Bishop Webster preaches hypocritically, untruthfully, and deceitfully if he now
claims that Saint Alphonsus Maria was not a formal, pertinacious heretic at the
time of his death?
Robert Dimond quotes Pope
Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832, to remind us of what
this unerring Church teaches on no salvation outside of the Church:
“Finally some of these misguided
people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in
the Catholic religion, but that even heretics
may attain eternal life… You know
how zealously Our predecessors taught that article of faith which these dare
to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for
salvation… Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless
in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise Saint Gregory the Great who
expressly testifies that THIS IS INDEED THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. He says: ‘The holy universal Church
teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts
that all who are outside of her will not be saved.’ Official acts of the Church proclaim the same
dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith
which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are
written: ‘There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which
no one is saved.’ Finally the same
dogma is also expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the
Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use, but also that which…
other Eastern Catholics use. We did not
mention these selected testimonies because We thought you were ignorant of that
article of faith and in need of Our instruction. Far be it from Us to have such an absurd and
insulting suspicion about you. But We
are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been
attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from
reinforcing this truth with many testimonies.”
{43} Is the Church
infallible when She solemnly declares during
Her sacred liturgy that someone is a canonized saint in heaven?
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Copyright
1907, Volume 2, page 366 quotes Saint Thomas:
“Since the honor we pay the saints is in a certain sense a
profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we
must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not
liable to error.”
These words of Saint Thomas,
all favoring a positive infallibility, have been interpreted by his school in
favor of papal infallibility in the matter of canonization.
Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches
in the Summa, Pt. III Q. 27, Art. 1, when he writes, On the Contrary:
“Now the Church does not celebrate feasts except of those
who are holy.”
{44} Do you agree that the above quote
from the Summa is true?
{45} Do you agree that
those who died believing or teaching anything contrary to any infallible
pronouncement are not holy, and that the Church will never celebrate their
feast in the Mass and Divine Office?
Every Catholic should know
the Church does celebrate the feasts of Saint Bernard, Saint Thomas Aquinas,
Saint Alphonsus Maria Liguori, Saint Augustine, and Saint Jerome. The Church celebrates their feast with their
own Mass and Divine Office in the sacred liturgy.
Remember, Pope Pius XII
teaches us in Mediator Dei that:
“The entire liturgy, therefore, has
the Catholic faith for its content, inasmuch as it bears public witness to the
faith of the Church… Let the rule for
prayer determine the rule of belief.”
{46} Do you agree that
legitimate, valid, Catholic popes have canonized Saint Bernard, Saint Thomas
Aquinas, Saint Alphonsus Maria Liguori, Saint Augustine, and Saint Jerome?
{47} Do you agree that
those popes declared infallibly that these saints and Doctors of the Church are
in heaven?
{48} Do you agree that
it follows in correct logic that the infallible, Catholic Church cannot
possibly err and teach us heresy when She solemnly declares in the sacred
liturgy that these five great Doctors of the Church are now canonized saints in
heaven?
{49} Do you agree that
all of these great Doctors of the Church teach us there is baptism of water,
blood, and desire?
{50} Do you agree that the
Rejecters teach that they are heretics who believe that: “It is de fide that men are also saved by
Baptism of desire?”
{51} Do you agree that most of the
Rejecters also believe that Saint Bernard, Saint
Thomas Aquinas, Saint Alphonsus Maria Liguori, Saint Augustine, and Saint
Jerome are now enjoying the Beatific Vision and eternal life in heaven?
{52} Do you agree that it follows with correct logic that the Rejecters
must also believe “that even heretics may attain eternal life”
although Pope Gregory XVI and Pope Eugene IV condemned that belief?
Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino:
“It [the Church] 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 received the following
information from a Rejecter:
“The next thing I want to
refute is the ‘baptism of blood’ myth.
Are we not to believe in the ‘de fide’ teachings of Holy Mother
Church? Are we not to believe in the
solemn magisterium of the Church as is expressed in her councils and ratified
by the Supreme Pontiff? Is this not what
gives us, and all true Catholics, true and valid interpretations of the
teachings of Our Lord and His Apostles?
Are these not given Ex Cathedra, which is the certain knowledge that the
faithful can have that it is guaranteed by the Holy Ghost? We have solid, incontestable proof against
the notion of ‘baptism of blood’ in the Bull, ‘Cantate Domino,’ proclaimed at
the Council of Florence and ratified by Pope Eugene IV in the year 1441. Listen to these clear and unambiguous words:
‘No one, let his alms-giving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour
out his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved unless he abide within the
bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.’
Who, then, can make any kind of claim for the salvation of one who has
shed his blood for Christ, but was not yet baptized! Baptism of water puts you in the bosom and
unity of the Catholic Church; baptism of blood does not!
There are so many arguments against
this ‘baptism of desire,’ I could not begin to enunciate all of them here. For one argument, we have the above mentioned
‘Cantate Domino,’ which states, ‘The most Holy Roman Catholic Church firmly
believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the
Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and
schismatics, can have a share in life eternal, but that they will go into the
eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before
death they are joined with Her…’ This is
an Ex Cathedra statement, an eternal truth which is to be believed by every
Catholic with divine and Catholic faith (cum divina et Catholica fides) as it
is guaranteed by the Holy Ghost! How can
a person without baptism of water be joined with the Catholic Church? There is only ONE way to be joined with
‘Her,’ and that my friend, is by Baptism of Water!
Another defense of Baptism of Water
is stated very clearly in the Council of Trent.
The second canon on baptism in the Council of Trent says: ‘If anyone
says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists
into some metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: unless a man be born
again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema.’
This canon (the Church speaking)
says you cannot ‘twist into some metaphor the words of our Lord.’ That tells us that you cannot interpret these
words according to your own meaning!
These words of Our Lord must be taken literally! Cum divina et Catholica fides!”
Pope Eugene IV makes it
apparent that the necessity of water
baptism is different
for children and adults, while at the same time making it obvious that he
believed in baptism of desire. It should
be obvious, apparent, and recognizable to everyone that he believed with Saint
Thomas that, “Adults have a remedy in the
mere desire for Baptism.” Why else
would he make such a clear, well-defined, and noticeable distinction between
children and adults? Let us read again
from Cantate Domino:
“Regarding children,
indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help
can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism,
through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted
among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred
for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain
people, but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently, but
so that, when danger of death is imminent, they be baptized in the form of the
Church, early without delay, even by a layman or woman, if a priest should be
lacking, just as is contained more fully in the decree of the Armenians.
I might say that another
proof of baptism of desire is stated very clearly in the Council of Trent. Under Chapter 4 of session 6 it reads: “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 have said these words
of Our Lord Jesus Christ must be taken literally. However, we see that the Fathers of Trent
taught there is baptism of desire. The
Fathers of Trent were certainly able to convince Saint Alphonsus Maria of this
article of faith. According to the
Rejecters it would seem they thus twisted into some metaphor the words of Our
Lord Jesus Christ.
{53} Do you agree that
therefore, if the Rejecters are always consistent in their teaching, each of
them must absolutely believe that the Fathers of Trent and Saint Alphonsus
Maria were manifest heretics who could never go to heaven unless they repented?
{54} Do you believe
Saint Alphonsus Maria knew of the second canon on baptism in the Council of Trent? How about Saint Charles Borromeo, Pope Saint
Pius V, and those who wrote and approved of the Catechism of the Council of Trent?
{55} Do you agree that
Saint Alphonsus Maria, Saint Charles Borromeo, and Pope Saint Pius V all
believed the dogmas of the Catholic Church after they read and correctly understood the second canon on
baptism of the Council of Trent?
{56} Did you notice that
the year Pope Eugene IV ratified the Bull, Cantate
Domino, was 1441?
That was
about 118 years after Saint Thomas Aquinas was declared a saint by the
infallible Church. It was a little more
than 100 years before the Council of Trent.
Saint Alphonsus Maria wrote what he did about baptism desire
approximately 300 years after Pope Eugene IV ratified Cantate Domino.
{57} Do you agree that
it is very logical to believe that Pope Eugene IV knew what Saint Thomas
Aquinas wrote concerning baptism of water, of desire, and of blood?
{58} Do you agree that
if the writings of Saint Thomas were already condemned as heretical by the
Church in 451, which is centuries before Saint Thomas lived, Pope Eugene IV had
the obligation to condemn him by name?
{59} Do you agree that
if Saint Thomas was a heretic for believing in baptism of desire and blood,
might Pope Eugene have said something such as this: “Directly contrary to the
heretical teachings of (“Saint”) Thomas Aquinas, I hereby teach ex
cathedra that no one has ever been saved by baptism of desire or blood?”
{60} Do you agree that
Pope Saint Pius V, Saint Charles Borromeo, and the other Fathers of Trent knew
what the Catholic Church taught within this Bull, Cantate Domino?
{61} Do you agree that
although they knew about this Bull, Cantate
Domino, they still believed and taught souls have been saved by means of
baptism of desire and of blood?
{62} Do you agree that
Saint Alphonsus Maria certainly must have known about this Bull, Cantate Domino?
{63} Do you agree that
even though he knew about this Bull, Cantate
Domino, Saint Alphonsus Maria taught that there are saints in heaven who
never received baptism of water, but only baptism of blood?
{64} Do you agree that
even though he knew about this Bull, Cantate
Domino, Saint Alphonsus Maria Liguori taught: “It is de fide that men are
also saved by Baptism of desire?”
{65} Am I correct in
understanding that the Rejecters who believe everyone must receive baptism of
water to obtain salvation, also believe this Bull, Cantate Domino, infallibly teaches Catholics that no one can go to
heaven by means of baptism of blood and desire?
{66} If the Rejecters’
understanding of this Bull, Cantate Domino,
is correct, then do you agree that Saint Alphonsus Maria, Pope Saint Pius V,
Saint Charles Borromeo, and the other Fathers of Trent were heretics for
denying an infallible dogma of the Church?
{67} When you pray an
Act of Faith do you say: “I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church believes and
teaches?”
{68} Have you ever
seriously considered that those who believe there is no such thing as baptism
of blood and baptism of desire, must of necessity believe there IS salvation outside of the
Catholic Church?
{69} Do you agree that
because heretics are outside of the Church, the Rejecters either reject the
infallible dogma that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church; or
they reject the infallible dogma that pertinacious, formal heretics are not outside of the Catholic
Church?
Let us summarize the choices
we all have to make regarding these issues of baptism.
FIRST CHOICE: Everyone must accept that Saint Thomas Aquinas
and Saint Alphonsus Maria correctly understood and taught Catholic doctrine on
this issue, and therefore, “it is de fide that men are also saved
by Baptism of desire.”
RESULT: If the first choice
is correct, the Rejecters deny a dogma of the Church. Therefore, if they are pertinacious in that
belief until death they will be cast into hell forever.
SECOND CHOICE: The Church infallibly
defined that no one has ever entered heaven who did not receive the Sacrament
of Baptism by water and therefore, “it is de fide that men are never
saved by Baptism of desire.”
FIRST RESULT: If the second choice is correct, Saint Thomas Aquinas and
Saint Alphonsus Maria pertinaciously denied a dogma of the Church until their
deaths, and were therefore cast into hell forever.
{70} Do you agree that
anyone who believes Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Alphonsus Maria are now in
the eternal fires of hell is a heretic on the sure road to damnation?
SECOND RESULT: Someone could erroneously believe that although Saint
Thomas Aquinas and Saint Alphonsus Maria pertinaciously denied a dogma that
they were not heretics.
{71} Do you agree that
anyone who holds the belief that: “they
are not heretics who pertinaciously deny any dogma of the Church,” is
himself a heretic?
THIRD RESULT: Others might hold a similar belief that although Saint
Thomas Aquinas and Saint Alphonsus Maria pertinaciously denied a dogma, they
were not heretics. Nevertheless, all those who today believe the exact same thing are now formal, pertinacious heretics
because the late, excommunicated Father Leonard Feeney and other Rejecters have
enlightened us. The Church once accepted
the teachings of these Doctors of the Church as the truth when She canonized
them. Now however, everyone will be
damned if they pertinaciously hold onto the same
truths as explained by the Doctors of the infallible Church.
{72} Do you agree that
everyone who holds this belief denies what the Catholic Church teaches?
FOURTH RESULT: Others might choose to believe that at the time Saint
Alphonsus Maria was canonized by Pope Gregory XVI the Catholic Church did not
know what the Rejecters would later figure out, namely, that it was heretical to teach that men are also saved by baptism of desire,
as explained by Saint Alphonsus Maria in his Moral
Theology. After all it was through
this same Pope Gregory XVI, that Jesus Christ solemnly declared Saint Alphonsus
Maria’s Moral Theology error-free
in areas of morals. Remember also that the
Rejecters reminded us that no one figured out that Saint Alphonsus Maria was a
heretic until the excommunicated Father Leonard Feeney first exposed it!
{73} Do you agree that
this belief denies the dogma that the Church knows when She speaks infallibly,
and that She cannot err?
Do you think you can convince the
Apostolic See you are Catholic?
Pope Pius IX will now instruct us in Quartus Supra:
“However
it has never been possible to prove oneself a Catholic by affirming those
statements of the faith which one accepts and keeping silence on those
doctrines which one decides not to profess.
But without exception, all doctrines which the Church proposes must be
accepted, as the
history of the Church at all times bears witness.
For any man to be able to prove his Catholic faith and affirm
that he is truly a Catholic, he must be able to convince the Apostolic See
of this. For this See is predominant
and with it the faithful of the whole Church should agree.”
{74} Do you agree that
whatever the Apostolic See taught in the past still holds true today?
{75} Do you agree with Saint Francis De Sales
that: “To say the Church errs is to say no less that God errs, or else that He
is willing and desirous for us to err; which would be a great blasphemy?”
{76} Do you agree that
at the time of Pope Saint Pius V the Apostolic See believed the Catechism of the Council of Trent was
free from all error and proclaimed only the true Catholic dogma when it taught,
declared, avowed, and clarified that: “Should any unforeseen accident make it
impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and
determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail
them to grace and righteousness?”
{77} Do you agree that
you will never convince the Apostolic See you are Catholic if you say the
Church did err and teach heresy in the Catechism
of the Council of Trent that was issued by the express command of
the Apostolic See at the Ecumenical Council of Trent?
{78} Do you agree that
you will never convince the Apostolic See you are Catholic, if you teach that everything
written in the Catechism of the Council
of Trent was not approved as orthodox, true, and free from every error and heresy by the
Apostolic See?
{79} Do you agree that
you will never convince the Apostolic See you are Catholic, if you say this most
important catechism issued by the express command of the Apostolic See does not
teach the true and correct doctrine when stating: “Should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be
washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive
Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and
righteousness?”
{80} Do you agree that
the Church did not err in teaching: “Should
any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary
waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their
repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness?”
{81} Do you agree that
therefore the Rejecters profess a great
blasphemy every time they write, tell others, or promote in any way that
the Church did err in
teaching the above quote from the catechism?
{82} Do you agree that
you will never convince the Apostolic See you are Catholic, if you say The Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and
Ecumenical Council of Trent condemn and teach the exact opposite of
the Catechism of the Council of Trent
although the same Church Fathers composed both, which thereafter were
promulgated by the Apostolic See during the reign of Pope Saint Pius V?
{83} Do you agree that
you will never convince the Apostolic See you are Catholic, if you teach that
the Fathers of Trent believed and taught one thing during the council, but the exact
opposite almost immediately afterwards in the catechism they composed to
teach the Catholic faith?
{84} Do you agree that
Saint Thomas did convince the Apostolic See he was a Catholic while being very
pertinacious, headstrong, and persistent in teaching: “Adults have a remedy in the mere desire for Baptism?”
{85} Do you agree that
the Apostolic See was absolutely convinced that Saint Thomas was always a member of the Church since
the moment he was baptized, and that therefore he did not teach any error or
heresy in stating, avowing, affirming, and maintaining that: “Adults have a remedy in the mere desire for
Baptism?”
{86} Do you agree that
the Apostolic See has never for a moment considered Saint Thomas as being
heretical for teaching: “Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to
anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be
baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving
Baptism. And such a man can obtain
salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism?”
{87} Do you agree that
you will never convince the Apostolic See that you are Catholic if you believe
it is heretical to state: “Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to
anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be
baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving
Baptism. And such a man can obtain
salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism?”
{88} Do you agree that
the Church did not err in teaching that the Moral
Theology of Saint Alphonsus Maria taught the truth wherein he stated, “Now it is de fide that men are also saved by
Baptism of desire?”
{89} Do you agree that
no one would ever convince the Apostolic See at the time of Popes Gregory XVI
and Pius IX that it was heretical for Saint Alphonsus Maria to teach, “Now it is de fide that men are also saved by
Baptism of desire?”
{90} Do you agree that
you will never convince the Apostolic See, and Jesus Christ on Judgment Day,
that you are Catholic if you say the Church has infallibly canonized someone
although he pertinaciously rejects, denies, preaches
contrary to, and declares not to be true any of Her dogmas?
ONE CANNOT BE SAVED WITHOUT THE TRUE
FAITH
On page 316 of his book, Outside the
Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation, Mr. Robert Dimond correctly
states the truth wherein he writes:
“On Judgment Day, God will separate those who have preserved
the true faith and the state of grace from those who have not. Those who have defiled this faith will have
to line up with the reprobate… one
cannot be saved without the true faith.”
Mr. Dimond also quotes Pope
Pius XII in Ad Apostolorum Principis:
“No one can depart from the teaching of Catholic truth
without loss of faith and salvation.”
{91} Do you agree that
not one person who is canonized by the Church suffered the loss of faith and
salvation?
{92} Do you agree that
therefore, Saint Alphonsus Maria did not at any moment of his life depart from the teaching of the Catholic
truth although he resolutely, purposefully, and definitely believed in
baptism of desire and baptism of blood?
{93} Do you agree that
everyone who resolutely teaches and obstinately professes his beliefs to be the
exact opposite of infallible pronouncements has absolutely departed from the
teaching of Catholic truth?
Elsewhere Robert Dimond
quotes Saint Alphonsus Maria:
“We must believe that the Roman
Catholic Church is the only true Church; hence, they who are out of our Church,
or they who are separated from it,
cannot be saved.”
{94} Do you agree that
the Church has condemned as heretics Nestorius, Arius, etcetera because they
taught the opposite of dogmas of
the faith?
{95} Do you agree that according
to Robert Dimond’s explanation of Pope
Saint Leo the Great’s definitive pronouncement, Saint Alphonsus Maria taught
the opposite of what has been a Catholic dogma since at least the year 451?
{96} However, do you agree that Saint
Alphonsus Maria was not
separated from the Catholic Church for teaching: “Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism
of desire?”
{97} Therefore, do you
agree that no one is separated from the Catholic Church if they believe: “Now it is de fide that men are also saved by
Baptism of desire?”
{98} Consequently, do
you agree that they are out
of the Catholic Church who resolutely, decisively, and pertinaciously reject
the truth that men are also saved by
Baptism of desire, and accordingly that they cannot be saved if they
persevere in that belief until death?
Every idle word that a man shall speak, they shall render an
account for it in the Day of Judgment.
For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be
condemned.
(Matthew 12: 36, 37).
{99} Do you agree that
the words of Saint Bernard, Saint Thomas Aquinas, and Saint Alphonsus Maria
clearly teach it is possible to be saved by baptism of desire and baptism of
blood?
{100} Do you agree that
Saint Bernard, Saint Thomas, and Saint Alphonsus Maria “preserved the true faith and the state of grace?”
{101} Do you agree that
Robert Dimond wrote the truth when he stated: “On Judgment Day, God will
separate those who have preserved the
true faith and the state of grace from those who have not?”
{102} Do you agree that
Robert Dimond writes the truth in stating: “One
cannot be saved without the true faith?”
{103} Do you agree that
Saint Bernard, Saint Thomas, and Saint Alphonsus Maria were saved?
{104} Do you agree that
these saints and Doctors of the Church definitely, absolutely, and positively
taught the Catholic world that men are saved by baptism of desire and baptism
of blood?
{105} Do you agree that
they most certainly did not change their belief before their deaths?
{106} Do you agree that
they lived centuries after 451AD when Robert Dimond claims the Church taught infallibly that everyone must
receive baptism of water to be saved?
{107} Do you agree that
they went to heaven believing that men are saved by baptism of desire and
baptism of blood, despite the fact that they did not believe the Rejecters’ so called infallible dogma?
{108} Do you agree that
the popes who canonized them and declared them to be Doctors of the Church also
knew the dogmas of the Church and when She taught infallibly?
{109} Do you agree that
the popes, who infallibly canonized these saints, certainly knew that these
Doctors of the Church taught that men are saved by baptism of desire and
baptism of blood?
{110} Do you agree that
it follows as correct logic to believe the infallible Catholic Church therefore
certainly knew that these Doctors of the Church taught that men are saved by
baptism of desire and baptism of blood?
{111} Do you agree that
the Catholic Church has never erred,
blundered, and made the mistake of canonizing anyone who was pertinacious in
teaching the exact opposite of Her dogmas?
{112} Therefore, do you
agree that the true faith is that men are saved by baptism of desire and
baptism of blood?
{113} Do you agree that
Robert Dimond, Bishop Webster, and the other Rejecters are the true heretics if
they teach that these Doctors of the Church, who have already been in heaven
for centuries, will have to line up with the reprobate on Judgment Day?
Oh, so you say, these Doctors
of the Church will not be with the reprobate on Judgment Day! And you are quite right! Therefore, so that I will be on the right
side on Judgment Day, I am going to believe what they believed when they taught
that men are saved by baptism of desire and baptism of blood!
{114} Do you agree that
according to correct logic one could only conclude that Mr. Robert Dimond is
either a double talking, dishonest, deceitful writer who preaches double
standards; or else he correctly teaches
that you will have to line up with the reprobate on Judgment Day if you do not believe that men are also
saved by baptism of desire and baptism of blood?
{115} Are you willing to
spend eternity where Saint Bernard, Saint Thomas, and Saint Alphonsus Maria
will be sent by God for eternity after the final Judgment Day?
The Eternal Truth said, “My judgment is just” (John 5: 30). God knows everything and does not play by
double standards. Why will God condemn
me to hell just because I believe what the liturgy of the infallible Church and
the saints in heaven teach me?
Robert Dimond said the saints are not
infallible.
{116} Do you agree that
neither are Robert Dimond and the Rejecters infallible?
{117} Are you now
willing to admit that Robert and Frederick Dimond and the other Rejecters could be wrong in the way they explain
that outside of the Church there is no salvation?
{118} Do you agree that
no canonized saint could have been outside of the Church when they died?
{119} Do you agree that
at the time of their deaths the saints believed that men are saved by baptism
of desire and baptism of blood?
{120} Do you agree
therefore, that one is not
outside of the Church if they believe that men are saved by baptism of desire
and baptism of blood?
{121} Knowing the Church cannot err, do you agree that She
could never proclaim that souls are now in heaven who were pertinacious until
death in believing and teaching contrary to dogmas?
{122} Do you agree that
all who died teaching contrary to any infallible pronouncement cannot be in
heaven unless the infallible Church does err, which would be a great blasphemy?
Recollect
that Saint Francis De Sales taught us: “To say the
Church errs is to say no less than that God errs, or else that He is willing
and desirous for us to err; which would be a great blasphemy?” Also remember that the Catechism
of the Council of Trent was published by direct command of the Church.
{123} Do you agree that to say the Catechism of the Council of Trent does
teach error is the same as directly insisting that the Church does err which is to say no
less than that God errs?”
{124} Do you agree that
Robert and Frederick Dimond, Bishop Webster, and the other Rejecters are living
by double standards, hypocrisy, and two-facedness if they condemn as heretics those who believe what
the saints in heaven believed?
Canon Laws and the Sacred Liturgy
{125} Do you believe it
is true that the Catholic Church can never teach heresy in Her liturgy?
{126} Do you agree that
Jesus Christ could never command us to hear the Church if She teaches heresy,
or contradicts Her own ex cathedra teachings in Her binding, promulgated canon laws
and liturgy?
{127} Therefore, will
you accept everything in the canon laws and liturgy of the Church to be that
which the Church truly teaches?
Catholics believe Pope
Benedict XV, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, promulgated the Code of Canon Law in the Constitution, Providentissima. Let
us examine its opening and closing paragraphs:
“The most provident of mothers, the
Church, enriched by Her Divine Founder with all the notes befitting a perfect
society, from the very beginning of Her existence, when, obeying the mandate of
the Lord, She commenced to teach and govern all nations, undertook to regulate
and safeguard the discipline of the clergy and the Christian people by definite
laws.
In process of time, however,
particularly when She achieved Her freedom and grew greater and more widespread
from day to day, She never ceased to develop and unfold the right of making
laws, which belongs to Her by Her very constitution. She did this by promulgating numerous and
various decrees emanating from the Roman Pontiffs and Ecumenical Councils, as
events and times suggested. By means of
these laws and precepts, She made wise provision for the government of the
clergy and Christian people, and, as history bears witness, wonderfully
promoted the welfare of the State and civilization...
Therefore, having invoked the aid of
Divine grace, and relying upon the authority of the Blessed Apostles Peter and
Paul, of Our own accord and with certain knowledge, and in the fullness of the
Apostolic power with which we are invested, by this Our Constitution, which we
wish to be valid for all times, We promulgate, decree, and order that
the present Code, just as it is compiled, shall have from this time
forth the power of law for the Universal Church, and We confide it to your custody
and vigilance.
But in order that all concerned may
be able to have a thorough knowledge of the regulations of the Code before they
begin to be binding, We ordain that they shall not come into effect
until Pentecost day next year, i.e., May 19, 1918.
Notwithstanding all contrary regulations,
constitutions, privileges, even those worthy of special and individual mention,
and notwithstanding contrary customs, even though they be immemorial, or
whatever else may run counter to this Constitution.
For no one, therefore, is it lawful
willingly to contradict or rashly to disobey in any way this Our
constitution, ordination, limitation, suppression or derogation. If anyone should dare to do so, let him know
that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter
and Paul.
Given at Rome, from Saint Peter’s,
on the Feast of Pentecost of the year one thousand nine hundred and seventeen,
the third year of Our Pontificate.”
When the Code of Canon Law was promulgated and made effective in 1918, every
true, genuine, and sincere Catholic accepted these laws as the belief, teachings,
compulsory and binding laws of God’s infallible Church. Protestants, on the contrary, believe: “Canon
law is not for our times. The Laws of
the Catholic Church do not apply to us.
It is true that some of them we will accept and observe. Nevertheless,
when the laws of the Catholic Church are not in agreement with the beliefs of
our Protestant sect, we will simply dismiss God’s Laws by saying the canon
laws of the infallible Church teach the opposite of the dogmas of the same
Church!”
{128} Do you agree that
whenever anyone teaches, preaches, and accepts this above-stated Protestant
belief as if it were the truth, that he is a Protestant?
{129} Do you agree that
yes he is protesting, as only a true Protestant would, regardless of what sect
he belongs to or what name he gives his religion?
A commentary on canon law, by Father
Augustine, provides the English translation for Canon 1204 as follows:
“Ecclesiastical burial consists in
bringing the body to the church, holding the funeral service over the same in
the church, and entombing it in a place destined for the burial of departed
Catholics.”
Canon law, a text and commentary by
Fathers Bouscaren and Ellis provide the following information:
“Persons who die without baptism are not to be admitted to
ecclesiastical burial. (Canon 1239 § 1).
Catechumens who through no fault of their own die without baptism are
to be considered (in this connection) as baptized (Canon 1239 § 2). All baptized persons are to receive
ecclesiastical burial unless they are expressly excluded from it by law (Canon
1239 § 3).”
“Ecclesiastical burial is to be taken as defined in Canon
1204. Infants who die without baptism
are not entitled to the full rights of ecclesiastical burial; but they may be
buried in an unblessed portion of a cemetery (Canon 1212)…”
“Catechumens are treated as if baptized, if they remain
unbaptized through no fault of their own. This does not include infants, but refers
rather to would-be converts, persons under instructions or who had indicated a
positive desire to begin instruction for reception into the Church.”
{130} Do you agree that:
“Persons who die without baptism are not to be admitted to ecclesiastical
burial (Canon 1239 § 1)?”
{131} Do you agree that
Canon 1239 has to teach either the truth or heresy?
{132} Do you accept that
the Catholic Church is teaching the truth in Canon 1239 § 2?
{133} Do you agree that
the burial service in the Catholic cemetery is part of the liturgy of the Church?
{134} Do you agree that
the laws and liturgy of the Catholic Church authorize, sanction, and permit
catechumens to receive ecclesiastical burial in consecrated ground although:
“Persons who die without baptism are not to be admitted to ecclesiastical
burial (Canon 1239 § 1)?”
{135} Do you agree that
the prayers prayed during the burial of the faithful are part of the Catholic
liturgy, and that the Catholic Church teaches the true faith through her
liturgy? (See Mediator Dei).
{136} Do you agree that the Apostolic See, through Pope Benedict XV,
solemnly promulgated canon law?
{137} Do you agree that
you will never convince the Apostolic See that you are a Catholic if you say
the Apostolic See promulgated heresy in Canon 1239?
It should be obvious that
Pope Benedict XV believed the canon laws taught the truth, when he made them
binding on all Catholics. If Canon 1239
is heretical, than Pope Benedict XV is also a heretic. If indeed, Pope Benedict XV was a heretic,
then he had no authority to make any of the other laws binding.
{138} Do you agree that
if Canon 1239 is heretical then none of the canon laws are binding?
{139} Do you agree that
if Canon 1239 is heretical in teaching us there is baptism of desire, then the infallible Church could not accept these
laws as Her own unless you are willing to
say the Church errs which is to say no less that God errs, or else that He is
willing and desirous for us to err; which would be a great blasphemy?
{140} However, do you
agree that the Catholic Church has accepted these laws and considered them as
binding on the faithful for over 90 years?
If you answered no to this
question please tell me which laws of the Church Catholics are bound to
believe.
{141} Do you agree that
they are Protestants who pick and choose which laws they will believe and obey?
{142} Do you agree that
those people might be considered as insane who claim the laws of the Church
teach heresy, although all Catholics are bound to accept them as the truth
unless you are willing to say the Church
errs which is to say no less that God errs, or else that He is willing and
desirous for us to err; which would be a great blasphemy?
{143} Do you agree that
the Church teaches Catholics through Her binding, compulsory, and enforced
canon laws that men are also saved by baptism of desire?
Let us review from the book, A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon
Law, by Father Stanislaus Woywod and revised by Father Callistus Smith. Volume
1, Imprimatur and Copyright 1943, pages 353 and 354:
“OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF
BAPTISM
668. Infants shall be baptized as
soon as possible. Pastors and preachers
shall often remind the faithful of this grave obligation (Canon 770)…
The meaning of “quamprimum” (as soon
as possible) cannot be determined with absolute exactness. In fact, the law did not want to specify the
exact number of days, as it could easily have done, for circumstances are so
varied that a narrow law in this matter is not desirable, at least as a general
law. The individual bishops who know the
conditions of their dioceses, the facility or the difficulty of reaching the
parish church, climate, roads, etc., can make particular regulations. It is considered to be within the power of
the Bishop to demand that the Baptism be conferred within eight days
after birth, making due allowance for circumstances where that regulation would
impose undue hardship. In an Instruction
of the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda, July 31, 1902, to the
missionaries among the Nestorians, it states that Baptism shall be conferred on
the infants at least within eight days after birth, and if necessary, Private
Baptism should be given rather than wait longer for Solemn Baptism.
669.
If there is no particular law limiting the time and no special danger of
death from the condition of the child or other circumstances, one may hold with
Noldin and Vermeersch Creusen that one cannot delay Baptism over a month without
sinning gravely against the law. If
circumstances are such – and they certainly exist in the scattered districts of
the United States—that the priest cannot be had within a month, some layperson
should be asked by the parents to baptize the child, rather than delay the
Baptism. The Sacred Congregation of the
Propaganda approved an Instruction given to the catechists and other
well-instructed Catholics to baptize any of the infants of the Christians, though
they are in good health, if the priest is absent or it is difficult to go
to him. We saw that the Instructions to
the missionaries among the Nestorians insisted that Baptism should be conferred
within eight days, and that, when necessary, the infants should be baptized
privately rather than delay Baptism and expose the infants to the danger of
dying without it.
670.
Private Baptism may, in case of necessity, be given at any time and in
any place (Canon 771). Solemn Baptism may be given on any day. However, in accordance to the most ancient
rite of the Church, it is a becoming
practice to baptize adults on the vigils of Easter and Pentecost, especially
in metropolitan and cathedral churches, if it can be done conveniently (Canon 772). The proper place for the administration of
Solemn Baptism is the baptistery in a church or public oratory (Canon 773).
Up to about the ninth century,
Solemn Baptism in churches of the Latin Rite was given only on the
vigils of Easter and Pentecost. In the
Oriental Rite and in the diocese of Northern Africa, the Epiphany was added to
the baptismal days. In Spain, they began
to baptize also on the feasts of the Apostles and martyrs, but the Roman
Pontiffs objected to that practice.
As the number of baptisms of adults got fewer, the practice of
baptizing on the two vigils only ceased of itself. Pope Simplicius (d. 483) is said to have
appointed several priests at Rome who had to be ready any day and at any hour
of the day to baptize infants. Very
likely baptism of infants in danger of death is meant. When there was even a slight danger, the infants
were baptized immediately at the time when Solemn Baptism was still limited
to the two days. A certain Bishop
Fidus in Africa had, in 253, contended that it was not lawful to baptize
infants before the eighth day because in the Old Testament circumcision was to
be given only on the eighth day after birth.
Saint Cyprian writes to him: ‘Nobody in our council agreed with what you
thought should be done; on the contrary, we all have held that to no human
being born into this life should mercy and grace be denied.’”
Catholics should know that
babies are to be baptized very soon after birth. If parents put off having their children
baptized longer than 30 days, the catechism and canon law books tell us they
are guilty of mortal sin. Moreover,
Catholics know that the sacred liturgy of
the Catholic Church has adults wait as much as six
months before they are permitted to be baptized unless there is danger of
death. For over 900 years the Church
taught us as part of Her sacred liturgy and Tradition that adults had to wait
as much as one year, just so that
they could be baptized during the vigils of Easter and Pentecost.
{144} Do you agree that
the Church teaches us only the truth through Sacred Scripture, Her sacred
liturgy, and sacred Tradition?
{145} Do you agree that
the Tradition of the Church, especially during the first nine centuries, has been to baptize adults only on the vigils of Easter and
Pentecost, unless there was danger of death?
{146} Do you agree that
the Roman Pontiffs all agreed with Catholic doctrine when they objected to
baptizing adults on days except the vigils of Easter and Pentecost,
unless they were in danger of death?
{147} Do you agree that
the Roman Pontiffs also teach with Saint Cyprian when he wrote: “We all have
held that to no human being born into this life should mercy and grace be
denied?”
{148} Do you agree that
Bishop Fidus in Africa was only requiring infants to wait until the eighth day before they could receive baptism?
{149} Do you agree that
knowing parents commit mortal sin if their infant is not baptized within one
month, the Catholic Church would never require
adults to wait eight months, or longer, if She did not teach that their intention and determination to receive
Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and
righteousness?
{150} Is it against
reason to think the Catholic Church requires adults, who are perfectly ready
for baptism, to wait eight months to one year if She did not think they could
be saved with baptism of desire?
{151} Do you agree that
the Catechism of the Council of Trent,
issued by order of Pope Saint Pius V,
teaches there is baptism of desire when it states: “On adults, however, the
Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but
has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of
infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be
washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive
Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and
righteousness?”
{152} Do you agree
therefore, that through Her liturgy (which bears witness to the faith of the
Church) the Catholic Church teaches that adults can be saved with baptism of
desire?
{153} Do you agree that
predestination is completely, obviously, and totally irrelevant since the
Church mandates immediate baptism of children who are neither more nor less
subject to predestination than adults?
Surely you have heard the
following: “The highest law is the salvation of souls.” Look in the obituary notice section of the
newspapers and you will find therein many more adults than children. Do Rejecters actually believe that adults are
in less danger of dying than babies; or that once somebody becomes an adult
there is no longer a danger of death?
Yet we know our Holy Mother Church, directly guided by the all-wise God,
makes adults wait much longer than 30 days before She recommends that they be
baptized! Remember that: “Up to about
the ninth century, Solemn Baptism in churches of the Latin Rite was
given only on the vigils of
Easter and Pentecost. In the Oriental
Rite and in the diocese of Northern Africa, the Epiphany was added to the
baptismal days. In Spain, they began to
baptize also on the feasts of the Apostles and martyrs, but the Roman
Pontiffs objected to that practice.”
Predestination has been
connected to the Baptism-by-water-only heresy.
People say things such as: “God knows everything and God controls
everything. There is no such thing as an
unforeseen death. There is no such thing
as an accident. God can keep alive everyone whom He wants to be in
heaven until they receive baptism with water.
If God wants a catechumen to enter heaven, He will keep him alive until
he is correctly baptized with water. This is why in accordance with the most ancient rite and tradition of the
Church, it is a becoming practice to make adults
wait many, many months to be baptized only on the vigils of Easter
and Pentecost.”
My dear friend, please pray
for the grace to understand the obvious truth.
Because God knows everything, and God controls everything, why do the
Rejecters usually agree with the Church in teaching that infants should be
baptized with water as soon as possible after birth? Do the Rejecters think that God could not
keep alive everyone (infants as well as adults) whom He wants
to be in heaven until they receive baptism of water?
{154} Do you agree that
the infallible Church, guided by the Holy Ghost, would never make such an
obvious, clear, and unmistakable distinction between infants and adults if
there is no such thing as baptism of desire?
Saint Thomas teaches in Pt.
III, Q. 66 Art. 10.
“The Church is ruled by the Holy
Ghost, Who does nothing inordinate.”
The Holy Ghost does nothing unreasonable,
irrational, or inordinate. The Church
that is ruled by the Holy Ghost requires babies to be baptized very soon after
birth. Yet the Church that is ruled by
the Holy Ghost has adults wait for up to a year. A Rejecter wrote in her article: “If infants
cannot enter into heaven without Baptism, how in the world can an adult?” Saint Thomas explained it very clearly, and
the answer is that adults do not enter heaven without baptism of water or blood
or desire. That is one reason why you
will never find anyone in heaven who was not a Catholic who died in the state
of sanctifying grace.
Is the Catholic Church Responsible
for Spiritual Abortions?
{155} Do you agree that
if you do not believe in baptism of desire, you must believe the Catholic
Church is culpable, guilty, and responsible for thousands if not millions of
spiritual abortions?
Let me explain. What is the greatest evil of abortions? Babies are not baptized, and therefore they
will not enjoy the Beatific Vision. Therefore,
I can say that abortions deprive souls of eternal life. During the past 2,000 years, how many
catechumens do you think died before they received baptism of water? Probably thousands or maybe even millions of
them! The liturgy and Tradition of the
Church required them to wait until the vigils of Easter and Pentecost,
but in the meantime some of them died without receiving baptism of water. It is exactly and only because of what
the Catholic Church teaches about baptism of desire that thousands of
catechumens died without receiving baptism of water. According to Robert Dimond, and the other
Rejecters, not a single one of them will ever enjoy the Beatific Vision.
{156} Do you agree that
it was not the fault of the
catechumens or the priests who completed the catechetical instructions with
them months before, that these adults were deprived of baptism of water?
{157} Do you agree that
if the Rejecters are correct, the Catholic Church is guilty of depriving
catechumens of eternal life?
{158} Do you agree that
if the teachings of the Rejecters are correct, the Catholic Church is guilty of many spiritual abortions?
{159} Do you agree that
if there is no such thing as salvation by baptism of desire, then it was the Catholic Church that aborted
them by depriving them of baptism of water and the eternal enjoyment of the
Beatific Vision?
{160} Do you agree that the
Rejecters teach a very horrifying, diabolical, and blasphemous doctrine?
What answer will the
Rejecters make to Jesus Christ on Judgment Day when asked, “Why did you accuse
My Church of committing abortions?” “Why
did you accuse Me of not having Mercy?”
“Why did you accuse Me of teaching something that is unwise and not
true?” “Why did you refuse to believe that I am the One who commanded that
everyone must hear and obey My Church which can
never err, because it is without spot or wrinkle and ruled by the Holy
Ghost who does nothing unreasonable, irrational, or inordinate?” “How dare you accuse My Church of not doing
everything in Her power to save
souls?”
The Holy Gospel of Saint John 3:5;
6:54; and 6:52
At this time I will provide
information from an article sent to me by a Rejecter entitled, ONE BAPTISM:
“Our Lord spoke clearly and
simply: ‘Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the
Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’ (John 3:5). And, He also said to the apostles: ‘Going
therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ He
also said: ‘Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded
you.’ (Matthew 28:20).
Here He is commanding the
apostles to baptize the faithful, simply because He tells them that a man
cannot enter the kingdom of heaven without it (baptism of water). How much clearer can Our Lord get? He always speaks in SIMPLE terms to
the faithful! No one should ever change,
add to, dilute, extrapolate on what the God-Man says!
If He said that man must be born of
water and the Holy Ghost (to gain eternal life), how can anyone mince those
definitive words and not take them literally?
Again, this is the God-Man speaking!
If a mere man comes along and changes the God-Man’s words, who do you
want to believe? This means any man, be
he bishop, cardinal, theologian, or saint!
I want to believe My Lord and Savior, who will not, cannot, and shall
not deceive! … I want to believe the
Holy Ghost, not mere man!”
I therefore reply to the
Rejecter: “Wait my friend that is not what the Fathers of Trent teach us. That is not what Saint Thomas teaches in the Summa!
That is not what Saint Alphonsus Maria teaches in his Moral Theology! That is not what I find in the Catechism of the Council of Trent! That is not what Saint Augustine and Saint
Jerome teach. That is not what the
Eternal Father told Saint Catherine of Siena.
That is not what the liturgy of the Catholic Church teaches. That is not what I read in the Council of
Trent. That is not how any of them
explained and understood John 3: 5.”
Saint Thomas tells us in Q.
94 of the Supplement under the first
article:
“I answer that, now everything
is known the more for being compared with its contrary, because when contraries
are placed beside one another they become more conspicuous.”
Let us place three Scripture
verses (John 3: 5, John 6: 54,
and John 6: 52) one beside another and apply the same basic statements and
questions to each one of them. The
person who wrote the ONE BAPTISM article,
inserted above, has already supplied some questions and statements for John 3:
5. I will now provide my own
interpretation of how the Rejecter explains John 6: 54, and John 6: 52:
“‘Amen,
amen, I say unto you: Except you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His
Blood, you shall not have life in you.’ (John 6: 54). Jesus Christ here spoke with a sort of oath
by saying amen, amen. If Jesus Christ
was not speaking literally when He spoke this verse, (John 6: 54), then when
did Jesus Christ speak literally?
Patrick, don’t you think that Jesus Christ actually said what He meant
and meant what He said? How much clearer
can Our Lord get? Are not His words very
clear: ‘Except you eat the Flesh of the
Son of Man and drink His Blood, you shall not have life in you?’ No one should ever change, add to, dilute,
or extrapolate on what the God-Man says!
If He said that men must eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His
Blood, (to have life in them), how can anyone mince those definitive words and
not take them literally? Again, this is
the God-Man speaking! If a mere man
comes along and changes the God-Man’s words, who do you want to believe? This means any man be he bishop, cardinal,
theologian, or saint! I want to believe
My Lord and Savior, who will not, cannot, and shall not deceive! I want to believe the Holy Ghost, not mere
man! Jesus Christ is speaking, and He
tells us in no uncertain terms that no one can possibly have sanctifying grace
in them before they receive Holy Communion.
A baby that was properly baptized the same day it was born cannot
possibly have life in it before it eats the Flesh of the Son of Man and drinks
His Blood, which will be another seven years or more!”
Then I say to the Rejecter:
“Wait my friend that is not what the Fathers of Trent teach us. That is not what Saint Thomas teaches in the Summa!
That is not what Saint Alphonsus Maria teaches in his Moral Theology! That is not what I find in the Catechism of the Council of Trent! That is not what Saint Augustine and Saint
Jerome teach. That is not what the Eternal Father told Saint Catherine of
Siena. That is not what the liturgy of
the Catholic Church teaches. That is not
what I read in the Council of Trent.
They all teach me babies do have life in them. That is, both natural life and the
life of sanctifying grace as soon as they are baptized.”
What reply do I receive from
the Rejecter?
“Patrick, let me repeat; don’t you
think that Jesus Christ actually said what He meant and meant what He
said? How much clearer can Our Lord
get? Are not His words clear to you? If He said that men must eat the Flesh of the
Son of Man and drink His Blood, (to have life in them), how can anyone mince
those definitive words and not take them literally? No one will convince me, (This means any man
be he bishop, cardinal, theologian, or saint), that you can have life in you, Except you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man
and drink His Blood. My belief is
guaranteed by the Holy Ghost to be true.
That tells us that you cannot interpret these words according to your
own meaning! These words of Our Lord
must be taken literally! Neither the
Saints nor Doctors of the Church nor the liturgy of the infallible Church will
convince me that the words of Jesus Christ should not be accepted
literally. Therefore we must all believe
it to be a dogma of the Church that no one has ever gone to heaven that did not
eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink
His Blood! Our Lord said, ‘Amen, amen, I say unto you: Except you eat
the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you shall not have life in
you.’ And that’s good enough for
me!”
The Rejecter continues
expounding the meaning of Scripture while teaching:
“If any man eat of this Bread, he
shall live forever: and the Bread that I will give, is My Flesh for the life of
the world.” (John 6: 52).
Do the Rejecters actually
think that if any man received Holy Communion just once, he shall live forever, although he
committed a multitude of mortal sins after that time, never repented of
them, and
ended his life by means of suicide? Of
course they must believe that if they are consistent in their thinking and teaching! Have you already forgotten what Rejecters
tell us?
“If Jesus Christ was not speaking
literally when He spoke this verse, (John 6: 52), then when did Jesus Christ
speak literally? Did Jesus Christ
actually say what He meant and mean what He said? How much clearer can Our Lord get? Are not his words very clear: ‘If any man eat
of this Bread, he shall live forever.’
If anyone receives Holy Communion just once, we know he will live
forever. This is true even if he commits
a multitude of mortal sins and never repents; and ends his life by committing
suicide. Jesus Christ said it, so we
know it is true, and that’s good enough for me!”
Again I say to the Rejecter:
“Wait my friend that is not what the Fathers of Trent teach us. That is not what Saint Thomas teaches in the Summa!
That is not what Saint Alphonsus Maria Liguori teaches in his Moral Theology! That is not what I find in the Catechism of the Council of Trent! That is not what Saint Augustine and Saint
Jerome teach. That is not what the
Eternal Father told Saint Catherine of Siena.
That is not what the liturgy of the Catholic Church teaches. That is not what I read in the Council of
Trent. These sources clearly teach me
that those in the state of mortal sin did not live forever. Suicide is pretty much a sure ticket to
hell. The liturgy of the Catholic Church
does not permit those who commit suicide to have a Catholic burial.”
What reply do I receive from
the Rejecter?
“Patrick, don’t you think that Jesus
Christ actually said what He meant and meant what He said? How much clearer can Our Lord get? Are not His words clear to you? If He said: ‘If any man eat of this Bread, he shall live forever,’ how can
anyone mince those definitive words and not take them literally? Nothing will convince me that anyone who
receives Holy Communion will not be in heaven forever, even if he committed
suicide to end his life. Neither the
Saints nor Doctors of the Church nor the liturgy of the infallible Church will
convince me that the words of Jesus Christ should not be accepted
literally! Our Lord said, ‘If any man eat of this Bread, he shall live forever
…’ And that’s good enough for me!”
Recall the words of Saint
Thomas: “I answer that, now everything is
known the more for being compared with its contrary, because when contraries
are placed beside one another they become more conspicuous.” I
pray that the truth has now become more conspicuous. I simply placed three verses of Scripture,
one beside another and applied basically the same questions and
statements. If you insist on applying
your questions and statements to John 3: 5; then I think you should accept the
theological conclusions (which I have put into your mouth so to speak) when
they are applied to John 6: 54, and John 6: 52.
{161} Do you agree that
it has become conspicuous that the Rejecters only want us to pick one verse out of the three to be
interpreted literally?
Comment: The Holy Catholic
Church ALONE has the authority to define officially what is meant by Christ’s
words. She does so in the
course of infallible pronouncements, the pontifical teachings of Her General Councils, and decrees of the
Holy Office and Sacred Congregations. If we
wrest passages of Holy Scripture from this context and assign to them our own
fallible meaning we are no better than Protestants, for we resort to private interpretation while rejecting the
Supreme Authority of the Church! This rejection of the Church’s teaching
authority is the very source of the heresy Father Leonard Feeney and the other Rejecters hold by denying baptism of blood and desire.
{162} Do the Rejecters think Saint Charles Borromeo, Pope Saint Pius V,
and those who put together the Catechism
of the Council of Trent did not know that Jesus said: “Amen, amen, I say to thee, except a man be born again of water and the
Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God,” or
that they were unable to understand its meaning?
{163} Does not this catechism quote John 3: 5 and then go on to teach
there is baptism of desire?
{164} Do the Rejecters think Saint Thomas Aquinas never read John 3: 5,
or presume that when he did read it, this exceptionally well-learned Doctor of
the Church was so super stupid, hopelessly unintelligent, excessively
dimwitted, extremely dull, completely brainless, and so utterly dense that he
was totally unable to understand its meaning?
I suggest that it might do Rejecters much good to review the Summa
Pt. III, Q. 68 Art. 1. Therein Saint
Thomas answers the question: “Whether All Are Bound to Receive Baptism?” After presenting the objections, he writes
the section: On the contrary. He
begins by quoting this verse of Scripture from John 3: 5. He goes on to tell us what the Church
teaches. He concludes by saying:
“Consequently, it is manifest that
all are bound to be baptized: and that without Baptism there is no salvation
for men.”
This conclusion of Saint
Thomas is exactly what I believe concerning the necessity of baptism. Then Saint Thomas quotes John 3: 5 again when
he explains about baptism of desire, (under article 2 – which I have inserted
above). I also believe the rest of the
things Saint Thomas wrote in the Summa
concerning baptism.
The infallible Church, which
is ruled by the Holy Ghost, has convinced me of the following facts:
FIRST FACT: The Catholic Church knew
what Saint Thomas and Saint Alphonsus Maria taught concerning baptism before She canonized them through Her
liturgy.
SECOND FACT: Therefore, each of their
teachings concerning baptism is not contrary to any part of the liturgy or the
faith of the Catholic Church because the Church does not allow the canonization
of heretics.
THIRD FACT: Therefore, I should also
believe in baptism of water, blood, and desire as taught by Saint Thomas
Aquinas and Saint Alphonsus Maria if I also want to spend eternity in heaven.
The Dialogue
of Saint Catherine of Siena clearly reminds us that the Rejecters’
theology is the exact opposite of Almighty God’s. Here God is talking and explains that souls
can be saved by means of baptism of desire and of blood without having received
baptism with water. But I realize that
the Rejecters do not believe what God, the Eternal Truth, said because
according to them it is contrary to their own interpretation of salvation.
{165} Do you agree that
the Rejecters believe God teaches by the year 451, through Pope Saint Leo the
Great’s definitive pronouncement, that there is no such thing as baptism of
blood and baptism of desire as was later explained by Saint Thomas, Saint
Catherine of Siena, and Saint Alphonsus Maria?
Which side did the Catholic Church declare
was correct: (1) the belief of the Rejecters or (2) what the Eternal Father
told Saint Catherine?
{166} Do you agree that
the infallible Church declared that this mystical saint with the stigmata, who
lived for long intervals on practically no food save
the Blessed Sacrament,
told us the truth in her Dialogue and that therefore the Rejecters’ belief is a
lie?
{167} Do you agree that when two beliefs are contrary only one can be
true?
{168} Will you believe what the Catholic Church declared as opposed to
what the Rejecters teach?
{169} Do you agree that the Rejecters’ interpretation of John 3: 5 is
the opposite of what is found in the words and works of: 1) the Eternal Father teaching Saint Catherine of Siena, 2) Saint Thomas, 3) Saint Alphonsus Maria, 4)
the liturgy of the Catholic Church, 5) the Fathers of
Trent, 6) the Council of Trent, and
8) the Catechism
of the Council of Trent?
{170} Do you agree that the Supreme Authority of the Church has given approval of what is written concerning baptism by: 1) the Eternal Father teaching Saint Catherine of Siena, 2) Saint Thomas, 3) Saint Alphonsus Maria, 4)
the liturgy of the Catholic Church, 5) the Fathers of
Trent, 6) the Council of Trent, and
8) the Catechism
of the Council of Trent?
{171} Do you agree that
therefore the Rejecters’ interpretation of John 3: 5
is the opposite of Holy Mother Church’s
authoritative, faithful, and authentic teaching?
You want me to read Robert
Dimond’s book to find out the truth about baptism. Now I would like to ask you to read some
books to find out the truth about baptism.
Only instead of recommending that you read a book authored by
pseudo-religious who are not recognized by the Church, I will ask you to read The Catholic Dogma by Father Michael
Müller. You can find it at
Father has the correct teaching
and understanding on the important dogma outside
the Church there is no salvation.
Father explains how this is in complete conformity with baptism of
desire and baptism of blood.
The books by Father Michael
Müller, The Dialogue
of Saint Catherine of Siena, the Summa of Saint Thomas, the Moral Theology of Saint Alphonsus Maria
Liguori, the Canons and Decrees of the
Council of Trent, the Catechism of
the Council of Trent, The Liturgical
Year by Abbot Gueranger, and the Roman
Breviary have certainly been approved by the Catholic Church for every one
of Her children to read. These books
teach the opposite of Father Leonard Feeney, Robert and Frederick Dimond, and
the other Rejecters whose books and articles have NEVER been approved by the
Catholic Church.
I am going to believe what
the books approved by the Church teach, and pray that you will do
likewise. There is a great
misunderstanding about baptism of desire and no salvation outside of the Church. Although the Rejecters do not agree with Pope
Gregory XVI and Pope Eugene IV, I do agree with Pope Gregory XVI and Pope
Eugene IV that absolutely no one goes to heaven outside of the Catholic
Church. Although the Rejecters do not
believe it, I do believe that no one who persistently, obstinately, and constantly
teaches contrary to dogmas of the Church until death can be saved. Neither Protestants, Jews, Muslims,
Rejecters, nor the man in the deepest jungle can be saved outside of the
Catholic Church. Invincible ignorance
will neither save one nor damn one. I
believe what Saint Thomas and Saint Alphonsus Maria explained about baptism of
desire and baptism of blood, although Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and other
Traditional Movement clerics do not agree with these two Doctors of the Church.
Let me ask you some more
questions.
{172} Have you ever been somewhat amazed at the amount of knowledge that
Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Alphonsus Maria Liguori had?
{173} Do you agree that there is not a single pope, Doctor of the
Church, Council of the Church, saint, or verse from Sacred Scripture in Robert
Dimond’s book, which existed prior to Saint Thomas and Saint Alphonsus Maria,
that these two Doctors of the Church failed to quote some time or other in
their own books?
{174} Do you agree that these two great Doctors of the Church had all
the important facts that Robert and Frederick Dimond, Bishop Webster, and all of the other Rejecters have?
{175} Do you agree that if everything these two saints and Doctors wrote
concerning baptism was good enough for the infallible Church that it is good
enough for every Catholic?
{176} Will you therefore conclude that these two Doctors of the Church
figured things out correctly concerning baptism of water, blood, and desire?
{177} Do you agree that it was the Apostolic See that declared the
writings of Saint Alphonsus Maria to be free
from error?
{178} Do you agree that everyone should believe the Apostolic See and
not the Rejecters who teach the opposite of the Apostolic See?
Therefore, what answer would
the Apostolic See and every child of the Church give to the question: Do the
Rejecters hold the correct, precise, and exact Catholic faith, or did Saint
Thomas Aquinas and Saint Alphonsus Maria hold the correct, precise, and exact
Catholic faith? Jesus Christ told us through
Pope Pius IX that: “For any man to be able to prove his Catholic faith and affirm
that he is truly a Catholic, he must be able to convince the Apostolic See
of this.”
If you think the
excommunicated Father Leonard Feeney and Robert Dimond are the kind of “saints”
you want to follow, than our discussion about baptism might just as well come
to an end. As for me, I pray that my
beliefs will always be the same as the saints who are now enjoying the Beatific
Vision.
Saint Thomas gives a warning to all who resist the
truth. He
writes in the Summa, Pt. II-II Q. 11
Art. 2:
“On the contrary, Augustine says
against the Manichees: In Christ’s Church, those are heretics, who hold
mischievous and erroneous opinions, and when rebuked that they may think soundly
and rightly, offer a stubborn resistance, and, refusing to mend their
pertinacious and deadly doctrines, persist in defending them. Now pertinacious and deadly doctrines are
none but those which are contrary to the dogmas of faith, whereby the just man
liveth (Rom. i. 17).”
I will now review and sum up
part of what I have attempted to explain within this letter and leave you to
ponder these closing reflections:
Mr. Robert Dimond correctly stated:
“On Judgment
Day, God will separate those who have preserved the true faith and the state
of grace from those who have not.
Those who have defiled this faith will have to line up with the
reprobate… one cannot be saved
without the true faith.”
Mr. Dimond also quotes Pope
Pius XII in Ad Apostolorum Principis:
“No one can depart from the teaching of Catholic truth
without loss of faith and salvation.”
Elsewhere Robert Dimond
quotes Saint Alphonsus Maria as Doctor of the Church:
“We must believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the only
true Church; hence, they who are out of our Church, or they who are separated from it, cannot be saved.”
We can be sure that what is
in the Divine Office is true since it is part of the liturgy of the infallible
Church. Here are some of the things the Divine Office tells us about Saint Alphonsus
Maria Liguori:
“He had the greatest
devotion to the Mother of God, and published a book on Her glories, and while
he was discoursing upon them with great earnestness in preaching, more than
once there appeared a marvelous light, projected on him from the statue of the
Virgin, and in the presence of all the people he was rapt in ecstasy, with his
countenance all aglow…
He joined a wonderful innocence of
life, which he had never soiled
with the state of mortal sin, with an equally wonderful spirit of penance,
and chastised his body by fasting, by light chains of iron, hair shirts, and
scourging even to blood. At the same
time he was remarkable for the gifts of prophecy, reading of hearts, bilocation,
and miracles…
On August 1, in the year 1787 … he
died in the greatest peace. Thereafter,
as he was illustrious for his virtues and his miracles, the Supreme Pontiff Pius VII added him to the
calendar of the Blessed in the year 1816; and as his memory shone with further
signs and wonders, Gregory XVI, on the feast of the most holy Trinity, in the
year 1839, with solemn rites, added him to the list of the Saints. And finally, the Supreme Pontiff Pius IX,
after consulting the Congregation of Sacred Rites, declared him to be a Doctor
of the Universal Church.”
Recall the quote that was
given toward the beginning of this letter:
“The Catholic Faith is such that
nothing can be added to it, nothing taken away.
Either it is held in its
entirety, or rejected totally.
This is the Catholic faith, which, unless a man believes faithfully and
firmly, he cannot be saved.” Pope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi.
It would be formal heresy for anyone to teach: “Now it is de fide that Jesus Christ
was human
but not God.” No one who
pertinaciously taught formal heresy until their death could ever be canonized.
{179} Do you agree that the Catholic Church could not have canonized Saint Alphonsus Maria if he
actually and pertinaciously taught heresy?
(m)
Saint Alphonsus Maria was not separated from
that Church which clearly tells us in Her sacred liturgy that his soul was never
soiled with the state of mortal sin, let alone him becoming a heretic or ever
teaching contrary to any dogma of the Church.
We are absolutely assured by the infallible Church that he preserved the
true faith and the state of sanctifying grace although he obstinately,
tenaciously, determinedly, persistently, and pertinaciously defended his
statement until death that: “Now it is de
fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire.” That statement is either true or false, and
therefore either correctly states a dogma or else Saint Alphonsus Maria was a
formal heretic for denying an infallible pronouncement of the Church. Saint Alphonsus Maria either absolutely spoke
the truth with the statement, “Now it is
de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire,” or else he
absolutely totally rejected the Catholic faith. “Either the Catholic faith is held in its entirety, or rejected
totally!”
(n)
It is totally against reason that a heretic who
obstinately and pertinaciously teaches contrary to a dogma of the Church should
be found in the presence of all the people rapt in ecstasy, with remarkable
gifts of prophecy, reading of hearts, bilocation, and miracles.
(o)
If Saint Alphonsus Maria’s statement is correct,
then the Rejecters reject a dogma
of the Church.
(p)
If the Rejecters believe one can remain in the
unity and bosom of the Church, who obstinately, tenaciously, determinedly,
persistently, and pertinaciously believes, teaches, maintains, defends, and
insists until death that his statement is de fide – although it is in direct
opposition to an infallible pronouncement – then the Rejecters reject a dogma of the Catholic
Church.
(q)
If the Rejecters believe Saint Alphonsus Maria’s
statement is heresy, then the Rejecters reject
a dogma that the Catholic Church teaches the true faith through Her
sacred liturgy.
(r)
If the Rejecters believe Saint Alphonsus Maria’s
statement is heresy and yet he remained in the Catholic Church, then the
Rejecters reject the dogma that
heretics are not members of the Catholic Church.
(s)
If the Rejecters believe Saint Alphonsus Maria’s
statement is heretical, then the Rejecters reject
the dogma that there is no salvation for those who are heretics and
outside of the Church.
(t)
Rejecters therefore reject the dogma that there is no salvation outside of the
Church.
(u)
Rejecters also reject the dogma that the Church is infallible and cannot
err.
(v)
Rejecters also reject the dogma that the Catholic Church always knows when
She speaks infallibly.
(w)
All who reject any dogma of the Catholic Church
will not be saved.
(x)
Because eternity in heaven or hell is at stake,
the only logical thing to do is reject the Rejecters’ heresy and believe: “Now it is de fide that men are also saved
by Baptism of desire.”
Saint Thomas lists the six
sins against the Holy Ghost in the Summa,
Pt. II-II Q. 14 Art. 2 as: despair, presumption, impenitence, obstinacy, resisting the known truth, and
envy of our brother’s spiritual good. He
continues in the Third Article to explain whether the sin against the Holy
Ghost can be forgiven. In doing so he
quotes (Matthew xii. 32): He that shall
speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this
world, nor in the world to come: and Augustine says that so great is the downfall of this sin that it
cannot submit to the humiliation of asking for pardon.
{180} Do you agree that those people are headed toward eternal damnation
who sin against the Holy Ghost in resisting
the known truth, while pertinaciously believing that Father Leonard
Feeney, Robert and Frederick Dimond, Bishop Webster, and the other Rejecters
are correct and that the Catholic Church was wrong when She accepted the
statements of Saint Alphonsus Maria and the Catechism
of the Council of Trent as true and free from all error?
Remember, my answers to every
one of the questions between these types of brackets { } are: “yes.” I ask everyone who reads this letter to
please be kind enough to send me your answers to every one of my questions between the brackets. If any of your answers are: “no” please be kind enough to explain
why. Thank you.
I now repeat what I said
toward the beginning: “When you have finished answering my questions you will
no longer believe the Rejecters’ heresy, or else you will never be able to
affirm that you are truly a Catholic and at the same time be able to
convince the Apostolic See of this.”
Therefore, if you think you are able to do both please show me how it can be done. Consequently, I will
be waiting to see how many Rejecters have the charity, kindness, and courage to
come forth with their answers to the 180 questions.
The original form of this
letter is under my copyright laws. That
is to say, copy it right. Send copies via e-mail or US mail to everyone
you can. It can be found at www.JMJsite.com, and now please put a copy of
it on other Blogs, Forums, and Websites.
Be God’s instrument in letting every Rejecter come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2: 4) and not sin
against the Holy Ghost by rejecting the
known truth of the holy Catholic faith.
I pray that the Blessed
Virgin Mary will intercede with the good God to grant all of us the crosses, contradictions,
sufferings, joys, graces, and blessings we need in this life, so that we will
live in such a way to be with Jesus, Mary, and Saint Joseph for eternity.
In Jesus, Mary, and Joseph,
Patrick Henry
7350 South US Highway 191 Apt. 4
Safford, AZ 85546
928-468-3295