Baptism of Desire: Avoiding the Red Herrings on a Nearby Thread
Oh good, more things to refute!   :LOL:

1) Support of baptism of desire before the Council of Trent:


Innocent II (Dz. 388)

FALSE, this false attribution to Pope Innocent II has no basis in reality:

Baptism of Desire (an unbaptized priest) *

388    [From the letter "Apostolicam Sedem" to the Bishop

of Cremona, of uncertain time]

To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of holy mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine's "City of God" * where among other things it is written, "Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes." Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian * where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers' and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned.

WOW, no date and NO attributed source! Plus the theology is shoddy and retarted, you can't be a priest without being baptized!

Innocent III (Dz. 413)

Personal letter, no magisterial authority.


St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. Lect., III, 4

False. He taught BOB, not BOD. Here is what he said

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, 350 A.D.: “If any man does not receive baptism, he does
not receive salvation. The only exception is the martyrs...”

St. Basil, Homily 13 in S. Baptisma (cited by Herve)

False, he says otherwise in De Spiritu Sancto:

26. Whence is it that we are Christians? Through our faith, would be the universal answer. And in what way are we saved? Plainly because we were regenerate through the grace given in our baptism. How else could we be? And after recognising that this salvation is established through the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, shall we fling away that form of doctrine Romans 6:17 which we received?

St. Ambrose, De obitu Valentiniani consolation: P.L. XVI, 1367

FALSE. St. Ambrose clearly taught:

St. Ambrose, 387 A.D.:
“… no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament
of Baptism.”

St. Ambrose, 387 A.D.:
“‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the
kingdom of God.’ No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by
some necessity.”

St. John Chrysostum, Hom. 1 ad Illuminados (cited by Herve)

Again, FALSE. St. John CLEARLY taught NO salvation for catechumens, the very TYPE of those who desire baptism!

St. John Chrysostom (Hom. in Io. 25, 3), (4th Century):
“For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful… One has Christ for his King;
the other sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat which
decays and perishes… Since then we have nothing in common, in what, tell me,
shall we hold communion?… Let us then give diligence that we may become
citizens of the city above… for if it should come to pass (which God forbid!)
that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated
[unbaptized], though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be none
other than hell,
and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds


St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And plainly
must we grieve for our own catechumens, should they, either
through their own unbelief or through their own neglect,
depart this life without the saving grace of baptism.”

St. Augustine, De Baptismo, IV, 22, 29; De Civ. Dei, XIII, 7

St. Augustine also taught damnation for unbaptized catechumens, AND he retracted his vie on BOD and is the ONLY one to have explicitly taught it!

This is an example of the faithless questioning of many BOD'ers:

St. Augustine, 391: “When we shall have come into His [God’s]
sight, we shall behold the equity of God’s justice. Then no one
will say:… ‘Why was this man led by God’s direction to be
baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a
catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster, and was not
Look for rewards, and you will find nothing except

St. Augustine: “However much progress the catechumen
should make, he still carries the load of his iniquity: nor is it
removed from him unless he comes to Baptism.”

St Augustine, 395: “… God does not forgive sins except to the baptized.”

St. Gregory Nazianzen, Or. 40, 23 (cited by Herve)

You gotta be crazy to quote St. Gregory! LOL. He MOCKS the idea of BOD!!!

St. Gregory Nazianz, 381 AD: “Of those who fail to be baptized some are utterly
animal and bestial, according to whether they are foolish or wicked. This, I
think, they must add to their other sins, that they have no reverence for this gift,
but regard it as any other gift, to be accepted if given them, or neglected if not
given them. Others know and honor the gift; but they delay, some out of
carelessness, some because of insatiable desire. Still others are not able to receive
it, perhaps because of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circumstance
which prevents them from receiving the gift, even if they desire it…
“If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder, solely by his
intention and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as
baptized one who desired Baptism, without having received Baptism
. But, since
you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter? I cannot see it. If you
prefer, we will put it like this: if in your opinion desire has equal power with
actual Baptism, then make the same judgment in regard to glory. You will then
be satisfied to long for glory, as if that longing itself were glory. Do you suffer
any damage by not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have a desire for

St. Bernard, Tractatus de Baptismo, II, 8: P.L. CLXXXII, 1036-37

St. Bernard, Tractatus de baptismo, II, 8, c. 1130: “So, believe me, it would be
difficult to turn me aside from these two pillars – I mean Augustine and Ambrose.
I confess that, whether in error or knowledge, I am with them; for I believe that
a man can be saved by faith alone, provided he desires to receive the
sacrament, in a case where death overtakes the fulfillment of his religious desire,
or some other invincible power stands in his way.”

So, basically, he wasn't even sure of the correctness of his opinion! Clearly, Augustine and Ambrose did NOT subscribe to BOD.

St. Albert the Great, Opera Omnia, vol. XXVI, pp. 35-40: Tract III, De Baptismo, q. I, art. 7 (cited by Fr. Laisney, see below)
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, q. 66, a. 11; q. 68, a. 2
St. Bonaventure, In Sent. IV,  d. 4, P. 2, a. I, q. I

These last, I do not doubt. I seek to show the unanimous consent of the fathers as being AGAINST BOD.

Fathers and Theologians:

Anonymous, De Rebaptismate, n. 5: P.L. III, 1189
St. Cyprian, Ep. 73, 23

St. Cyprian, To Jubaianus (254): “Catechumens who suffer martyrdom before
they have received Baptism with water are not deprived of the Sacrament of
Baptism. Rather, they are baptized with the most glorious and greatest
Baptism of Blood…”

Baptism of BLOOD, not desire! This is plainly dishonest. Plus, notice his theological error. He is equating the grace supposedly received of the sacrament, with the reception of the sacrament itself. Hardly theologically sterling...

St. Gregory of Nyssa, Cont. differentes Baptismum (cited by Herve)

Once again, Baptism of blood. NOT THE SAME THING.

St. Gregory Nyssa, c. 380 A.D.: “Make haste, O sheep, towards the sign of the
cross and the Seal [Baptism] which will save you from your misery!”

St. Fulgentius, The Rule of Faith, n. 43

Again, Baptism of blood, NOT of desire...

St. Fulgence, 523: “From that time at which Our Savior said: “If anyone is not
reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven,’ no one can,
without the sacrament of baptism
, except those who, in the Catholic Church,
without Baptism pour out their blood for Christ…”

Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis christianae fidei, II, VI, 7: P.L. CLXXVI, 453

This, I do not contest, however he does not belong to the unanimous consent of the fathers.

2) Desire for sacraments taught at the Council of Trent:

Sess. VI, chap. 4: Dz. 796 - "This translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration [can. 5 de bapt.], or a desire for it"

False translation. "except through" is the Latin "Sine" which means WITHOUT. No one can be saved WITHOUT Baptism, OR its desire. In other words, you cannot be saved without desiring baptism, and you can not be saved without baptism itself. I.E.

No one can be washed without a shower or the desire to take one. "Or" is Latin "Aut" which can be rendered as "and" due to the context.

Sess. VI, chap. 14: Dz. 807 - "the sacramental confession of the same, at least in desire and to be made in its season"

Obviously, one can receive direct absolution from Christ through an act of perfect contrition. Penance is binding not as a necessity of means, but of precept.

Sess. VII, can. 4: Dz. 847 - "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."

Sess. XIV, chap. 4: Dz. 898 - "The Council teaches, furthermore, that though it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man to God, before this sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation nevertheless must not be ascribed to the contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament which is included in it."
Okay, get this: It is NOT declaring EITHER are sufficient. It is CONDEMNING those that say NEITHER are necessary. Make distinctions, read slowly.

3) Support of baptism of desire after the Council of Trent:


Roman Catechism, P. II, chap. II, q. 36

Oh, this catechism?

Baptism Made Obligatory After Christ's Resurrection

"The second period to be distinguished, that is, the time when the law of Baptism was made, also admits of no doubt. Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave to His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved."

And, as we further know from Trent, God does NOT command impossibilities. If someone really wants to be baptized, they will. All else is the secret judgement of God. Have faith!

Pope St. Pius V, Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus: Dz. 1031, 1033, 1043, 1070

31. "Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a "pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned" [1 Tim. 1:5], can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins." -Condemned.

Lol. This gets used alot, though it proves the OPPOSITE of what the BOD'ers are trying to say. lol. This is stating that the unregenerate, that is catechumens, cannot have perfect charity since their sins have not been remitted. the ENTIRE proposition is condemned.

To illustrate, look at this condemnation from the same document:

33. "A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained." -Condemned.

The idea that a Catechumen can be just through the observation of the commandments, the fulfillment of the law through charity BEFORE being baptized and thus receiving remission of sins is CONDEMNED. It actually proves the OPPOSITE of BOD.

43. "In persons who are penitent before the sacrament of absolution, and in catechumens before baptism, there is true justification, yet separated from the remission of sin."
-CONDEMNED. The entire proposition is condemned!

So, these prove NOTHING.

Pope Paul V, Roman Ritual, Part II, chap. I, par. 1

What can I say? He does not teach it as a revealed truth, and the document i not infallible. I believe he made a mistake.

Pope Gregory XIII, Roman Martyrology – unbaptized saints proposed for veneration by the faithful (Ss. Emerentiana, Genesius of Arles, Victor of Braga, and Rogatian)

This is ridiculous. Here is why: Not all who were considered catechumens were considered unbaptized.

Here: Council of Braga, 572, Canon xvii: “Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice
[oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for
catechumens who have died without baptism.”

If catechumens are ALWAYS unbaptized, why distinguish them with the term "unbaptized"?

Again, at Nicea I

Pope St. Sylvester I, First Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D., Can. 2: “For a catechumen
needs time and further probation after baptism...”

Therefore, it is not necessary to believe these "Catechumen" saints were ever unbaptized.

Besides it was well known that the deeds of the Roman martyrs were somewhat carelessly collected:

Pope St. Gelasius, Decretal, 495:
“Likewise the deeds of the holy martyrs…
[which] with remarkable caution are not read in the holy Roman Church
because the names of those who wrote them are entirely unknown… lest an
occasion of mockery
might arise.”

Pope St. Pius X, 1917 Code of Canon Law, can. 737 §1; 1239 §2 (see also the personal Catechism of Pope St. Pius X)

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4:
“…the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that
is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in
accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or
morals to be held by the universal Church... operates with that

"Thus, the 1917 Code’s proposition in canon 737 that Baptism is necessary “at least in
desire” for salvation is not binding on the universal Church or protected by infallibility.
Regarding its law in canon 1239, that unbaptized catechumens can be given Christian
burial, this contradicts the entire Tradition of the Catholic Church for 1900 years on
whether unbaptized persons can be given Christian burial.

Holy Office Letter to Archbishop of Boston, Suprema Haec Sacra: DS 3869-3872

Mgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton said the following on the relevance of the letter to the dogma of EENS in his book The Catholic Church and Salvation, published in 1958 (p. 103):

"This letter, known as Suprema haec sacra [Protocol 122/49], ... is an authoritative, though obviously not infallible document. That is to say, the teachings in Suprema haec sacra are not to be accepted as infallibly true on the authority of this particular document."


St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Theologia Moralis, Lib. VI, Tr. 2, chap. 1, nn. 95-97

Yes, but he botched his example, where he references session 14 par. 4 of Trent which is actually on the desire for PENANCE being able to justify the soul, NOT baptism!

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Ecclesia militante, Lib. III, chap. 3

Yep. I think he was wrong.


Cano, De Locis Theologicis, Lib. IV, chap. 2-3 (de Ecclesiae Catholicae Auctoritate)
Suarez, De Baptismo, disp. XXVII, sect. II, n. 5 (cited by Tanquerey)
Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, vol. III, sec. 694, pp. 224-226
Pesch, Praelectiones Dogmaticae, t. VI (?), n. 423 (cited by Tanquerey)
*Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments: A Dogmatic Treatise, vol. I, pp. 243-248
*Tanquerey, Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae, vol. III, p. 362
Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, q. VII, th. 14; De Ecclesiae Sacramentis, q. XXIV, th. 25, pp. 240-261; De Gratia Christi, th. 13, p. 197sqq. (cited by Fr. Laisney in Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 79)
Franzelin, De Ecclesia, pp. 414-423 (cited by Fr. Laisney)
Wilhelm and Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, Based on Scheeben's 'Dogmatic', vol. II, Lib. VII, sec. 252, I, 2, a
Garrigou-Lagrange, De Revelatione, pp. 613-615 (cited by Fr. Laisney)
*Herve, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae, vol. III, p. 562
*Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 356
McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology: A Complete Course, vol. II, sec. 2662, pp. 631f.
Prümmer, Handbook of Moral Theology, sec. 551, p. 253; sec. 555, p. 254

The Theologians of a 300 year era do not impress. What about the CONSTANT TEACHING of the church?! What, there are no theologians before the scholastic period?! Please. THe UNANIMOUS consent of the Fathers is plain: None are saved apart from water baptism.


The plain intellectual dishonesty here is a plague.

Messages In This Thread
Re: Baptism of Desire: Avoiding the Red Herrings on a Nearby Thread - by Gregory I - 01-27-2012, 04:18 AM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)