Baptismus de Voto: Vienne, Florence, & Trent

Baptisms de Voto contradicts the Council of Vienne

The following dogmatic declaration from the Council of Vienne has been brought forward against the dogma of baptismus de voto by the Dimond Brothers:

Besides, one baptism which regenerates all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as ‘one God and one faith’ [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be commonly the perfect remedy for salvation for adults as for children.

- Council of Vienne, 1311-1312, ex cathedra

The Dimond Brothers appear to believe that not only does the above quotation pertain to the baptismus de voto, but that it refutes it. Neither of these assumptions are correct, however. If the full passage​ is read, ​it will become clear to the reader that Pope Clement was specifically refuting certain heretics of the time who denied the efficacy of water baptism for infants. As such, the passage has no reference to our subject. To confess that baptism “celebrated in water” is​ salvific “for adults as for children” is most certainly not the same thing as to also add that baptism celebrated in blood or in desire are not possessed of saving grace.

Baptismus de Voto contradicts the Council of Florence

In addition to bringing forward the Council of Vienne against the baptismus de voto, the Dimond Brothers also attempt to make the Council of Florence do the same. The passage in question is as follows:

Fifthly, for the easier instruction of the Armenians of today and in the future we reduce the truth about the sacraments of the church to the following brief scheme. There are seven sacraments of the new Law...

All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the church does. If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected...

Holy baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments, for it is the gate of the spiritual life; through it we become members of Christ and of the body of the church.
​ ​
Since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5].
The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.

​- The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra

With regards to this declaration, it must first be noted that it is entirely accurate and correct to deduce from it that since the matter of water is lacking in the baptismus de voto, it is not a “Sacrament” according to the technical definition of the term. Thus, St. Thomas says [emphasis mine]:

...a sacrament is a kind of sign. The other two [Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire], however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not sacraments.

​- Summa, Part III, Q. 66, Article 11, Reply to Objection 2

Having established this, the question becomes whether the Sacraments themselves (i.e., with a physical “sign”) are necessary, or only their effects. We know of at least one example in which the effect of a Sacrament is communicable without the sign/matter of the same. This Sacrament is that of Penance.

The fourth sacrament is penance. Its matter is the acts of the penitent, which are threefold. The first is contrition of heart, which includes sorrow for sin committed, with the resolve not to sin again. The second is oral confession, which implies integral confession to the priest of all sins that are remembered. The third is satisfaction for sins in accordance with the judgment of the priest which is ordinarily done by prayer, fasting and almsgiving. The form of this sacrament are the words of absolution which the priest pronounces when he says: I absolve you. The minister of this sacrament is a priest with authority to absolve, which is either ordinary or by commission of a superior.

- The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra

Even the Dimond Brothers admit that an act of Perfect Contrition bestows the effect of sacramental penance despite the fact that this act does not contain the matter of “satisfaction for sins in accordance with the judgment of a priest” nor the form of “the words of absolution which the priest pronounces”. This sets undisputed precedent for the fact that it is possible for God to directly impart the effect of sacraments without their signs/matter.

If this is the case, then why are the sacraments necessary at all? St. Thomas explains [emphasis mine]:

I answer that, Sacraments are necessary unto man's salvation for three reasons. The first is taken from the condition of human nature which is such that it has to be led by things corporeal and sensible to things spiritual and intelligible. Now it belongs to Divine providence to provide for each one according as its condition requires. Divine wisdom, therefore, fittingly provides man with means of salvation, in the shape of corporeal and sensible signs that are called sacraments.

The second reason is taken from the state of man who in sinning subjected himself by his affections to corporeal things. Now the healing remedy should be given to a man so as to reach the part affected by disease. Consequently it was fitting that God should provide man with a spiritual medicine by means of certain corporeal signs; for if man were offered spiritual things without a veil, his mind being taken up with the material world would be unable to apply itself to them.

The third reason is taken from the fact that man is prone to direct his activity chiefly towards material things. Lest, therefore, it should be too hard for man to be drawn away entirely from bodily actions, bodily exercise was offered to him in the sacraments, by which he might be trained to avoid superstitious practices, consisting in the worship of demons, and all manner of harmful action, consisting in sinful deeds.

It follows, therefore, that through the institution of the sacraments man, consistently with his nature, is instructed through sensible things; he is humbled, through confessing that he is subject to corporeal things, seeing that he receives assistance through them: and he is even preserved from bodily hurt, by the healthy exercise of the sacraments.

- Summa, Part III, Question 61, Article 1

In short, the sacraments are made necessary by the physical condition of man who is lead by corporeal things, relying upon them to strengthen his enfeebled mind. It follows that God does not require these physical signs to impart His grace. He is entirely capable to do this outside of physical signs. This is Fr. Martin’s meaning when he says “...the Law of God requiring Baptism of water for salvation is a positive law, and not a precept of the Natural Law. Baptism of water is of obligation because of the express will of God, and not because the very nature of things demands it.” (Outside The Church There Is No Salvation: Parts One and Two of Seven Parts).

Since God is able to impart the grace of the Sacraments outside of their physical matter and form, we should consider whether this is the case with the Sacrament of Baptism, specifically. St. Thomas answers as follows [emphasis mine]:

...Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him.

- Summa, Part III, Question 66, Article 11

We know that, as the Council of Florence states, the Sacrament of Baptism is not effected without water, yet this is not the same thing as saying that without water there is no Sacramental effect. For analogy: if I cannot walk to work without getting on the sidewalk, does this mean I cannot get to work at all? Of course not: I can get in a car and drive. Similarly, if I cannot get the Sacrament of Baptism without water, does this mean I cannot get the effect of Baptism at all? Not in the least. The Sacraments are the primary and normal means of grace, yet grace is not dependent on them for its operation.

In addition to the quotation cited above, the Dimond Brothers also bring forward the following as evidence that the Council of Florence rejected the baptismus de voto:

No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.​

- ​“Cantate Domino,” Council of Florence, ex cathedra​

The Dimond Brothers bring this quotation forward as evidence against the baptismus de voto on the assumption that this form of Baptism exists outside the “unity of the Catholic Church”. This assumption is incorrect and completely contradicts the essential meaning of the dogma. This does not deny that salvation only exists “within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church”; instead, it explains how this unity is preserved despite insurmountable obstacles of time and space. This is aptly described by Fr. Martin​​ [emphasis added]​:

​​It should also be clear that those living in "invincible ignorance" outside visible membership in the Catholic Church are really NOT TOTALLY "outside" the Church. The fact is that they are in an invisible and mysterious way connected with the Church, or are "related" to her. They are "related" to the Church THROUGH GRACE, which the Most High can easily bestow on them, even without actual Baptism of water, provided that they are properly disposed. This is no problem for the Almighty.
​ ​
It is precisely of this "relationship" with the One True Church that Pope Pius XII spoke in his encyclical on the Mystical Body of Christ (Mystici Corporis) in 1943. In paragraph (of the NCWC 1943 edition), this saintly Pontiff of our own times speaks of "those who do not belong to the VISIBLE Body of the Catholic Church". (We deliberately give special emphasis to the all-important word "visible"). About half-way down the same paragraph, the Holy Father states (and we again add emphasis) that "by an unconscious desire and longing THEY HAVE A CERTAIN RELATIONSHIP WITH THE MYSTICAL BODY OF THE REDEEMER. . ."

- Outside The Church There Is No Salvation: Parts One and Two of Seven Parts, Trent and Baptism of Desire

This question of unity is addressed more exhaustively under the “ex ecclesiam nulla salus” chapter, so it suffices to say here that this quotation on the necessity of remaining in unity with the Church has no bearing on the question at issue since the question at issue is not whether salvation exists outside the Church or not. It does not. baptismus de voto adheres to this faith with all the strict exactness required of a Catholic dogma.

Baptismus de voto contradicts the Council of Trent

The Dimond Brothers quote from the fifth canon on baptism in the seventh session of Trent as follows:

If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.

- Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra

The inference meant to be drawn from this is that the grace of salvation can only be imparted through Baptism of Water. To assist the reader in drawing this inference, the Brothers add “the Sacrament” in brackets. Although this does not in itself distort the text unduly, the fact that it was put there at all is of great significance given the following solemn condemnation given by Pope Pius IV in the Bull of Confirmation of the Council of Trent:

We, by apostolic authority, forbid all men, as well ecclesiastics, of whatsoever order, condition, and rank they may be, as also laymen, with whatsoever honor and power invested; prelates, to wit, under pain of being interdicted from entering the church, and all others whomsoever they be, under pain of excommunication incurred by the fact, to presume, without our authority to publish, in any form, any commentaries, glosses, annotations, scholia, or any kind of interpretation whatsoever of the decrees of the said Council...

- Council of Trent, Twenty-Fifth Session, “Bull of Our Most Holy Lord Pius IV, by Providence of God, Pope, Touching the Confirmation of the Oecumenical (and) General Council of Trent”, available: http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct25.html

By deliberately inserting parenthetical material into the text of the Council’s decrees for the purpose of pushing their own agenda, the Dimond Brothers have directly incurred the excommunication of Pope Pius IV. In this way they fill up the measure of their illustrious forebear Fr. Leonard Feeney, who was himself excommunicated by Pope Pius XII.

The way to correctly understand whether or not the fifth canon on Baptism was meant to condemn the baptismus de voto, we should refer to the official documents and decrees of the Church, as the above Bull further says:

For, if any difficulties and controversies shall arise in regard of the said decrees, We reserve them to be by Us cleared up and decided, even as the holy Synod has Itself in like manner decreed...
- Ibid.

Thus, according to the Council, glosses (such as parenthetically inserting material into the canons) are strictly forbidden and any ambiguity is to be clarified by the Papal authority. This is precisely what is done further on in, but for now, it must suffice to provide some of the context and background for the Council of Trent with which we will be more prepared to accurately ascertain its meaning.

The Council of Trent was summoned primarily in response to the Protestant revolutionaries, and the canons of Trent pertaining to Baptism were given to condemn various erroneous teachings of the Reformers. Many of these included a rejection of the necessity for Baptism:

The necessity of baptism has been called in question by some of the Reformers or their immediate forerunners. It was denied by Wyclif, Bucer, and Zwingli. According to Calvin it is necessary for adults as a precept but not as a means. Hence he contends that the infants of believing parents are sanctified in the womb and thus freed from original sin without baptism. The Socinians teach that baptism is merely an external profession of the Christian faith and a rite which each one is free to receive or neglect.

- Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism, “Necessity of Baptism”, available: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

Against this, the Council of Trent emphatically declared that Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. This was in accordance with the teaching of St. Thomas on the subject:

I answer that, Necessity of end, of which we speak now, is twofold. First, a thing may be necessary so that without it the end cannot be attained; thus food is necessary for human life. And this is simple necessity of end. Secondly, a thing is said to be necessary, if, without it, the end cannot be attained so becomingly: thus a horse is necessary for a journey. But this is not simple necessity of end.

In the first way, three sacraments are necessary for salvation. Two of them are necessary to the individual; Baptism, simply and absolutely; Penance, in the case of mortal sin committed after Baptism; while the sacrament of order is necessary to the Church, since "where there is no governor the people shall fall" (Proverbs 11:14).

- Summa, Part III, Question 65, Article 4, available: http://newadvent.org/summa/4065.htm#article4

The fact that St. Thomas taught both the simple, absolute necessity of Baptism for salvation and also the validity of Baptism in blood and desire shows that when the Council condemned the Reformers for questioning the necessity of Baptism, it was not necessarily also condemning Catholics (such as St. Thomas, with whom the Fathers of Trent were no doubt familiar) who believed and confessed the validity of baptismus de voto.

The fact that the Council had no intention of condemning the teaching of baptismus de voto is conclusively proven by referring back to Canon IV on the Sacraments in General which reads:

If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

- Council of Trent, Session Seven, On the Sacraments, Canon IV, available: http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct07.html

Not only does the Council expressly teach the validity of desire for receiving the grace of the Sacraments in general, it also teaches the same with regard to Baptism specifically:

The definite and clear teaching of the Council of Trent, as well as of its authoritative, follow-up Catechism of the Council of Trent, on the reality of Baptism of Desire, is beyond any doubt. At its 6th session (January 13, 1547) the Council of Trent infallibly declared that the justification of the sinner and his translation from the state of original sin to the state of grace “cannot... be effected except through the laver of regeneration (i.e., baptism) or its desire...” And the Catechism of the Council of Trent, clearly referring to Baptism of Desire, declared, “... 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.”

- ​​​The “UnBaptized Saints” Deception

The Dimond Brothers boldly attempt to assert in the face of this that the “or” in both cases actually means “and”, yet this diametrically contradicts the official commentary on this passage as published in the Catechism of Trent which explicitly affirms that the “or” in these declarations really does mean “or”, not “and”. Fr. Martin drives this point home for us as follows:

Taking an untampered McHugh-Callan edition of the Trent Catechism, we come upon the following clear statement of the concept of Baptism of desire, on page 179: "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."​ ... [the Fathers of Trent] well understood that the Law of God requiring Baptism of water for salvation is a positive law, and not a precept of the Natural Law. Baptism of water is of obligation because of the express will of God, and not because the very nature of things demands it.

​- Outside The Church There Is No Salvation: Parts One and Two of Seven Parts by Fr. Martin Stephanich

The objection that the Catechism teaches something different from the Council is truly absurd since it requires us to believe that the Church dogmatically proclaimed the exact opposite of what She then proceeded to ​teach all the Faithful in the Catechism. Steven Speray (stevensperay.wordpress.com) elaborates upon this point as follows:

Dimond writes: “The Catechism of the Council of Trent is not infallible. Fathers John A.McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P. wrote the introduction for a common English translation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Their introduction contains the following interesting quote from Dr. John Hagan, Rector of the Irish College in Rome, about the Catechism’s authority. Catechism of the Council of Trent ‐ Fifteenth printing, TAN Books, Introduction XXXVI: “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 whatis de fide.”367

What Dimond omits is the fact Dr. Hagan also stated, “At the very least it has the same authority as a dogmatic Encyclical.”

This is important because Catholics are not free to question this level of authority.

Pope Pius XII taught, “It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in these the popes do not exercise the supreme powers of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent ‘He who heareth you, heareth me.’; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine.” Humani Generis (1950), D 2313.

Contrary to Pope Pius XII, Dimond is already laying the groundwork why he has the right to question, label as erroneous, and not give assent to this level of authority of the Church.

Twice, I asked Dimond point blank if the pertinent phrases in the Roman Catechism are heretical and he refused to answer the question.

- Systematically debunking the Dimond Brothers on Baptism of Desire – PART 3
July 23, 2013 by Steven Speray, available: http://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/systematically-debunking-the-dimond-brothers-on-baptism-of-desire-part-3

The Church is not schizophrenic: there is no conflict between what is universally believed and taught in the magisterium ordinarium and the solemn dogmas of the Councils. ​St. Alphonsus Ligouri bears witness to this teaching, as Fr. Anthony Cekada explains:

St. Alphonsus Liguori defines baptism of desire (flaminis) as: “Perfect conversion to God through contrition or love of God above all things, with the explicit or implicit desire [voto] for true Baptism of water, in whose place it may supply, according to the Council of Trent.” He cites Session 14, on Penance, ch. 4.
​
St. Alphonsus further states: “It is de fide that men may be also be saved through baptism of desire — from the chapter Apostolicam, de presb. non bapt. and from the Council of Trent, where it is said that no one can be saved ‘without the washing of regeneration or the desire for it’.” (Theologia Moralis, ed. nova. [Rome: Vatican 1909] 3:96-7.)

​- Baptism of Desire: An Exchange

​The Traditio Network adds:

In this he expresses the teaching of all the Fathers, Doctors, popes, and theologians, including St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae, IIIa, Q. 68, A.2), St. Peter Canisius, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, and Pope St. Pius X (De Baptismo, cap. 1).

- FAQ 10: How Do You Explain These Traditional Catholic Beliefs?, Baptism of Desire and Ex Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

​Most of the above mentioned Fathers and Doctors have already been quoted, but it is worth adding to this from Fr. Cekada:

The first citation is to an Epistle of Pope Innocent II (1130–43), who stated that a priest who “had died without the water of baptism, because he had 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.” (Dz 388)​. Other theologians also cite Trent and Innocent II for these definitions. They also cite Pope Innocent III’s decree in 1206 concerning a Jew who desired baptism but was not able to be validly baptized: “If, however, such a man had died immediately, he would have flown to his heavenly home at once, because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith.” (Dz 413​)​

​- Baptism of Desire: An Exchange

​The Dimond Brothers are always quick to point out that theologians are not always correct and that we must ultimately rely only on the official teaching of the infallible Church; however, ​when the words of this official teaching are so perverted as to make "or" mean "and", the commentary of theologians is necessary to clarify the resulting confusion. When this commentary is contradictory to those who introduced the confusion, we must ask ourselves whether it is more salutary to accent to the officially canonized Saints and solemnly confirmed Doctors of the Church rather than the excommunicate and schismatic Fr. Feeney. This question answers itself.

It is worth mentioning at this point that along with the aforementioned Catechism, Saints, and Doctors, we must count our Holy Father Pope Pius IX who must also be accounted among the heretics by the redoubtable Dimond Brothers since he says [emphasis added]:

We know and you know that those who are INVINCIBLY IGNORANT of our most holy Religion, and who, carefully observing the Natural Law and its precepts, placed by God into the hearts of all men, and being disposed to obey God, lead an honest and upright life, CAN, with the help of Divine Light and Grace, MERIT ETERNAL LIFE; for God, Who has perfect knowledge, examines and judges the minds, the souls, the thoughts and the deeds of all men, and He does not permit, in His sovereign Goodness and Mercy, any men NOT CULPABLE OF WILFUL SIN to be punished with eternal torment... But this Catholic Dogma is equally well known: That no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church, and those who KNOWINGLY rebel against the teaching and the authority of the Church cannot obtain eternal salvation, nor can those who WILFULLY separate themselves from union with the Church and with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, to whom the Savior has entrusted the safe-keeping of His vineyard.

- Quanto conficiamur Moerore August 10, 1863 as quoted in Outside The Church There Is No Salvation: Parts One and Two of Seven Parts by Fr. Martin Stephanich

In stark contrast to this and despite the scouring the entire history of the Church for evidence to refute the baptismus de voto, the Dimond Brothers are incapable of find a single clear, definitive condemnation of this teaching. The reason is that the Church has never at any time condemned it as heresy. This is despite the undeniable fact that the baptismus de voto was openly taught in explicit terms by numerous erudite and prominent theologians for hundreds upon hundreds of years from the earliest centuries right up to the present day.

We have already seen how the baptismus de voto can be traced back to the primitive Church with Pope St. Clement, St. Irenaeus, and St. Justin Martyr in the 2nd century; Tertullian at the turn of the same century; and St. Augustine in the 4th century. We can be confident, therefore, that the Church was aware of the dogmas of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood for roughly one millenium before the advent of St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. St. Thomas himself, of course, is the greatest exponent of the dogma in question, so much so, in fact, that even the Dimond Brothers do not attempt to deny the nature of his teaching, although they dismiss it as incorrect. This teaching is outlined at some length both in his dialogue on Baptism itself and on the Sacraments in general.

In Question 64, St. Thomas examines the causes of the Sacraments. This question is of great importance to the Feenyite debate because what Feenyism effectively reduces to is the belief that the grace of Baptism has a causal relationship to physical water such that the grace cannot be effected without the water. Although the entirety of Question 64 should be read, St. Thomas makes his most salient point in Article 7 where he considers whether Angels can minister the sacraments:

But it must be observed that as God did not bind His power to the sacraments, so as to be unable to bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament; so neither did He bind His power to the ministers of the Church so as to be unable to give angels power to administer the sacraments. And since good angels are messengers of truth; if any sacramental rite were performed by good angels, it should be considered valid, because it ought to be evident that this is being done by the will of God: for instance, certain churches are said to have been consecrated by the ministry of the angels [See Acta S.S., September 29].

- Summa Theologica, Part III, Question 64, Article 7, available: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4064.htm#article7

Feenyism can be expressed as an affirmation of the fact that God did bind his power to the water of the sacrament of Baptism so as to be unable to bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the water. This highly artificial system flies in the face of not only the omniscience of God, but also of His divine love for mankind. On the one hand it binds God’s power of conferring His grace to the matter of water, and on the other, it denies His willingness give His grace to anyone without washing them in water.

Question 65, Article 4:

Objection 3. Further, a man can be saved without the sacrament of Baptism, provided that some unavoidable obstacle, and not his contempt for religion, debar him from the sacrament, as we shall state further on (68, 2). But contempt of religion in any sacrament is a hindrance to salvation. Therefore, in like manner, all the sacraments are necessary for salvation.

On the contrary, Children are saved by Baptism alone without the other sacraments.

I answer that, Necessity of end, of which we speak now, is twofold. First, a thing may be necessary so that without it the end cannot be attained; thus food is necessary for human life. And this is simple necessity of end. Secondly, a thing is said to be necessary, if, without it, the end cannot be attained so becomingly: thus a horse is necessary for a journey. But this is not simple necessity of end.

In the first way, three sacraments are necessary for salvation. Two of them are necessary to the individual; Baptism, simply and absolutely; Penance, in the case of mortal sin committed after Baptism; while the sacrament of order is necessary to the Church, since "where there is no governor the people shall fall" (Proverbs 11:14).

- Summa Theologica, Question 65, Article 4

Finally, in Question 68:

Objection 3. Further, as stated above (Art. 1; Ques. 65, art. 4), the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now, that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Aristotle, Metaphysics, 5). Therefore, it seems that no one 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 in the case with those who neither are baptized nor wish to be baptized, which clearly indicates contempt for the Sacrament in the case of those who have the use of free will. Consequently, those to whom Baptism is wanting in his way cannot obtain salvation, since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone salvation can be obtained.

Secondly, the Sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to someone 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 which works through charity" (Gal. 5, 6), whereby God, whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies a 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 3. The Sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation insofar as man cannot be saved without at least baptism of desire, "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, On the Psalms, 57)."

- Part III, Question 68, Article 2

In opposition to this, the Brothers are unable to bring forward any evidence which directly and negatively answers the question of whether or not man can be saved by baptismus de voto or not. Why is this? Fr. Martin explains:​​

If the Church had ever condemned Baptism of Blood, as well as Baptism of Desire, it would have amounted to condemning God himself for giving the grace of baptism and of salvation to well-disposed souls who were overtaken by death before their baptism with water could take place.

- ​​​The “UnBaptized Saints” Deception

​This fact leaves the Dimond Brothers in the impossible position of teaching that the Church tacitly allowed an outrageous heresy concerning the essential dogma of salvation completely uncontested for hundreds upon hundreds of years.​ Where is the Holy Ghost which Christ promised to His Apostles? Where is the unshakable Rock against which the Gates of Hell shall never prevail? They have been there all along, but they have consistently rebuffed the assaults of those who attacked the baptismus de voto, not those who defended it. Among these have been not only learned, universally-renowned Fathers and Doctors of the Church, not only Beatified and Canonized Saints, but even the successors of the Blessed Apostle Himself have expressly and repeatedly come to the defense of Baptism de voto. Knowing all these things, who dares withhold consent? Who dares condemn the Church of Christ? Let us withdraw in fear and dread from such sacrilege and bow in humble reverence before the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic dogma which has been always believed, taught, and handed-down from the beginning of the Word’s life on earth right up to the this present moment.

To him be glory both now and unto the day of eternity. Amen.

Download this article.

Baptismus de Voto: Ex Ecclesiam, Unum Baptisma, & Sola Fide

Ex Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

One of the classic objections which Feenyites such as the Dimond Brothers make against baptismus de voto is that it allows for salvation outside the Church and thus contradicts the dogma of ex ecclesiam nulla salus (“outside the Church there is no salvation”). This objection can only be upheld by grossly misapprehending the meaning of baptismus de voto because, when properly understood, this dogma explicitly confirms the dogma of ex ecclesiam nulla salus. Fr. Martin explains this as follows:

The salvation of those baptized by way of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood comes about immediately, at death. Such souls ​[are] brought by God into His Church at death, and they enter into Heaven, not “outside the church,” but “inside the Church.” There are no “unbaptized” or “outside Church” souls in Heaven, nor were “unbaptized” or “outside the Church” Saints among the Saints of God.
- ​​​The “UnBaptized Saints” Deception

​Thus, the question regarding baptismus de voto is not whether people can be saved outside the Church but whether those baptized in desire and those baptized in blood are inside the Church or not. Those who insist that baptismus de voto allows for salvation outside the Church are severely distorting both the dogma they are attacking as well as the dogma they are defending as condemning it.

While it is absolutely true to state that the Church is a visible body united not only by invisible ties of Faith, Hope, and Charity but also by visible ties of liturgy, clergy, and history, this fact does not in itself automatically condemn all those not enclosed within the visible bonds of this unity. This condemnation is neither a necessary nor a truthful conclusion to be drawn from the dogma of ex ecclesiam nulla salus. The proper, complete, and harmonious exposition of this dogma is excellently summarized in the Encyclopedia as follows:

But does the proposition that outside the Church there is no salvation involve the doctrine so often attributed to Catholicism , that the Catholic Church , in virtue of this principle, "condemns and must condemn all non-Catholics"? This is by no means the case. The foolish and unchristian maxim that those who are outside the Church must for that very reason be eternally lost is no legitimate conclusion from Catholic dogma . The infliction of eternal damnation pertains not to the Church , but to God , Who alone can scrutinize the conscience . The task of the Church is confined exclusively to the formulating of the principle, which expresses a condition of salvation imposed by God Himself, and does not extend to the examination of the persons , who may or may not satisfy this condition. Care for one's own salvation is the personal concern of the individual. And in this matter the Church shows the greatest possible consideration for the good faith and the innocence of the erring person . Not that she refers, as is often stated, the eternal salvation of the heterodox solely and exclusively to "invincible ignorance", and thus makes sanctifying ignorance a convenient gate to heaven for the stupid. She places the efficient cause of the eternal salvation of all men objectively in the merits of the Redeemer , and subjectively in justification through baptism or through good faith enlivened by the perfect love of God , both of which may be found outside the Catholic Church . Whoever indeed has recognized the true Church of Christ , but contrary to his better knowledge refuses to enter it and whoever becomes perplexed as to the truth of his belief , but fails to investigate his doubts seriously, no longer lives in good faith , but exposes himself to the danger of eternal damnation , since he rashly contravenes an important command of God . Otherwise the gentle breathing of grace is not confined within the walls of the Catholic Church , but reaches the hearts of many who stand afar, working in them the marvel of justification and thus ensuring the eternal salvation of numberless men who either, like upright Jews and pagans , do not know the true Church, or, like so many Protestants educated in gross prejudice, cannot appreciate her true nature. To all such, the Church does not close the gate of Heaven , although she insists that there are essential means of grace which are not within the reach of non-Catholics.
- Catholic Encyclopedia, “Tolerance”, The inadmissibility of theoretical dogmatic toleration, para. 5, available: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14763a.htm

This teaching which balances the absolute and immutable necessity of unity with the Roman Catholic Church along with the hidden mercies of the Divine Redeemer is perhaps nowhere more beautifully laid before us than by these words of our Holy Father Pope Pius IX:

Not without sorrow have we learned that another error, no less destructive, has taken possession of some parts of the Catholic world, and has taken up its abode in the souls of many Catholics who think that one should have good hope of the eternal salvation of all those who have never lived in the true Church of Christ. Therefore, they are wont to ask very often what will be the lot and condition after death of those who have not submitted in any way to the Catholic faith, and, by bringing forward most vain reasons, they make a response favorable to their false opinion. Far be it from Us, Venerable Bretheren, to presume on the limits of the divine mercy which is infinite; far from Us, to wish to scrutinize the hidden counsel and "judgments of God" which are "a great deep" [Psalms 36:6] and cannot be penetrated by human thought. But, as Our Apostolic duty, we wish your episcopal solicitude and vigilance to be aroused, so that you will strive as much as you can to drive from the mind of men that impious and equally fatal opinion, namely, that the way of eternal salvation can be found in any religion whatsoever. May you demonstrate with that skill and learning in which you excel, to the people entrusted to your care that the dogmas of the Catholic faith are in no wise opposed to divine mercy and justice.

For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains "we shall see God as He is" [1 John 3:2], we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.

- Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quamdam, para. 5 - 6, avail: http://www.geocities.ws/caleb1x/documents/singulariquadam.html

These words of the Holy Father can leave no doubt whatever in our minds that the extremes of both Feenyism and Postmodernism are equally abhorrent to the true Church and the purity of Her holy doctrine given by Christ. The Feenyite dogmas are, in fact, the direct descendants of ancient heresies no less than the Postmodern darkness against which Feenyism is the equally incorrect and opposite extreme. The spiritual brotherhood of Feeney with Martin Luther, for instance, can be quickly perceived in the following quotation from the latter’s Large Catechism:

These articles of the Creed, therefore, divide and separate us Christians from all other people upon earth. For all outside of Christianity, whether heathen, Turks, Jews, or false Christians and hypocrites, although they believe in, and worship, only one true God, yet know not what His mind towards them is, and cannot expect any love or blessing from Him; therefore they abide in eternal wrath and damnation. For they have not the Lord Christ, and, besides, are not illumined and favored by any gifts of the Holy Ghost.

The Large Catechism by Dr. Martin Luther, Translated by F. Bente and W. H. T. Dau. Part Second. OF THE CREED. Article III, available: http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1722/pg1722.txt

This bleak and cruel dogma of Martin Luther, Leonard Feeney, and all their Catharist brotherhood was not only rejected by Pope Pius IX but also over 140 years before by Pope Clement XI:

29. Outside of the Church, no grace is granted... Declared and condemned as false, captious, evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, rash, injurious to the Church and her practice, insulting not only to the Church but also the secular powers seditious, impious, blasphemous, suspected of heresy, and smacking of heresy itself, and, besides, favoring heretics and heresies, and also schisms, erroneous, close to heresy, many times condemned, and finally heretical, clearly renewing many heresies respectively and most especially those which are contained in the infamous propositions of Jansen, and indeed accepted in that sense in which these have been condemned.

- CONDEMNATION OF THE ERRORS OF PASCHASIUS QUESNEL, UNIGENITUS (Section 3), Dogmatic Constitution issued by Pope Clement XI on Sept. 8, 1713. avail: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Clem11/c11unige.htm

Going somewhat further back we find the same idea condemned by Pope Alexander VIII:

5. Pagans, Jews, heretics, and others of this kind do not receive in any way any influence from Jesus Christ, and so you will rightly infer from this that in them there is a bare and weak will without any sufficient grace... Condemned and prohibited as rash, scandalous, evil-sounding, injurious, close to heresy, smacking of heresy, erroneous, schismatic, and heretical respectively.

- Alexander VIII – Decree of the Holy Office, Dec. 7, 1690 – Errors of the Jansenists, available: http://www.romancatholicism.org/jansenism/jansenism-condemnations.htm#decree1690

In reviewing the above material we see that the Dimond Brothers are indeed carrying on a very ancient tradition of venerable age, yet however venerable its age, its content is entirely execrable. From Martin Luther, Paschasius Quensel and the Jansensists, to Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center, this Catharist tradition of puritanical condemnation, marked in all ages by the brutal simplicity of its soulless dualism, has been persistently rejected by the Vicars of Christ and the truth of Catholic dogma.

By rejecting this Cartharistic dualism of the Dimond Brothers, are we thereby forced to accept the opposite extreme of the Postmodern heretics who mindlessly enfold the entirety of the human race within the welcoming jaws of the infinitely amorphous Vatican II “Church”? No. On the contrary, justification by means of blood or of desire is a hard path to follow by any standard, and it definitely stands firm against the libelous charge of liberal modernism which is so regularly hurled against it by its critics. This is because in it the Church definitely recognizes the validity of salvation through blood and desire, yet also acknowledges the extremely limited scope of these means to justification in practice.

The striking contrast of this dogma to both the Feenyites and the Postmodern liberals of our time is beautifully captured by Fr. Frederick Faber as he describes the fearful yet not totally hopeless condition of those outside the visible Church in his book, “The Precious Blood: or the Price of Our Salvation”:

If the Precious Blood had been shed, and yet we had no priesthood, no Sacraments, no jurisdiction, ho sacramentals, no mystical life of the visible unity of the Church, — life, so it seems, would be almost intolerable. This is the condition of those outside the Church; and certainly as we grow older, as our experience widens, as our knowledge of ourselves deepens, as our acquaintance with mankind increases, the less hopeful do our ideas become regarding the salvation of those outside the Roman Church. We make the most we can of the uncovenanted mercies of God, of the invisible soul of the Church, of the doctrine of invincible ignorance, of the easiness of making acts of contrition, and of the visible moral goodness among men; and yet what are these but straws in our own estimation, if our own chances of salvation had to lean their weight upon them? They wear out, or they break down. They are fearfully counterweighted by other considerations. We have to draw on our imaginations in order to fill up the picture. They are but theories at best, theories unhelpful except to console those who are forward to be deceived for the sake of those they love, — theories often very fatal by keeping our charity in check and interfering with that restlessness of converting love in season and out of season, and that impetuous agony of prayer, upon which God may have made the salvation of our friends depend. Alas! the more familiar we ourselves become with the operations of grace, the further we advance into the spiritual life, the more we meditate on the character of God, and taste in contemplation the savour of his holiness, the more to our eyes does grace magnify itself inside the Church, and the more dense and forlorn becomes the darkness which is spread over those outside.
- pages 92 - 93, available: http://archive.org/stream/preciousblood00fabe#page/92/mode/2up

Let these solemn words of Fr. Faber awaken us both to the clemency and the justice of our Savior so that we may incorporate ourselves into the unshakable edifice of the one and only holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church which He founded for the salvation of mankind.

Unum Baptisma

Feenyites such as the Dimond Brothers insist that since baptism in desire and baptism in blood do not use the sign of water, they must therefore be counted as two separate “baptisms” from that of water. This, however, is not the teaching of the baptismus de voto. It is indeed true that these three forms of Baptism lack the unity of exterior sign, but they are united by the essential desire (“voto”) to do what Christ commands. Fr. Martin describes this unity of desire this way:​

That word “desire,” in the term “Baptism of Desire,” means a definite desire and intention and determination to do what God wills for salvation. And interestingly enough, that very same kind of desire is present also for Baptism of Water and Baptism of Blood. It is this desire that God finds in all three cases of the Sacrament of Baptism and He sees that the souls in question are worthy of the grace of the Sacrament.
- ​​​The “UnBaptized Saints” Deception

St. Thomas Aquinas addresses this objection in similar terms, saying:

The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.
- Summa, Part III, Question 66, Article 11, “Reply to Objection 1”

As discussed previously (Objection IV), the efficacy of Baptism derives from Christ’s Passion and from the Holy Ghost, and this efficacy is what forms the essential nature of Baptism, not water. Water is the symbol of this efficacy, but since the efficacy does not find its origin in the symbol, it can be imparted without the symbol if God wills. What the Feenyites are ultimately denying, therefore, is the fact that God would ever will to save man without water. This is an evil contradiction to the magnanimity of God who desires all men to be saved, as St. Paul says:

I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men: For kings, and for all that are in high station: that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all piety and chastity. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
- 1 Timothy 2:1-4

Furthermore, it cannot be denied that Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire are included in that of water not only by the unity of God’s will, but also by a unity of the recipient’s will, as Fr. Martin says: “that very same kind of desire is present also for Baptism of Water and Baptism of Blood” (The “UnBaptized Saints” Deception). It is proof of this that: 1. he who is baptized in water is also willing to be baptized in blood, 2. he who is baptized in blood is willing to be baptized in water, and 3. he who is baptized in desire, is willing to shed his blood for Christ and also be washed in the Water of Regeneration. Thus, the unity of will in all three cases demonstrates the unity of the effect, Who is Christ:

For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free; and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink.
- 1 Corinthians 12:13

​This sacred unity of Baptism is analogous to that of the Blessed Trinity, Whom we all adore. Thus, we must ask: if we are willing to confess the undivided nature of our God, how can we be unwilling to accept the undivided trinity of His Baptism? Mercifully, the Feenyites have not yet seen fit to condemn the dogma of the Blessed Trinity as contradicting the belief in One God. Let us therefore put aside all objections to the Faith of Christ and confess the similar unity in Baptism which we contemplate in the Divine Trinity.

Sola Fide

The Dimond Brothers attempt to make the assertion that when the Council of Trent condemned the Protestant Reformers for teaching that faith alone was sufficient for salvation, the Council was also condemning the Catholics (such as St. Thomas Aquinas and, as we shall see, the Council of Trent itself) who taught that the effect of baptism can be achieved through desire or blood as well as water. It is not difficult to demonstrate, however, that the Protestant heresy of salvation by faith alone is entirely alien to the Catholic dogma of the baptismus de voto, and that in consequence, the condemnation of Trent does not refer to it but to the Protestant errors only.

​The Protestant heresy of salvation by faith alone holds that works are not requisite for salvation, as the Catholic Encyclopedia describes it:

Faith, which alone can justify, is also the only requisite and means of obtaining salvation. Neither repentance nor penance, neither love of God nor good works, nor any other virtue is required, though in the just they may either attend or follow as a result of justification.

- Justification, “The Protestant Doctrine on Justification”, available: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm

Hence Protestants such as Luther taught that works and dispositions of conversion were not necessary if faith was present, as Luther’s famous quotation puts it:

Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ more strongly, who triumphed over sin, death, and the world; as long as we live here, we must sin.

- Letter to Melancthon, 1521, as quoted in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Martin Luther, “The Protestant doctrine on justification”, available: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm.​

In sharp contrast, the Catholic teaching on justification is that Faith must be joined with Charity and good works, which union does not exclude those who are physically cut off from the possibility of the Church’s formal sacraments, such as the font of Baptism. The Catholic Encyclopedia explains this in its article on Justification:

Only such faith as is active in charity and good works (fides caritate formata) can justify man, and this even before the actual reception of baptism or penance, although not without a desire of the sacrament (cf. Trent, Sess. VI, cap. iv, xiv). But, not to close the gates of heaven against pagans and those non-Catholics, who without their fault do not know or do not recognize the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Catholic theologians unanimously hold that the desire to receive these sacraments is implicitly contained in the serious resolve to do all that God has commanded, even if His holy will should not become known in every detail.

- “The process of justification (processus justificationis)”, available: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm

The conversion of St. Mary Magdalen is a perfect example of this justification through Charity and works of penance, not only Faith, as the Douay Rheims gloss on Luke 7:47 explains:

...the sins of this woman, in this verse, are said to be forgiven, because she loved much: but (ver. 50) Christ tells her, Thy faith hath made thee safe. Hence in a true conversion are joined faith, hope, love, sorrow for sin, and other pious dispositions.

- Available: http://drbo.org/chapter/49007.htm

Going back to the Encyclopedia, we find a full and elegant synopsis of justification’s spiritual progression in the soul:

A masterly, psychological description of the whole process of justification, which even Ad. Harnack styles "a magnificent work of art", will be found in the famous cap. vi, "Disponuntur" (Denzinger, n. 798). According to this the process of justification follows a regular order of progression in four stages: from faith to fear, from fear to hope, from hope to incipient charity, from incipient charity to contrition with purpose of amendment. If the contrition be perfect (contritio caritate perfecta), then active justification results, that is, the soul is immediately placed in the state of grace even before the reception of the sacrament of baptism or penance, though not without the desire for the sacrament (votum sacramenti). If, on the other hand, the contrition be only an imperfect one (attritio), then the sanctifying grace can only be imparted by the actual reception of the sacrament (cf. Trent, Sess. VI, cc. iv and xiv).

- Sanctifying Grace, “The "sola fides" doctrine of the Protestants”, available: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm

The specific requirements for Baptism of Desire, therefore, are described this way:

The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism.

- Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism, “Substitutes for the Sacrament”, available: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

As for the baptism of blood, nobody could possibly mistake it for salvation by “faith alone”, as it requires the ultimate sacrifice of one’s own life for Christ:

The baptism of blood (baptismus sanquinis) is the obtaining of the grace of justification by suffering martyrdom for the faith of Christ.

- ibid.

It is a truly gross and unconscionable misrepresentation of the baptismus de voto to make the claim that it is in any way related to the “faith alone” dogma of Luther which was condemned by Trent. Anyone, therefore, who takes the time to learn what the teaching actually means, will see that the Council had no intention whatever of condemning the Catholic understanding of justification (as expressed by the baptismus de voto) in its condemnation of salvation Sola Fide.

Download this article.

Baptismus de Voto: Infants, Martyrs, Saints & Catechumens

Infants

The fact that infants require baptism through water has been raised as an objection to the validity of baptismus flaminis; however, these two teachings are perfectly harmonious since infants lack the reasoning faculty by means of which adults achieve the necessary desire for salvation. Pope Pius XII explained this very clearly and simply in his Address to Italian Midwives, Oct. 29, 1951:

If what We have said up to now concerns the protection and care of natural life, much more so must it concern the supernatural life, which the newly born receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason. Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open.
- As quoted in Outside the Church There is No Salvation by Fr. Martin Stephanich

This establishes beyond doubt that Pius XII believed and taught that adults can obtain sanctification by means of an act of love which is inaccessible to infants. As further confirmation of the Catholic teaching on this point, Steven Speray (stevensperay.wordpress.com) calls our attention to the Roman Catechism:

The Roman Catechism states that baptism for infants should not be delayed “Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism…” (p. 178)

On the next page, the Catechism states that adults “are not baptized at once… The delay is not attended the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any foreseen 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.” (p 179)

- Systematically debunking the Dimond Brothers on Baptism of Desire – PART 3
July 23, 2013

The Dimond Brothers would have us believe that baptism in water is the only means of sanctification for both infants and adults, yet the passages above show quite clearly that this directly contradicts the teaching of both the Roman Catechism and Pope Pius XII. Since there is no reconciliation between these doctrines, let each and every one of us put aside the darkness of error and be illumined by the divine light of the pure and true Catholic dogma as preserved and handed-down to us by the Catechism and the Holy Father.

Martyrs

​The objection that the baptismus sanguinis is effective only for those already washed in the font has already been briefly addressed in the discussion of St. Gregory Nazianzen’s Oration on Holy Baptism; however, this argument is of such significance to the Feenyite position that it deserves special treatment in its own right.

It is important first of all to realize that there exists absolutely no direct proof that any of the Fathers or Doctors of the Church ever taught that those martyred for Christ were only justified if they had received the water of Baptism prior to their death. Instead of presenting such direct evidence, the Dimond Brothers assert that “baptism” is frequently used in a metaphorical sense by the Fathers such that it is safe to infer any reference to “baptism in blood” is purely figurative and has no reference to real justification.

While it is true that the Fathers often use the word “baptism” in a metaphorical sense, this alone is entirely insufficient proof of the idea that any and all references to the baptismus sanguinis are metaphorical. This lack of objective evidence against the justifying efficacy of baptismus sanguinis becomes conclusive when contrasted with the evidence in favor of this efficacy. :

Further, in the book, De Eccl. Dogmat., 41, it is written: "We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life except if he suffer martyrdom, which constitutes all the sacramental power of Baptism".
​​​​- Part III, Question 68, Article 2, Objection 2

The book referred to by St. Thomas Aquinas is De Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus written in the 5th century of our Lord by Gennadius of Massilia. As such, it represents not only very clear testimony but also very primitive testimony to the fact that martyrdom contains in itself the power of Baptism without the necessity of water. Even if it is objected that St. Thomas and Gennadius were not correct in their teaching, it certainly cannot be denied that they represent a consistent tradition concerning the baptismus sanguinis stretching back at least to the 5th century.

St. Thomas Aquinas is able to trace this tradition back even further than the 5th century, however, and in doing so, he gives us a very clear explanation of the principle by which the baptismus sanguinis causes justification in the human soul:

I answer that, As stated above (Question 62, Article 5), Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins...
- Summa, Part III, Question 66, Article 11

The principle by which the baptismus sanguinis justifies man is the Passion of Christ, and this Passion is the same which makes Baptism in water effective for salvation. As such, they are ultimately one and the same in their effect and their cause. The classical example of this principle at work is the record of the justification of the Thief on the Cross:

Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): "The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable."
- ​Summa, Part III, Q 66, Article 11

This quotation is particularly poignant since it cites both St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Cyprian of Carthage as authorities in favor of the dogma on baptismus sanguinis. At this point, the objection that St. Thomas, St. Augustine, St. Cyprian, and Gennadius were all teaching heresy with regard to the baptismus sanguinis becomes increasingly strained.

This objection becomes even further strained, if not completely broken, when we add to the testimony of all the above ancient Fathers that of Cardinal Henry Newman:

On the other hand, it was the doctrine of the Church that Martyrdom was meritorious, that it had a certain supernatural efficacy in it, and that the blood of the Saints received from the grace of the One Redeemer a certain expiatory power. Martyrdom stood in the place of Baptism, where the Sacrament had not been administered. It exempted the soul from all preparatory waiting, and gained its immediate admittance into glory. "All crimes are pardoned for the sake of this work," says Tertullian.
- Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Chapter 10, para. 6, avail: http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter10.html

The force of this quotation is greatly augmented by the simple, matter-of-fact manner in which Cardinal Newman delivers his judgment that martyrdom stood in the place of Baptism. It is clear that in Cardinal Newman’s mind, this fact is not even doubtful or debatable. It is simply a historical reality. Unlike Fr. Leonard Feeney, Cardinal Newman was never suspect of heresy for his views, nor was he excommunicated for failing to be examined on this point of doctrine. On the contrary, Newman stands as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, theologians of the 19th century, and as such is not only a reliable witness to the mind of the Church on this matter at his time, but also a far more erudite and competent judge of this question than either of the Dimond Brothers, or the entirety of the Feenyite controversialists combined.

​Concerning the Thief, the Dimond Brothers object that Baptism only became obligatory after the Resurrection such that the other means of salvation previous to it became nullified after it. This idea is entirely repugnant to ​the dogmatic principle of the superiority of the New Covenant to that of the Old since it requires us to believe that salvation was significantly easier to obtain previous to the Gospel than it was subsequently. According to this theory, in other words, Christ came to close the doors of Heaven to men, not open them.

Assuming for the moment that this principle is acceptable, by what means under the Old Covenant did the Thief obtain salvation? He can hardly be considered one of the “departed just” of the Old Testament who resided in the Limbus Patrum, for although we are not told the precise nature of his crime(s), we are more than safe in assuming that he had not “attained the perfect holiness required for entrance into glory” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Limbo). It might be objected that the Thief had been incorporated into the body of the Faithful by means of circumcision, yet this would not explain how he could obtain justification directly from Christ upon the Cross without any of the prescribed rites of restitution required by the Old Covenant for crimes of theft (cf Ex. 22:1,7; Num. 5:6 - 8). We are left, therefore, with the incontestable fact that the Thief received justification directly from Jesus Christ without any of the external rites prescribed by either the Old or the New covenants.

Although the evidence above is sufficient to establish that the Church has expressly upheld the baptismus sanguinis as a valid substitute for the Font continuously and consistently from the very earliest centuries, let us conclude all doubt on the matter by recalling the words of St. Tertullian on the matter:

We have indeed, likewise, a second font, (itself withal one with the former,) of blood, to wit; concerning which the Lord said, I have to be baptized with a baptism, when He had been baptized already. For He had come by means of water and blood, 1 John 5:6 just as John has written; that He might be baptized by the water, glorified by the blood; to make us, in like manner, called by water, chosen by blood. These two baptisms He sent out from the wound in His pierced side, in order that they who believed in His blood might be bathed with the water; they who had been bathed in the water might likewise drink the blood. This is the baptism which both stands in lieu of the fontal bathing when that has not been received, and restores it when lost.​​
- On Baptism, Chapter 16. Of the Second Baptism - With Blood, avail: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0321.htm

Saints

The fact that there are many hagiographies which omit or preclude the possibility of water Baptism for canonized Saints is well known and openly admitted by the Dimond Brothers. They take refuge in the argument that the lives of the Saints are not trustworthy in every detail and therefore can be excused for directly contradicting the extreme and unprecedented theory that every single Saint in the Calendar received the water of Baptism.

Regarding the reliability of the Lives of the Saints, ​Fr. Martin comments as follows:​

A shameless attempt was made by that author to discredit the Roman Martyrology as supposedly being full of errors, and therefore untrustworthy and unreliable for providing the real facts. No attention is paid to the fact that the Church long ago accepted the Roman Martyrology as worthy of being one of the official liturgical books, one that was assigned to be read by priests and religious in the Divine Office, during the Hour of Prime.
- The "UnBaptized Saints" Deception

​Another difficulty with the Feeneyite position with regard to the Saints is that Baptism of water has never been a prerequisite for canonization. The full significance of this lies in the fact that when a saint is canonized, he is officially declared to be saved, so if Baptism by water were necessary for this salvation, then it would be impossible for the Church to solemnly declare a person to be saved without first confirming that he was baptized in water. Despite this fact, the Church has never incorporated a verification of the reception of water baptism into the process of beatification or canonization. It is true that it is impossible to be considered for canonization as a Catholic Saint without being a Catholic, yet this has not prevented the Church from canonizing persons as Saints of whom there is not only no record of water Baptism but also of whom are recorded circumstances which absolutely preclude the possibility of its reception.

Although the Feenyites emphatically deny that there is a single Saint who was not baptized with water, the cases of conversion during the trials of the ancient martyrs form a consistent theme​ in the martyrologies of the Saints and are usually totally incompatible with Baptism of water either before or after conversion. Guards, torturers, and onlookers regularly renounced paganism in favor of Christ after witnessing the superhuman perseverance of the early Christians. The fact that water baptism is rarely (if ever) mentioned in these cases shows that in the mind of the Church from earliest times, it was not considered necessary for martyrs to be baptized except in their blood. The Dimond Brothers' idea that such converts were actually recalcitrant Christians is an extreme stretch of imagination at best and a total impossibility at worst.

After spending much energy attacking the credibility of the hagiographies and martyrologies which omit Baptism of water, the Dimond Brothers ironically change their tone of skepticism to one of blind assent when discussing the various miracles attributed to water Baptism. It is entirely unreasonable for the Dimond Brothers to rely on these records as evidence for their own position while rejecting those histories which contradict their position as spurious and corrupted. Even when accepted as completely factual (which doubtless often the case), the Dimond Brothers make the completely unwarranted assumption that those being baptized in water would certainly have been damned otherwise. There are two reasons for this: first, such miracles may have been given to increase the faith of the witnesses without necessarily implying certain damnation for the recipients otherwise. Second, even if this were not the case, there is no reason to assume that these miraculous baptisms saved their recipients from Hell because they could just as easily be considered to be saved from Purgatory, which fact is explained in more detail further on.

Catechumens

It is known that the Church at one time ruled against allowing ecclesiastical burial for Catechumens. The Dimond Brothers argue that the Church did this because She believed they are going to Hell. Be this as it may, it is not necessary to debate the point because if we actually look at what the Canons rule on baptismus de voto for Catechumens (rather than the tangential issue of whether or not they can be ecclesiastically buried), we find the following:​

...the traditional 1917 Code of Canon Law clearly indicates what the constant belief [and] teaching of the Catholic Church is and always has been, in regard to Baptism of Desire in two of its canons: namely, Canon 7371. “Baptism... if we are to attain salvation, must be either actually received or at least desired...”; and, Canon 1239: “...catechumens who, through no fault of theirs, die without having received baptism... are to be regarded as among those baptized”—the reason being that such catechumens had the desire and intention to be baptized before they died.
​- ​The "Un-​Baptized Saints" Deception by Fr. Martin Stephanich

Either Canon Law is being grossly contradictory, or the Dimond Brothers are not accurate in their interpretation of the canons pertaining to the burial of unbaptized Catechumens.

Aside from the issue of ecclesiastical burial, the Dimond Brothers lay great stress on the idea that many of the early Fathers can be cited as saying that Catechumens are not saved if they die before Baptism. ​Saint Augustine, for instance, is typically quoted in support of this:

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 baptized?’ Look for rewards, and you will find nothing except punishments.

A similar quote from St. Augustine is as follows:

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. Thomas Aquinas explains what Augustine is really saying as follows:

​​Objection 2. Further, in the book, De Eccl. Dogmat., 41, it is written: "We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life except if he suffer martyrdom, which constitutes all the sacramental power of Baptism". But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case especially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have "faith which works through charity" (Gal 5, 6). Therefore it seems that no one can be saved without Baptism​...

Reply to Objection 2: No man obtains eternal life unless he be free of all guilt and debt of punishment. Now, this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom, for which reason it is stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental power of Baptism", that is, as to full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catech​umen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in is good works, which cannot be without "faith which works through 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 in 1 Cor 3, 15".

- Summa, as quoted in Outside the Church There is No Salvation by Fr. Martin Stephanich

​The correct understanding ​of "you will find nothing but punishments" and "he still carries the load of his iniquity" is that Catechumens dying without Baptism must suffer punishment for the load of their iniquities in Purgatory, not eternally in Hell. The Dimond Brothers assume the latter because they must in order to support their opinion, yet this was not the opinion of such great teachers as St. Thomas Aquinas. The question only remains as to whose opinion it is more secure to follow. Suffice it to say that neither the schismatic Dimond Brothers nor the excommunicate Fr. Freeney show signs of being beatified, canonized, or declared Doctors of the Church in the near future...

Not only can many of the quotations which the Dimond Brothers allege as proof of their position be explained by reference to Purgatory rather than eternal damnation, but also we can reference not a few of the Early Fathers who very explicitly taught the baptismus de voto. Fr. Martin points out St. Ambrose as an instance:

Among the Fathers of the Church, long before modern theologians could supposedly invent Baptism of desire, the 4th century St. Ambrose of Milan said this in reference to the Emperor Valentinian II, who died without receiving Baptism of water: "I hear you express grief because he (Valentinian) did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism. Tell me, what else is there in us except the will and petition? But he had long desired to be initiated (i.e,, baptized) before he came to Italy, and he expressed his intention to be baptized by me as soon as possible, and it was for this reason, more than any other, that he hastened to me. Has he not, therefore, the grace which he desired? Has he not received it because he asked for it"!
- Outside the Church There is No Salvation, Parts One and Two of Seven Parts, available: www.christorchaos.com\OutisdetheChurchThereIsNoSalvationbyFatherStepanich.htm

Then again, St. Augustine himself is not remiss in this regard, for he says the following:

For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, [John 3:5] made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven; [Matthew 10:32] and in another place, Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it. [Matthew 16:25] And this explains the verse, Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints. For what is more precious than a death by which a man's sins are all forgiven, and his merits increased an hundredfold? For those who have been baptized when they could no longer escape death, and have departed this life with all their sins blotted out have not equal merit with those who did not defer death, though it was in their power to do so, but preferred to end their life by confessing Christ, rather than by denying Him to secure an opportunity of baptism.
- City of God, Book XIII, Chapter 7, available: http://newadvent.org/fathers/120113.htm

The Dimond Brothers allege that such quotations are in the minority and can therefore be discounted, but the majority of the quotations which the Dimond Brothers bring against this “minority” refer to the necessity of Baptism and not to a denial of its reception de voto. Even without this important distinction, it is clear at this point that the faith in baptismus de voto is not difficult to find among the very earliest doctors of the Gospel. What remains, therefore, is not to continue critiquing each particular passage and participle of the patristic evidence on the subject, but rather to learn what the Church has ruled concerning this evidence. Only in this way can we achieve true knowledge of the Fathers’ meaning because this meaning ultimately lies solely in the source from which it originated: the Holy Ghost, and not in the interminable ambiguities of human wisdom.

Download this article.

Baptismus de Voto & Scripture

The Scriptural foundation of the Feenyite position is John 3:5.

Jesus answered: 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, Douay Rheims translation

The Dimond Brothers take the above quotation to mean that it is impossible for men to be saved without water. Despite coming to prominence through the efforts of Fr. Leonard Feeney in the 1950’s and 60’s, this idea that water is necessary for salvation is not new. In fact, it was described by St. Thomas Aquinas as early as the 13th century in his Summa Theologica:

​​It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism, for Our Lord said (Jn. 3, 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, no one can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost...
- Part III, Question 68, Article 2, Objection 1, available: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article2

The reply which St. Thomas gives is insightful because it carefully delineates between the functions which are played by the water and the Holy Ghost in Baptism:

As it is written (1 Kgs. 16, 7), "man seeth those thing 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. 2, 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."
- Summa, Part III, Question 68, Article 2, Reply to Objection 1

Thus, St. Thomas shows what is plain to see for those who are willing: that the water of baptism cleanses the body while it is the Spirit who cleanses the heart. Like the Judaizers of the early Church, the Feenyites refuse to accept that the regeneration of the soul is effected solely by God and that water is not required for Him to do so.

This fact is emphatically supported by the very next verse after John 3:5:

That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit. Wonder not, that I said to thee, you must be born again. The Spirit breatheth where he will; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he cometh, and whither he goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
- John 3:6, Douay Rheims translation

Confirming the teaching of St. Thomas, Christ teaches that rebirth is effected by the Spirit, and He expressly states that the Spirit “breatheth where he will”. The relevance of this “breathing” to baptismal rebirth becomes clear when we recall Genesis Chapter 2:

And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.
- Genesis 2:7, Douay Rheims translation

The breathing of the Holy Ghost in John 3:6 is not merely a vague, metaphorical motion of the third Person of the Trinity; it is the creative action by which the soul of man is regenerated with life. Understood in this way, John 3:6 demonstrates that the Spirit breathes life into the souls of men wherever He wills, and that we do not always know where He does this. This is in direct contradiction to the Feenyite position which might be paraphrased as: “The Spirit breatheth where water is, and so we know exactly where He cometh and whither He goeth.”

The dangerously simplistic method which the Feenyites apply to “unless a man be born again of water” leads to insurmountable difficulties when it is applied elsewhere in Scripture, as Fr. Martin points out:

We could not help but think of other words of our Lord that supposedly “mean exactly what they say.” Thus, for example, Our Lord said in His sermon on the Mount, “If thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee” (Matthew 5: 29). And he said the same about the right-hand. Later on, some time after His Transfiguration on Mount Tabor, Our Lord repeated the same kind of admonition (Matthew 18:8-9), mentioning this time the hand and the foot and the eye.
- The “Unbaptized Saints” Deception, available: http://www.christorchaos.com/TheUnBaptizedSaintsDeceptionbyFatherStepanich.htm

The difficulties raised by this distorted “exactitude” do not stop with the examples given above, however. For instance, consider John 6:54:

Then Jesus said to them: 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

If we take the “except you eat” above with the same literalism with which the Feenyites take “unless a man be born again of water”, then we are forced to confess that the Eucharist is every bit as necessary for salvation as Baptism. This, in fact, is not an original error as we see from Objection 1 of the Summa’s Article concerning the necessity of the Eucharist for salvation:

It seems that this sacrament is necessary for salvation. For our Lord said (John 6:54): "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you." But Christ's flesh is eaten and His blood drunk in this sacrament. Therefore, without this sacrament man cannot have the health of spiritual life.
- Summa Theologica, Part III, Question 73, Article 3, Objection 1, available: http://newadvent.org/summa/4073.htm#article3

Despite the literal exactness of this interpretation, it is directly condemned by the Council of Trent in Canon IV, Session XXI:

If any one saith, that the communion of the Eucharist is necessary for little children, before they have arrived at years of discretion; let him be anathema.
- Council of Trent, Session XXI, Chapter IV, available: http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct21.html

Clearly Feenyistic literalism cannot be applied in this case without falling under the condemnation of the Council of Trent, and therefore we cannot help asking ourselves in what other cases the exacting methods of the Feenyites would lead to error if logically and consistently applied to Scripture.

Consider the phrase, “eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood”. Fr. Leonard Feeney’s method of Scriptural interpretation would force us to confess that it is impossible for a man to have life without partaking of both the Body and the Blood. This was, in fact, a common opinion among the enemies of the Catholic Church at the time of the Council of Trent, and it would appear logically consistent with an “exact” reading of the words. Nevertheless, the Council condemns the requirement for communion under both species as follows:

But neither is it rightly gathered, from that discourse which is in the sixth of John... that the communion of both species was enjoined by the Lord : for He who said; Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you (v. 54), also said; He that eateth this bread shall live for ever (v. 59); and He who said, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life (v. 55), also said; The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world (v. 52); and, in fine,- He who said; He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him (v. 57), said, nevertheless; He that eateth this bread shall live for ever (v. 59.)
- Council of Trent, Session XXI, Chapter I, available: http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct21.html

By juxtaposing verses wherein Christ enjoins communion under both species with verses wherein He mentions only one, the Council provides the full and complete dogma with regards to the Eucharistic matter. This is significant because the erroneous teaching that salvation cannot be obtained without partaking of both Body and Blood is directly parallel to the equally erroneous teaching that it is impossible to be regenerated without both the Spirit and the water of Baptism. In light of this, it is curious and inconsistent of the Dimond Brothers to deny the first error while accepting the second.

​Following the admirable example of the Holy and Ecumenical Synod of the Council of Trent, briefly consider the verses which balance and complete John 3:5 with regard to man’s salvation. The principal among these is John 14:22 - 23:

Judas saith to him, not the Iscariot: Lord, how is it, that thou wilt manifest thyself to us, and not to the world? Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him.
- John 14:22-23, Douay Rheims translation

In this passage, Judas asks how it is that Christ will not manifest himself to the world at large in contrast to the Church / Apostles only, and Jesus replies by laying down the universal precept that anyone who loves Him and keeps His word will abide with God.

The love of which our Saviour speaks here is of crucial importance because it refers to that “perfect charity” which forms the essence of baptismus de voto. This is described by the Encyclopedia as follows:

Baptism is held to be necessary both necessitate medii and præcepti. This doctrine is grounded on the words of Christ. In John 3, He declares: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." Christ makes no exception to this law and it is therefore general in its application, embracing both adults and infants. It is consequently not merely a necessity of precept but also a necessity of means.

This is the sense in which it has always been understood by the Church, and the Council of Trent (Sess, IV, cap, vi) teaches that justification can not be obtained, since the promulgation of the Gospel, without the washing of regeneration or the desire thereof (in voto). In the seventh session, it declares (can. v) anathema upon anyone who says that baptism is not necessary for salvation. We have rendered votum by "desire" for want of a better word. The council does not mean by votum a simple desire of receiving baptism or even a resolution to do so. It means by votum an act of perfect charity or contrition, including, at least implicitly, the will to do all things necessary for salvation and thus especially to receive baptism.

- Catholic Encyclopedia, “Baptism”, Necessity of Baptism, para. 1 - 2, avail: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

Thus, the perfect love of Christ is declared to have the power of sanctifying anyone who has been blessed with this gift both according to the Council of Trent and the words of Christ in John 14:23. Having said that, this justifying love necessitates keeping the word of Jesus Christ which definitely includes the injunction to be baptized in water. Is justification therefore impossible to those who are not cognizant of the words of Christ and yet are inspired with the love of Him?

No, justification is possible for such people because they are bound to follow the commands of Jesus Christ only in so far as they are cognizant of them. This principle is based on the principle that those who are ignorant of a precept are not responsible for the precept so long as they are unable to acquire knowledge of it. This principle is described by the term “invincible ignorance”, described in the Encyclopedia in this way:

So far as fixing human responsibility, the most important division of ignorance is that designated by the terms invincible and vincible. Ignorance is said to be invincible when a person is unable to rid himself of it notwithstanding the employment of moral diligence, that is, such as under the circumstances is, morally speaking, possible and obligatory. This manifestly includes the states of inadvertence, forgetfulness, etc. Such ignorance is obviously involuntary and therefore not imputable. On the other hand, ignorance is termed vincible if it can be dispelled by the use of "moral diligence"... Invincible ignorance, whether of the law or of the fact, is always a valid excuse and excludes sin. The evident reason is that neither this state nor the act resulting therefrom is voluntary.
- Catholic Encyclopedia, “Ignorance”, para. 2 & 4, available: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm

The principle that men are are not responsible for laws of which they are invincibly ignorant gives rise to the distinction between the two kinds of “necessity” mentioned earlier with regards to Baptism: necessitate medii and necessitate præcepti. This distinction is described as follows in the Encyclopedia:

Theologians distinguish a twofold necessity, which they call a necessity of means (medii) and a necessity of precept (præcepti). The first (medii) indicates a thing to be so necessary that, if lacking (though inculpably), salvation can not be attained. The second (præcepti) is had when a thing is indeed so necessary that it may not be omitted voluntarily without sin; yet, ignorance of the precept or inability to fulfill it, excuses one from its observance.
- Catholic Encyclopedia, “Baptism”, Necessity of Baptism, para. 1, avail: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

The sum of this is that men are not culpable for commands necessary as precepts unless they can reasonably obtain knowledge of these commands; whereas, men are culpable for commands necessary as means regardless of their cognizance of these commands. Only by grasping this distinction can we can arrive at the accurate comprehension of John 14:23: that the love of Jesus as God is the necessary means to salvation while the reception of the baptismal water is the necessary precept of the same. Once this is established, it is clear that the reception of water in Baptism is only binding on those who are able to comply whereas the love of Jesus Christ is absolutely necessary for all.

If we fail to distinguish between necessitate medii and necessitate præcepti by saying the Holy Ghost is restricted in His regenerative action to the usage of physical water in Baptism, then we begin an inexorable descent into the superstitious system of magic and ritual which dominates the mechanistic paganism of the idolatrous heathens, for it is the classic birthmark of paganism to imprison divinity within created, lifeless works such as water. In direct contrast to this, Christ has always taught that He is able to forgive and sanctify man directly without the mediation of physical objects or rites upon which to fix the five senses.

This principle is described by St. Thomas Aquinas as follows:

Further, no one can confer the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament, except he produce the sacramental effect by his own power. But Christ conferred the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament; as in the case of Magdalen to whom He said: "Thy sins are forgiven Thee" (Luke 7:48). Therefore it seems that Christ, as man, produces the inward sacramental effect.​
- Part III, Question 64, Article 3, Objection 4

The forgiveness of St. Magdalen also recalls to mind that of the Paralytic:

And behold they brought to him one sick of the palsy lying in a bed. And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the man sick of the palsy: Be of good heart, son, thy sins are forgiven thee.
- Matthew 9:2, Douay Rheims

In the case both of St. Mary and the Paralytic, the Jews were intensely scandalized on exactly the same ground as the Dimond Brothers, namely: that God would forgive sins without the ceremonial forms normally required by the Law. Instead, Christ demonstrates that the power to forgive sins is His alone such that He does not require the mediation of carnal matter to exercise this power. This principle marks the momentous shift from the Old Covenant under which grace was strictly veiled beneath rites and forms of the Jewish religion.

It is often objected against these examples of the Paralytic and St. Magdalen that Baptism had not yet been made mandatory at the time of their forgiveness. This objection is entirely moot, however, because the sacramental forms of forgiveness under the Old Law were most definitely in effect at the time and yet Christ still summarily and directly bestowed the effect of sacramental forgiveness without reference any form of sacrament whatever either Old or New. The reality of this fact that Christ can and does do this is confirmed by the story of Cornelius’ conversion in Acts which occurred well after the institution of Baptism:

While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word. And the faithful of the circumcision, who came with Peter, were astonished, for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also.

For they heard them speaking with tongues, and magnifying God. Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then they desired him to tarry with them some days.

​- Acts 10:44 - 48, Douay Rheims translation

In this passage, we are told the Holy Ghost descended upon the gentiles of Cornelius’ household who had been listening to the preaching of St. Peter. Upon perceiving this, the Apostle bids them be given the water of Baptism on account of the fact that they had received the Holy Ghost just the same as those who had already been Baptized. There can be no question as to the fact that the Holy Ghost was given to these gentiles prior to receiving the water of Baptism; therefore, the only point at issue is whether they were fully justified by this reception, or whether they remained in their original state of bondage under sin until receiving water. Put another way: would Cornelius’ household have been admitted to eternal bliss if they had died after receiving the Holy Ghost yet before receiving the water of Baptism?

The key to this question lies in the words of St. Peter: “...who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we”. The phrase “as well as we” is from the Latin sicut et nos which occurs nine times elsewhere in the Vulgate. It is used in the Our Father where Christ teaches us to say: “and forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors,” (Matthew 6:12) and it is used twice in the High Priestly Prayer where He prays: “that they may be one, as we also are” (John 17:11) and “that they may be one, as we also are one” (John 17:22). It is also used in Isaiah when prophesying of Christ with the words: “Thou also art wounded as well as we, thou art become like unto us.” (14:10). In all of these cases, sicut et nos is used to express an exact similarity between the two objects in comparison, and to deny the similitude would, in many cases, amount to heresy. Given this fact, it is undeniable that when St. Peter exclaimed that his gentile converts had received the Holy Ghost sicut et nos, there was no question in his mind that these men, women, and children were justified as children of God in the same manner as those who had received the water of Baptism. To argue that Cornelius’ household had received the Holy Ghost but had not been justified thereby would be to argue either that the Prince of the Apostles was lying or that he and the Christians with him were not justified, neither of which alternatives are tenable.

The sum of all this is that the words “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter in the Kingdom of God” given in John 3:5 can be taken in a completely plain and literal sense without doing any injury whatever to the doctrine of baptismus de voto which is elsewhere in Scripture both demonstrated and taught by Christ in person and by means of His ministers. The interpretation which would have us believe that the water of rebirth is necessary in precisely the same way and degree as the Spirit does great violence to many other passages of Scripture unless it is corrected by the sagacity of such holy men and authoritative teachers as St. Thomas Aquinas, the Council of Trent, Fr. Martin Stephanich, and the Catholic Encyclopedia. It is incumbent upon us, therefore, to understand Christ not in the manner which initially appears most simple to us, but in a manner which is aligned with the entirety of His teaching and life as well as that of His ordained ministers and successors in His office.

Download this article.