One of my favorite books is The Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liquori.
By law, there are no excuses for clergy not knowing the dogmas on the sacrament of water baptism and outside the Church there is no salvation. Therefore, clerics who deny these dogmas could only be called formal heretics. Yet, we have many popes and saints who rightly taught the doctrine of Baptisms of Desire and Blood. One of those great saints is St. Alphonsus Liquori, (1696-1775 Doctor of the Church) who taught in his Moral Theology, Bk. 6, n. 95-7. Concerning Baptism:
Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water [“fluminis”], of desire [“flaminis” = wind] and of blood.
We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” [“flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind [“flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it”.
Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality [“non ita stricte”] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from Baptism of blood – translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.
It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John.
Again, St. Alphonsus Liquori
Truly Baptism of Blood is the pouring forth of blood, or undergone for the sake of the faith, or for some other Christian virtue; as teaches St. Thomas, Viva; Croix along with Aversa and Gobet, etc. This is equivalent to real baptism because [it acts] as if it were ex operato and like Baptism remits both sin and punishment. It is said to be quasi – as if, because martyrdom is not strictly speaking like a sacrament, but because those privileged in this way imitate the Passion of Christ as says Bellarmin, Suarez, Sotus, Cajetane, etc., along with Croix; and in a firm manner, Petrocorensis.
Therefore martyrdom is efficacious, even in infants, as is shown by the Holy Innocents which are indeed considered true martyrs. This is clearly taught by Suarez along with Croix and to oppose such an opinion is indeed temerarious. In adults it is necessary that martyrdom be at least habitually accepted from supernatural motives as Coninck, Cajetan, Suarez, Bonacina and Croix etc. teach. ….
Not in passing that such was also the teaching of Coninck, Cajetan, Suarez Bonacina and Croix.
CONCLUSION
1. Baptism of Desire must be accepted by Catholics because it’s taught by Trent according to the interpretation of the Latin documents by St. Alphonsus Liquori.
2. Arguing that St. Alphonsus Liguori was materially heretical or in theological error is erroneous because: a.) Not only was he not corrected or condemned, his position was promulgated by law and catechism, b.) even if he was wrong, he couldn’t be considered materially heretical or in theological error for contradicting a dogma especially since he said baptism of desire is de fide, and the Church would necessarily be condemned for affirming the teaching of St. Alphonsus Liquori.
I don’t argue very long with those who think they know better than St. Alphonsus Liguori because if they won’t accept his teaching, they won’t care at all what I have to say.
Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell 
I have struggled back and forth with this issue for years. One difficulty I have is that St. Alphonsus states that the debt of punishment is not removed, but Trent states that in those who are justified there is nothing God hates, and therefore nothing to retard their entrance into heaven. Do you believe it is required to accept St. Alphonsus teaching on that specific point, or do you know of any other teachings on that matter? Thank you.
Trent is referring to the sacrament of baptism where after there’s nothing God hates, but makes it clear that in justification after Confession, temporal punishment is not always wholly remitted. St. Alphonsus is not referring to the sacrament of Baptism but in the desire thereof which would be like Confession.
Did that answer the question or did I miss something?
That makes sense. Thank you.
No problem.
Steve, are you interested in a debate on BOD? If you think it might be beneficial, let me know. I have some people that are asking that I contact you, but under this name, I am not well know. However, if you want to do so, I will be cordial. You can contact me and we can talk a bit before you make a choice. Take care.
Do you believe BOD is heretical? If so, why is the Catholic Church not a heretical religion for teaching BOD in canons 1239.2 and 737 of the Code of law, which comes from Trent’s teaching both at the council and its catechism and why are the popes and saints who taught BOD not heretics?
Regarding St. Alphonsus, is it really hard to believe that he made an error of judgement? He was human. Saints make mistakes – not heresies, mistakes. That’s an undeniable fact. St Cyprian, for example, held that heretics could not baptize validly; St Augustine came to believe that unbaptized infants suffer the fires of hell; Pope St. Leo III did not have the Filioque put on the plaques outside of Rome and recited the Creed without the Filioque; and St.Robert Bellarmine held that geocentrism was de fide; most of the Church Fathers AND St.Bernard of Clairvaux all taught that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived in sin!
The saints can be wrong, not heretical BUT WRONG.
According to you Steve, the theologians who published books going against Florence and saying that the 7 DC books were not divine were heretics and also the Popes for approving them were heretics. Pope Benedict XV was also a heretic for saying that geocentrism might not be true according to you.
St.Alphonsus made other errors as well:
That is, Session 6, Chapter 4. He thought it taught that one can be justified by the desire of Baptism. Again that’s completely wrong. The Council simply taught that both water and desire are essential to baptism, and that if either one or the other is missing then the baptism is invalid. For example, a ‘Jew’ baptized against his will would not not in fact have been baptized at all. NO FORCED BAPTISMS. Because during the 16th century Catholics were ‘baptizing’ Jews by force.
In support of his views, St Alphonsus also quotes the anonymous, undated, and unaddressed letter Apostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato as though it were a definitive papal document. This letter, as you can see from its title, talks about an ‘unbaptized priest’! Need one say more?
St. Alphonsus also held that the short form of consecration was sufficient for the validity of the Eucharist, an opinion that contradicts the Council of Florence, the Roman Missal, and all subsequent popes who made reference to the matter.
Saint Alphonsus also claimed that BOD remits the guilt of sin but neither produces the sacramental character nor removes the debt of temporal punishment due to sin. So does BOD, as defined by St Alphonsus, constitute the spiritual rebirth that the Council of Trent dogmatically taught is necessary for salvation? Well, how could it? For the Council of Trent taught that in those who have been born again there is NOTHING that God hates, since they are made innocent, pure, and immaculate, and there is NOTHING to retard their entrance into Heaven. But, according to St Alphonsus the unremitted debt of temporal punishment would retard their entrance into Heaven, for they would have to go to Purgatory first! That is clearly an insuperable objection to his position.
The Church is infallible not the saints, not the theologians. You Steve would obviously have been with the ‘theologians’ and burned St.Joan of Arc at the stake.
You proved my point. Thank you!
St. Alphonsus didn’t make any mistakes but you have with your private Protestant styled interpretation of everything! And you don’t even get my position right. Where do see that I say geocentrism is a dogma that must be held?
Actually, it’s you who would have been with those who burned St. Joan of Arc for YOU are going against the Church which taught Baptism of Desire by Law and Roman Catechism and approved the teachings of St. Alphonsus Liguori.
I should add here that I’ve addressed the point how saints and even popes can be wrong in many articles I’ve written. The difference is that St. Alphonsus is actually telling you what the Church taught at the council and your examples are about opinions made long before the Church made the definitions. You can’t say Baptism of Desire is heretical and then say St. Alphonsus wasn’t a heretic.
That’s a pathetic and false response, Steven. Trent defined that one must have the removal of the temporal punishment due to sin to be justified in first justification. St. Alphonsus taught that one can receive first justification without such a removal. His position is demonstrably false and contrary to Trent. To promote it is to contradict the dogma (and the declaration of the Lord) that one must be born again to be saved.
What’s pathetic is your reply which shows that you don’t understand at all. I even clarified that point in my first comment.
Then edify, don’t berate.
Go read and try to understand first. But again, you’re proving my point. You think you know better than the Church and St. Alphonsus.
Then edify don’t berate
Sorry, too many different Anonymous’. Sometimes you have to berate especially when people call themselves Catholic and deny a doctrine taught everywhere by the Church.
Steven, your response indicates that you don’t even understand or address the nature of the problem. You responded by asserting that St. Alphonsus is teaching that the grace of ‘BOD’ is comparable to the justification received after confession. But that’s precisely the problem. Trent declares that this is not enough to be justified at first. It dogmatically teaches that to be first justified you need the full removal of the temporal punishment due to sin – you must become an entirely new man. You must be ‘born again’ (as Jesus said), which excludes suffering for sins of the old man. Therefore St. Alphonsus’ explanation is demonstrably false, wrong and untenable.
Another person proving me right with their own Protestant styled personal interpretation over the Doctor of the Church who is the expert on this very point. I don’t think you even try to understand. It’s like all Feeneyites shut their eyes to the explanation. Trent says “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.” St. Alphonsus is teaching how it applies. Canon law applies St. Alphonsus’ explanation, too. There’s your first justification but unlike the sacrament, BOD doesn’t necessarily remit fully the temporal punishment. This is so simple. Yes, ordinarily one needs to be born again by the sacrament of baptism but not in extraordinary circumstances. That’s the point and the Church has gone out of its way to make that point but Feeneyites won’t hear it.
The only thing that’s false is the Feeneyite denial of Trent’s words, the Roman Catechism’s words, and the law that all teach that justification is possible apart from the sacrament in extraordinary circumstances.
Btw, stop calling yourself Catholic! You are not one. A true Catholic accepts Baptism of Desire and the laws that demonstrate it. AND AGAIN, you can’t say BOD is heretical but St. Alphonsus wasn’t a heretic.
@Steven Speray
You can’t even answer the question. It’s quite simple honestly you have no idea what you’re talking about, you’re simply in denial.
SPERAY REPLIES: I know exactly what I’m talking about. You think you know better than St. Alphonsus on the issue. The Church backs us up, you have nothing but your own private Protestant styled interpretation of the council which contradicts all the experts including the pope.
St. Alphonsus said:
“Baptismus flaminis is perfect conversion to God through contrition or through the love of God above all things, with the explicit desire, or implicit desire of the true river of baptism whose place it supplies with respect to the remission of the guilt, but not with respect to the character to be imprinted, NOR WITH RESPECT TO THE FULL LIABILITY OF THE PUNISHMENT TO BE REMOVED. (Moral Theology, Volume V, Book 6)
This is plainly incompatible with the teaching of the Council of Trent which teaches (i) that one has to be born again to be justified (Session 6, Chapter 3) and (ii) that in those who are born again there is nothing to retard their entrance into heaven (Session 5, Original Sin).
SPERAY REPLIES: I already answered this clearly. No, Trent doesn’t say that the sacrament of baptism (which makes one born again) is absolutely needed to be justified. It says, OR THE DESIRE FOR IT. That desire which St. Alphonsus explains “is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water…” Under this desire, one might still need purifying like Confession according to Trent.
I already mentioned how Catholics were ‘baptizing’ Jews by force in the 16th century which is why the council said ‘desire’.
SPERAY REPLIES: Wrong. Desire was included because saints and theologians have long argued that there was a possibility to be saved without baptism for those who couldn’t receive it for one reason or another. Your argument is completely made up by modern day Feeneyites.
The council also said ‘iustificationis impii’ (the justification of the impious). “Impious” is a strong description that concerns those above the age of reason who are guilty of actual and mortal sin. In chapter 4 and the following chapters of the Decree on Justification,Trent is concerned with justification for those above the age of reason, as the context clearly shows. It was in Session 5 on Original Sin that Trent dealt with infants’ transition to justification. As is the case with adults, the only way for infants to be justified is through the Sacrament of Baptism. However, since adults and those above reason must also desire the sacrament in order to be justified by it, chapter 4 of Trent specified that justification cannot happen without a desire.
SPERAY REPLIES: Another modern day Feeneyite invention to justify their rejection of BOD. The Council of Florence actually provides the answer. Infants only have baptism as a remedy implying that adults have more. Your argument is ridiculous because it’s already presumed that that desire is needed for the sacrament. The desire Trent is referring to is not a mere wanting but much more as St. Alphonsus explains. But of course, you think you’re more intelligent and knowledgeable than the Doctor of the Church on Trent. The Catechism of the Council of Trent for the instruction of priests explains precisely what it means. That catechism was promulgated by Pope St. Pius V and if your argument were correct, then you would necessarily HAVE to say that ALL those popes, saints, canonists, theologians are heretics. IT’S THAT SIMPLE! However, your argument doesn’t follow at all.
AGAIN NO FORCED BAPTISMS.
SPERAY REPLIES: You need to study the theology and history of the subject rather than give modern day Feeneyite arguments to justify your ridiculous position which would necessarily mean the Church has promulgated heresy for 500 plus years.
i won’t expect you to submit to this because you’re an individual of extreme bad will which showed in your debate with Brother Peter in which you contradicted yourself 200 times and even laughed about it.
SPERAY REPLIES: BAD WILLED? I see you’re a disciple from those two liars. They LIED in the debate and I show exactly where if you bothered reading. I didn’t contradict myself at all because you have to understand that there are distinctions. Also, the Dimonds make a terrible error on the internal and external forums. They say that the each forum reflects the other when that’s absolutely false.
McKenna, Cekeda, etc… all deny the salvation Dogma.
SPERAY REPLIES: YOU ARE NOW LYING! And why don’t you accuse the popes and St. Alphonsus of denying the dogma of being bad willed? YOU’RE INCONSISTENT!
Also the ‘extraordinary circumstances’ is condemned modernism.
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG! Pope St. Pius X who laid the condemnation against modernism actually taught baptism of desire in his Catechism and officially promulgated it.
The countless miraculous baptisms by the North American martyrs, St.Joan of Arc, St.Francis De Sales etc… in which they brought dead people back to life in order to baptize them obliterates what you’re teaching.
SPERAY REPLIES: Not at all. It only shows the importance of the sacrament of Baptism. The fact that the Church promulgates Baptism of Desire by law and catechism obliterates what you’re teaching.
Saints can be wrong, the problem is that you think the man made doctrines of ‘desire and blood’ are Dogmas and call everyone a heretic who disagrees with you.
SPERAY REPLIES: They can’t be heretical which your argumentation amounts to since you claim that baptism of desire is against the dogmas taught at Trent. Again, you have only proved the point of my article.
From St.Augustine ALL the way to the 12th century all theologians believed that unbaptized infants suffer torment. HOW CAN THAT BE STEVE? HOW?
SPERAY REPLIES: The problem is that you don’t understand how dogmas work or what makes a heretic a heretic. You’re inconsistent in your argumentation.
Because they can be wrong.
SPERAY REPLIES: Sure, but not heretical as they must be according to your argumentation.
This position was later condemned by Pope Pius VI. This proves that the error of one period (or even for hundreds of years) is not the universal and constant teaching of the Church from the beginning
SPERAY REPLIES: The problem is that St. Alphonsus is reading and explaining Trent which defined the very dogmas that you claim St. Alphonsus is rejecting. YOUR ARGUMENT IS LAUGHABLE.
Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: “This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.”
SPERAY REPLIES: And that teaching authority gave us the Roman Catechism and canon law which promulgates Baptism of desire. ALSO, the Church also has a liturgy for the unbaptized catechumen who dies. Liturgies are untainted and spotless and your argumentation is that these liturgies are actually heretical. AGAIN, your argument is laughable and proves you have absolutely no understanding of theology, history, or even simple logic. You’re completely inconsistent. Please go troll somewhere else, perhaps where the blind lead the blind. You’re a perfect fit.
I inserted comments to your reply.
SPERAY REPLIES: I already answered this clearly.
Not even close to being close. You completely ignore the logic of the argument.
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG! I explained it nicely! You just can’t understand very simple points because you been blinded by the Dimond brothers garbage.
If one has to be born again to be justified (as Trent teaches), and if being born again removes everything that might retard one’s immediate entrance into Heaven (as Trent teaches), it follows as clearly as day follows night that BOD does not confer justification. You appear unable to address this argument.
SPERAY REPLIES: I actually answered this very point and yet you still didn’t get it.
Steven says: ‘No, Trent doesn’t say that the sacrament of baptism (which makes one born again) is absolutely needed to be justified.’
The Catholic Church does!
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG AGAIN. The Catholic Church has gone out of its way to explain baptism of desire.
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312, Ex Cathedra: “Besides, one baptism which regenerates all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as ‘one God and one faith’ [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be commonly the perfect remedy for salvation for adults as for children.”
SPERAY REPLIES: I agree with this. It has nothing to do with BOD.
One cannot affirm one baptism of water and at the same time obstinately cling to the belief that there are “three baptisms,” two of which are not of water.That is a clear contradiction.Those who understand and comprehend this dogma must repudiate the so-called “three baptisms.”
SPERAY REPLIES: YES YOU CAN. St. Alphonsus did so, but apparently you think you understand the Church’s teaching better than the Doctor of the Church, not to mention many popes.
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, On the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Sess. 14, Chap. 2, Ex Cathedra: “But in fact this sacrament [Penance] is seen to differ in many respects from baptism. For, apart from the fact that the matter and form, by which the essence of a sacrament is constituted, are totally distinct, there is certainly no doubt that the minister of baptism need not be a judge, since the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism. For what have I to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle. It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body’ (1 Cor. 12:13).”
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, Ex Cathedra: “By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death… so that in them there may be washed away by regeneration, what they have contracted by generation, ‘For unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God [John 3:5].”
SPERAY REPLIES: I don’t have a problem with any of these statements and neither does anyone who professes Baptism of Desire.
Steven says: It says, OR THE DESIRE FOR IT.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with BOD. That is simply a reaffirmation of the necessity of the candidate’s willingness to be baptized. If either water OR willingness to be baptized is lacking in the baptized and, the sacrament is not validly conferred. Anyone who imagines that the Council taught the momentous doctrine of BOD in a passing allusion of three words (aut eius voto) is delusional.
SPERAY REPLIES: St. Alphonsus Liguori says it does but you think you know better. I’m still waiting to hear you explain how he’s not a heretic for rejecting the dogma as you understand it.
Steven says: ‘That desire which St. Alphonsus explains “is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water…” Under this desire, one might still need purifying like Confession according to Trent.’
Prove it by quoting verbatim from the Council. You can’t.
SPERAY REPLIES: I already did…or the desire for it. And St. Alphonsus explains what this phrase means.
I already mentioned how Catholics were ‘baptizing’ Jews by force in the 16th century which is why the council said ‘desire’.
SPERAY REPLIES: Wrong. Desire was included because saints and theologians have long argued that there was a possibility to be saved without baptism for those who couldn’t receive it for one reason or another.
False! If that were the case, the Council would have expanded on this theory and explained it clearly. But it did nothing of the kind.
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG! The Catechism of Trent went on to explain it. Then the Church used that very teaching to give us the law.
Steven says:’Your argument is completely made up by modern day Feeneyites.’
Another diversionary ad hominem attack.
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG! I spoke the truth.
The council also said ‘iustificationis impii’ (the justification of the impious). “Impious” is a strong description that concerns those above the age of reason who are guilty of actual and mortal sin. In chapter 4 and the following chapters of the Decree on Justification,Trent is concerned with justification for those above the age of reason, as the context clearly shows. It was in Session 5 on Original Sin that Trent dealt with infants’ transition to justification. As is the case with adults, the only way for infants to be justified is through the Sacrament of Baptism. However, since adults and those above reason must also desire the sacrament in order to be justified by it, chapter 4 of Trent specified that justification cannot happen without a desire.
SPERAY REPLIES: It’s clear that you don’t understand Baptism of Desire at all.
SPERAY REPLIES: Another modern day Feeneyite invention to justify their rejection of BOD.
Another ad hominem attack that fails to address the issues.
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG. It explains your absurd explanation that was created by modern day Feeneyites.
Steven says: ‘The Council of Florence actually provides the answer. Infants only have baptism as a remedy implying that adults have more.’
More what? So I am to get my answer from a supposed ‘implication’, i.e. subjective interpretation of your own? Why not quote Florence if you think it supports you?]
SPERAY REPLIES: Florence is clear enough. I see that you have no response to Florence’s teaching and why it included a phrase with infants only when according to you it should apply to all persons.
Steven says:’Your argument is ridiculous because it’s already presumed that that desire is needed for the sacrament.’
Well, water is also presumed, but water is also spelled out by the Council as being necessary. So perhaps you think the Council was ‘ridiculous’ as well.
SPERAY REPLIES: No, because you were arguing that desire needed to be added after Laver of Regeneration OR..to effect laver of regeneration. Trent doesn’t go out of its way to say Laver of Regeneration or water or the desire for it. Do you not see how you’re arguing?
Steven says:’The desire Trent is referring to is not a mere wanting but much more as St. Alphonsus explains’.
Nothing in the text supports such a gratuitous interpretation. If this votum was so ‘much more’, as you claim, the Council would have expatiated on it, but it did no such thing.
SPERAY REPLIES: It didn’t have to. St. Alphonsus understood, St. Charles Borremeo understood when he edited the Roman Catechism, and in fact, the only Feeneyites you see in history are the modern day ones. You don’t see anyone calling out Sts. Alphonsus and Charles, or the popes, or any of the canonists or theologians for teaching Baptism of desire. You only see a few lay folk doing that now the last 50 years or so. Even Fr. Feeney believed in Baptism of Desire but understood it to mean that one is justified without baptism but that justified person wouldn’t go the heaven or hell.
Steven says: ‘But of course, you think you’re more intelligent and knowledgeable than the Doctor of the Church on Trent.’
Not at all, St Alphonsus would have seen his error immediately had it been pointed out to him.
SPERAY REPLIES: Lol. Too bad you Feeneyites didn’t exist then to do that. Poor St. Alphonsus who studied and taught the meaning of Trent actually rejected the very dogmas found in Trent. You’re killing me.
Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”
SPERAY REPLIES: Agreed, but the Church’s judgment confirmed St. Alphonsus teaching by law.
Steven says” ‘The Catechism of the Council of Trent for the instruction of priests explains precisely what it means.’
No it doesn’t. It doesn’t refer to the Council text at all to support its erroneous view, nor could it, because the Council doesn’t say anything of the kind.
SPERAY REPLIES: OH STOP IT, PLEASE.
Steven says: ‘That catechism was promulgated by Pope St. Pius V and if your argument were correct, then you would necessarily HAVE to say that ALL those popes, saints, canonists, theologians are heretics. [Not at all. It was a theological error, not a heresy.’
Only the infallible magisterium is protected from all theological error, and that catechism is not a magisterial document, just a handbook for parish priests.
SPERAY REPLIES: Ha, you completely missed the point. The point I made in the article no less. You’re so blinded in pride that you fail to see how inconsistent you’re arguing.
Stop committing the mortal sin of calumny against Father Feeney and adding more punishments for yourself in Hell. Father Feeney was actually trying to save souls and converting people:
SPERAY REPLIES: I have spoken no calumny against Feeney. In fact, he would have condemned you because even he believed that Trent’s teaching, “or the desire for it” meant justification without water. I’ve read all of his material very closely. I’ve studied this issue more than any other issue in the Church.
Mark S. Massa, “S.J.”, Catholics and American Culture, p. 27: “Feeney’s message—that the Catholic tradition stood over and against a bankrupt post-Protestant culture teetering on the brink of intellectual anarchy and physical annihilation—reached ready ears. By the late 1940’s the center [Fr. Feeney’s center] boasted two hundred converts…”
You on the other hand would have been with the apostate Cushing.
SPERAY REPLIES: Nope, I would supporting Pope Pius XII and the law of the Catholic Church that you think is heretically contradicting Trent.
Even the modernist heretic Massa is more honest then you when it comes to the EENS Dogma:
Mark S. Massa, “S.J.”, Catholics and American Culture, p. 34: “Feeney’s rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus arguably stood closer to its meaning held by Pope Innocent III in the thirteenth and St. Francis Xavier in the sixteenth centuries than did that of his ‘liberal’ Catholic opponents who found his teaching abhorrent. Indeed, in the era between the Reformation and Vatican II, ‘the church’ in official dogmatic statements had meant precisely what Feeney said it did…”
Are you aware what Pope Gregory XVI condemned was taught in the Baltimore “Catechism”?
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG. You’re only giving more of your private Protestant styled opinions.
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained… without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate (Athanasian Creed).”
Baltimore Catechism No. 3, 1921, Imprimatur Archbishop Hayes of New York: “Q. 510. Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church? A. It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, provided that person (1) has been validly baptized; (2) firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and (3) dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.”
Blatant heresy in the Baltimore Catechism, imprimatured and published in 1921. The authors of this heretical catechism are bold enough to assert that salvation for a non-Catholic is not only possible, but dependent upon whether the non-Catholic “firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion.”
So if you’re firmly convinced that Mormonism is the true religion, then you’ve got a good shot at salvation, according to the Baltimore Catechism; but if you’re not firmly convinced of this then your chances are less. This makes an absolute mockery of the dogma: one Lord, one faith and one baptism (Eph. 4:5).
SPERAY REPLIES: What you have failed to understand is that the Baltimore Catechism is referring to the external forum, not the internal forum. If the Baltimore Catechism was saying that men are saved in their false religions then it would be heretical but it doesn’t do so. One might appear to be outside of the Church all the way to death, but in the internal forum, God can provide the necessary Faith to be saved so that one can die inside of the Church.
Let me repeat myself for the umpteenth time, if salvation can be obtained outside of the Church, there would be no need for Baptism of Desire. Baptism of desire is how God infuses the faith to a person in the internal forum so that he dies inside of the Church to be saved. For those already validly baptized, final penitence in the internal forum would be all that is required and even then it would be by God’s grace for this act.
Steven, your answer reveals that you cannot even begin to address the point.
SPERAY REPLIES: I’ve addressed it so clearly. You can’t comprehend very simple points.
Instead, you lob empty insults and falsely argue that to disagree with St. Alphonsus and follow Trent instead is to disagree with the Church (which is nonsense).
SPERAY REPLIES: What’s nonsense is that you are arguing that St. Alphonsus who’s explaining Trent doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
You have been refuted.
SPERAY REPLIES: You have been refuted.
It’s not hard to understand. I will repeat it for you: You responded by asserting that St. Alphonsus is teaching that the grace of ‘BOD’ is comparable to the justification received after confession. But that’s precisely the problem. Trent declares that this is not enough to be justified at first. It dogmatically teaches that to be first justified you need the full removal of the temporal punishment due to sin – you must become an entirely new man. You must be ‘born again’ (as Jesus said), which excludes suffering for sins of the old man.
SPERAY REPLIES: There’s your problem. I already answered this clearly. I’ll repeat what I said in the last comment since apparently you’re not reading what I’m saying. No, Trent doesn’t say that the sacrament of baptism (which makes one born again) is absolutely needed to be justified. It says, OR THE DESIRE FOR IT. That desire which St. Alphonsus explains “is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water…” Under this desire, one might still need purifying like Confession according to Trent.
Therefore St. Alphonsus’ explanation is demonstrably false, wrong and untenable.
SPERAY REPLIES: Not at all. You simply can’t understand very simple points. You’ve been brainwashed by the Dimond brothers garbage.
In the face of this fact you simply pretend there’s no contradiction. There is no contradiction in the Church’s teaching, but there is a contradiction between the fallible saint on this point and the Church’s infallible teaching. Saints are not infallible, and their words do not constitute magisterial proclamations. You reject Church teaching and the words of Jesus that you must be born again, and you follow the false opinion of a man.
SPERAY REPLIES: St. Alphonsus knows exactly what he’s talking about and explains Trent nicely!
You also said I’m not a Catholic. No, actually you aren’t a Catholic but a heretic.
SPERAY REPLIES: Why are you not declaring St. Alphonsus a heretic for reading and explaining Trent exactly opposite to your private Protestant style interpretation?
You believe that members of false religions, including Jews, etc., can be saved and that people can be saved without faith in Jesus Christ.
SPERAY REPLIES: That is a total lie! The fact that you make this statement proves that you don’t know the argument at all. I’ve explained very clearly in my books and articles that BOD requires the infusion of Faith. Are you going to take back your ridiculous lie?
Your failure to even admit the error in St. Alphonsus’ explanation proves that you are very dishonest and that you cannot even grasp basic aspects of truth. Also, to simply respond by saying it’s ‘laughable’ over and over just reveals the weakness and invalidity of your case.
SPERAY REPLIES: You are arguing that St. Alphonsus who knows what Trent said and in his explanation is denying the very dogmas that Trent defines. Yes, that’s laughable and shows that you are very dishonest and that you cannot even grasp basic aspects of truth.
Further, the Catechism of Trent does not favor your position. The one paragraph you like is not part of the teaching which the Catechism says the faithful are to be taught. That’s explained here: http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/catechism-of-trent-baptism-of-desire/
SPERAY REPLIES: I’ve already debunked their argument elsewhere on this website. You are one of the blind following the blind.
Fear and pride drives the feeneyites. I think it is a fear of damnation by not understanding the entire crisis. I see it as a form of scrupulousity that can only be cured by obedience to a confessor, but the feeneyite will probably reject the confessor.
Steven,
Your response reveals that you are TOTALLY diverting from the point (deliberately and dishonestly) – a point for which you clearly have no answer.
SPERAY REPLIES: I’ve repeated the answer specifically over and over again! Read on and I’ll explain it again and hopefully clearer for you.
I’ll explain it in a different way for you. EVEN IF YOU BELIEVE IN ‘BOD’ (which you shouldn’t, but even if you do), YOU MUST HOLD that someone who is ‘justified’ by ‘BOD’ has the temporal punishment due to sin removed.
SPERAY REPLIES: No I don’t and I’ll explain why next.
That’s because one needs rebirth to even be first justified (de fide, Trent, Jesus), and rebirth removes all the temporal punishment due to sin (de fide).
SPERAY REPLIES: Now pay close attention. Rebirth is not necessary in extraordinary circumstances. Just like water is not necessary in extraordinary circumstances since both the water baptism and rebirth are tied together. That’s why the Church makes the distinction between necessity of precept and the necessity of means.
So, we are in this context speaking not about whether water baptism is absolute necessary (although that’s obviously relevant to the larger picture), but about WHAT KIND OF GRACE IS NECESSARY TO BE SAVED? Got it?
SPERAY REPLIES: Yes, I’ve got it but you don’t. Water Baptism is not absolutely necessary in extraordinary circumstances, therefore, neither is rebirth. That’s the point. The grace that’s necessary is sanctifying grace which God can grant apart from the sacrament thus apart from a rebirth. Got it? UNDERSTAND WHAT I’M SAYING NOW? I understand perfectly what you’re saying but I realize that it doesn’t square with the Church’s explanations in it’s catechisms and law. Nor does it square up with the Church silence on the issue. My position harmonizes the dogmas with the catechisms, laws, and the numerous teachings by the popes. However, your position divides everything and makes the Church look stupid, so stupid that not only has it failed to stamp out what you call a heresy but it actually has promulgated it. Your position is stupid and you’re too blind to see it.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE GRACE NEEDED HERE.
SPERAY REPLIES: Yes, sanctifying grace that God can grant however He wishes.
So, when you respond to the point about WHAT KIND OF GRACE IS NECESSARY by arguing: water baptism is not absolutely necessary, you are TOTALLY DIVERTING and proving that you have no response to the problem, namely, that the Church teaches you must have the GRACE OF REBIRTH (THE GRACE OF BAPTISM, WHICH REMOVES ALL TEMPORAL PUNISHMENT DUE TO SIN) TO BE JUSTIFIED, WHILE ST. ALPHONSUS DOES NOT.
SPERAY REPLIES: St. Alphonsus is right about Trent and you are wrong. It’s that simple. I’ll throw one more tidbit in there for you. Pope Pius XII taught in 1941: “In the case of other, more necessary sacraments, when the minister is lacking, he can be supplied through the force of divine mercy, which will forego even external signs in order to bring grace to the heart. To the catechumen who has no one to pour water on his head, to the sinner who can find no one to absolve him, a loving God will accord, out of their desire and love, THE GRACE WHICH MAKES THEM HIS FRIENDS AND CHILDREN EVEN WITHOUT BAPTISM OR ACTUAL CONFESSION.”
Baptism of Desire ‘Blood’ is consistent with God’s mercy and justice. St. Luke 15. with the parable of the Lost Sheep and the parable of the Lost son points to this. many place themselves into the role of the son who tolled in the fields for the Father their whole life and is angered at those who are redeemed late or at the latest moment. The Parable explains why one should not have those feelings and should rejoice in God’s mercy. If one excepts Christ and his bride even if it is at the moment of death who can deny him Salvation.
Please watch this video:
SPERAY REPLIES: The Dimond Brother video is ridiculous as are all their videos against Baptism of Desire.
Steven,
First, your claim that you previously addressed the point is false. It’s another example of how you lie. You are a very dishonest person.
SPERAY REPLIES: I most certainly addressed it but apparently you can’t comprehend very simple points. I had to be lead you like a five year old to the answer.
Second, you have finally addressed the point here and revealed your position. Your position is: “Rebirth is not necessary in extraordinary circumstances.” That means that you believe there are exceptions to the dogma that people must be reborn to be justified. This proves that you are a TOTAL MODERNIST HERETIC.
SPERAY REPLIES: There’s no exceptions when understood properly. But thank you for the compliment. I love to be called a TOTAL MODERNIST HERETIC by Dimond brother slaves. And I’m in good company since I’m only repeating what all the popes, saints, doctors. canonists, and theologians who’ve taught on the subject.
Here’s the dogma.
Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 3: “But though He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated; because as truly as men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own, SO UNLESS THEY WERE BORN AGAIN IN CHRIST THEY WOULD NEVER BE JUSTIFIED, since by that new birth through the merit of His passion the grace by which they become just is bestowed upon them.”
SPERAY REPLIES: I’ve read it many times. I accept the interpretation as given by the popes, saints, doctors, canonists, and theologians and defer to them. You do not! You have your own private Protestant-styled interpretation.
Even Joseph Clifford Fenton admits it’s heretical to hold, as you do, that dogmas have exceptions. The dogma is “unless they were born again in Christ they never would be justified”. By the way, St. Alphonsus comments on the passage above and emphasizes that it’s referring to those ‘reborn’. You say that the dogma that one must be reborn to be saved is not always true. That is NO DIFFERENT from someone saying that there are exceptions to the dogma that one must believe in Christ to be saved or the dogma that one must be in the Church to be saved. You are not Catholic.
SPERAY REPLIES: I don’t believe there are exceptions to the dogma. The dogma is referring to the ordinary means. I accept it. Again, if you studied the canonists and theologians, etc. you’ll see that there’s a necessity of precept and and a necessity of means. What is the dogma referring to? That’s the question.
Also, your position reveals that you don’t understand New Testament justification. New Testament Justification is rebirth (being born of God).
SPERAY REPLIES: I understand that but God can do what He wishes and save one how He wishes and the Church has promulgated that Baptism by Water which is the rebirth is not a necessity of means.
1 John 5:1- “Everyone believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God…”
SPERAY REPLIES: Ok, I have no problem with that, but that disproves your point. Because if you believe and are not baptized, how are you born of God? After all, you have to believe before your are baptized if you’re an adult. ANSWER THAT QUESTION? I’m saying you don’t have to be reborn by Baptism of water.
The New Testament teaches that Christian first justification is rebirth. You have denied the Gospel as a result of obstinately clinging to the error of a saint in the face of dogmatic teaching. You also deny the words of Jesus, ‘Wonder not, that I said to thee, you must be born again’ (John 3:7).
SPERAY REPLIES: Jesus also said that born again comes by water and St. Alphonsus and all the popes, saints, canonists, and theologians who taught BOD say water is not a necessity of means. So how are all these popes, saints, etc. not also denying the words of Jesus???? ANSWER THAT QUESTION!
It is a fact that you do not believe in papal infallibility.
SPERAY REPLIES: I most certainly believe it. That’s why I hold to BOD because it falls under infallibility of papal teaching. It’s you who do not believe in papal infallibility as taught by the Church.
You don’t have the faith. Your overly broad and wrong views of the Magisterium and what constitutes Church teaching also would make the Church look stupid, for you hold that the Church spoke both when 1) the Holy Office and St. Robert Bellarmine denounced the denial of geocentrism as heresy, and
SPERAY REPLIES: Heresy in their day had a more broader meaning. Is geocentrism a matter or faith or science? We now know since Vatican I that infallibility concerns faith and morals, not necessarily science, right?
2) when the Holy Office later allowed it and Benedict XV contradicted geocentrism. But a Catholic knows that not all such acts are infallible and magisterial.
SPERAY REPLIES: Of course, not all acts are infallible and magisterial. Never said it was, but Baptism of Desire is infallible magisterial teaching. THAT’S A FACT!
The bottom-line is that you have no faith in the Papacy and its special prerogatives. You are a modernist heretic who believes there are exceptions to dogmas and that souls can be saved in false religions.
SPERAY REPLIES: THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA AND ABSOLUTELY NO ONE CAN BE SAVED IN FALSE RELIGION. I’ve already explained in comments under this article that BOD is how one gets in the Church to be saved and yet, you have dishonestly misrepresented me as the usual Dimond Brother follower always does. YOU CAN’T GET VERY SIMPLE POINTS. I’VE EXPLAINED IT SO CLEARLY AND YET YOU STILL DON’T GET IT. IT’S MIND-BOGGLING!
LASTLY, if BOD is heretical, then surely you can point to a single post-Trent authority that condemns it as heretical.
whoops, I typed up a response but I don’t know if it went through!
I’ll try again off memory real quick.
The Dimonds on vaticancatholic.com on youtube have a video “The Best Argument Against Baptism of Desire”.
They basically argue that since St. Alphonsus/Aquinas say that baptism of desire doesn’t remove the temporal punishments of sin, like water baptism does, that therefore this shows that BOD/BOB are not baptisms. But rather instead I think the saints there are correct, they are just saying that BOD/BOB are different baptisms in extraordinary circumstances; obviously the situation is different, the water baptized person typically has time to sin or merit after being water baptized; the BOD/BOB are often received upon death I imagine, so they have no time to remit the temporal punishment of sin – so it seems fair/logical to those who were water baptized, that those who are BOD/BOB wouldn’t have temporal punishments remitted.
I think feeneyites were baited in to their position because modernists did distort the teaching on BOD and say people don’t need to be water baptized but instead God will just baptize them by desire; also, some have grown lax about water baptizing. But I think the neo-Jansenist like reaction to this of feeneyism is another extreme; the mean between the extremes is to simply seek to water baptize and accept that if some aren’t water baptized they may be saved by BOD/BOB.
BOD/BOB only comes in to play among those who are invincibly ignorant of the need to be water baptized, and/or those aware of the need for water baptism but don’t get the chance to be water baptized before death – I think, these parameters or the “mechanics” of BOD become obvious when you think about how they would work.
Also I think some confusion comes when people take John 3:5 interpreted “literally”, the Scripture that says “unless a person is water baptized they cannot enter heaven”. Well, we know one interpretation of that is false, that only those in heaven are water baptized, as this would exclude salvation for all those under the Old Covenant who weren’t water baptized; so since we can prove one interpretation doesn’t hold, this also suggests the feeneyite interpretation that absolutely thereafter only the water baptized may enter heaven; but rather the Catholic teaching is that water baptism is necessary for salvation for those who are aware of the obligation, and that BOD/BOB may be given to and save those who are not aware of this obligation and cannot be water baptized before death. Again, this does not mean there is no obligation as is the false distortion of the modernists, nor that the obligation is abosolute excluding BOD/BOB as the feeneyites contend, but Catholicism is the mean between these extremes.
I think that is the gist of it, maybe more to discuss though. There are other points and some of the feeneyites’ questions do seem fair, to understand how BOD/BOB work I think.
I’ve already answered everything the Feeneyites have tried. Get my book and see.
Feeeneyite contradiction:
1: Outside of the Church there is no redemption
2: The Church is infallible
3: The Theologians in the Church who teach Baptism of desire and blood are wrong
4: The Church is not infallible
If you believe Extra Ecclesia Nula Salus, you need to accept what the Ecclesia teaches.
“SPERAY REPLIES: I understand that but God can do what He wishes and save one how He wishes and the Church has promulgated that Baptism by Water which is the rebirth is not a necessity of means.”
Hello Steven Speray. I speak Portuguese and I am using a Google Translate (with corrections made by me), so it is possible that my comment may have English errors. You said in that comment that the Sacrament of Baptism is not a Necessity of Means, that is wrong. You did well to distinguish Necessity of Means from Necessity of Precept, but one more distinction remains: the distinction between Necessity of Means Absolute and Necessity of Means Relative. Necessity of Means Absolute is an absolute necessity, outside of which there is no salvation. Necessity of Means Relative is a necessity that can have an exception.
The Sacrament of Baptism is both a Necessity of Precept and a Necessity of Means Relative, so it can be a Necessity of Means and contain an exception, which is the Baptism of Desire. This is written in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
“Again, in relation to the means necessary to salvation theologians divide necessity into necessity of means and necessity of precept. In the first case the means is so necessary to salvation that without it (absolute necessity) or its substitute (relative necessity), even if the omission is guiltless, the end cannot be reached. Thus faith and baptism of water are necessary by a necessity of means, the former absolutely, the latter relatively, for salvation. In the second case, necessity is based on a positive precept, commanding something the omission of which, unless culpable, does not absolutely prevent the reaching of the end.” -Catholic Encyclopedia.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm