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.”Because a baptism of desire or blood does not contradict the doctrine of outside the Church there is no salvation.
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 ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Canon IV, session 7)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.”
Baptism of desire was never taught by any popes speeking ex Cathedra, in fact they taught the exact opposite. I do not follow that Catechism, it’s post-Vatican II, and even pre-Vatican II Catechisms were heretical.To help with this doctrine:
When the Church teaches that one cannot be saved without baptism, that teaching ever remains true. What modern, untheological eyes do not always realize is that when the Church acknowledges a baptism of desire or baptism of blood, they are not teaching something “in addition” to a water baptism. Rather, the Church acknowledges that there are other means by which God may effect the equivalence of grace imparted at baptism by the soul’s desire or martyrdom. By the same token, God is free to effect the graces of baptism onto a “formally” unbaptized infant. So in effect, such an infant will have been baptized by God in an extenuating way even if the formal rite was not performed on the infant. Thus, in all cases (the normal rite of baptism, baptism of desire, baptism of blood, or an extenuating “baptism” of an infant in a way known only to God) the person remains, indeed, baptized and cannot be saved without it. This is what is evidenced in the Catechism:
CCC#1257 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.In all cases, however, the saved person is indeed joined to the one Church outside of which there is no salvation. What we are talking about here are extenuating means by which God may unite a person to the Church, effecting the grace of normative baptism to someone else. Though the Church does not know any other way of salvation, the Church does not conclude God therefore has no other way.
You can’t have a wedding without a bride or a bridegroom, does that mean you can just have a bride?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 ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Canon IV, session 7)
Here’s a quick question for you. On April 12 the Roman Martyrology (here’s a 1743 version, in case you thought I meant some modernistic Newmartyrology) celebrates the feast of St. Victor the martyr:Baptism of desire was never taught by any popes speeking ex Cathedra, in fact they taught the exact opposite. I do not follow that Catechism, it’s post-Vatican II, and even pre-Vatican II Catechisms were heretical.
Catechumen does not always mean unbaptized, Saint Ambrose spoke of Catechumens who he was instructing even AFTER Baptism. Pope Benedict XII speeks of all those who recieve the Beatific Vision, he mentions the virgins, martyrs etc. he said all those recieve the beatific vision WHO HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED!!Here’s a quick question for you. On April 12 the Roman Martyrology (here’s a 1743 version, in case you thought I meant some modernistic Newmartyrology) celebrates the feast of St. Victor the martyr:
Bracari, in Lusitania, sancti Victoris Martyris, qui, adhuc catechumenus, cum noluisset idolum adorare, et Christum Jesum magna constantia confessus fuisset, ideo, post multa tormenta, capite abscisso, meruit proprio sanguine baptizari.
which means,
At Braga, in Portugal, the holy Martyr Victor, who, while still a catechumen, when he refused to adore an idol and confessed Christ Jesus with great constancy, consequently, after many torments, being beheaded, merited to be baptized by his own blood.
Why don’t you tell us your opinion: would you say that Victor must actually be in Hell, and that the Church raised him to the altars in error and has been falsely revering him all these years? If that’s what you think, in what way are you a part of the Catholic Church?
Haha, classic: it says he was still a catechumen, and that he “merited to be baptized by his blood,” but your conclusion is that he was already a fully baptized Catholic and there is no such thing as being baptized by blood.Catechumen does not always mean unbaptized, Saint Ambrose spoke of Catechumens who he was instructing even AFTER Baptism. Pope Benedict XII speeks of all those who recieve the Beatific Vision, he mentions the virgins, martyrs etc. he said all those recieve the beatific vision WHO HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED!!
What you are saying is condenmed by Pope Pius IX. Dogmas are to be understood as Holy Mother Church has ONCE DECLEARED! Pius X never taught BOD or BOB, that catechism was not written by him and he probaly did not even read it, it is also heretical. The only saint who is called “theologian” that spoke on BOB and BOD is St. Gregoy Nazianzen, and he taught against it. Jesus said you must be born again of water and the Holy Ghost to enter the Kingdom of God.Haha, classic: it says he was still a catechumen, and that he “merited to be baptized by his blood,” but your conclusion is that he was already a fully baptized Catholic and there is no such thing as being baptized by blood.
Needless to say, the main problems with your view is (1) it is based on a private interpretation of a single sentence from a single Church document which you have divorced of its context; (2) it is not an interpretation that the Church has ever taught, and your strict interpretation is in fact contradicted within the same document, as noted in post #3; and (3) the most prominent person to have taught your view was a single twentieth-century American priest (most definitely not a saint), while the truth of Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire has been explicitly taught by everyone from Tertullian and Augustine to Aquinas to Pius X. You are simply misinterpreting that passage, an error sufficiently hard to make that virtually no one in history has made it.
St. Dismus wasn’t baptised and yet he went to Heaven. Elijah went to Heaven. Adam and Eve are considered saints. Traditional even tells us Socrates the Philospher is blessed. What’s the problem?Why does everyone who claims to be Catholic, even almost all the “traditionalists” deny the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation? Even those who claim to believe in it do not, because they either support priests who do deny it or they believe in “Baptism of Desire” or “Baptism of Blood”
Those are rediculas arguments because the Law of Baptism did not become obligitory until after the ressurection, and the earliest fathers of the Church believed the Old Testament saints were actually baptized because the passage in Matthew’s gospel mentions the saints rising from the graves and went into town andthe fathers of the Church believed they were baptized. This comes from as early as the second centuery from the Sheperd of Hermas. And I personally believe that Adam and Eve are in hell. I have not read a pope speeking ex cathedra says they are in heaven. It was defined by the Council of Florence and by the Council of Trent that noone gets to heaven without water Baptism.St. Dismus wasn’t baptised and yet he went to Heaven. Elijah went to Heaven. Adam and Eve are considered saints. Traditional even tells us Socrates the Philospher is blessed. What’s the problem?
Try to be too much of a literalist and realise that Christ said for those that do not have Him, they at least have Moses and the Prophets. Truth is imbued upon the heart of every person, and that is Scripture.