This is THE FAITH by Canon Francis Ripley

[SemperFidelis]

That’s okay. Sorry if I came off as terse.

No apologies necessary. It is the internet; sometimes things come out differently than people intended. I usually take people’s tones on here with a grain of salt anyway.

I would agree with you on this but it is interesting that not all of those Catechisms agree on the nature and boundaries of what B. or Desire or Blood actually means. If I recall, the St. Pius X catechism talks about one being “on the way of salvation” which sort of skirts the whole issue and instead leaves a definitive answer to God and allows the reader not to worry overmuch.

Here it is straight from St. Pius X himself:

17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?

A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.

It’s the Baltimore that does the greatest disservice by presenting three Baptisms of equal weight doctrinally. But that was written as the heresy of Americanism was catching on.

I disagree. I think Traditional American Catholics have the hardest time accepting Baptism of Desire/Blood. Granted this is just one SSPX Priests opinion (though I do agree with him). Here is a description of the book by Angelus Press:

While visiting the United States, Fr. Rulleau, (former Professor of Dogmatic Theology in Ecône, Switzerland) could not help but notice the specifically American problem of the denial of baptism of desire. Rising above all polemics, Fr. Rulleau clearly explains the mind of the Church, based upon the Magisterium and the Fathers.

But in general I like all of those catechisms with the exception of the CCC which I think is laced with modernist influenced language. Even Cardinal Schonborn recommended that people still read the Trent Catechism as he said, “It has so many beautiful things in it. No one has forbade anyone from reading it.”

I agree. I very much prefer the Trent Catechism over the CCC. Well actually I prefer almost anything over the CCC. You said it yourself…“modernist influenced language.”

 

[SemperFidelis]

Sorry, here is the link to the Catechism of St. Pius X page on Baptism:

cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/pius/psacr-b.htm

 

[GerardP]

Here it is straight from St. Pius X himself:

17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?

A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.

A few quick points. I don’t believe that St. Pius X actually wrote the Catechism. I believe it was written by order of him.

Second, not to nit pick but the question is formulated very strangely.

How is the “absence of Baptism” supplied? Taken literally, it agrees with what I was saying Baptism of Blood and or Desire provide the “absence of Baptism” which is no real Baptism.

Question 16 says that Baptism is “absolutely necessary”

Trent says that water is necessary and not symbolic.

You’ll even notice that in the question asking if an adult is Baptized but doesn’t have the desire, he get the Baptismal imprint but not the remission of his own mortal sins.

 

[SemperFidelis]

A few quick points. I don’t believe that St. Pius X actually wrote the Catechism. I believe it was written by order of him.

Whether or not St. Pius X actually wrote everything in it doesn’t really matter. I have heard from several sources that he probably wrote at least parts of it. He published the Catechism in his name so I am sure that he at least read and approved everything in it. That is the most important part.

How is the “absence of Baptism” supplied? Taken literally, it agrees with what I was saying Baptism of Blood and or Desire provide the “absence of Baptism” which is no real Baptism.

I think you are reading a little bit too much into the wording of the question. To me it seems pretty straightforward. I read it more like: “If actual Baptism is not possible, can any thing take its place?” Baptism is of course absolutely necessary, but since there are three baptisms, either one will suffice. Of course one cannot assume he is baptised by desire, have the chance of water baptism, and reject it. Obviously his rejection of water baptism in this case would lead him to hell.

Question 16 says that Baptism is “absolutely necessary”

I agree.

Trent says that water is necessary and not symbolic.

This is in regards to the protestant idea that Baptism is only symbolic (like the Lord’s Supper), and is not actually necessary for salvation. Baptism is required for salvation, but if one is not able to receive this sacrament, an explicit or implicit desire to receive it will suffice. Trent also says in session six, chapter four:

“This translation however cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” John 3:5

You’ll even notice that in the question asking if an adult is Baptized but doesn’t have the desire, he get the Baptismal imprint but not the remission of his own mortal sins.

Baptism always remits original sin. It only remits actual sin if the person being Baptized is truly and actually sorry for there sins and desires them to be remitted.

 

[GerardP]

Whether or not St. Pius X actually wrote everything in it doesn’t really matter. I have heard from several sources that he probably wrote at least parts of it. He published the Catechism in his name so I am sure that he at least read and approved everything in it. That is the most important part.

It is questionable as to what the actual situation was since it’s such a strange violation of the law of non-contradiction.

I think you are reading a little bit too much into the wording of the question. To me it seems pretty straightforward. I read it more like: “If actual Baptism is not possible, can any thing take its place?” Baptism is of course absolutely necessary, but since there are three baptisms, either one will suffice. Of course one cannot assume he is baptised by desire, have the chance of water baptism, and reject it. Obviously his rejection of water baptism in this case would lead him to hell.

I was being a bit tongue in cheek with that one. But you have to admit the wording of the question is very strange. You feel the need to reinterpret what is actually written.

Three Baptisms is also a strange concept. “One Faith, One Fold, One Baptism.” is what I’ve come to know as the Catholic teaching. Three Baptisms seems to be an adaptation that doesn’t have magisterial power.

This is in regards to the protestant idea that Baptism is only symbolic (like the Lord’s Supper), and is not actually necessary for salvation.

The problem is Trent made a simple straightforward dogmatic statement about water being absolutely necessary.

Baptism is required for salvation, but if one is not able to receive this sacrament, an explicit or implicit desire to receive it will suffice.

“IF” is the catch word. God gives all sufficent grace for salvation. It can’t help but be an insult to God to say that he failed in His promise and has to break His own rules in order to be fair.

This is all speculative. There is no indisputable record of non-Baptized saints.

I prefer to believe that the last second saves are accompanied by physical baptisms miraculously granted before death.

Trent also says in session six, chapter four:

“This translation however cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” John 3:5

That section doesn’t deal with Baptism. It deals with justification. Desire doesn’t carry with it the character of Baptism.

Baptism always remits original sin. It only remits actual sin if the person being Baptized is truly and actually sorry for there sins and desires them to be remitted.

Of course, but the reason I pointed it out is that the entrance to Heaven is not determined exclusively by the personal sin. Since the resurrection, it’s determined by the Baptismal character. No personal sins + no Baptism leads to no Heaven but also no punishment. (Otherwise known as Limbo)

Baptism plus mortal sin leads to Hell and a deeper and worse part of Hell than a person who dies without Baptism and in their sins. The character of Baptism is that much more damning.

To bring this all home, This is a specialized area of interest and the Ripley book does not get into all of this detail or argumentation. But on virtually every other issue, I think it’s wonderful and I wouldn’t want to scandalize someone new to the Church by making this issue a hill worth dying on during this crisis in the Church.

I suspect this will be one of the last issues the Church will deal with as we come out of the crisis.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

That section doesn’t deal with Baptism. It deals with justification. Desire doesn’t carry with it the character of Baptism.

Sorry to jump in here, but I need to make one comment. Those who believe in baptism of desire do not claim that it imprints the baptismal character on the soul. Baptism of desire only communicates the grace of baptism - sanctying grace - which is what justifies.

Let me provide a section of St. Thomas’ Summa for us to consider.

Article 11. Whether three kinds of Baptism are fittingly described–viz. Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit?

Objection 1. It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Ephesians 4:5): “One Faith, one Baptism.” Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.

Objection 2. Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above (65, 1). Now none but Baptism of Water is a sacrament. Therefore we should not reckon two other Baptisms.

Objection 3. Further, Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) distinguishes several other kinds of Baptism. Therefore we should admit more than three Baptisms.

On the contrary, on Hebrews 6:2, “Of the doctrine of Baptisms,” the gloss says: “He uses the plural, because there is Baptism of Water, of Repentance, and of Blood.”

I answer that, As stated above (62, 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 [grace] 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: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance [of desire]. Of this it is written (Isaiah 4:4): “If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning.” Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. …

Reply to Objection 1. 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.

Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (60, 1), a sacrament is a kind of sign. The other two, however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not sacraments.

Reply to Objection 3. Damascene enumerates certain figurative Baptisms. For instance, “the Deluge” was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of the salvation of the faithful in the Church; since then “a few . . . souls were saved in the ark [Vulgate: ‘by water’,” according to 1 Peter 3:20. He also mentions “the crossing of the Red Sea”: which was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of our delivery from the bondage of sin; hence the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 10:2) that “all . . . were baptized in the cloud and in the sea.” And again he mentions “the various washings which were customary under the Old Law,” which were figures of our Baptism, as to the cleansing from sins: also “the Baptism of John,” which prepared the way for our Baptism.http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4066.htm#11

In article 12, St. Thomas teaches that baptism of blood is actually the most excellent of the three.

 

[SemperFidelis]

I was being a bit tongue in cheek with that one. But you have to admit the wording of the question is very strange.

I believe the question is worded a little strange, but the answer is very straight forward.

Three Baptisms is also a strange concept. “One Faith, One Fold, One Baptism.” is what I’ve come to know as the Catholic teaching. Three Baptisms seems to be an adaptation that doesn’t have magisterial power.

Three Baptisms is the easiest way to explain it, even though it is not technically three baptisms. It is hard to explain but I believe it can be likened to the Trinity (Hard to explain and mysterious, but true nonetheless). We also profess we believe in “One God” in the Creed, which we do, but it can easily be misconstrued by non-Christians that we believe in three. There is only one Baptism. This guy explains it better than me:

geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/bapdesire.htm

The problem is Trent made a simple straightforward dogmatic statement about water being absolutely necessary.

But it also says desire is sufficient if water baptism is not possible.

This is all speculative. There is no indisputable record of non-Baptized saints.

There is at least one un-baptized Saint that I have heard of. Can’t remember where I found it though. Maybe somebody will help me out.

That section doesn’t deal with Baptism. It deals with justification. Desire doesn’t carry with it the character of Baptism.

Read the justification vs. salvation issue found here:

sspv.net/flash_paper/articles/001_article_feeney.swf

I know it’s from sedevacantists, but it’s good nonetheless.

To bring this all home, This is a specialized area of interest and the Ripley book does not get into all of this detail or argumentation. But on virtually every other issue, I think it’s wonderful and I wouldn’t want to scandalize someone new to the Church by making this issue a hill worth dying on during this crisis in the Church.

I agree, I know originally this was very important to me as it seemed like to me the Church contradicted itself. I have done a lot of studying on this very subject, so I know what you mean.

I suspect this will be one of the last issues the Church will deal with as we come out of the crisis.

Yes, hopefully they will clear up the many misconceptions taught on this dogma, and make a clear concise pronouncement.

 

[jmcrae]

Keep in mind that neither baptism of blood nor baptism of desire can apply to the living. They can only apply to certain people who have already died, who were not baptized with water during their earthly lives - so there is no one who can say, “I have baptism of desire; therefore I don’t need to be baptized with water in the Church.”

If he in fact had baptism of desire, he would actually be saying, “How soon can I be baptized in the Church?” If he dies before it can be arranged, he has baptism of desire, but if he lives, then he needs to show up for his Catechism classes, and be baptized in the Church.

 

[jmcrae]

There is at least one un-baptized Saint that I have heard of. Can’t remember where I found it though. Maybe somebody will help me out.

St. Dismas - also known as “The good thief.”

 

[SemperFidelis]

Keep in mind that neither baptism of blood nor baptism of desire can apply to the living. They can only apply to certain people who have already died, who were not baptized with water during their earthly lives - so there is no one who can say, “I have baptism of desire; therefore I don’t need to be baptized with water in the Church.”

If he in fact had baptism of desire, he would actually be saying, “How soon can I be baptized in the Church?” If he dies before it can be arranged, he has baptism of desire, but if he lives, then he needs to show up for his Catechism classes, and be baptized in the Church.

This is most absolutely true. I tried to purvey this message in one of my previous posts, but I didn’t go into as much detail. Thanks.

St. Dismas - also known as “The good thief.”

Thank you, I knew somebody would find it.

 

[SemperFidelis]

I found the Saint I was looking for. Funny enough it was in one of the links I posted above. I found the link after looking in several other places, thinking it was somewhere else. At the bottom of the page on page 11 you can read about St. Emerentiana:

sspv.net/flash_paper/articles/001_article_feeney.swf

So I guess, there’s at least two unbaptized Saints.

 

[GerardP]

Sorry to jump in here, but I need to make one comment. Those who believe in baptism of desire do not claim that it imprints the baptismal character on the soul. Baptism of desire only communicates the grace of baptism - sanctying grace - which is what justifies.

Are you saying that the lack of the Baptismal mark still allows a person to get into Heaven?

In article 12, St. Thomas teaches that baptism of blood is actually the most excellent of the three.

Unfortunately, this is one of those instances where the Magisterium of the Church has not adopted St. Thomas’ explanation.

Cantate Domino actually puts a limit on the speculation Pope Eugene would have been well aware of St. Thomas’ speculation on this point.

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, ****unless before death **they are joined with Her; **and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, **no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, **unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”

 

[GerardP]

I found the Saint I was looking for. Funny enough it was in one of the links I posted above. I found the link after looking in several other places, thinking it was somewhere else. At the bottom of the page on page 11 you can read about St. Emerentiana:

sspv.net/flash_paper/articles/001_article_feeney.swf

So I guess, there’s at least two unbaptized Saints.

There’s a lot of disagreement about St. Emerentia and the baptismal status of Catechumens.

St. Dismas died prior to the resurrection. He was saved under the Old Law just as St. Joseph and St. John the Baptist was.

 

[GerardP]

Keep in mind that neither baptism of blood nor baptism of desire can apply to the living. They can only apply to certain people who have already died, who were not baptized with water during their earthly lives - so there is no one who can say, “I have baptism of desire; therefore I don’t need to be baptized with water in the Church.”

If he in fact had baptism of desire, he would actually be saying, “How soon can I be baptized in the Church?” If he dies before it can be arranged, he has baptism of desire, but if he lives, then he needs to show up for his Catechism classes, and be baptized in the Church.

Please read Cantate Domino.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Are you saying that the lack of the Baptismal mark still allows a person to get into Heaven?

Yes, we are saved by grace, not by the baptismal character.

Baptism of desire has been taught since the earliest years of the Church. Augustine clearly taught it and actually had much to say about it. According to the Dimond Brother’s themselves (who call it a heresy), it was taught in at least 100 pre-Vatican II theological manuals (virtually all of them). It is also a teaching of many Catechisms, including the Catechism of Trent.

St. Alphonsus said it was de fide based on Trent and one other document. St. Robert Bellarime also taught it. Basically, it has been a universal teaching for at least 800 years, if not more. In the Dialogue of Catherine of Sienna (1300’s), God the Father taught baptism of desire and baptism of blood (the book consists of the words God spoke to her while she was in a state of extacy). One could argue that there is no guarantee that this was truly God, but when you read the book that thought does not cross your mind. The book is incredible.

Here’s what I said to the Dimond Brothers: How could it be that Baptism of desire has been taught universally for 800 + years and no Pope has ever come out against it?. Not only has BOD been explicitly taught by several Popes, but no one before the 20th century (the century of the Great Apostasy no less) ever argued that Baptism of desire was false. No one!

The Dimond Brother’s resonse to that was: “well, sometimes God allows errors to continue in the Church”. In other words, the entire Church was in error for 800+ years. The error was even considered de fide by a doctor of the Church. Even though this “error” was taught universally, no one before the 20th century ever suspected that it was an error. Yet today the Dimond Brothers (and a few others) claim that if you believe this doctrine you are a formal heretic.

There is not one magisterial statement that says baptism of desire is false. There are teachings that say water baptism is necessary, but none that directly address baptism of desire and claim it is an error - not one.

When you look at both sides of the argument, the side in favor of BOD and BOB is much stronger.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, do not contradict Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Here is a long list of Saints, Doctors, Catechisms, Popes, etc. who have taught BOD and BOB from the very beginning of the Church:

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\Eric’s Stuff\Baptism of Desire in Traditional Catholic Writings.htm

 

[hardane]

To get back on the topic of the book…I’ve read it several times and find it a wonderful book explaining the faith. We are going to start using it in our RCIA program and I was wondering if anyone had any course outlines, or such like, that we could use for the class. Any help is appreciated.