Tuesday, July 22, 2014

No Dimond In The Rough

 Few topics cause as much controversy in Traditionalist circles than that of "Baptism of Desire" (BOD) and "Baptism of Blood" (BOB). In reaction to the Modernists who had been trying to apply BOD to just about everyone (e.g. Fr. Karl Rahner and his ilk, calling pagans "anonymous Christians") and reducing the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Est (Outside the Church There Is No Salvation) to a meaningless formula, Fr. Leonard Feeney denied BOD and BOB. He claimed that the Church had gotten it wrong, that BOD and BOB (even when properly understood) were heretical. Ultimately, Fr. Feeney was excommunicated in 1953 by Pope Pius XII. He was reconciled to the Vatican II sect in 1972 by Montini (Antipope Paul VI) without having to abjure his heresy.

 Good people were unfortunately taken in by Feeney, including Fr. James Wathen, whose book The Great Sacrilege was one of the first and best refutations of the invalid Vatican II bread and wine service. (See my last post of  7/17/14 "An Even Greater Sacrilege"). My last post discussed the Feeneyite heresy, and I received a  comment that those who uphold the Church's teaching (e.g. Fr. Cekada and Bishop Dolan) should debate the most prolific Feenyites today; the so-called "Dimond Brothers" of Most Holy Family Monastery in New York. They are self-proclaimed "Benedictines" whose major work is a book entitled Outside of the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation which anyone can view and download for free on their website.

 I responded in the comments section of my last post that I would present the case that Fr. Feeney and his followers are heretics. As Fr. Cekada has pointed out, Feeneyites have, at the root of their error, the rejection of legitimate Church authority. I will make but one argument in this post to show how even the most rabid Feeneyites (Dimonds) got it all wrong.

 Feeneyites are of the opinion that Catholics need only to accept ex cathedra pronouncements of the popes and Ecumenical Councils, while everything else is basically "up for grabs" and subject to error. If their private interpretation of an ex cathedra statement is alleged to "conflict" with any doctrine not so defined, then it is an error. Since BOD and BOB have not been the subjects of an ex cathedra pronouncement, and it (allegedly) conflicts with ex cathedra pronouncements on Baptism and the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation, they argue that BOD and BOB are heretical.

 I will now set out the case of how wrong they are in this matter.

I) What Catholics Must Believe

 Catholics are BOUND to believe everything proposed by the extraordinary and ordinary Magisterium of the Church. The Feeneyites would like us to forget the latter and only accept the former. In what does the Ordinary Magisterium consist?

 According to theologian Ott: The promulgation by the Church (of dogma)may be made either in an extraordinary manner through a solemn decision of faith made by the Pope or a General Council (Iudicium solemne) or through the ordinary and general teaching power of the Church (Magisterium ordinarium et universale). The latter may be found easily in the catechisms issued by the Bishops." (See Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, TAN reprint from 1955, pg. 4--Emphasis mine).

 According to theologian Van Noort: "Clearly if a truth is capable of being declared an object of divine-catholic faith through the force of this ordinary and universal teaching, there is required such a proposal is unmistakably definitive........The major signs of such a proposal are these: that the truth be taught throughout the world in popular catechisms, or even more importantly, be taught by the universal and constant agreement of theologians as belonging to faith." (See Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, Newman Press, 3:222, 1960--first emphasis in original; emphasis after ellipsis mine).

According to theologian Tanquerey: "B. The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church......
I. The Morally Unanimous Preaching (Teaching) of the Bishops
Bishops teach the flock entrusted and subject to them by means of catechisms, by synodal directives, mandates , and in public sermons. If it is evident from these documents that some doctrine is being set forth universally as an object of faith, then nothing else is required for this doctrine to be accepted de fide. Bishops spread throughout the world, but with the Roman Pontiff forming one Corporate Body, are infallible when declaring a teaching on faith or morals." (See Tanquerey, Manual of Dogmatic Theology I:177, 1959--Emphasis in original).

 Therefore, a truth declared in catechisms, is as certain as dogmas proclaimed ex cathedra. Since God is the Author of all Truths of Faith any alleged contradiction between Truths stems from ignorance (culpable or inculpable).


 The popular Baltimore Catechism, the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, and the Catechism of the Council of Trent (approved by none less than Pope St. Pius V), all teach BOB and BOD. They are therefore to be accepted de fide (of Faith). But, wait! In Outside of the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation (hereinafter OCC), the Diamonds try to impeach the Catechism of the Council of Trent (CCT)!

On pgs. 135-139 of OCC, we read:
"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 what is de fide.”

 The Diamonds omitted this line from Dr. Hagan:  “At the very least it has the same authority as a dogmatic Encyclical.” Catholics MUST accept this because as Pope Pius XII stated: “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. Emphasis mine.

 This leads us right back to what the theologians have taught about catechisms and the Ordinary Magisterium! In the next few sections, Dimond attempts to show where and why he thinks the Roman Catechism is in conflict with the Council of Trent and other papal documents. His purpose is to demonstrate that if the Catechism is erroneous on other points of doctrine, he can logically argue against the pertinent phrase -- the one that clearly teaches BOD for adults--- to the absolute necessity of Baptism under all conditions. His argument, then, will be that the Roman Catechism is outright heretical through implication.

He continues:“The fact that the Catechism of Trent is not infallible is proven by the fact that small errors can be detected within its text. For example:

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Tan Books, p. 243: “For the Eucharist is the end of all the Sacraments, and the symbol of unity and brotherhood in the Church, outside of which none can attain grace.”

Here the Catechism teaches that outside the Church none can attain grace. This is not true. Predisposing or prevenient graces are given to those outside the Church so that they can turn to God, change their lives and enter the Church. Without these graces no one would ever convert. Pope Clement XI in the dogmatic constitution Unigenitus (Sept. 8, 1713) condemned the proposition that, “Outside the Church, no grace is granted.” Thus, what we have here is an error in the Catechism of Trent. The Catechism probably intended to teach that outside the Church no sinner can attain sanctifying grace, which is true, since outside the Catholic Church there is no remission of sins (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 1302, ex cathedra). Nevertheless, God allowed the Catechism to err in this manner because it is not infallible in everything it teaches.”

Dimond omits the context of the Catechism that implied sanctifying grace. Dimond is going out of his way in an attempt to find an error that’s not really there. He needs to find that error to demonstrate that the Catechism is faulty which he thinks gives him the right to question those paragraphs that clearly teach Baptism of Desire.

Notice also that Pope Clement XI didn't specify what grace he was speaking about either. He didn't say “actual”, “predisposing or prevenient” grace. Dimond would have to conclude that Pope Clement XI erred too, since outside the Church no sanctifying grace is granted. He claims the CCT  to be heretical on this point while clearly taking sources out of context and ascribing error where none exists.

Next he states:

“Furthermore, in the entire Catechism of the Council of Trent there is no mention at all of the so‐called “three baptisms,” nor is there any mention of “baptism of desire” or “baptism of blood,” nor is there any clear statement that one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism. What we find, rather, is one ambiguous paragraph which seems to teach that one can achieve grace and righteousness without baptism."
The Catechism says baptism for infants should not be delayed “Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism…”

This statement clearly implies that there is another means of salvation besides Baptism for those above the age of reason. Then the Catechism concludes what it is:

“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.”---In other words, BOD!!

Now come two "whoppers":
“Even though the Catechism of Trent is not infallible in every sentence, as just proven, taken as a whole it is an excellent catechism which expresses the Catholic Faith accurately and effectively.”

So a catechism that teaches rank heresy can nevertheless express the Catholic Faith "accurately and effectively?"

"But most importantly, the Catechism of Trent makes statement after statement clearly and unambiguously teaching that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for all for salvation with no exceptions, thereby repeatedly excluding any idea of salvation without water baptism.”

So the CCT contradicts itself! Why attack it if the CCT supposedly proves your interpretation of BOD and BOB? Didn't he say there was one  "ambiguous paragraph," yet the CCT " makes statement after statement clearly and unambiguously" against BOD. Which is it? Completely unambiguous or ambiguous in part? It teaches heresy concerning grace, yet that's ok as long as it's good "taken as a whole."

 I could go on but I feel no need to belabor the obvious. BOD and BOB by inclusion in catechisms as well as being taught by all pre-Vatican II theologians is infallibly certain through the teaching of the universal and ordinary Magisterium. I'd put the Dimonds publication OCC right in the trash can with their DVD on UFOs.
The only thing Most Holy Family Monastery produces are flawed Dimonds teaching 24 carat heresy.  


  1. Does baptism of desire provide both remission of guilt of sin and remission of temporal punishment due to sin, i.e. the grace of spiritual rebirth, i.e. the grace of baptism?

  2. According to theologian OTT: "Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis. It bestows sanctifying grace, which remits Original Sin, all actual sins,and the eternal punishment for sin. Venial sins and temporal punishments for sin are remitted according to the intensity of the subjective disposition. The baptismal character is not imprinted, nor is it the gateway to the other sacraments." (Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, TAN Books, reprint from 1955, pg. 357).

  3. Good post!

    Here is a a collection of over 100 pre-VII sources, including Fathers and Doctors of the Church, Saints, Catechisms, and more that teach the doctrines of baptism of blood and baptism of desire:


  4. Thank you for the excellent resource!

  5. you see that is the problem.
    "ita, nisi in Christo renascerentur, nunquam justificarentur" from chap 3 on justification. spiritual rebirth by which man renasceretur has effects of removing guilt of original and actual sin and temporal punishment for sin. this is the effect of sacrament baptism, and we know that because Trent teaches us in sess. 5, chap 5.:

    „If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only erased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven.“, and also Florence: „The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all original and actual guilt, also of all penalty that is owed for that guilt. Hence no satisfaction for past sins is to be imposed on the baptized, but those who die before they incur any guilt go straight to the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God.“.

    So, effect of baptism is spiritual rebirth, i.e. being born again. But, ita, nisi in Christo renascerentur, nunquam justificarentur, i.e. if they aren't born again in Christ, they would never be justified, i.e., if they don't have both guilt of sin and temporal punishment which is due to sin remitted, they would not be justified, i.e. if they didn't receive the grace of spiritual rebirth they would never be justified. but those who teach baptism of desire(bod), among whom st. Thomas Aquinas and st. Alphonsus Liguori are most prominent(and also Ludwig Ott - as you cited), say that bod remits only guilt of sin and not the temporal punishment and that such person would have to endure purgatory upon death. that means that bod doesn't provide the grace of spiritual rebirth, which means that it cannot even justify it's recipients. it doesn't render them born again in Christ, and therefore it doesn't justify them and therefore it doesn't save them.

    1. Marko,
      Your argument is based on the mistaken notion that BOD is the same as the sacrament of Baptism. It is not. If I go to confession and have attrition, I'm justified (and can be saved)even though I still have temporal debt to pay.

      Remember that St. Alphonsus, whom you cite, is a Doctor of the Church, who lived only one century removed from Trent. He knew the teachings of Trent and taught BOD and BOB. If Trent meant what you THINK it means then, Alphonsus was a heretic and could never be infallibly canonized a saint.

      All pre-Vatican II catechisms teach BOB and BOD, making it part of the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium which we MUST accept, or we are no longer Catholic.

    2. I'm talking about first justification.
      One cannot be justified if one is not made a new creature in Christ. This obviously doesn't happen with bod.

    3. You make it sound that the regeneration of sacramental Baptism is the ONLY way of being justified, and this is simply NOT the teaching of the Church. The post-Tridentine theologians understood Trent's decrees as the Church did at the time it was promulgated (some of them being only a few short years removed from that Council) and saw nothing incompatible with Trent's teaching on sacramental Baptism and BOD

    4. i repeat. i talk about first justification, i.e. rebirth. rebirth doesn't happen in sacrament of penance.
      one who is not reborn cannot be justified for the first time. that's it.
      also Church has always interpreted John 3,5 literally and with no exceptions.

      Florence: "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 came into the world through one person, unless we are born again of water and the spirit, we cannot, as Truth says, enter the kingdom of heaven. The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water, either hot or cold. The form is: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit."

      Trent on baptism:
      "CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema."

      "CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema."

      also, before baptism one has not supernatural, saving and justifying faith but as trent says in decree on justification: "Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing". supernatural, justifying and saving faith is given by baptism.
      That is visible from the rite of baptism where the priest asks the one who is to be baptized what he asks from the Church, and he answers "faith". he is then again asked "what does faith give you", to which he answers "life everlasting".

    5. Your error is the refusal to submit to the Ordinary Magisterium. Fr Feeney, two sad sack "Benedictines" upstate NY, and you, all know better than the unanimous teaching of the approved theologians and catechisms.
      Trent in Session 6, Chapter 4 states that after the promulgation of the Gospel, man cannot pass to the state of grace without the "water of regeneration OR THE DESIRE FOR IT.."
      Likewise, Session 7, Canon 4 states the sacraments of the New Law are necessary for salvation ".....without the sacraments OR THE DESIRE OF THEM.."

      The canon you cite on baptism (Canon 2) was formulated against Luther who taught that beer or milk could substitute for natural water. It was clearly not meant to repudiate the very doctrine taught by the same Council.

      Unfortunately, all of this will not even register with you because of your refusal to submit to the Ordinary Magisterium. Sad. I'll be praying for your conversion
      -- Introibo

    6. And your problem is not addressing the arguments.
      I already know about the said passage and that passage is to counter luther who said that adult needs only faith and not the desire for the actual sacrament to receive it.

      but more on that point you can read from mhfm's book. they elaborate it better than i do and i don't feel like writing what is already written.

    7. My final word to you (at least for this post):

      I don't feel like writing all that has been written by ALL the greatest theologians of the Church (including a canonized saint and Doctor of the Church) as well as ALL catechisms pre-Vatican II which affirm BOD and BOB. This makes it part of the universal and Ordinary Magisterium, to which all true Catholics MUST submit.

      I will take that teaching over the sophistical reasoning of an excommunicated Jesuit priest from Boston and two pseudo-educated men who like to dress up and play "Benedictine Brothers" in upstate New York.

  6. Introibo,
    You make some interesting points, but you yourself also illustrate the problem with your own position. You admit that there's no sanctifying grace outside the Catholic Church. However, one can't be a member of the Church without baptism, as taught by Pius XII in Mystici Corporis. So if BOD confers sanctifying grace, as you claim, it does so outside the Church. But it is impossible to receive sanctifying grace outside the Church. Therefore, BOD does not confer sanctifying grace.

    Also, you claim that the Catechism of Trent teaches BOD, and it certainly seems to. However, nowhere does it expressly say that one can receive sanctifying grace without baptism, nor does it expressly say that one can be saved without baptism. The most that can be said is that these things are implied, which would be good enough, if it is in fact true that they are implied... and when I say 'implied' I mean that they necessarily follow from what is said.

    So let's look at the passage in question:

    The delay is not attended the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any [un]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.

    Hmm, that does seem to necessarily imply BOD. Let's see if it really does.

    It mentions an "unforeseen accident" making it "impossible" to receive baptism. Now it has to be asked: are these terms used in an absolute sense or a qualified sense? Well, it would seem that it can't be in the former sense, because no accidents are unforeseen by God, and nothing is impossible for God. So it would seem that they might be being used in a qualified sense. Add to this the possibility (and I don't say dogma, but the mere possibility) that God desires that ALL his elect to receive the waters of regeneration, which seems quite plausible, and the entire passage takes on a possible sense that does not at all necessarily imply BOD at all. It merely describes a case that is "unforeseen" and "impossible" -- to human eyes, but easily foreseen and possible for God. Therefore, the thesis that the Catechism of Trent teaches BOD is not demonstrated.

    1. Nice reprove.. Keep up the good work. There is no Salvation outside of The Catholic Church, Baptism is necessary for Justification.

    2. As I've amply demonstrated, the 1917 Code of Canon Law expressly teaches BOD. The Code was promulgated by Pope Benedict XV and is a universal disciplinary law. The Church is infallible in Her disciplinary laws. Hence, either BOD is true or there have been no popes since at least Pope St. Pius X because Pope Benedict XV would thereby be a notorious heretic. You thereby cannot deny BOD without being a heretic or reaching bizarre conclusions regarding the state of the papacy.

  7. Sorry George, your argument does not hold up upon inspection.

    Remember what I wrote about BOD and BOB; they are contained in the pre-Vatican II catechisms which show that they MUST be believed as they are taught by the ordinary and universal Magistreium. Consider the Catechism of Pope ST. Pius X:

    "Question: Can the absence of baptism be supplied in any way?
    Answer: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called the 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." (Catechism of St Pius X, pg. 71)

    Doesn't leave much wiggle room for claiming it doesn't teach BOD or BOB. Since Pope St. Pius X was aware of the decrees of Trent and the thrice defined Dogma of the necessity of belonging to the Church, we must conclude: (a) BOB and BOD are compatible with those teachings OR (b) St. Pius X was a heretic and could not have been pope. Is this the position you really want to take?


  8. Getting back to the Catechism of Trent (CCT), the Dimonds make the same assertion regarding "impossibilities":

    “But even in this paragraph we find errors. For instance, the passage says that “should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for an adult to receive baptism, his intention and determination to receive baptism will avail him to grace and righteousness.”

    There is no such thing as an “unforeseen accident” which could make it “impossible”to receive baptism. This is clearly erroneous.

    Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 3, Chap. 1, On God the creator of all things: “EVERYTHING THAT GOD HAS BROUGHT INTO BEING HE PROTECTS AND GOVERNS BY HIS PROVIDENCE, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well. All things are open and laid bare before His eyes,even those which will be brought about by the free activity of creatures.”

    God has commanded all men to receive baptism, and He does not command impossibilities.

    Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 11 on Justification, ex cathedra: “… no one should make use of that rash statement forbidden under anathema by the Fathers, that the commandments of God are impossible to observe for a man who is justified. ‘FOR GOD DOES NOT COMMAND IMPOSSIBILITIES, but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do…”

    Therefore, the reference to the unforeseen and impossible to avoid accident in the Catechism demonstrates, once again, that not everything it says is infallible. An infallible document could not assert that accidents are unforeseen or impossible to avoid.” (Emphasis in original)

    Trent’s statement is speaking about, “a man who is justified” obeying the commandments of God. It’s addressing those who would argue that, “the just man sins at least venially in every good work [can. 25], (what is more intolerable) that he merits eternal punishments; and that they also who declare that the just sin in all works, if in those works, in order to stimulate their own sloth and to encourage themselves to run in the race, with this (in view), that above all God may be glorified, they have in view also the eternal reward [can. 26, 31], since it is written: “I have inclined my heart to do thy justifications on account of the reward” [Ps. 118:112], and of Moses the Apostle says, that he “looked to the reward” [Heb. 11:26].” (Trent, Session 6, Ch. 11)

    For the sake of the argument, let’s presume that the phrase applied to the sacrament of Baptism. Since Christ cannot command impossibilities, if the Sacrament of Baptism is made impossible, then Christ’s command to be baptized by water wouldn't apply, thus faith, desire, and contrition suffices.

    Trent’s statement wouldn't be contradicted at all by Baptism of Desire. Rather, it would support it.

    As far as Pope Pius XII declaring Baptism necessary for Church membership, and sanctifying grace can only come from belonging to the Church, the following must be said:
    As taught by Aquinas, "in actu" (in act) with Christ is accomplished by sanctifying grace with faith, hope and charity (ST, III, Q.8) BOD is precisely the direct gift of sanctifying grace with faith, hope, and charity. these souls are united in actu with Christ and His One True Church, although the bond is not perfected. Notice too, that Pope Pius XII excludes the unbaptised--he did NOT say "unbaptized by water."

    BOD is taught by all pre-Vatican II catechisms and must be accepted as part of the Catholic Faith.

  9. Introibo,
    Just for the record, I don't consider BOD and BOB to be heretical per se, although I think they're erroneous. However, the explicit belief that people who die outside the Church can be saved is definitely heretical.

    I'm not sure if you're aware, but Fr. Feeney was not persecuted for denying the BOD but for denying that people can be saved in outside the Church if they were invincibly ignorant. In fact, the official position paper put out by the St. Benedict Center during the crisis positively affirmed BOB and BOD! Here is a link to the relevant section:


    It was invincible ignorance that was the real sticking point. BOB and BOD had nothing to do with it. So even if you argue that BOB and BOD were held by some of the Fathers and some of the great saints, none of these ever held that those who denied the true faith could ever be save. But that's exactly what just about the entire institutional Church believed at the time of the Boston Heresy Case. In fact, the Holy Office (sort of) put out a protocol condemning the Feeneyites for denying invincible ignorance.

    Another thing I'd like to say about BOD and BOB is that, although they are erroneous, they are also attempts to affirm things that are true. For example, although there are no unbaptized martyrs in heaven, neither was there ever a person who died for the true faith who was lost. BOB was attempt to explain how the latter could be true, but it failed in that it denied the absolutely necessity of water baptism.

  10. George,
    There is no difference between holding BOD and BOB to be either erroneous or heretical. The end result is the same.. You sin mortally against the Faith, placing yourself in danger of damnation. BOD and BOB are taught as an part of the integral Catholic Faith by the universal and ordinary Magisterium. What would you say to someone who said, "I don't think transubstantiation is heretical, but I do think it is erroneous"?

    I will go into invincible ignorance at another time. Please rethink your position. To borrow a line from Fr. Cekada, those who deny BOD and BOB will place themselves extra ecclesiam, where we all know there is nulla salus.

    1. Oh so those who deny bod and bob will not be saved but jews who even reject Christ have some hope of salvation, "cuz we can't judge" - as Cekada and also CMRI guys say...
      nice. prime hypocrisy.

    2. If you reject the Integral Catholic Faith, you cannot be saved. A Jew who receives BOD is no longer a Jew but a member of the One True Church.

      Think of this: if having evil thoughts and desires are mortal sins that can damn you, couldn't God allow salutary thoughts and desires to save a soul under the right conditions?

    3. Well Benedict Hughes, others from CMRI, SSPV, other sedes and SSPXers said that even Jews who rejects Christ could receive bod...and even pagans...cuz invihncuhble ignorence herp derp...go figure...
      if that is the case than it is better not to preach the Gospel.

  11. Introibo,
    Even assuming that BOD is part of the ordinary magisterium, the opinion that anyone who denies it is ipso facto outside the Church is objectively false. The reason for this is that even though everything in the ordinary magisterium is to be believed by faith, that which constitutes the OM is often unclear to some and open to objections. Consider, for example, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. It is for this reason that nobody, as far as I can tell, has ever been considered by the Church as being outside the Church for denying a truth of the OM unless or until either a) the doctrine is dogmatically defined, b) the error is condemned as contrary to the faith by an ecclesiastical authority, c) the person is knowingly contradicting the OM. "A" and "B" clearly do not apply here (unless you want to try to trot out Suprema Haec Sacra as having some authority); and "C" would involve judging the internal forum, which is quite beyond the capacities of even the talented Fr. Cekada. So even assuming BOD is true, Fr. Cekada and Bishop Dolan are in no way justified in calling those who deny it heretics.

    1. Denying BOD would have to be considered proximate to heresy, at the very least.

      The Creed Explained (1897) - Arthur Devine
      "The ordinary Magisterium is that authority which is daily used by her pastors and doctors. By virtue of this second Magisterium, a truth can be proposed as Catholic, or such a truth remaining in a state of truths of faith purely divine, may so far progress as to attain almost to the state of defined truths, and then it may be said to be a truth proximate to divine-Catholic faith. A person denying such a truth would not thereby be a heretic, but he would be proximate to heresy; thus, for example, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, before its definition in 1854, and the dogma of Papal Infallibility, before the definition of the Vatican Council (1870), were truths to be believed by divine faith; but by the special Magisterium of the Church, they are now defined and to be believed by all, so that he would be a heretic who should deny either of them." (pp.326-327)

      Although, considering many Catholic theologians have affirmed that Trent was indeed teaching BOD, that would seem to make it's denial heresy.

  12. Good point! All pre-Vatican II theologians teach that something is taught by the OM if it is included in the catechisms and held by the unanimous consent of the theologians. BOD and BOB meet BOTH requirements.

    If they are not taught by the OM, then nothing is so taught. Going further, even if they are not dogmatic, they would have to be held as AT LEAST "Theologically Certain" which makes denial a MORTAL SIN indirectly against the Faith. And even a member of the Church who dies in mortal sin will end up damned; the same as non-Catholics.

  13. "He who believes AND is baptized will be saved. He who does not believe will be condemned." --JC.

  14. Yes! BOD is just that--the infusion of sanctifying grace, or the grace of baptism in a special way. Do you really think the theologians--including St. Alphonsus didn't know about Our Lord's words? So now do we accept the Magisterial teaching of the Church as good Traditionalist Catholics, or do we accept your private interpretation of Scripture like Protestants?

    1. sanctifying grace is not grace of baptism properly so called.
      grace of baptism is remission of guilt of sin and remission of punishment due to sin.

  15. With the qualifying phrase "properly so-called" I agree since we are not talking about sacramental Baptism. It does however, make one a member of the Church with the remission of Original and actual sin along with the infusion of sanctifying grace that makes one worthy of Heaven.

  16. So basically I can do whatever I want, how I want, when I want, and still attain heaven eternally? All I have to do is "desire baptism" on my deathbed and it's all good? So what's the point of being catholic? Did Jesus Christ allow himself to be tortured and crucified so we could act like hedonist until the moment before our death?

  17. BOD and BOB are Catholic teaching. Let me ask you this question:
    Suppose a True Catholic, having been baptized, lapses from his faith and lives a very evil and sinful life from his teen years going forward. At the age of 80, he's on his deathbed, and by the Grace of God, is given true sorrow for his sins. He calls for a priest and makes a sincere confession, followed by absolution. Moments later he dies. Would he not be saved? Of course he would. Does that mean we should live as a hedonist until our deathbed? Obviously not. That would be this sin of presumption. Death might overtake you unaware. If this is true why can't God save someone through BOD or BOB the same way?

  18. Baptism is triune of Water, Blood, and the Holy Ghost, not "trifold of water, blood, and desire".
    The Fathers were unanimous in the necessity of the Sacrament of baptism. Only a few believed in "baptism of spirit". Others believed in "baptism of blood". Those who believed in it, applied it only to catechumens and only as theory, not of the Faith. They were unanimous against "invincible ignorance".
    Every time the Church defines teaches the absolute necessity of baptism for Church membership, and the absolute necessity thereof for remission of sins and salvation, she explicitly excludes all exceptions. When she teaches that all are conceived in original sin, she explicitly names Mary as the only exception.
    Had the Tridentine Council really taught "baptism of spirit", or "baptism of desire", as even some of the non-papal saints taught, there'd have been a section completely dedicated to it with explanations on what it is and reasons for it but there aren't because it didn't because it's not part of the Faith.
    Session 5 Decree 1 teaches that all men are conceived in original sin and makes sure to pronounce Mary as the only exception.
    Session 6 Chapter 4 talks about the justification of the impious, not infants whose parents want them to become Christians or pious men who wanna become Christians. All it says is that the transition from the state of original sin to the state of grace can't be done without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it. That's true. I can't drive my car without a car, the keys, a gas tank with gas in it, or a working engine. I need all four. In the same way, I needed both the saving waters and the desire to get them to be translated from the state of original sin to the state of sanctification, which, in my case, automatically became the state of schism because of who baptized me and the sect he was part of that I was ascribing my name to. If I have a Moslem on his death bed in front of me, and I have a water balloon with me, and he remained unrepentant of his false religion, I could take my water balloon, say "I baptize thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" and intend to remove the stain of original sin from and instill Faith, Hope, and Charity with sanctifying grace in his soul all I want but his "baptism" will still be absolutely null and utterly void because he doesn't want to go to Heaven and I'll automatically place myself outside the Church for denying, by my actions, that coerced "baptisms" are absolutely null and utterly void. This is what happens when you formulate teachings based on only half of a sentence and go by the corrupted English translations found in recent editions of Sources of Catholic Dogma. The Latin word "sine" translates to the English word "without", not "except through". This is what happens when people formulate teachings based on only half teachings based on only half-sentences and intentional mistranslations.
    Session 7, on the Sacraments in general, Canon 4 does nothing to refute the absolute necessity of baptism for salvation for all because, on the Sacrament of baptism, in Canons 2 and 5 anathematizes all who deny that God commands all to be born again of water and the Holy Ghost (Ev. Ap. St. John 3:5). God does not command the impossible. God only commands those, who hear His Words and can fulfill the requirement, to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. That's why the wording's different when He commands Nicodemus to be baptized from when He commands the apostles and the Judeans to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood.
    The Roman Catechism of the Tridentine Council was written by four fallible theologians, not a pope speaking infallibly.

    1. I’ve answered all this before in other posts.
      1. BOD and BOB are not Sacraments and were never considered such.
      2. You don’t need the character of Baptism to belong to the Church—Sanctifying grace and the Faith can be infused by God at death. He is not bound by the Sacraments He Instituted.
      3. The Liturgy is infallible and it tells us St Victor went to Heaven via BOB.
      4. Mary was the only one exempt from Original Sin? What about the human nature of Christ?

      5. You can receive Penance and the Eucharist by Desire alone.

      6. You have the unanimous consent of the theologians teaching BOD and BOB. That makes it Church teaching by the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium.

      Continued below next remark by the anonymous Feeneyite who doesn’t understand Church teaching.


    2. 1. Than why call them Baptism?

      2. God is bound to obey the Priest's absolution in the Confessional. Our Lord said no one will be saved without water Baptism and he is bound by that.
      3. There is no proof Saint Victor of Braga even existed. His life could very easily be a modernist addition.
      4. Even your Baltimore Catechism says Mary is the only human exempt!
      5. Nowhere in the Council of Trent is "Eucharist of desire" or "Eucharist of blood" taught. I desire to be married, can I receive the Sacrament by just wanting it?
      6. No you don't. Theologians like the universal salvationist Dr. Ludwig Ott and Dr. Eduardo Regatillo who thought he knew more than Pius XII (who lost his Office in 1951 for teaching NFP and evolution) assigned different notes, as did other theologians. ?If it was Magisterial teaching than everyone would agree on it.

    3. Answered:

      1. For the same reason we call a "spiritual Communion" "Communion." We receive the GRACE of the Sacrament but not the Sacrament itself.

      2. God is bound by what HE SAID --NOT WHAT YOU THINK HE SAID. According to the Church St. John 3:5 is not absolute under all conditions. This Sacrament, along with the Eucharist and Penance for those already baptized, can be administered under ordinary and extraordinary conditions. BOD and BOB are extraordinary. Read my post "A Magisterium Unto Themselves."

      3. From the Roman Martyrology:

      "January 23: At Rome, St. Emerentiana, a Virgin and Martyr. She was just a catechumen when she was stoned by the Gentiles while praying on the tomb of St. Agnes, who was her foster-sister."

      "April 12: At Braga in Portugal, the martyr St. Victor, who, although only a catechumen, refused to adore an idol, and confessed Jesus Christ with great constancy. After suffering many torments, he was beheaded, and thus merited to be baptized in his own blood."

      "June 22: At Verulam in England, in the time of Diocletian, St. Alban, martyr, who gave himself up in order to save a cleric whom he had harbored. After being scourged and subjected to bitter torments, he was sentenced to capital punishment. With him also suffered one of the soldiers who led him to execution, for he was converted to Christ on the way and merited to be baptized in his own blood. St. Bede the Venerable has left an account of the noble combat of St. Alban and his companion."

      "June 28: At Alexandria, in the persecution of Severus, the holy martyrs Plutarch, Serenus, Heraclides a catechumen, Heron a neophyte, another Serenus, Rháis a catechumen, Potamioena, and Marcella her mother."(All emphasis above in the Roman Martyrology is mine).

      We know they died as catechumens. We know catechumens are unbaptized or they wouldn't be called catechumens had they received the sacrament with water. They were "baptized in their blood" and are listed as saints in the authoritative Roman Martyrology . It can't be wrong because the Church is infallible in declaring people saints. Otherwise, we might be praying to the damned; such is unthinkable.
      (Continued Below).

    4. 4. Yes, if you understand it properly, which you do not. She was the only human but NOT TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE HUMAN NATURE OF CHRIST.

      5. See my answer in # 2 above.

      6. All approved theologians agree that BOD and BOB belong to the Catholic Faith, the denial of which constitutes a direct mortal sin against the faith. Collectively, all the theologians cited agree that baptism of desire and baptism of blood are “in conformity with the truth presented in the Sources of Revelation and the Universal Magisterium” — otherwise, they would not teach the doctrines.

      Individually, the theologians may indeed assign different categories to the doctrines —theologically certain, Catholic doctrine, de fide, etc. But any of these categories still place the teaching on baptism of desire and baptism of blood among those teachings Catholics must believe. The specific category assigned is important for another reason. Each has a corresponding theological censure which indicates your degree of error if you deny the doctrines — whether your denial constitutes theological error, error in Catholic doctrine, or heresy.

      You are the typical Feenyite:

      a) Reject all teaching that is not ex cathedra

      b) Accept only YOUR interpretations of those infallible decrees

      c) Reject the teaching of the approved theologians which is how the Church teaches us through Her Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, as infallibly defined at Vatican Council (1870). This makes you a heretic and you begin "Pushing Back The Time of The Vacancy" (title of my past post) Like Michael Bizzaro, who has Pope St Pius X as the last pope, and Richard Ibranyi, who puts it back to 1130 AD--all based on their private interpretations.

      Keep it up and you'll have it all the way back to St Peter as First (and Last) Pope. I'll be praying for your conversion.


    5. 2. Christ solemnly said of Water and the Spirit. Not the Spirit. Theologians are not the Magisterium. Prevailing theological opinion of a certain period of time, does not constitute "theological truths and conclusions".

      3. Again, some story. Many of the early Martyrs were either fabrications, Catechumens still studying after Baptism, or modernist additions.

      4. So your Baltimore Catechism is wrong?

      6. If it is Catholic teaching it would be unanimously infallible.

      Pius X was under suspicion by the Holy Office for heresy before his election. That renders grave doubt.

    6. Answers to your numbered points:

      #2--Christ also said, "unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you." (St. John 6:53). Therefore, a baby who dies after Baptism and before receiving First Holy Communion goes to Hell because Christ said he would "have no life in you"--right? This is another sad PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. Christ's words are to be interpreted by the CHURCH not you, or you get the ridiculous results I just demonstrated.

      As to the theologians, that's how the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium teaches us, and guides us.

      1. Catholics are bound to believe the teachings of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church.

      Proof: "Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or IN HER ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL TEACHING POWER [magisterium], to be believed as divinely revealed." Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution on the Faith (1870), DZ 1792; Emphasis mine.

      The Code of Canon Law (1917) imposes the same obligation. ( See Canon 1323.1)

      2. The universal and constant agreement of the theologians that something belongs to the faith is not a case of some erudite priests or bishops who can be wrong, nor is it a fallacious appeal to authority. It is how the Church teaches us free from error. It is the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium at work.

      Proof: "For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith." Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter (1863),DZ 1683 (Emphasis mine)

      3. Really? The Vatican II sect denies St. Valentine and St. Christopher. All those years we prayed to non-saints? The Church would have defected which is impossible--but that's what Feeneyites believe. Some modern scholars deny Christ Himself existed!! Who decides which saints are "real"? YOU??The Church is infallible in declaring saints. You probably believe that there was no murder of the Jews by Hitler and the Moon landing was fake, too.

      4. No, your warped understanding of theology is wrong. Mary was the only human nature not united to the Divinity to be conceived without sin! The Catechism is not denying Christ's Human Nature was sin free. Likewise, when St. Alphonsus teaches only baptism saves, he goes on to talk about BOD and BOB. One is ordinary, the other extraordinary. The great Doctor of the Church was not an idiot and was not contradicting himself.

      6. No, it wouldn't. There were many theologians who assigned different theological notes to the Assumption pre-1950, yet ALL held it to be Catholic teaching!

      Pope St. Pius X was under suspicion of heresy! Baloney! Citation to your source please (probably a supermarket tabloid).


    7. 3. The VII sects denies legends surrounding them. You believe Canonizations are infallible, which is heresy. If they're infallible, show me where Vatican I says they are. I'm not sure about the "Holocaust" but the moon landing is suspicious.

      Saint Alphonsus Liguori was of course not an idiot. He later retracted his erroneous view.

      I must issue a retraction- I listed the wrong Pope. It was Leo XIII that was under suspicion for heresy (he was a blatant modernist who asserted that republics are Catholic), but this was under the Holy Office of Pius IX, who seems to have fallen from Office soon after his defining the Immaculata Dogma.

    8. Canonizations are infallible according to the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium which you deny.

      Please CITE where St Alphonsus “retracted” jis belief in BOD and BOB. It’s more nonsense. Citation also for Leo XIII being under suspicion of heresy.

      You think the moon landing was “suspicious.” I’m not at all surprised.


    9. No they're not. VI confirms this.

      Citations can be found at johnthebaptist.us

      Prove it happened. You probably also support vaccines you clown

    10. According to theologian Van Noort, AFTER CITING THE FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL, writes:
      Assertion 5: The Church’s infallibility extends to the canonization of saints. This is the common opinion today.

      Canonization (formal) is the final and definitive decree by which the sovereign pontiff declares that someone has been admitted to heaven and is to be venerated by everyone, at least in the sense that all the faithful are held to consider the person a saint worthy of public veneration. It differs from beatification, which is a provisional rather than a definitive decree, by which veneration is only permitted, or at least is not universally prescribed. Infallibility is claimed for canonization only; a decree of beatification, which in the eyes of the Church is not definitive but may still be rescinded, is to be considered morally certain indeed, but not infallible. Still, there are some theologians who take a different view of the matter.


      1. From the solid conviction of the Church. When the popes canonize, they use terminology which makes it quite evident that they consider decrees of canonization infallible. Here is, in sum, the formula they use: “By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the apostles Peter and Paul and by our own authority, we declare that N. has been admitted to heaven, and we decree and define that he is to be venerated in public and in private as a saint.”

      2. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church is infallible so that it may be a trustworthy teacher of the Christian religion and of the Christian way of life. But it would not be such if it could err in the canonization of saints. Would not religion be sullied if a person in hell were, by a definitive decree, offered to everyone as an object of religious veneration? Would not the moral law be at least weakened to some extent, if a protégé of the devil could be irrevocably set up as a model of virtue for all to imitate and for all to invoke? But it cannot be inferred: therefore the Church must also be infallible in authenticating the relics of the saints; for (a) the Church never issues so solemn a decree about relics; and (b) the cases are not parallel, for in the case of relics, it is a question of relative cult, while in that of the saints it is one of absolute cult.

      (Mgr. G. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology 2: Christ’s Church [Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1957], pp. 104, 108-110, 117-118.)

      Prove the moon landing? Well, we all know that those moon rocks are fake, as well as the photographs from space, and the testimony of the eyewitnesses who saw it through the telescopic camera feed. It was all a giant Masonic conspiracy funded by the wicked Jews. I don't believe in vaccinations. That's just a Jewish ploy funded by the Masons to take control of our minds.

      You're in my prayers. Please get psychiatric help.


    11. By the way you cite to Richard Ibranyi, a cult leading nut-case, who thinks the last pope was in 1130 AD, and thinks it's wrong for married couples to enjoy procreative sex. Oh, BOY!!


    12. Richard Ibranyi, who you insolently insult, wrote an entire book refuting the "infallibility" of Canonizations. You're just upset because of he exposed non-Saints. There are no Catholic Saints named "Justin Martyr", and "Thomas Aquinas".

      Whether you like it or not, RJMI is the head of the Roman Catholic Church and a Prophet.

      Good to hear you oppose (((Vaccinations))). Shows you're not completely lost yet! You're in my Prayers.

      By The Precious Blood of Jesus Christ,
      The Grace of the God of the Holy Catholic Church,
      The Mediation of the Blessed Virgin Mary,
      Our Lady of Good Counsel and Crusher of Heretics,
      The Protection of Saint Joseph, Patriarch of the Holy Family,
      The Intercession of Saint Michael the Archangel
      and the cooperation of
      Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi

    13. To my readers:
      Please note how all the disturbed people come onto a post about Feeneyites! Ibranyi a “prophet”? Lol! I think Charles Manson once claimed the same thing!


  19. Pope Benedict XIV, in his 1754 encyclical, Cum Religiosi (#2), on catechesis, condemns, in so many words, the idea that those who die in "invincible ignorance" can be saved.
    Pope Pius IX, in his 1863 encyclical, Quanto Conficiamor Moerore (#7), on promotion of false doctrines, teaches, in so many words, that the "invincibly ignorant" of good will can be brought to light and baptized into the Church by God Himself so he can be saved.
    The (one and only) Vatican Council, in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, in Chapter 2 (on Revelation), condemns "invincible ignorance", based on Ap. St. Paul in his epistle to the Romans (1:19-21) and both of his epistles to the Corinthians (1st 2:9; 2nd 4:3).
    The very idea of "baptism of desire", as it's called and taught now, didn't exist until after the modernists started infiltrating the Church's buildings after Pope Leo XIII fainted because he heard God and Satan talking while he was doing a morning Mass in 1884.
    That's why it's only taught in "catechisms" most likely written and "approved" by the infiltrators after 1884.
    Of all the Baltimore catechisms, I only trust the first one. The other ones sound like they were written and "approved" by the infiltrators. They're also only binding in Baltimore. I live near Virginia Beach. It wouldn't matter even if I lived in Baltimore. Ecumenical Councils and Catholicly-binding Magisterial statements trump catechisms.
    Pope St. Pius X never even had anything to do with the catechism attributed to him or the epistle allegedly from him approving it. Even had it been an orthodox catechism actually written and promulgated by the pope, it's only binding in Italy. I've never been to Italy. It wouldn't matter even if I lived in Italy. Ecumenical Councils and Catholicly-binding Magisterial statements trump catechisms.
    The Code of Canon Law itself actually refutes "baptism of desire" in the very places its advocates like to quote. Does the desire for baptism alone get you the transited from the state of original sin to the state of sanctification? No. The water, the words "I baptize thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost", and the intention to remove original sin from and instill Faith, Hope, and Charity with sanctifying grace in the soul of the person, and your desire, or, if you're an infant, your parents' desire for you to receive it, transits you from the state of original sin to the state of sanctification. This goes back to the Tridentine Council, Session 6, Chapter 4. Were there catechumens who received miraculous baptisms before they died or died, was resurrected just to be baptized, and then died baptized Christians? Yes. There were a lot. All you gotta do is look at Church history.
    All the heretics in the New World Order Antichurch and the "Traditionalist" cults can do is quote fallible writings and dishonestly quote Magisterial documents to defend heresy and label us real Christians as "Feeneyites" just as the Arians label us as "Athanasianites". Every time we preach the salvation Dogma as the Church really teaches it, they deny it with "invincible ignorance", "baptism of desire", "baptism of spirit", or "baptism of blood".

    1. The Church teaches infallibly that BOD and BOB are sufficient for salvation without Baptism by water through Her Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Here are but a few examples:

      A letter of Pope Innocent II to the Bishop of Cremona (1140) reads:

      We answer to your question: The presbyter who died without the water of baptism, since he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, we affirm without any doubt that he became free of the original sin and reached the joy of eternal life" (Denzinger n. 388--Emphasis mine).

      Pope Innocent III in his letter Debitum pastoralis of 1206 (well before the Baltimore Catechism) states:

      "You have communicated to us that a certain Jew, at the edge of dying as he was only among Jews, immersed himself in water saying: ‘I baptize myself in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. Amen.’

      We answer saying that the baptizer and the one who receives baptism must be different persons, as we infer from the words of the Lord when, speaking to His Apostles, He said: ‘Go, baptize all nations in the name etc (Matt 28:19). Therefore, the mentioned Jew must be baptized again by another person to show that one is the baptizer and another is the one who receives the baptism. … Nonetheless, if he would have died immediately, he would have flown instantly to the celestial homeland for his faith in the Sacrament rather than for the Sacrament of the Faith "(Denzinger n. 413--Emphasis mine).

      Pope Pius XII:
      “In the present economy there is no other way of communicating [sanctifying grace] to the child who has not yet the use of reason [other than Baptism]. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open.” (Address to Midwives, Oct. 29, 1951, qtd. in John McCarthy, Problems in Theology, Vol. I (Newman Press, 1956), p. 53--Emphasis mine)

      The 1917 Code of Canon Law:

      "Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words." (Canon 737--Emphasis mine)

      "Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized." (Canon 1239--Emphasis mine)

      The Code of Canon Law is a universal disciplinary law and cannot teach error. It was promulgated by Pope Benedict XV.


    2. 2 private letters, a private address, and the 1917 COCL (which was only in the Latin Church and had evil laws such as allowing Catholics to commit communicatio in sacris and attend modernist public schools) do not prove anything. Even with the 1917 COCL, there is severe doubt Benedict XV was even Pope! So it must be rejected.

    3. The only way to save your heresy is to deny any pope's validity who stands against you.

      When a canonist calls a law universal,he is not referring to it applying in the Latin and Eastern rites simultaneously. Rather, he is referring to a law's extension, i.e., the territory where it has force. Thus a particular law binds only within a certain determined territory. A universal law, on the other hand, binds throughout the whole Christian world. (See theologian D. Prummer, Manuale Juris Canonici (Freiburg: Herder 1927).

      Therefore, The Church's infallibility covers (a) collections of disciplinary laws that are (b) universal and (c) promulgated by the pope.

      The 1917 Code is a collection of disciplinary laws, which are universal and promulgated by Pope Benedict XV.

      Conclusion: The 1917 Code of Canon Law cannot teach error. It clearly teaches Baptism by Desire (BOD) in Canons 737 and 1239. Therefore, BOD must be true.

      Logical Corollary: You must teach falsehood and be a heretic.


    4. No Pope stood against the Catholic Dogma of BOD. Pope St Pius V and Benedict XIV, and St. Siricus, all anathematized BOD/BOB.

      Again, the 1917 COCL contains noxious laws. Grave doubt.

    5. No the popes did no such thing. For example, Pope St Siricus wrote a letter to Himerius, which not only do you misinterpret, but didn't you dismiss the letters of Popes Innocent II and III as "2 private letters"? This is just a letter too. Not infallible. Notice how you Feeneyites pick and choose, which is what "heretic' means--to pick and choose what to believe!Hypocrisy in action.

      The 1917 Code of Canon Law is infallible as I demonstrated above. There are no "noxious laws" or else the Church defected, which is EXACTLY what you believe--a fallible Church with no pope for centuries while YOU decide by PRIVATE JUDGEMENT who was a "heretic" or not.

    6. Of course they are not authoritative letters but if you're going to use other fallible letters you should know the truth.

      Saint Gregory Nazianzen and Saint Basil both rejected BOD. Saint Augustine retracted his belief in it.

      You believe the post-1955 liturgy of antipope Pius XII is noxious but you still claim he is Pope, even though the Liturgy has infallibility too. Hypocrisy!

      Remember, the Catholic Church has excommunicated you.

    7. I do NOT believe the post-1955 changes are noxious. They are fully Cathlic. Because people may THINK everything’s open to change, pre-1955 MAY BE used. I have NO PROBLEM with the changes of Pope Pius XII and have stated so on this blog on many occasions. The Catholic Church has not “excommunicated “ me. I’m neither a hypocrite nor a Feeneyite.

      I have amply demonstrated that you do not accept Church teaching about the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, placing YOURSELF extra ecclesiam, where we all know there is nulla salus.


    8. The post-55 changes are illegal because antipope Pius XII had no jurisdiction to change the Liturgy. He lost Jurisdiction in 1951 after public heresy.

      Bishop Patrick O'Leary, the only remnant Bishop not to come from illegal Thuc/Lefebvre lineages, but from valid Roman Catholic orders, is aware of this blog and has placed it under interdict and approved your excommunication.

    9. I’ve been a Traditionalist since 1981, and never heard of this joker. Who, exactly, ordained and consecrated him? Someone should inform Patrick that a bishop not appointed by the pope does not possess jurisdiction to excommunicate anyone. Even real, pre-V2 bishops can only excommunicate those under their jurisdiction. Unless he fancies himself the Archbishop of NYC, and appointed by the pope, his excommunication of me is every bit as phony as himself.


    10. Bishop O'Leary traces his Holy Orders back to Pius XII before he lost Jurisdiction. Pope Pius XII secretly consecrated Fr. Yevgeny Petrova of Ukraine to the Episcopacy, and Bishop O'Leary has several photos and documents proving his lineage.

      Pope Pius XII gave Jurisdiction to all who'd be consecrated by Bishop Petrova. You are violating Canon Law by refusing to accept that you're under an interdict.

    11. You’re violating common sense and sanity. The story you’re telling would make a good Malachi Martin novel, but it has no connection to reality. Secret consecrations, and universal jurisdiction. Where are these photos and documents and who has vetted them for authenticity?

      By the way, Patrick is under interdict by me. I was secretly consecrated by a bishop who was secretly consecrated by Pius XII the day before his fall from office. He gave me authority over all other secret bishops. That story has as much truth as yours—-none.


    12. Sadly for you and other clowns, we have proof- photographs of the Consecrations and signed certificates analyzed by experts. Bishop O'Leary is a valid Bishop of the Catholic Church and Bishop Petrova was a lion of truth, consecrating Fr. O'Leary to continue the remnant after SSPX/SSPV/CMRI, etc. apostasized to modernism. Bishop O'Leary wrote a pastoral letter anathematizing BOD.

      If you would like the interdict removed, Bishop O'Leary can reconcile you with the Catholic Church which lost the Papacy in 1951. In order to do so, His Excellency will require you to come to his Chapel in Dublin and request absolution from the canonical penalties imposed on this blog.

    13. This is all I here from you, unsubstantiated assertions. "We" have proof, etc. However, none has been provided via Internet link, or naming actual times, dates, and events.

      Actually, Malachi Martin claimed to be a "secret bishop" consecrated by Pope Pius XII himself! He has no proof of his claim BUT he is an unquestionably properly trained and validly ordained priest (Ordained 8/15/54). He also really was a Vatican insider, with photos and letters from the highest members of the hierarchy in Rome, where he had some influence.

      O'Leary is on the same level as "pope" Michael. "His Insanity" can meet me at the "pope's" farmhouse in Kansas, where they can "excommunicate" each other as I take notes on who has the least grip on reality!


    14. hear*. I cannot post proof online because it would be an ipso facto excommunication via the Decree of Pope Leo XIV, head of the Church in exile. Bishop O'Leary mentioned him once, he is the Pope in exile who succeeds Pope Gregory XVII (Cardinal Siri)

      Cardinal Martin was, though. He had contacts with the exiled Hierarchy.

      It's not one Bishop with "no grasp on reality". We are the remnant Church under Pope Leo XIV, Vicar of Christ and Successor of St Peter in the Primacy. He declared ex Cathedra the dogma of the Assumption of St Joseph just this past May.

    15. I made a typo, you’re out of touch with reality. “Pope” Leo won’t allow his “proof” to be published! How convenient! The real remnant Church is under “Pope” Michael who appointed his mommy Secretary of State of the Vatican in exile. Yeah. Since the mentally ill can't attain the papacy, you've got problems! Lol


  20. If "baptism of desire" were true, it wouldn't have evolved to being a Sacrament and being for everyone from being "baptism of spirit" being not a Sacrament and being just for catechumens. The Truth never changes.
    Christians profess only one baptism, not "three or four baptisms". Period.
    Ev. Ap. St. John, in his first epistle, identified the Three Persons of God (5:7) just before he identified to the Three Components of baptism (5:8) because, just like God, baptism is Triune, not trifold. You can get baptism by the hands of another or miraculously but, without it, you get no indelible mark, and, without the indelible mark, you get no membership in the Church, and, without membership in the Church, you don't go to Heaven, no matter who you are or what your circumstances are. Period

    1. The indelible character is a sign of belonging, not the belonging itself. If this were not true, someone baptized who died in mortal sin would go to Heaven. Absurd. Like everything else Feeneyites teach.


    2. https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/seven-arguments-that-refute-baptism-of-desire/

      This completely refutes your BOD heresy.

      Fr. Stevenson

    3. Sorry "Fr" Stevenson (I don't know if you're a real priest or not), assuming you are a priest your seminary formation was sadly inadequate. I will devote a post to those alleged arguments in January. As we say in the law they have been "Asked and answered"--or in this case "Made and Refuted."

      I'll be praying for your conversion.


    4. Introibo, I was trained by Bishop Webster. I know the Faith well enough to know what's right. The Council of Trent went into great detail about acts of perfect contrition in place of Confession. If a "Baptism of Desire" exists, why is it not defined in detail?

      If you would ever like to become a Catholic, please come down to one of the Bishop's Chapels.

      Fr. Stevenson

    5. I never heard of “Bp. Webster,” but seminary training is indespensible for a solid priestly formation. I studied theology with Fr Gommar DePauw, JCD a real pre-Vatican II canonist. You say “you know what is right” yet your arguments suggest otherwise.

      Simply because Trent didn’t go into detail about BOD means it doesn’t exist?

      You are the typical Feeneyite.
      1. Reject anything not ex Cathedra
      2. Accept YOUR private interpretation of said dogmas because...
      3. You reject the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium

      St Alphonsus Liguori is a Doctor of the Church. He wrote the following AFTER TRENT:

      Alphonsus Liguori’s Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7

      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 a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only “

      Specific enough? How did such a “heretic” become a saint and Doctor of the Church?

      I’m already a true Catholic. If you'd like to join me, you and Mr Webster can make contact with SSPV or CMRI.


    6. Fr. DePauw was often reprimanded, according to Bishop Webster. He was a rogue canonist who departed from traditional Thomistic values.

      It shows a complete lack of BOD in Trent for "Confession of desire" to have a whole section and the heretical BOD to not have a single Canon.

      "reject anything not ex Cathedra" That's not how this works, bud. Trent anathematized BOD in several Canons.

      Liguori was at best a material heretic on this point.

      I am a Catholic Priest with my lineage tracing back to Roman Catholic Priests and Popes. That's enough for me.

      Fr. Stevenson

    7. “Bishop” Webster knows this about Fr DePauw...how? I’d be surprised if he graduated high school.

      Once again, because Trent didn’t address something enough to your liking prives zilch.

      Please cite the Canon that states, “If anyone saith Baptism may be received in extraordinary circumstances by desire or by blood instead of water, let him be anathema” I won’t be holding my breath.

      So how does a Saint and Doctor was expressly teaches what Trent allegedly condemned as heresy, only a “material heretic?” He’s an idiot who didn’t understand Trent? But you and Mr Webster understand better than a Doctor of the Church!!

      You’re no Catholic priest, just a pretender and Feeneyite who doesn’t understand the difference between his Mass and his elbow.