The question of “Who Shall Be Saved”, has been the subject of discussion since Jesus walked on Earth. As this is the central theme to our Redemption, Satan has striven to attack, obfuscate, confuse and contradict this most crucial doctrine from the earliest times. The Holy Ghost has preserved and protected the purity of this doctrine without compromise. That being said, Saint Paul warned us that, “Heresies must come” (1st Corinthians,11:19) and thus we arrive at this place in history where error is rampant and Truth is hidden in plain sight.

     This doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Outside the Church No One is Saved) has ripped the Church apart for the last seventy-five years. It has been the most divisive instrument to keep the shepherd-less sheep scattered starting even before the death of Pope Pius XII.  The solution to this quarrel is so obvious, that it must have been some sort of test. God gave us the opportunity, using the example He set down for us in the Gospel of Love, to work together and to solve this problem in all charity. 

     We failed miserably. 

     As the writings of Pope Pius IX are central to this confusion, I find it fitting that we find the following admonition written by him:

• Pope Pius IX, Ubi Primum, 1847 Now We earnestly hope that all who are soldiers in the camp of the Lord honor God with one mind and one tongue and strive to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Hence, We repeatedly demand of you that in intimate concord, charity, and great unanimity with the bishops and with the secular clergy, you unite your aims, and strive might and main at the work of the ministry in order to build up the body of Christ. Moreover be zealous always for the better graces. For “there is one universal Church outside of which no one at all is saved; it contains regular and secular prelates along with those under their jurisdiction, who all profess one Lord, one faith and one baptism. Therefore, it is fitting that all who are of this one body be also of one mind,  and be bound to each other like brothers in the bond of charity.” 

     It is obvious, but worth stating, that the errors of Vatican II did not start in 1969. No, pernicious Modernism had infiltrated and entrenched itself into the bosom of the Church decades previously. Pope Pius X warned us in his 1907 encyclical, Pascendi Dominici Gregis (On the Errors of the Modernists) that the situation was so dire, and there were so many books with imprimaturs containing heresy, that removing them was beyond his control:

• We bid you do everything in your power to drive out of your dioceses, even by solemn interdict, any pernicious books that may be in circulation there. The Holy See neglects no means to put down writings of this kind, but the number of them has now grown to such an extent that it is impossible to censure them all. Hence it happens that the medicine sometimes arrives too late, for the disease has taken root during the delay…. Let no Bishop think that he fulfils this duty by denouncing to us one or two books, while a great many others of the same kind are being published and circulated. Nor are you to be deterred by the fact that a book has obtained the Imprimatur elsewhere, both because this may be merely simulated, and because it may have been granted through carelessness or easiness or excessive confidence in the author as may sometimes happen in religious Orders

     Diabolic novelty being introduced into theology books little by little only increased after the death of Pope Pius X. Over a relatively short amount of time, the dogma of Salvation has lost its clear and decisive meaning, only to be watered down so much as to become meaningless.  We see this effect not only with the inventors and disciples of the Church of the New Order, but also with (those who like to consider themselves), Traditional Catholics. This erosion of accepted Truth has been so insidious, calculated, and yet complete, that even many of the “good guys” were unwittingly affected by its poison. Themes central to this confusion are baptism of desire and blood, implicit baptism of desire and implicit faith. 

Part I: A Synopsis of the Catholic Church’s Teaching on Salvation:

All proof for the following can be found at the end of this book. 

• As seen in countless dogmatic decrees and in union with the Ordinary Magisterium, no one may enter heaven except that he dies as a member of the Catholic Church in the state of grace. 
• The Sacrament of Baptism is the gate by which we enter the Church. 
• Those who have not reached the age (or ability) of reason need only the Sacrament of Baptism as the three theological virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity are infused into their souls. 
• Those who have reached the age (or the ability) of reason need both the Sacrament of Baptism and the desire for the Sacrament of Baptism. 
• Before this sacrament can be administered, the recipient needs to at least have:

1. Supernatural Faith: Belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation
2. Supernatural Hope: Belief that God rewards and punishes.
3. Supernatural Charity: Sorrow for sin

     Thus, although infants can be baptized without asking their permission, adults (or those with reason), may not. Adults must give, or have given, some indication that they indeed want to become Catholic, and understand the three theological virtues above. 

     God can give anyone, no matter how remote or how isolated they may be, these three theological virtues in ways that would not be considered possible for humans. Aquinas says that He can send an angel to explain the faith, or He can teach them through an interior, divinely inspired knowledge. God can even send them a flying nun as in the case of Mary of Agreda.

     As far as the water for baptism, that too God can take care of if He wishes, even if it means sending in Enoch or Elias, or an angel to “bring forth someone by the hair of their head” or by accomplishing this in numerous ways of which we humans cannot conceive. Saint Augustine tells us that such a person could be baptized “invisibly.”  It is absurd that Almighty God would demand a requisite for salvation and then make it impossible for those of good will to attain that requisite.  Through the centuries, various theologians have theorized how God in his goodness and mercy could bring supernatural faith and baptism to those whose situation either by geography or circumstance would appear to be impossible by human means. 

     In 1854, Pope Pius IX condemned this practice of theorizing. This is a direct command from a true Pope, and therefore has the weight of obedience. 

• Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadam: “For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains, ‘we shall see God as He is’ (1 John 3:2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is ‘one God, one faith, one baptism’ [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful (nefas) to proceed further in inquiry.”

     The word, nefas (which is translated as unlawful) above, has a much more severe meaning than this translation would convey. Nefas is where we get our word “nefarious.” It means, “criminal”, “wicked”, “sinful”, but the most damning of its possible meanings is “against Divine Law.”  Thus, Pius IX condemns all conjecture about the mystery of the relationship between God’s mercy and His justice. All catechisms, which attempt to teach anything on this subject apart from what has been solemnly defined above, are in open disobedience to His Holiness and should be edited or discarded. Study of the musings of theologians and imminent Doctors of the Church on this subject should be taken with the seriousness of any forbidden book. To the mind of this author, the above declaration is enough to say, “what has been discussed in ages past, must now be silenced.”

     Thus concludes Part 1. It truly is that simple, and always has been. 

Part II: Support for the Conclusions of Part 1.

     After being made aware of the admonition of Pope Pius IX above, I have great reluctance to write any further on this subject.  That being said, I feel compelled to explain the history of this confusion, and once and for all to stop the discourse.  We are living the consequences of the ignorance and disobedience of this admonition to “cease and desist speculation”, which has brought the Church to the very doorstep of disaster and is the primary cause of the propagation of the insidious Church of the New Order’s doctrine of universal salvation.

     The Catholic Church is always perfectly consistent, and if something appears to be inconsistent, it is always because there is information lacking. I will eventually prove every statement made in this document. Please read through to the end.

     Contrary to the opinion of some, the belief that there are “three types of baptism,” (water, blood, and desire), is not supported by dogmatic theology. However, this assertion finds its way into canon law, catechisms, and the writings of many prominent theologians over the last 17 centuries.  Thus, even though baptism of desire and blood are never explicitly promulgated or established as de fide, as Bishop Mark Pivarunas correctly points out, neither were they ever explicitly condemned as false, by name. The issue remains the most confused and argued element of the Catholic Faith in our day, with past Doctors of the Church engaging in all manner of conjecture, many times contradicting each other’s opinions, changing their own opinions over time, and often contradictory to, or at least at odds with, defined dogma. In contrast to the writings of the “debaters”, the dogmatic proclamations are simple, to the point, and unequivocal.  The three baptisms debate necessarily bleeds into another contentious doctrine: Outside the Church There Is Absolutely No Salvation. 

     The centuries of inconsistency between defined dogma and theological conjecture were put to an end by Pius IX in 1858, when he forbad anyone from “inquiring” into this matter any further (also as quoted above). 

• Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadam: “For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains, ‘we shall see God as He is’ (1 John 3:2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is ‘one God, one faith, one baptism’ [Eph. 4:5]; it is against Divine Law to proceed further in inquiry.”

     Apparently (and mystifyingly), this admonition went unheeded and 90 years later was brought to the world stage in Boston concerning Father Leonard Feeney.  Clearly the dogma of Outside the Church there Is Absolutely No Salvation was going to be problematic for the new religion that was being concocted by Satan, (through his minions: the Masons and the Modernists), so it was necessary to discredit those who held it and eradicate this central teaching from the minds of the clergy and the faithful. 

     When studying the facts around the Feeney case, it appears to have been one of the first cases of “media hit-piece and fake news” in the modern media age. Contrary to popular legend, Father Feeney was not excommunicated for heresy, but for disobedience, as he refused to travel to Rome without first being told of his charges, a request that is evidently in his rights in canon law, or at least he believed it to be. Although the Church was already full of Modernists in 1947, it was not so devoid of faithful Catholics that Father Feeney was the only priest in the world to hold the Catholic doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Why he was chosen to be made an example of is not perfectly clear.  Perhaps it was that his Saint Benedict Center was responsible for some rather high-profile conversions, and his radio show was becoming very popular. Regardless, the desired outcome was achieved: the entire world assumed that the dogma of exclusivity that had been the hallmark of the Catholic Faith appeared to have been abrogated. 

     This is no better evidenced in the paper The Worcester Telegram which ran a typical headline:

VATICAN RULES AGAINST HUB DISSIDENTS – [Vatican] Holds No Salvation Outside Church Doctrine to Be False   

     The condemnation of Father Feeney written in the letter Suprema haec sacra has been, even now, erroneously attributed to Pope Pius XII (it was in fact written and signed by arch-modernist Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani). It was not published in the Acts of the Apostolic See (Acta Apostolicae Sedis) but in The Pilot, the newspaper for the Archdiocese of Boston. The letter is problematic at best, and heretical at worst. This is perhaps the first, or at least the most public, appearance of the concept that only those who are willfully and maliciously outside the Church are condemned by the dogma, and not all who remain outside the “bosom and unity of the Church” as had been proclaimed by so many previous popes. In true Modernist form, the author states a known and accepted fact; that the Church has always taught that there is Absolutely No Salvation Outside of Her (which excludes all exceptions), and then goes on to explain a bunch of exceptions. The writer does this in a way to falsely attribute these exceptions to Pope Pius XII by wordsmithing Mystici Corporis Christi. This letter also mis-stated the Council of Trent, in a way that will be explained shortly.  

     The effect of Father Feeney’s public excommunication has been that nearly all members of the Church of the New Order, both clergy and laity, believe that the dogma of Outside the Church There is No Salvation is heresy. This propaganda has been so effective that many of those who call themselves Traditional Catholic now also believe that to hold this doctrine is to be a “Feeneyite.” Which is doubly inscrutable as so many of these individuals (unknowingly) hold the very position on salvation as Father Feeney!  Feeney held firm to the Dogma, yet he allowed for baptism of desire for catechumens. There are other details to this story that make it more nuanced (perhaps Father Feeney apparently denying some points of canon law?), but for the sake of brevity, the general facts are just as related.  I do not have the competency to know if Father Feeney was in his rights to demand to know the charges against him before journeying to Rome. I do not know if the Pope himself signed the request for Father Feeney’s presence, or whether the request came solely from some modernist Cardinal at the Holy Office who planned for him to meet with some “unfortunate accident.” The fact remains that Father Feeney was not excommunicated for heresy, but to this day, the world believes that was his crime. 

      I have gone into this case with such detail to explain how we have arrived at this point: where even some staunch Traditionalists who whole-heartedly reject Vatican II, accept its heresy of universal salvation without knowing it. The public nature of the Feeney situation, even the news outlets misnaming it the “Boston Heresy Case” (and not the Boston Disobedience Case), left a diabolic mark on otherwise Orthodox believers of the Catholic Faith. This label of “Feeneyite” is one of the most insidious obstacles to uncovering the constant and unwavering Catholic Truth concerning salvation, as many who have started down the path of infallible papal teaching, end up fearing the worst: that they are becoming a Feeneyite, and turn from the task before concluding. Those who do stay the course have indeed been saddled with this title, which diminishes the weight of their conclusions in the eyes of many. Many who call themselves Traditional Catholic would rather see a person become a “Home Aloner” and never receive the sacraments again than suffer a “fate worse than spiritual death” and become a “Feeneyite.”

     The most distinguishing mark of this controversy of faith has to be the disconnect between infallible documents and theological conjecture. And, since none of these theologians has ever been censored, in fact many have been canonized, the Church had apparently given men a free reign to surmise all sorts of things on this subject. This uncharacteristic granting of liberality on the part of the Holy Office has however, laid the foundation for this house of discord we find ourselves in now. 

     To be clear, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus has never been doubted or denied by any saint. Their discussions concern how to gain entrance into this Church of necessity.  All the musings of the theologians of the past are now purely academic, as we now have a far greater authority to guide us (Pius IX’s admonition above to end inquiry, as well as):

• Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”
• Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi dominici gregis (#45), Sept. 8, 1907: “It goes without saying that if anything is met with among the scholastic doctors which may be regarded as an excess of subtlety, or which is altogether destitute of probability, We have no desire whatever to propose it for the imitation of present generations.” 
• Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: “This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.’” 

     As great as my temptation to just “drop it now” and end this letter here, it is necessary at least to address the contradictory ideas of past theologians or the faithful who run the risk of being left in unsettling uncertainty.  St. Augustine was one of the earliest to contemplate the supernatural ways God could bring baptism to someone when this could not be achieved by human means. He surmised that they would be invisibly baptized. He also was clearly wrestling with this idea of baptism of desire for Catechumens for some time, first accepting its possibility, and then evidently denying it.  Aquinas too concedes to an “invisible” form of sanctification. 

• St.Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, Q. 68, Art. 2: “… it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification…”

     The few theologians who held the doctrine of baptism of desire apparently came to their conclusions with great difficulty and uneasiness of mind. Here is Saint Bernard admitting that he may be in error, and not basing his beliefs on anything but that of the opinions of two fallible men:

• St. Bernard, Tractatus de baptismo, II, 8, c. 1130: “So, believe me, it would be difficult to turn me aside from these two pillars – I mean Augustine and Ambrose.  I confess that, whether in error or knowledge, I am with them; for I believe that a man can be saved by faith alone, provided he desires to receive the sacrament, in a case where death overtakes the fulfillment of his religious desire, or some other invincible power stands in his way.”[1]

     I find it rather impossible to ignore the repugnance at reading the words that “man can be saved by faith alone”, even though Bernard lived hundreds of years before the Protestant Revolt, and clearly, he did not intend these words to mean what Martin Luther intended them to mean.  I also wonder how St. Bernard could claim that anything could “stand in the way” of the will of Almighty God? As undoubtedly holy were Sts. Thomas and Bernard, they were also both famously proven wrong on the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. In fact, due chiefly to St. Bernard’s efforts, the feast was all but abrogated in all of Europe and not reinstated for 300 years after his death. 

     The first (and arguably only) time the concept/controversy of “desire” for baptism came up in an infallible document was at the Council of Trent. And this is where this story really gets interesting, and confusing. The section on baptism explains what is necessary for adults in the following passage:

• Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: Quibus verbis iustificationis impii descriptio insinuatur, ut sit translatio ab eo statu, in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae, in statum gratiae et ‘adoptionis filiorum’ (Rom 8,15) Dei, per secundum Adam Iesum Christum Salvatorem nostrum; quae quidem translatio post Evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis (can. 5 de bapt.) aut eius voto fieri non potest, sicut scriptum est: ‘Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei’ (Jo 3,5). “In these words there is conveyed a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, after the Gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”
•  

     The confusion comes from the word “aut” (translated as “or” in the English) in “aut eius voto”, (or the desire for it).  The supporters of baptism of desire contend that this passage means that an adult’s transition from the child of Adam to a child of Christ occurs either by the laver of regeneration (water baptism), OR the desire for the laver of regeneration. Those who are against baptism of desire contend that aut in this case is used inclusively, and that adults must have both the laver (water), and also the desire for the sacrament, to be valid. This is where common sense and subsequent reactions start to diverge. As we know that for adults, baptism doesn’t suffice without being accompanied by the desire of the catechumen to be baptized, one would assume that the inclusive sense is warranted. 

The key to the proper understanding of this passage lies in the Latin grammar. The preposition sine (“without”) is used with the ablative case, as is always required in Latin. The ablative case expresses the idea of separation or absence, which complements the meaning of sine. In this context, sine governs both lavacro regenerationis (the washing of regeneration, i.e., baptism) and eius voto (its desire, referring to the intention or vow for baptism).

1. “sine lavacro regenerationis”: Here, lavacro is in the ablative case as the object of sine. The phrase lavacro regenerationis refers to the sacrament of baptism, with lavacrum meaning “washing” and regenerationis being in the genitive case, meaning “of regeneration.”
2. “aut eius voto”: eius voto also uses the ablative case, where voto (meaning “desire” or “vow”) is the ablative form governed by sine. Eius is a genitive pronoun meaning “its,” referring back to lavacro (the sacrament of baptism), indicating that the votum or “desire” is related to baptism.

The preposition sine should be “distributed” to both lavacro and voto, meaning it applies equally to both phrases. This grammatical construction indicates that justification cannot occur either sine lavacro (without baptism) or sine eius voto (without the desire for baptism). The conjunction aut (“or”) connects the two alternatives, making both baptism and the desire for it essential for justification, following the logic of the sacrament’s necessity.

     This is easily proven in that if the sense were an exclusive “this or that”, it would mean too much, even for proponents of baptism of desire. This is because it would mean that baptism could be administered alone, without desire for baptism, just as desire would suffice alone, without water: baptism of water, OR the desire for baptism of water, but you don’t need both. Anyone can see, when put this way, that both the sacrament and the desire for the sacrament are needed. The Latin goes even further to support this sense of inclusion. The preposition sine takes the ablative case here. Both lavacro (wash) and voto (desire or wish) are also in the ablative case. This means that sine applies to both. A better English translation would be: cannot take place without washing or without the desire, as it is written John 3:5 “unless a man be born of water and the Holy Spirit he cannot have life in him.”

     We can see other examples of the word aut being used in the inclusive sense in the very same Trent documents. 

• Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Introduction: “… strictly forbidding that anyone henceforth may presume to believe, preach or  (aut) teach, otherwise than is defined and declared by this present decree.”    

     Or (aut) in the above passage is to be taken inclusively, that it is forbidden to believe, preach and to teach anything contrary. Another example in Trent is found in:

• Sess. 21, Chap. 2, the decree on Communion under both species (Denz. 931). Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 21, Chap. 2: “Therefore holy mother Church… has decreed that it be considered as a law, which may not be repudiated or (aut) be changed at  will without the authority of the Church.”281  

      Clearly, once again, or (aut) here means that both repudiation and a change are forbidden. The use of “or” in the inclusive sense is also inclusive in English when preceded by a negative. For example, “One must not climb the trees or the fences on library property”, anyone can see that both are forbidden.  Here again is an example of the combination of sine and aut used in the inclusive sense in Pope Leo Great’s letter to Flavian, which was codified in the The Council of Chalcedon: 

• …tu es inquit, Christus filius dei vivi (Mt. 16:16), nec inmerito beatus est pronumtiatus a domino et a principali petra soliditotem et virtutis traxit et nominis qui per revelationem patris eundem et dei fillium est confessus et Christum, quia unum horum sine alio receptum non proderat ad solutem et aequalis erat periculi dominum lesum Christum aut deum tantummodo sine homine aut sine deo solum hominem credidisse”

Translation

• You are, he said the Christ, the Son of the Living God (Mt. 16:16), and not undeservedly was he pronounced blessed by the Lord and did he derive from the original Rock the solid character of both virtue and name, who through the revelation of the Father confessed that the same was both the Son of God and the Christ, because one of these received without the other was unprofitable to salvation, and it it was of equal danger to have believed that the Lord Jesus Christ was either God only without man, or man only without God. 
•  

      It would be preposterous to read the above passage and believe that one could believe that Christ was God only without man or man only without God. No, the only way this passage makes sense is to understand that both are forbidden. The surest way, therefore, to understand what the writer of this section of the Council of Trent meant, would be to look at the context. And by the Grace of God, He made it abundantly clear:

•  “In these words there is conveyed a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, after the Gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”

     Indeed, water is necessary. The writer just spells it out. Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. The explanation of this passage is so obvious, and so clear, that the entire matter should have just ended here, if it weren’t for the catechism that was created from the decrees of the Council for parish priests, interpreting this aut as semi-exclusive; meaning that one could have desire for baptism without the need for water, but not water baptism without the need for desire (which again, is not grammatically possible when choosing the exclusive option).  This catechism even created an entire mechanism by which this whole desire-alone idea worked (seemingly out of whole cloth because it wasn’t found anywhere previously). And, voila! The idea has stuck ever since, with Bellarmine, and even Ligouri contributing to its cultus, flying in the face of 1500 years of dogmatic doctrine that proclaimed just the opposite.

     Even though their reasoning is not at all internally consistent (as we will explore), they have never been censured and both have been canonized. Thomas Aquinas also famously supported the idea of three baptisms.

• St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, Q. 68, Art. 2: “… it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.

     Thomas Aquinas did fall on the wrong side of doctrine sometimes, and he is not infallible. The most famous instance of error is the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which he categorically denied. He was also before the Council of Trent, which set the matter to rest once and for all (at least it should have). 

    For Example:

• Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism,: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.” 

• Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Session 7, 1547, ex cathedra:  “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.” 
•  

     We know that we are obliged to use our gift of Reason along with revealed Truth. I ask any reasonable person to conclude, from Trent, that desire is sufficient without the sacrament of baptism, because they would also have to conclude that baptism of water is sufficient without the desire for it. The only thing that anyone can say is: “Subsequent theologians thought so.”  Thus, the humble (or blind) bow in deference to the confused. The one point most often introduced is that “Ligouri himself thought so, and his writings are to be considered without error.” The answer to this objection is that Ligouri’s writings on moral theology are without error, and this is sacramental theology.  One of the most glaring inconsistencies is that Ligouri declared that baptism of blood and desire do not fully remit sins. 

• St. Alphonsus: (St. Alphonsus, Moral Theology, Volume V, Book 6, n. 96) “Baptism of blowing is perfect conversion to God through contrition or through the love of God above all things, with the explicit desire, or implicit desire of the true river of baptism whose place it supplies (iuxta Trid. Sess. 14, c. 4) with respect to the remission of the guilt, but not with respect to the character to be imprinted, nor with respect to the full liability of the punishment to be removed: it is called of blowing because it is made through the impulse of the Holy Spirit, who is called a blowing.” 
•  

          It would seem that “Baptism of blowing” is never mentioned, anywhere, in any papal document, any time in the history of the Church. St. Alphonsus may have just invented this concept which appears to be a form of baptism analogous to perfect contrition in the Sacrament of Penance. Also notice that he never mentions implicit faith, but only implicit desire for baptism. He assumes that the person would have theological virtues (as is mentioned in contrition and love of God). Although this point matters little, as both implicit desire for baptism and implicit faith are in stark contrast to hundreds of years of revealed truth. Both dogmatic theology and the Ordinary Magisterium are clear on this point of the complete remission of sins being an essential part of the entire concept of baptism.

      As an aside, the concept of implicit desire for baptism is only legitimate when taken as meaning that all catechumens implicitly desire for baptism by the very fact that they are studying to become Catholic. Thus, any catechumen could be baptized, even without explicit consent (in the case of a comma, for example), because that they were studying to become Catholic is enough to imply that they would indeed want to be baptized. It doesn’t mean, and never could mean, that anyone whosoever, desires baptism whether they know it or not, just by wanting to be a “good person.”  This Modernist interpretation of implicit desire of baptism has been transformed into implicit baptism of desire, and then again into implicit faith, which has given birth to the pervasive heresy of Universal Salvation.

The Council of Trent Chapter III.

    Who are justified through Christ

For this benefit the apostle exhorts us, evermore to give thanks to the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light, and hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the Kingdom of the Son of his love, in whom we have redemption, and remission of sins.

Chapter VII

    What the justification of the impious is, and what   are the causes thereof.

     This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.

     Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified; lastly, the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one’s proper disposition and co-operation. For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet is this done in the said justification of the impious, when by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit, in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein: whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity. For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body. For which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision, availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by charity. This faith, Catechumen’s beg of the Church-agreeably to a tradition of the apostles-previously to the sacrament of Baptism; when they beg for the faith which bestows life everlasting, which, without hope and charity, faith cannot bestow: whence also do they immediately hear that word of Christ; If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Wherefore, when receiving true and Christian justice, they are bidden, immediately on being born again, to preserve it pure and spotless, as the first robe given them through Jesus Christ in lieu of that which  Adam, by his disobedience, lost for himself and for us, that so they may bear it before the judgment-seat of our Lord Jesus Christ, and may have life everlasting.

     I have heard a priest say, “If Ligouri erred on this point, he would never have been canonized”, and that seems to be a valid point. That is until one realizes that many saints have been canonized despite holding (in some cases, rather grievous) errors. There are copious examples of this, but the most serious example must be that of Saint Basil (reader please know that the following is a second-hand resource, and a primary source should be consulted). 

• St. Basil (363): “The Son is not, however, second to the Father in nature, because the Godhead is one in each of them, and plainly, too, in the Holy Spirit, even if in order and dignity He is second to the Son (yes, this we do concede!), though not in such a way, it is clear, that He were of another nature.” 
•  

     If this is correct, and Basil truly wrote that the persons of the Trinity are unequal, it is one of the worst cases of heresy that I have ever read. Saints can be wrong, and even be material heretics, and not be obstinate formal heretics. Augustine was compelled to write an entire book of corrections.  A treatise on this subject of “The Errors of the Saints” is warranted by others. 

     Another serious modern error is that a person can somehow belong to the Soul of the Church, without belonging to the Body of the Church. This is another novelty invented to try to “sneak people into the Church past the Dogma”, and it falls apart with just a few examples of contrary de fide teachings.

• Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 3), June 29, 1896: “For this reason the Church is so often called in Holy Writ a body, and even the body of Christ… From this it follows that those who arbitrarily conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error… It is assuredly impossible that the Church of Jesus Christ can be the one or the other, as that man should be a body alone or a soul alone.  The connection and union of both elements is as absolutely necessary to the true Church as the intimate union of the soul and body is to human nature.  The Church is not something dead: it is the body of Christ endowed with supernatural life.” 
•  
• Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, :  “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics and schismatics can become participants in eternal life, but they will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the flock; and that the unity of this ecclesiastical body  is so strong that only for those who abide in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fasts, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of a Christian soldier produce eternal rewards.  No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
•  
• Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.”
•  
• Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516:
  “For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.  That is why it is fitting that, belonging to the one same body, they also have the one same will…”
•  
• Pope Clement XIV, Cum Summi (# 3), Dec. 12, 1769: “One is the body of the Church, whose head is Christ, and all cohere in it.”

     Apart from these proofs, the Soul of the Church has always been, metaphorically, considered to be the Holy Ghost. So, how can anyone belong to the Holy Ghost, but not to the Father and the Son?

• Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943:  “… Leo XIII, of immortal memory in the Encyclical, “Divinum illud,” [expressed it] in these words: ‘Let it suffice to state this, that, as Christ is the Head of the Church, the Holy Spirit is her soul.’”

Here we come to an example of one of the “bad books with imprimaturs” of which Pope Pius X warned us. 

Baltimore Catechism (1921):

1. 512 How are such persons said to belong to the Church?
2. Such persons are said to belong to the “Soul of the Church”; that is, they are really members of the Church without knowing it. Those who share in its sacraments are said to belong to the body or visible part of the Church

(In fact, the Baltimore Catechism has other such errors and it is much safer to learn from the Penny Catechism). 

     We will finish where we started, with Pope Pius IX, whose writings have been used by the “unlearned and unwise”, more than all other documents combined.  The Magisterium has always taught that those who have not had the opportunity to learn of Christ and His Church, will not be judged for their lack of faith. They will, however, be judged for their actual sins that they do commit as well as their original sin: 

• St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Pt. II-II, Q. 10, A. 1: “If, however, we take it [unbelief] by way of pure negation, as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of sin, but of punishment, because such ignorance of divine things is a result of the sin of our first parent. However, infidels of this kind are in fact damned on account of other sins, which cannot be remitted without faith, but they are not damned on account of the sin of infidelity. Hence Our Lord said (John 15:22): ‘If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin’; which Augustine expounds (Tract. lxxxix in Joan.) as ‘referring to the sin whereby they believed not in Christ.’”

     The modernists proceeded to take the above concept, written of not only by Aquinas but echoed in numerous documents throughout the ages, and twist it and turn it into a quasi-Universal Salvation heresy, using mistranslations and unlearned interpretations of the following writings of Pope Pius IX. In all his writings, whether covered by the umbrella of infallibility or not, Pius IX never erred and never wandered from established tradition. He was, however, evidently being accused of unorthodoxy quite early in his Pontificate. We will go through them in chronological order to better discern what the Pontiff was “up against” in this regard.

• Pope Pius IX, Consistory, Dec. 17, 1847: “But quite recently, we shudder to say it, men have appeared who have thrown such reproaches on our name and apostolic dignity, that they do not hesitate to slander us, as if we shared in their folly and favored the aforesaid most wicked system… it appears that these men have desired to infer that we think so benevolently concerning every class of mankind, as to suppose that not only the sons of the Church, but the rest also, however alienated from Catholic unity they may remain, are alike in the way of salvation and may arrive at everlasting life. We are at a loss from horror to find words to express our detestation of this new and atrocious injustice that is done to us. We do indeed love all mankind with the inmost affection of our heart, yet not otherwise than in the love of God, and of our Lord Jesus Christ, who came to seek and to save that which had perished, who died for all, who wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth; who therefore sent His disciples into the whole world to preach the gospel to every creature, proclaiming that they who should believe and be baptized should be saved, but they who should believe not should be condemned; who therefore will be saved let them come therefore to the pillar and ground of faith, which is the Church… [It] shines refulgent in the perfect unity of the faith, of sacraments, and of holy discipline.”
• Pope Pius IX, NOBIS ET NOBISCUM (# 10), Dec. 8, 1849: “In particular, ensure that the faithful are deeply and thoroughly convinced of the truth of the doctrine that the Catholic faith is necessary for attaining salvation. 
• Pope Pius IX, SINGULARI QUADAM – Allocution Singulari Quadam, Dec. 9, 1854: “For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of the Lord. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains ‘we shall see God as He is’ [1 John 3:2], we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is ‘one God, one faith, one baptism’ [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful (wicked and against Divine Law) to proceed further in inquiry.”

     Notice again, that the Pope did not say that ignorance is salvific, only that invincible ignorance of the faith will not be punished, but actual sins, and original sin, will be.  He also confirms that God’s justice is not for us to fully understand in this life, and we need only know that God is merciful and just. 

• Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem (#4), March 17, 1856: “There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded in Peter by the word of the Lord, outside of which neither true faith nor eternal salvation is found.”
• Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem (#7), March 17, 1856: “This hope of salvation is placed in the Catholic Church which, in preserving the true worship, is the solid home of this faith and the temple of God. Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation without regard to whether he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.”

    Some translations of this last passage can significantly and erroneously change its meaning. In some translations, citra (without regard to), is translated as “unless”. I have searched through five Latin dictionaries and citra is never translated as “unless.” Nisi would be the Latin word for “unless”, so this common, and terrible translation appears to be intentionally misleading.

Latin: “… in catholica Ecclesia, quae verum retinens cultum est stabile ipsius fidei domicilium, et Dei templum extra quod, citra invincibilis ignorantiae excusationem, quisquis fuerit, est a spe vitae, et salutis alienus.”

    Before going into the possible translations for citra, we need first to notice that the Pontiff is speaking of the “hope” for salvation, and not for salvation itself. Any of the possible translations of citra is consistent with Pius IX other writings that the invincibly ignorant could still have hope in salvation (and thus hope of entering into the Church through baptism), as long as they continued to cooperate with the interior workings of grace and enlightenment as to supernatural faith. This hope would be contrasted to those who have access to information on the true Church, and yet neglect to act; there is still hope for the ignorant through supernatural light of faith, but not for the culpably slothful or willfully reprobate.  

Citra could also mean “aside from”, “apart from”, “except”,

 or “setting aside”. The meaning of this sentence changes depending on how it is translated in English. Thus, we are bound to translate in concordance with previous dogmatic decrees and works of this same Pontiff.  To mistranslate this one sentence as to disregard eighteen centuries of previous Truth, only to create an enterly new doctrine, would be of a magnitude of error on the level of the Protestants. This ambiguity in translation is another clue that we have been under a test on how well we can follow directions.

     This same Pontiff, Pius IX uses citra in his letter to Austria, Vix dum a Nobis:

• Pope Pius IX, Vix dum a Nobis, March 1, 1874: “Nam persuasam Nobis est, vos etiam citra hortationes Nostras haec ultro fuisse effecturos.”

Translation: 

• “For it was persuaded to Us that you even regardless of/ aside from [citra] Our exhortations were going to voluntarily accomplish these things.”

     You can see the word “unless” would not even make sense. Citra is also used in Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians:

• Pope St. Clement, Epistle to the Corinthians, Chap. 50: “Oremus igitur et petamus a misericordia ejus, ut in charitate vivamus, citra humanam propensionem, et inculpati.”

Translation

•  “Let us pray and let us ask from His mercy, that we may live in charity, without regard for [citra] human inclination, and be blameless.”

Again, citra here does not mean “unless”. It means “without regard for” or “disregarding”. 

     As one can see from the evolution of his writings, the debate was still raging in Rome, even after the Pope’s admonition to discontinue it. This passage below is perhaps one of the most misunderstood of any writing, of any pope, in the history of the Church.

Pope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur, Aug. 10, 1863:

• “Again it is necessary to recall and censure a most grave error, in which some Catholics miserably dwell, who suppose that men living in error and as aliens from the true faith and from Catholic unity are able to attain eternal life. Which indeed is particularly opposed to Catholic doctrine. It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance concerning our most holy religion and who – while diligently observing the natural law and its precepts engraved on the hearts of all by God, and being prepared to obey God – live an honest and upright life, are able by the operating power of divine light and grace, to attain eternal life, since God, who clearly sees, searches and knows the minds, souls, thoughts and habits of all, in accordance with His complete goodness and clemency by no means suffers anyone to be punished with eternal torments who has not the guilt of voluntary fault.”

          To misunderstand it, is to be grossly ignorant of common theological allegorical language. Divine light always means “Supernatural Faith”, and by “grace” is always meant the “Sanctifying Grace of Baptism.” The pope is, restating, that for those who are doing their best in just living according to the natural law inscribed on their heart, God can bring Faith and Baptism somehow, maybe in a way of which we could not humanly conceive (but God is not obliged, as nothing that precedes justification merits justification). I could give dozens, or even hundreds of examples where light is Faith, and grace is the Sacrament of  Baptism. This mistake in understanding the true meaning of “Divine Light and Grace” is even worse as it is Catholic people (who should know their metaphors) who get this wrong. It would be like a Catholic thinking that “the Barque of Peter” was a boat when it really is meant to represent The Church. Here are some scriptural examples, and the examples for the popes are too numerous to list:

• Ephesians 5:8: “For you were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord. Walk then as children of the light.”
• 1 Thess. 5:4-5: “But you, brethren, are not in darkness… For all you are children of the light…”
• Colossians 1:12-13: “Giving thanks to God the Father, who has made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light: Who has delivered us from the power of darkness, and has translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His love.”
  
  1 Peter 2:9: “But you are a chosen generation… a purchased people: that you may declare His virtues, who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.”
  
  2 Cor. 4:3-4: “And if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them who are perishing, in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine on them.”

     This misreading of the passage is even more egregious as, the Pope has already explained exactly what he was talking about just a few sentences earlier:

“Again it is necessary to recall and censure a most grave error, in which some Catholics miserably dwell, who suppose that men living in error and as aliens from the true faith and from Catholic unity are able to attain eternal life. Which indeed is particularly opposed to Catholic doctrine.

     Here is a passage from the same Pontiff, explaining exactly what he means by Divine Light:

Pope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur, Aug. 10, 1863: 

• “She [the Church] shines with many pious works of Christian charity multiplying rapidly each day; with the light of blessed faith illuminating many regions evermore each day.”

And again:

Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem, #7, March 17, 1856: 

• “The Church clearly declares that the only hope of salvation for mankind is placed in the Christian faith, which, in teaching the truth and by its divine light scattering the darkness of human ignorance, operates through charity.”

     This same Pope is perfectly clear, over and over again about doctrine. 

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870: 

• “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”

     Thus, the best defense of baptism of desire or blood goes back to that comment by Bishop Pivarunas, “Name one time when they were specifically condemned.” I would answer, “Both have been condemned in concept numerous times, but you are correct, not by name. But there are millions of potential heresies that have never been named. This is why we are given the positive Truth, and it is up to us to gauge all doctrine against this known Truth.”  

     This leads to the second-best defense of baptism of desire and blood, and that is humility. I truly believe this virtue is more to blame for the confusion than anything else. “How can I, (lay person, priest, sister, bishop, etc.), possibly hope to know more than Aquinas and Ligouri!  Whatever my own reason tells me, must be set aside in view of these giants of Faith.” It is here when the true definition of humility should be followed, “Humility is, at its core, the acknowledgment of the Truth.” The truth is overwhelmingly obvious that a few, otherwise illustrious theologians, were just plain wrong. 

     I must admit, I too have wrestled with this for decades, until I realized that this was a test. Five hundred years in advance of the Great Apostasy, God was setting the stage for the trial of the last seventy-five years. We were given all the tools we needed to solve the puzzle, including and especially the doctrine on infallibility, right before the trial started. Would the scattered sheep come together in unity to solve this issue? Or would they, like so many hermits, sit in their individual cells, inventing and publishing their own conclusions, without ever consulting with the other faithful. Unfortunately, the latter occurred, and worse, these “hermits” have taken to disparaging the intentions of others of the dispersed sheep, name calling and engaging in all sorts of uncharitable and immature behavior.

The answer has been here all along.

    I have proudly plagiarized the ideas in a great part of this document. I have no formal education in theology. I have very little knowledge of Latin apart from a rudimentary secondary school education on the subject. I didn’t need either of these to find the truth. All I needed was a computer, the internet, an open mind, and a charitable heart. I did have the advantage of growing up around Anglicans and Muslims in England, and Evangelicals in America, which forced me to be an apologist from a very early age (at least that was the effect this situation had on this author).

     It is common knowledge that the Dimond Brothers have researched this subject more than (possibly) any other people to ever have lived.  Yet, over the years, few (any?) of the shepherds have reached out to them to learn what they have discovered. None (that I know of. – there must have been some? I hope!), have traveled to their monastery to sit with them and “pour over the facts.” Knowing they didn’t have access to sacraments, did any Traditional Catholic priest offer to come to them? Who knows but that one gesture could have gotten the communication wheels turning and we would all be in the same flock today.  I understand that due to the brother’s inexcusable habit of publicly shaming anyone who so much as questions their conclusions, it would take superhuman bravery and humility to have done this in recent years.  But, to their support, the Dimonds didn’t start out this way. I remember decades ago, spending hours on the phone with them to hear their latest research. They were so kind, charitable and genuinely concerned. Decades of “screaming from the housetops” with no shepherds listening to them, and even disparaging them, could make anyone bitter.  The world owes you a debt of gratitude, brothers, and I owe many thanks for saving me so much time! 

     It has been with deepest sorrow that I watched helplessly as these two men, whom I held on such a pedestal, fall to their own named heresy of “Radical Schism”, aka “home alone.” They had helped so many out of the mire of “supplied jurisdictions denial” and “refusing sacraments from undeclared heretics”, yet they could not help themselves. As I witnessed them order their followers to stay home and avoid the sacraments, to the great peril of countless souls, my only thought was, “Et vos, fratres?”

     Now I speak directly to you, brothers:  How many lost communions are you now responsible for? How many days of souls staying in the state of mortal sin for the reluctance of receiving sacraments from the “non tolerati” of Popes Peter and Michael are you to blame? Heaven forbid anyone died in their sins due to your callous admonitions.  And, all the while, I have been told that you were receiving supernatural life-giving sacraments from Eastern Rite who are connected with the New Order? Is this true? If so, I cannot help but recall the verse “But he said: Woe to you lawyers also, because you load men with burdens which they cannot bear, and you yourselves touch not the packs with one of your fingers.” You should have been fulfilling the “law of Christ by bearing one another’s burdens”, and not increasing them!   I do understand that you were treated with complete disdain for your tireless work at bringing the world the Truth. And I also understand that it would require supernatural virtue to be able to stay charitable in the face of so much nastiness.  However, we are all called to be heroically charitable, and you missed a huge opportunity to be proven by grace. I have read you recently (as of early 2024), recommend that people should call you to get information on where to receive sacraments. I pray that you are giving people good advice.

     From this fault sprang all manner of shameful vitriol and one “gotcha moment” after another as you tried (oftentimes successfully) to trap those who had ignored or denigrated you.  This had the lamentable result of having Sede priests and bishops, many, if not most of whom did have good will before they were embarrassed, run screaming away from the very mention of Most Holy Family Monastery. The “Dimond” name was sullied by your own tactics.  And now, you will not be told anything contrary to your firmly held opinion. You refuse to answer anyone who even slightly challenges your authority. I would never make such a public condemnation had I the opportunity to reason with you directly. I have tried, just to be attacked or ignored.  My heart is heavy to write that you appear to have fallen into the First Corinthians Curse:

• 1 Corinthians 13: If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

     Now, you once again have an enormous opportunity to be the first mover in the procession back into the Lord’s pasture.  I pray that you publicly apologize for your behavior. Reach out to the dispersed shepherds. Extend an olive branch in meekness and you will be astounded by what happens! Over the decades of fighting this fight, I have had to correct my position many times. I have had to make a complete sea change at times, invariably thanks to your research! Admitting that I made a mistake is, to this day, the most grace-filled opportunity that I have had.  Try it yourself, you won’t be disappointed. 

     I have been in this fight a long time. I have personally known the original resistance fighters in this battle. I am more than dismayed to read that Bishop McKenna, Father Barbara, Hutton Gibson, and even Patrick Omlor (all of happy memory), held (material, I must assume) heresies on this subject of salvation. For younger people, who did not live through the 1940’s and 1950’s, it may seem impossible that Catholics, who had the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass on every corner and Catholic schools in every town, could have erred so grievously on the most important doctrine in the entire Church.  I understand your disbelief! This ignorance of faith is exactly why the Apostasy was allowed to happen at this time. Our Blessed Mother in Fatima said, “Children I want you to learn how to read”, and she wasn’t just speaking to Lucia, Jacinta, and Francisco. She was speaking to the entire world: Learn Your Faith! 

     During the last 100 years, the concept that “invincible ignorance can save one’s soul” was held as an absolute Truth. It was taught in every school, in every Catechism, and by every priest and Bishop. I don’t really know when this universal error took hold, but it has been around my entire life. I never even considered it to be false until, through the Internet, I was introduced to the Truth by the Dimond Brothers. The documents that they brought forth were incontrovertible, and yet had been buried for decades. This is why, dear brothers, you have had an uphill battle trying to prove what never should have had to be proven. You are quite literally challenging the authority of every Catholic grandmother, parish priest, and teaching nun, that any of us have ever had. Understanding what is truly meant by “invincible ignorance” I could see it applied to Traditional Catholic sedevacantist nuns, who tucked away in their convents, have no access to the information that would correct their error on this matter. Funny, that the very people who wronging hold that ignorance is salvific could actually be the beneficiary of invincible ignorance!

     These, now deceased, pioneers against the Novus Ordo, along with all of the others who got lost in the theoretical, theological fog, had their one desire to know, to love and to serve God, and to believe and to teach only His revealed Truth of the Catholic Faith.  With the information they had at the time, they made “honest mistakes.” However, the time of inculpability on this issue has now passed. The test has been completed and everyone failed. It is time for all to lay down their swords, (or at least to stop pointing them at the flock), and to come together in all humility, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD AND HIS CHURCH. 

     This document you are reading exists through the efforts of all of the people mentioned, as well as Richard Ibranyi, Gerry Matatics, Michael Davies, Dylan Fellows and Christopher Conlin; even if sometimes their writing only served to illuminate the “wrong path.”  Don’t be ashamed that you took a wrong turn along the way. Even Saint John, the Beloved Apostle, fled from the garden. He is remembered as the Lord’s Beloved despite his momentary lapse in courage. What’s important is to find your way back to the Crucifixion and join with the rest of His true followers as soon as possible.

     Before concluding, I would be remiss not to mention Mystici Corporis by Pope Pius XII. Many Modernists (and even Traditionalists who are unwitting Modernists) have twisted this encyclical into a treatise on Universal Salvation. Here, I wish to quote Brother Michael Dimond directly, as I could not restate this travesty any better than he already did over seventeen years ago:

Some have the false impression that the horrific pre-Vatican II heresy, was also taught by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Mystici Corporis.  This is not true.  The passage that the heretics love to quote from Mystici Corporis is weak, but not heretical.  It is accurately translated as follows:

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943, Speaking of non-Catholics: “[We wish] every one of them to co-operate generously and willingly with the inward impulses of divine grace and to take care to extricate themselves from that condition in which they cannot be secure about their own eternal salvation.  For even though they may be directed [or ordained] toward the Redeemer’s Mystical Body by a sort of unconscious desire and intention, they still lack so many and such great heavenly helps and aids that can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church.”

First of all, this passage from Mystici Corporis has been incorrectly translated by many to further weaken and to pervert the actual words of Pius XII.  The phrase (ab eo statu se eripere studeant, in quo de sempiterna cuiusque propria salute securi esse non possunt) which is correctly translated as “…extricate themselves from that condition in which they cannot be secure about their own eternal salvation,” has been mistranslated as “look to withdrawing from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation.”  This mistranslation gives the clear impression that non-Catholics have an outside chance at gaining salvation where they are.

It’s very interesting that even a heretical defender of Protocol 122/49, Msgr. Fenton, admits that “sure” is a seriously misleading translation.

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 88: “Many of the published translations of the Mystici Corporis Christi employ the expression ‘in which they cannot be sure of their salvation’ in rendering this clause into English.  This terminology is both inexact and seriously misleading.”[3]

Fenton goes on to point out that the mistranslation gives the impression that Catholics can be sure of their salvation, which is a heresy condemned by the Council of Trent (Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 9).

The other part of Mystici Corporis that has been incorrectly translated by many to further weaken and to pervert the actual words of Pius XII is the phrase, in Latin: “quandoquidem, etiamsi inscio quodam desiderio ac voto ad mysticum Redemptoris Corpus ordinentur” has been mistranslated by many to read: “For even though unsuspectingly they are related in desire and resolution to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer…”  This is a deliberate mistranslation which alters the meaning of Pius XII’s words.  I will quote Bro. Robert Mary in Father Feeney and the Truth About Salvation to explain why this is an incorrect translation.

“The abused word is ordinentur.  The book, A Latin-English Dictionary of St. Thomas Aquinas, by Roy J. Deferrari, gives us the following meanings for the Latin verb ordino: ‘Ordino, are, avi, atum – (1) to order, to set in order, to arrange, to adjust, to dispose, (2) to ordain…”

“Since the Pope uses the subjunctive mood to express a contingency of uncertainty, not a fact, the translation should read:

‘For, even though they may be disposed toward (or ordained toward) the mystic Body of the Redeemer, by a certain unknowing desire and resolution…’

“In other words, the only thing this ‘certain unknowing desire and resolution’ (inscio quodam desiderio ac voto) may be doing for these non-Catholics is setting them in order for entrance into, or return to, the Church.  In no way does the Pope say, as fact, that they are ‘related’ to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, much less ‘united to it.”

Bro. Robert Mary has astutely pointed out how it is false to say that Pius XII taught that some non-Catholics are “related” to the Church by unknowing desire, and that Pius XII certainly did not teach that some non-Catholics are “united” to the Church.  But this is how one finds Mystici Corporis translated in many papers, especially those written by priests who deny the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.

While the important observation above shows how wrong the modern heretics’ treatment of Mystici Corporis is, there is no doubt that Pius XII’s statement in the above passage – even correctly translated – is still pathetically weak, and opens the door for liberal heretics to claim that he endorsed the heresy that non-Catholics can be saved by their unknowing desire for the Catholic faith.  Its weakness displays the mindset of a man who allowed heresy against the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation to run rampant in the seminaries, theology texts and Catechisms during his reign, even if not explicitly taught by him.  Pius XII had no business talking about the supposed unknowing desire and resolution of non-Catholics, even if he didn’t assert that such could be saved.  Everyone knows that even the mention of such a thing causes modernists to salivate like dogs over a tasty meal.  Pius XII should have addressed non-Catholics in the manner of Pope Leo XII, and he should have reaffirmed that non-Catholics will surely perish if they don’t hold the Catholic faith in the manner of Gregory XVI.

Pope Leo XII, Quod hoc ineunte (# 8), May 24, 1824: “We address all of you who are still removed from the true Church and the road to salvation.  In this universal rejoicing, one thing is lacking: that having been called by the inspiration of the Heavenly Spirit and having broken every decisive snare, you might sincerely agree with the mother Church, outside of whose teachings there is no salvation.”

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832:“Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate” (Athanasian Creed).

A strong reaffirmation of Catholic teaching such as this by Pius XII would have eliminated all of the heretics’ claims against the dogma by referencing his encyclical.  Nevertheless, here are a few other statements from Pope Pius XII which are worthy of note.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943:   “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.”

Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration.”

These two statements exclude the idea that one can be saved by even an explicit desire for baptism, since they affirm that those who have not received the Sacrament of Baptism are not Christians or members of the Church or members of Christ.  (Those who are not Christians or members of the Church or members of Christ cannot be saved.) 

John 15:6- “If anyone abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burneth.”

Actually, if one admits that the above quote from Mediator Dei is magisterial (and therefore infallible), it alone eliminates any theory of baptism of desire, because it asserts that the differentiation between those who have received the mark of baptism (and are members of Christ) and those who have not received the mark of baptism (and consequently are not members of Christ) is as pronounced as those who have been made priests by ordination and those who have not.  In other words, according to the pronouncement of Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei, to assert that one could be a Christian or a member of Christ without the mark of baptism (which is what the theory of baptism of desire asserts) is akin to asserting that one can be a priest without ordination.

Furthermore, as quoted already, in Humani Generis in 1950 Pope Pius XII actually put his finger directly on the heresy at work against Outside the Church There is No Salvation. 

 Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis (#27), 1950: “Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same.  Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.”

Pope Pius XII is here condemning the exact heresy common to all the modern day heretics who deny this dogma.  They reduce the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation to a meaningless formula by saying that it doesn’t mean what it says!

It should also be noted that even though Pope Pius XII did not teach that non-Catholics could be united to the Church and saved by a “certain unknowing desire and resolution,” if he had, he would have been teaching heresy – a heresy refuted by his own statements above.  As St. Paul tells us, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8).  The problem with Pope Pius XII, however, was not primarily what he said regarding this dogma, but what he didn’t say, and more specifically, what he allowed by silence, neglect (and perhaps by direct support) to happen to the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation and Father Leonard Feeney, S.J.  What he allowed to happen was a crime so momentous that it cannot be measured.  What he allowed to happen would turn out to be an incalculable scandal to the faithful and an impediment to the salvation of millions of souls in his day, and for a generation to come.

     On top of all the points made in this document, there are two important videos created by the Dimonds on this subject. Those who are truly looking for the Truth should watch these. Those who refuse to watch due to their source are suffering under false pride which will be a stumbling block to their salvation as Jesus said, “I come for those who seek the truth.” If you refused to seek, neither shall you find.

Pope Saint Leo the Great

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-y5yJTCMWg

Bellarmine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZEAUagRP7E

Objection #1.

      “Baptism of desire and baptism of blood are de fide because they are mentioned in the Magisterium, the Ordinary Teaching Authority of the Church, and the Magisterium is infallible! Everyone knows that!”

Answer:

     This is an argument that I have often heard. One priest even told me that the Magisterium is infallible even when it contradicts dogmatic decrees (not sure how that works as which one would one choose?) The Magisterium is divided into “Ordinary” which is the teaching authority of the clergy and theologians throughout time, and the “Extraordinary”, which is the infallible proclamations of the Popes throughout time. It is true that Pope Pius IX made it clear that the “Teaching Authority of the Church”, or Ordinary Magisterium, is infallible:

Pope Pius XI (1929): “To this Magisterium [the teaching authority of the Church] Christ the Lord imparted immunity from error, together with the command to teach His doctrine to all.” (Divini Illius Magistri).

However, many Catholics today do not understand what the Magisterium includes. The Magisterium is not the sum of every written word by every theologian and Doctor of the Church ever to have lived.  This is made obvious in the fact that at times these theologians did not agree with each other. The defined dogmas of the last 2 centuries are perfect examples. There were arguments put forth to the Pope on both sides of the Immaculate Conception, Assumption and most contentiously Papal Infallibility, with both the pro and the con side asserting examples from past theologians.

     Until the Pope made his solemn pronouncement, it was possible for a Catholic in good standing to affirm or deny any of these doctrines. As stated earlier in this paper, Pope Pius X in his encyclical, Pascendi Dominici Gregis (On the Errors of the Modernists), warned that there were so many theology books with imprimaturs which contained pernicious error that he could not control the situation. If this were true in 1908, imagine in the years that followed! Clearly, these books, which fell under the title “Ordinary Teaching Authority”, were not part of the Infallible Magisterium of the Church. The over-application to the Ordinary Magisterium of all things labelled “Catholic” is exactly what the Cult of the New Order use to justify their adherence to the errors of Vatican Council II.

     So, what then is the Ordinary Magisterium? The answer to this question is more complicated than one would think. The Rev. Father Adolphe Tanquerey, S.S. and D.D lived from 1854 to 1932 and wrote a rather exhaustive treatise about the Magisterium, in both the Ordinary and Extraordinary forms. This book was translated into English by Rev. Msgr. John J Byrnes, in 1959 and is titled “A Manual of Dogmatic Theology.” I would refer anyone who needs an in-depth explanation to his book. For our purposes, the Ordinary Magisterium, or general teaching of theologians, is not infallible when it contradicts the Extraordinary Magisterium (something that should be self-evident).

     This book you are reading’s main premise is that doctrines of baptism of blood and desire are not part of the Ordinary Magisterium, and indeed, never were at any time in history.

     There are countless examples already given of the doctrinal necessity for water baptism, and here is one more to add to the long list:

The Roman Breviary, Day IV Within The Octave Of The Sacred Heart, Lectio 8:

• “In the washing of the water of regeneration, which is consecrated by Christ’s death, the Church is undoubtedly cleansed from the original contagion.  But in the Blood of the Redeemer not only is she purified of every fault, but entrance to the heavenly kingdom is also opened to her.  Both of these [the water and the Blood] unite in one effect, and neither one without the other can profit unto salvation: for without the sacrament of baptism and the remission of sins, no one can take to himself the inheritance of future beatitude.  This everywhere throughout the world does Holy Mother Church confess, and it is confirmed by manifold testimonies of the Divine Scriptures.”

    Even proclamations of the Holy Office and of various authoritative bodies within the Church have been shown to be wrong on occasion throughout history. Most Holy Family Monastery has an excellent video presentation on this subject (again, those who refuse to watch it due to its source have infernal pride which is an impediment to salvation. Watch it, do your own research, and prove it wrong if you can).

     This subject of baptism has been a test by Almighty God. He gave us all the rules to this test in the doctrine of infallibility, and in the Magisterium, but almost no one followed the rules.  The Magisterium clearly states that the Sacrament of Baptism with water is necessary for salvation and is thus de fide.

{ see The Holy Office, Is it Infallible?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97b97XseAVE }

Objection #2.

     “Baptism of desire is very much like the laws of physics. Man is subject to all the laws of physics, gravity, etc. but God is not. He is the Author of those laws so as to govern men., but He is not subjected to them, Man cannot change those laws nor defy them. History has proven in the lives of the Saints that many have defied the laws of physics, but that is solely by the power of God.”

 Answer:

     This is an excellent analogy indeed. If man tries to jump off of a building saying, “God will catch me before I fall”, then that would be sinful presumption and the person would not only lose their life, but their immortal soul. Did some saints fly? Yes, they did. Mary of Agreda and St. John Cupertino to name. These exceptions are not in any way justification for us to create all sorts of scenarios when it would be virtuous to throw ourselves out of a building.

     It is the same thing with the sacrament of baptism. On the explicit command of Pope Pius IX, we may not even consider salvation outside of the sacrament of baptism, nor may we even consider any other type of baptism than the one which dozens of infallible papal decrees, and scripture itself, defines. That is, the Sacrament of Baptism with “true and natural water.”

Objection #3:

     “But to say that there is only the baptism of water within the potency of man, and none outside of this, strictly narrows the only possibility for the washing away original sin as coming from man with water. That would strip Almighty God as the sole cause of grace and true cause for conversion of men. The One true Church could never teach such an absurdity. God does not need man to convert a soul, and that is the essence of the doctrine of baptism of desire and blood.”

Answer:

     The absurdity is the contrary. God Himself, in the person of the Son, was subject to His own laws. He didn’t need to be, but he chose to be. God, through His Vicar Pope Pius IX, has done what you say is absurd. Not only are we not allowed to believe that there is any other way to justification outside of the Sacrament of Baptism, but we are not even allowed to “inquire” into it. By inventing all sorts of ways that Almighty God may set aside His own law, we are denying Him the power to fulfil His law. He can bring both supernatural faith and baptism to anyone He desires. Yes, actual water baptism. In the past these musings of the interworking of the “bond the divine mercy and the divine justice” have been tolerated. But, in 1854, Pope Pius IX brought an abrupt end to it. He did not specifically call out those past theologians by name, but he silenced all further discussion and even silenced further thought on the subject. I will supply the Pontiff’s allocution again:

“the authority of the divine faith is the most beautiful gift made by the Providence of God to men; that it is like the torch in the darkness, and the guide which conducts to life ; that it is, in fine, absolutely necessary for salvation, for, “without faith it is impossible to please God, and he who will not believe will be condemned.”

We have learned with grief that another error, not less melancholy, is introduced into certain parts of the Catholic world, and has taken possession of the souls of many Catholics. Carried away with a hope for the eternal salvation of those who are out of the true Church of Christ, they do not cease to inquire with solicitude what shall be the fate and the condition after death of men who are not submissive to the Catholic faith. Seduced by vain reasoning they make to these questions replies conformably to that perverse doctrine. Far from Us, Venerable Brothers, to lay claim to put limits to the Divine mercy, which is infinite! Far from Us to scrutinize the counsels and mysterious judgments of God, unfathomable depth where human thought cannot penetrate ! But it belongs to the duty of Our Apostolic office to excite your Episcopal solicitude and vigilance to make all possible efforts to remove from the minds of men the opinion, as impious as it is fatal, according to which people can find in any religion the way of eternal salvation. Employ all the resources of your minds and of your learning to demonstrate to the people committed to your care that the dogmas of the Catholic faith are in no respect contrary to the Divine mercy and justice. Faith orders Us to hold that out of the Apostolic Roman Church no person can be saved, that it is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever will not enter therein shall perish in the waters of the deluge.

On the other hand it is necessary to hold for certain that ignorance of the true religion, if that ignorance be invincible, is not a fault in the eyes of God. But who will presume to arrogate to himself the right to mark the limits of such an ignorance, holding in account the various conditions of peoples, of countries, of minds, and of the infinite multiplicity of human things? When delivered from the bonds of the body, we shall see God as He is, we will comprehend perfectly by what admirable and indissoluble bond the divine mercy and the divine justice are united; but as long as we are upon the earth, bent under the weight of this mortal mass which overloads the soul, let us hold firmly that which the Catholic doctrine teaches us, that there is only one God, one Faith, one Baptism; to seek to penetrate further is not permitted (is nefarious and against divine law is a better translation from the Latin “nefas”)

However, as charity demands, let us pour out before God incessant prayers, in order that, from all parts, all the nations may be converted to Christ; let us labor, as much as it is in us, for the common salvation of men. The arms of the Lord are not shortened, and the gifts of the heavenly grace are never wanting to those who sincerely wish for them, and who beg for the assistance of that light. These truths should be deeply engraved on the minds of the Faithful, that they may not suffer themselves to be corrupted by false doctrines, the object of which is to propagate indifference in matters of religion, an indifference that we see growing up, and spreading itself on all sides, to the loss of souls.

     When the pontiff states above, “that ignorance of the true religion, if that ignorance be invincible”, he does not mean to say that ignorance is salvific, for that would be an obvious heresy, and he himself says that “without faith it is impossible to please God.”  What is meant here is that people are not punished in the afterlife for not rejecting revealed Truth if they did not have the opportunity to learn it (he admits that no one can know the limits of this invincible ignorance). These people, however, still have original sin and their actual sins to account for. Ignorance does not wash away original sin, as anyone knows. If Pius IX meant that invincible ignorance is salvific and supplied for water baptism, then every aborted baby would be saved, and we know that they are not.

     We are bound to admit that the unbaptized, invincibly ignorant people are all damned; every single one. They suffer different punishments and are not punished for infidelity if they were not given the chance to know the Truth, and even the limbo of infants (which we learn from the same pontiff there is no sensible pain and might be a very nice place for all we know), is part of hell. No one is saved (receives the beatific vision), without water baptism, no not even one. Now, that doesn’t mean that many of these invincibly ignorant people were not invisibly baptized and enlightened regarding Faith in ways that we could not perceive. Only God knows what God does in this regard. But just because He can fulfil His own law in ways that we cannot, doesn’t mean that He has not bound Himself to it, nor allows us to ponder a “way around it.”

Objection #4:

     “Pope Pius IX did not deny baptism of desire and blood. He actually stated in Singulari Quidem “it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord.” Invincible ignorance, as stated by the pope, is his way of saying, the case for that soul is entirely in God’s power and ability to redeemer and cleanse of original sin.

Answer:

     The important section of the document indeed is “in this matter.”  This clearly expresses that the person would still be punished for original sin, and actual sin as ignorance is not salvific. Supernatural Faith, however, is necessary for salvation and is a requisite to initial justification, that is, the washing away of original sin. These people  would not be held guilty of rejecting revealed Truth, but they are still guilty of original sin and actual sin.

    We agree on the outcome, that those who have not had the opportunity of hearing about the True Faith could still be saved, but we disagree on the method. This may seem like semantics, but it is very important. Water baptism is the only way to remove original sin. God can obviously bring this sacrament to whomever He chooses, in ways that we cannot know, but He chooses to make it a requisite. This distinction is in no way immaterial. We can see the same distinction on the Nature of Christ. Defined doctrine tells us the Jesus has two natures, one fully human and one fully divine. The Monophysites separated from the unity of the Church and put themselves outside of the way of salvation for such an ostensible “minor point” as holding the, yes, Jesus does have fully divine and fully human natures, but they co-exist in one nature.

     The true crime of the Monphysites is much less on the Nature of Christ, than that of blatant disobedience. We know that disobedience was the true crime in the Garden of Eden, and not the eating of the apple. Disobedience is the underlying crime of all sin. By inventing a “work around” for salvation, outside of which we have been commanded to believe, those who call themselves Catholics have worked themselves outside of the Faith.

Objection #5.

     “Saint Emerenciana and others were canonized, yet never baptized as the legend even states that they were baptized in their own blood.”

Answer:

     This was addressed above. We must assume that the saints who apparently died without baptism, did indeed, receive The Sacrament of Baptism in some way of which the stories do not relate (they were over a millennia ago), or in ways that were invisible to the story tellers.  Also, the phrase “baptized in their blood” refers to martyrdom in general of the faithful, as even Christ referred to Himself as going to suffer a baptism of blood after he was already baptized by St. John. It is just a poetic way to say, “killed for the Faith.”

Objection #6.

     “Scripture itself clearly teaches that there are three types of baptism, water, blood and spirit as we see in:

• 1 John 5: 5-8. “Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?  This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth that Christ is the truth.  And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.  And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit and the water and the blood. And these three are one.

  Answer:

     I have myself heard a priest use this verse to justify the three baptisms. SSPX even has an entire webpage called “The Tree Baptisms.” This false interpretation could be (sort of) understandable until we find that Pope Saint Leo the Great defined this passage over 1600 years ago!  Those who use this verse in Scripture to justify a belief in three baptisms are guilty of the admonition of Saint Peter.

• 2 Peter 3:16  As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

• Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:
  “Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the same apostle’s words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot (1 Pet. 1:18).  Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin (1 Jn. 1:7); and again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith.  Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?  It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood.  And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies.  For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood.  And the three are one.  (1 Jn. 5:4-8)  In other words, the Spirit of Sanctification and the Blood of Redemption and the Water of Baptism. These Three are one and remail indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others..”

    The theorizing theologians all admit that their concept of baptism of desire doesn’t even remit sins and isn’t a sacrament. How can it be “one with the water” if it doesn’t have the same effects on the soul as the Sacrament of Baptism with water?

Objection #7:

    Baptism of Desire was proven in the condemnation of Michael Du Bay by St. Pius V.

Answer:

    The condemnation of Michael Du Bay has nothing to do with baptism of desire.

• Errors of Michael Du Bay, Condemned by St. Pius V in “Ex omnibus afflictionibus,” Oct. 1, 1567: “31.  Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a ‘pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned’ [1 Tim. 1:5], can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remissions of sins.” – Condemned
• Errors of Michael Du Bay, Condemned by St. Pius V in “Ex omnibus afflictionibus,” Oct. 1, 1567: “33.  A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained.” – Condemned

    Michael Du Bay’s teaching that the theological virtue of charity can be infused in the soul separated from the forgiveness of sin is what was condemned. It doesn’t even address whether a catechumen can have both perfect charity and remission of sins before baptism.  Du Bay is wrong because one cannot have perfect charity without also having the remission of sins.

• Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 7 on Justification:
• “Justification … is not merely remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man… Hence man through Jesus Christ, into whom he is ingrafted, receives in the said justification together with the remission of sins all these gifts infused at the same time: faith, hope and charity.”

    In the process of justification, the theological virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity are inseparable. The catechumen is outside of the church, and thus by definition cannot have remission of sin.

• Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin.

Objection #8:

     In the 12th Century, Pope Innocent III clearly promoted the idea of baptism of desire.

1.     He wrote: “the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read in the eighty book of Agustine’s City of God where among other things it is written, “Baptism is administered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes”….Therefore, to questions concerning the dead you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned.”

2.     This same pope also wrote that someone who attempted to baptize himself could be saved through his “faith in the sacrament, though not by the sacrament of faith.”

Answer:

    What strikes me in the first example above, is how can a priest not be baptized? A priest cannot become a priest unless he is first a member of the Church.  That obvious detail aside, Pope Innocent III here writes that this person did receive the Sacrament of Baptism, but it was invisibly administered. This is a very important distinction. In the second example, this distinction is not as clear, but considering that he already explained his idea of “invisible baptism”, he may have very well meant the same thing in the second letter. In any case, these are private letters, and do not fall under the umbrella of infallibility. In fact, Pope Innocent III wrote another infamous letter to a friend where he said that circumcision remitted original sin! So, he didn’t get everything correct in his private letters:

• Pope Innocent III, Ex Parte tua, to Andrew, the Archbishop of Lyons, Jan. 12, 1206: “Although original sin was remitted by the mystery of circumcision, and the danger of damnation was avoided, nevertheless there was no arrival at the kingdom of heaven, which up to the death of Christ was barred to all.”

    This Pope even appeared in a vision after his death. St. Lutgarde asked him who he was, he answered her: ‘I am Innocent III, who should have been condemned to eternal Hell-fire for several grievous sins, had not the Mother of God interceded for me in my agony and obtained for me the grace of repentance.  Now I am destined to suffer in Purgatory till the End of the World unless you help me.  Once again, the Mother of Mercy has allowed me to come to ask you for your prayers.’”

    It is letters from Popes like these that made the doctrine of infallibility so contentious. In fact, when debating the doctrine of infallibility at the First Vatican Council, no less than 40 examples of the errors of reigning Popes were brought forth. The clergy had to sift through it all and discern what exactly are the conditions in which a papal pronouncement is assured to be free from error.  We are bound to use the tools we have been given in discerning doctrine, and the definition of infallibility is the most important tool in our toolbox. The above letters from Innocent III are not infallible, and he even admits that the Sacrament of Baptism could have been administered in an unseen way.

Objection #9:

     Pope Pius XI approved the latest edition of the Rituale Romanum which contains the instructions for baptism:

“That holy baptism, the gateway to the Christians religion and to eternal life, holding as it does the first place among the sacraments instituted by Christ for the New Covenant, is necessary unto salvation for all, either in act or desire.”

Answer: 

    We see in the previous Rituale Romanum, a very different set of instructions: Rituale Romanum, Pope Paul V 1614, On Solemnly Administering Holy Baptism

“It is Holy baptism, the gateway to the Christian religion and eternal life, and th which holds the first place among the other sacraments of the New Law instituted by Christ, that the Truth Himself testifies to be necessary to all me for salvation in those words: “Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.”

      The discrepancy between these two Rituales has perplexed me for some time. Why was “or desire” added in the twentieth century? And with two very different directives, which one should we believe? Then I remembered “the rules.” Once again, we have been given tools to help us discern the Truth. The doctrine of infallibility tells us that only those documents that are for the Universal Church are to be considered under the umbrella of infallibility.

     The Roman Rituale is only for the Roman Rite, not for the Universal Church.  It is logically proven to be fallible de facto because we have two different Rituales, approved by two different Pontiffs, saying two different things. Which one do we believe? The “rules” tell us that we believe the one that agrees with defined doctrine. Defined doctrine tells is that an adult needs both desire for Baptism and the Sacrament of Baptism (with pure and natural water).

    Once again, Vatican II didn’t just fall out of the sky in 1969. Modernism had crept into the church as far back as the late 1800s. This addition of “or desire” was just another example of “error creep” that was happening all throughout the twentieth century. We don’t even know if Pope Pius XI read even it. He did approve it, yes, but he didn’t write it.  Pius XI also refused to carry out Our Lady’s request at Fatima and consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart.

Objection #10:

    The 1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 1239 states: “Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without baptism are to be treated as baptised.”

Answer:

    The previous law did not allow catechumens to be given a Christian burial. Everyone concedes that this newer law represents a novelty in Catholic practice.  So, again, we have an apparent discrepancy in matters of Faith.

• Canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga (572 AD):  ‘Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice nor the service of chanting is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.’

    The Code of Canon Law is for the Latin Rite and not for the Universal Church, although it could be argued that as the Sacrament of Baptism does apply to the Universal Church, this code would also apply to the Universal Church. There are two possible reasons for this change in practice after 1900 years. The first reason is again, “error creep.” The second possible explanation is that, if some catechumens are indeed baptized invisibly on their deathbed, we would not want to exclude them from a Christian burial. It is better to err on the side of safety.

Objection #11:

     Scores of twentieth century theologians taught that baptism of desire was de fide. It was the commonly held opinion in the Church and made-up part of the Ordinary Teaching Magisterium.

Answer:

    Scores of twentieth century theologians were also Modernists, and there were so many bad books with imprimaturs in 1907, that Pope Pius X couldn’t control the situation.  The very few past theologians who held this position have already been discussed. Twentieth century theologians quoted and misquoted documents from the past, and then quoted each other until the world was convinced that baptism of desire was not only sound doctrine, but always had been. Only Almighty God knows if any of these theologians were formal heretics, but it appears that very few, if any, knew that they were indeed teaching a departure from Catholic doctrine.  Again, this entire subject appears to have been a test of obedience, and how well the Church Militant could follow directions.  Most of the innovations of the insidious cult of the New Order were a result of an act of disobedience to the direct command of Pope Pius IX:

“Let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is ‘one God, one faith, one baptism’ [Eph. 4:5]; it is wicked (nefas) to proceed further in inquiry.”

Objection #12:

     The Catholic Church is seamless in Her teachings. She cannot teach contrary doctrines. Canonized saints such as Thomas Aquinas and Alphonsus Ligouri, as well as approved catechisms clearly taught the concept of baptism of desire, at least for catechumens. To say that baptism of desire is heresy would be making a mockery of the teaching authority of the Bride of Christ, the One True Church. How can an organization function that contradicts itself in such an egregious manner?

 Answer:

     This objection gets right to the heart of the matter. It is one that all of us have wrestled with as we go further and further into the subject. For, the more we learn, the clearer it becomes that baptism with water is necessary for salvation. Yet, no one can deny (not even the Dimonds), that these saints and some approved catechisms taught explicitly that desire, or an act of love, could suffice for water. We must always have the Doctrine on Infallibility as a reference when considering the source. Catechisms are not infallible, and this one is specifically for parish priests (and not addressed to all the faithful). Also, there are many other catechisms which deny the concept of baptism of desire, including one that was written for all of the faithful, after Trent, and ten years before the Roman Catechism, by a Doctor of the Church was actually at the Council. First let’s look at the Roman Catechism for parish priests:

Catechism of the Council of Trent, “But though these things may be thus, nevertheless to this class [or kind] of men [persons], the Church has not been accustomed to give the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has arranged that it should be deferred to a fixed time. Nor does this delay have connected with it the danger, as indeed threatens in the case of children, as stated above; for those who are endowed with the use of reason, the design and plan of receiving Baptism, and repentance of a badly led life, would be sufficient to grace and justification, if some unexpected event hinders so that they are unable to be washed by the saving water. On the contrary, this delay is seen to carry with it certain advantages.”

     This notion left me a very confused fence sitter for decades, until one point cleared away all of the fog: the doctrine of delayed ensoulment.

     This concept may seem strange to us today, but was widely accepted in the Middle Ages. It concludes that the immortal soul is not infused into the body (fetus) for many weeks or even months after conception. In fact, the very same theologians who are famous for supporting baptism of desire, also teach that newly conceived humans are in fact “monsters” (because they are not yet fully formed), and cannot possess a human soul. Ligouri even taught that such a fetus should not be given baptism! 

 “But rightly does Tournely’s Continuatio observe that there should not be baptized a fleshy lump that has no arrangement of organs, since it is universally accepted that the soul is not infused into the body until the latter is formed; and then, it order for it to be baptized, it is required that it exhibit some vital movement, as the Roman Ritual prescribes.”

      The Catechism of the Council of Trent (also called the Roman Catechism), where we read a detailed explanation of baptism of desire, also appears to champion this concept of delayed ensoulment as it states: Article III, “By the Holy Ghost.”

•  “But what supasses the order of nature and human comprehension is, that as soon as the Blessed Virgin assented to the announcement of the Angel…the most sacred body of Christ was formed, and to it was united a rational soul enjoying the use of reason; and thus in the same instant of time He was perfect God and perfect man. That this was a new and wonderful work of the Holy Ghost none can doubt; since, when the order of nature is observed, no body can be informed by a human soul except within the prescribed space of time.”   

     Evidently, the contemporary scholars thought that Our Lord’s soul and body being created together, simultaneously, to be a singular, miraculous and marvelous event.  I have heard a priest explain this passage by saying what was meant was that the body is formed at some point after intercourse. But, this explanation doesn’t follow the clear words of the text. The text does not state that “no body can be formed, except after a space of time”, but that the soul cannot be joined to the body except after a certain amount of time. The text presupposes that the body exists for some time before the soul is united to it. This concept of delayed ensoulment was widely and almost universally accepted, even by Saints Thomas Aquinas and Ligouri (there were prominent theologians who didn’t accept it, but they appear to be in the minority). 

     Therefore, to be logically consistent, a supporter of baptism of desire, who bases his belief on Aquinas, Liquori, and the Catechism of the Council of Trent, must logically hold that a human fetus does not possess a human soul until it actually looks like a formed human (which would make early stage abortion not really murder at all). 

     When I first read about this delayed ensoulment teaching, I almost jumped for joy. Certainly not for the fact that saintly doctors of the Church could believe something so completely ludicrous, but that even the illustrious men could be wrong. And, they could still be saintly and still be canonized, and their obvious errors not made manifest in their canonization process, nor their errors even removed from their works. 

     All of this points back to the definition of infallibility that we have been given, rather conspicuously, in these end times. This doctrine was saved until so late in the history of the Church so that it would be fresh on all of our minds.  We must know our faith, and know how to apply the rules of discerning Truth. 

     Now let’s consider the other catechisms that insist on the absolute necessity for the Sacrament of Baptism (with water) and leave room whatsoever for desire to suffice.

    Saint Peter Canisius was a Dutch theologian and Docter of the Church. We was actually present for the Council of Trent and spent much of his life contradicting the errors of Protestantism. He is credited as having written the first complete Catechism of the Catholic Church in 1555 called Summa Doctrinae Christianae, ten years before the Roman Catechism for Parish Priests.  Popes hailed the work and commissioned it to be translated into many languages and by 1686 it had gone through over 400 editions. It went on to be revered and acclaimed in the centuries to come.

• In Pope Leo XIII’s Aug. 1, 1897, encyclical Militantis Ecclesiae, “(Canisius’ catechism is) written in beautiful Latin and not unworthy of the Fathers of the Church. This remarkable work was enthusiastically received by learned men in almost all the countries of Europe.”

     The Catechism’s section on baptism states clearly and without equivocation that the Sacrament of Baptism (which is true and natural water) is necessary for all. It makes absolutely no reference to any exceptions whatsoever.  It reads:

• “What is Baptism, and is it necessary to all? This is the first sacrament of the New Law and the most necessary, consisting in the external washing of the body and the legitimate enunciation of the words in accordance with Christ’s institution. It is a sacrament, I say, that is necessary not only for adults but also for little ones, and is no less efficacious for them in obtaining eternal salvation. All are born children of wrath; therefore even the little ones need cleansing from sin, for they cannot be cleansed and be regenerated as children of God without this sacrament. For as a general rule our Lawmaker declared, ‘unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.’”
• Quid est baptismus, et an cunctis necessarius? Est hoc novae legis primum et maxime necessarium sacramentum, in ablutione corporis exteriore, et legitima verborum enuntiatione, juxta Christi institutionem, consistens. Necessarium inquam sacramentum non solum adultis, sed etiam parvulis, ac simul eis efficax ad salutem aeternam consequendam. Nascuntur omnes irae filii; opus igitur habent etiam parvuli emundatione peccati, nec possunt absque hoc sacramento mundari et in filios Dei regenerari. Nam et generatim legislator edixit: ‘Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei’. Alibi vero: ‘Non est voluntas ante patrem, qui in coelis est, ut pereat unus de pusillis istis.’ Perirent autem non baptizati etiam parvuli, sicut olim in synagoga Hebraeorum pueri incircumcisi.”

     Thankfully, Saint Canisius also left detailed footnotes which serve to make his position on the matter even clearer. The Dimonds have a very detailed treatment of these footnotes which I will quote directly:

Post-Trent Catechism by St. Peter Canisius Contradicts “Baptism Of Desire” Now, what’s fascinating is that his footnote #1, which appears after the words “not only” (or non solum in Latin), is to Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of the Council of Trent and Sess. 7, Can. 5. We just cited Sess. 7, Canon 5. St. Peter Canisius references this crucial canon as a basis for his teaching that the Sacrament is necessary for all without exception. But the first reference he gives is to Sess. 6, Chap. 4.

• Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words there is conveyed a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our Savior; indeed, this transition, after the Gospel has been promulgated, CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT [sine] the laver of regeneration or WITHOUT a desire for it, AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God [John 3:5].”

     Those who are familiar with this issue know that Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent is the passage that many ‘baptism of desire’ advocates wrongly think taught baptism of desire, but it didn’t at all. We demonstrate that in our material. See our video called The Council Of Trent Did Not Teach “Baptism Of Desire”; but briefly: Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent says that justification cannot take place without ‘sine’ the laver of regeneration or without a desire for it, as it is written John 3:5.
     Logically and contextually, that does not mean that one can be justified by the desire for baptism in the absence of baptism. When considering this issue, it’s important to note that the word ‘without’ should be distributed in English examples to properly translate the passage and understand the point, because in the Latin the word ‘sine’ (meaning without) grammatically applies to both lavacro (laver) and voto (vow or desire). Sine is a preposition that takes the ablative case, and in Sess. 6, Chap. 4 both lavacro and voto are in the ablative case. Hence, the word ‘without’ applies to both’. So, in English the passage should read: cannot take place without or without, as it is written John 3:5.
     Now, to say that something cannot take place without x or without y logically means that if either x or y is missing, that thing cannot take place. It does not mean that one is sufficient in the absence of the other. Thus, to say that justification cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or without a desire for it logically means that if either the laver of regeneration or a desire for it is missing, justification cannot take place. That’s our position; it’s not the position of those who support ‘baptism of desire’. And the very same sentence of Trent concludes by affirming John 3:5 as it is written (sicut scriptum est), which confirms the point and contradicts the idea of baptism of desire. Baptism of desire posits that John 3:5 is not to be understood as it is written. It advances exceptions to John 3:5, which is not the teaching of Trent. Logically, contextually and considered with the rest of Trent and Catholic dogma, Sess. 6, Chap. 4 is demonstrated to not teach baptism of desire, but to affirm the words of Jesus in John 3:5 just as they are written.
     Some have tried to respond to this argument by claiming that if this were true, it would require that infants desire baptism, but we refute that by pointing out that the passage concerns the justification of the impious (impii). The word impii in Latin cannot apply to people who do not have the use of reason, as we showed in our other video/article on Trent. Sess. 6, Chap. 4 is about adult justification. A desire for baptism is a prerequisite for adult justification. Thus, in the case of adults, if either the desire for baptism or water baptism is lacking, justification cannot occur, as it is written John 3:5.
     Now, St. Peter Canisius, who attended the council of Trent as a theologian, bolsters all of our points on this passage by specifically referencing it in the process of teaching that no one can be saved without water baptism. He also cites it directly in reference to how adults require the sacrament, which supports the fact that the passage is about adult justification, not about infant justification.
     His citation of Sess. 6, Chap. 4, in the very passage of his catechism on the necessity of the Sacrament, constitutes a post-Trent interpretation of Sess. 6, Chap. 4, by a doctor of the Church and a theologian who attended the Council that’s perfectly consistent with (and in fact supportive of) our position on this and indeed of the Church’s true position on this matter. It’s a providential and powerful vindication. St. Peter Canisius was perhaps the most widely-read author of all the theologians who attended Trent. In fact, his interpretation of Sess. 6, Chap. 4, which was first published in the mid-1500s (the definitive edition of his catechism being considered the 1566 edition, with earlier editions having been published in the previous decade), was one of the earliest (if not the earliest) commentary on this matter to have been published after the key sessions of Trent. And, as we’ve just shown, his official teaching based on this and other passages was that no one can be saved without water baptism. That’s not the position of those who believe in baptism of desire.
     Now, in further support of these points, the other three references given in his footnote 1, after the references to Sess. 6, Chap. 4 and Session 7, Canon 5 of Trent, are to St. Augustine, St. Ambrose and a passage that had been attributed to Clement. All three of the passages he cites teach that unbaptized catechumens cannot be regenerated unless they actually receive water baptism. They directly contradict the idea of baptism of desire. The first passage from St. Augustine states:

St. Augustine, Tractate 13 on the Gospel of John:

Quantumcunque catechumenus proficiat, adhuc sarcinam iniquitatis suae portat: non illi dimittitur, nisi cum venerit ad baptismum.

“No matter how much a catechumen advances, he still carries the load of his iniquity: it is not forgiven him until he has come to baptism.”

That’s the kind of passage from the Church fathers that you’d see in an anti-baptism of desire publication, for it expresses the truth that no matter how much progress an unbaptized catechumen makes he cannot be forgiven and saved unless he is baptized. The next passage St. Peter cites is from St. Ambrose on the Mysteries, to the same effect:

St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, A.D. 390-391:

Credit catechumenus in crucem Domini Jesu, qua et ipse signatur; sed nisi baptizatus fuerit in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti, remissionem non potest accipere peccatorum, nec spiritalis gratiae munus haurire.

“The catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but unless he is baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor gain the gift of spiritual grace.”

That also contradicts the idea of baptism of desire, and in the full passage St. Ambrose teaches that the water, the blood and Spirit are all necessary to receive the baptismal effect, a truth was infallibly taught by Pope St. Leo the Great.

See video: Post-Trent Catechism By St. Peter Canisius Contradicts “Baptism Of Desire” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCfbFDcIGSw”

     When I first read St. Canisius’s Catechism, I noticed the phrase “For as a general rule” in the English translation. I knew from my rudimentary Latin that this phrase has a meaning of “universal” or “for all”, but in English this phrase has taken on a rather colloquial meeting which contradicts what it actually states. I immediately thought that an English reader could get the wrong idea, and I found in a comment on the video that this is exactly what happened. You will sense in the response the characteristic “you idiot” tone that the Dimonds take with anyone who questions them. I hope that they are reading this and that they will see with fresh eyes their manner of communication. They are not wrong, but they could phrase things differently. Upon writing this, I must admit that I, too, am guilty of this fault at times and my rush to get the person to understand can be seen as rude or vainglorious. This is something that anyone who has the position of teaching has to be wary of. So, mea culpa and please give the brothers some slack.  Here is the response to the communication:

• Objection: Why does St. Peter Canisius use the phrase “For as a general rule”? That suggests there are some cases where one can be saved without reception of water baptism.
• Answer: No, it doesn’t suggest that at all. He uses the word ‘generatim’, and you have to consider the context. St. Peter was writing in Latin, not in English. In context he’s speaking about two CLASSES of people: adults and infants. He teaches that baptism is necessary for both groups, and he emphasizes/concludes this point by stating that the Lawmaker declared “as a general rule… unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit…” [Nam et generatim legislator edixit], using “generatim” to teach that the words of Jesus apply to all classes of people, not just specifically to infants or specifically to adults. They apply to the entire humanum genus (human race).  It could also be translated “as a universal rule”. In his speech against the corrupt governor Verres, Cicero treats the terms “generatim” and “universe” as virtually synonymous:

… singillatim potius quam generatim atque universe loquar.

Further, as the video showed, St. Peter elsewhere in his catechism teaches that ONLY those with faith and baptism can receive the remission of sins.

     It is possible that too great a reverence for St. Thomas Aquinas influenced the writers of the Roman Catechism. There are other catechisms that have been approved by the Church that teach the same doctrine on baptism as St. Peter Canisius. The Penny Catechism was the most widely used in Great Brittain for almost one hundred years and the Irish Catechism was not only the official catechism for that country but also for Catholic Canada.  Both assert the necessity for the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation with no exceptions. Therefore, we must either conclude that the Church herself has erred and that the Magisterium is a confused mess, or that catechisms are fallible and that to be included in the Magisterium, a doctrine must be supported by Dogna. I choose the latter.

     After Pius IX’s admonition, for nearly 100 years from 1854 to 1951, the Popes were silent on this issue. The prohibition of further discussion was not headed by all, however. Many theologians, perhaps ignorant of the Pope’s decree or Modernists themselves, continued the controversy, and even stoking it. As we read in Pascendi, the books with imprimaturs that contained errors were so numerous that Rome could not control the situation, and thus the existence of such books is in no way proof of their orthodoxy or even legitimacy. 

     Now we must address the “elephant in the room”: the allocution to the Midwives by Pope Pius XII, Oct. 29, 1951. The Pontiff clearly concedes baptism of desire as a replacement for the sacrament:

• “In the present economy there is no other way of communicating to the child who has not yet the use of reason. 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….” Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives.

     In this case we must use the tools and rules given us by the Church, along with our God-given common sense. The First Vatican Council defined the criteria for infallibility, and the letter to the midwives does not fall under this category. In fact, in the encyclic written by the same Pontiff that is infallible,  he reiterates the admonition of Pius IX.

• Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis,  1943: Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.”[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.

     In the document to the midwives, Pius XII also promotes yet another heresy, that of periodic continence, (aka Natural Family Planning), which was proscribed by the infallible encyclical Casti Connubii written by his predecessor, Pope Pius XI. It is beyond the scope of this document to expound on the heresy of  NFP and as it is the second most common error among those who call themselves Traditional Catholics,  it warrants its own, separate treatment. Suffice it to say that the Holy Ghost would not allow a True Vicar of Christ to teach error in an infallible document, but He allows Pontiffs to err in lesser documents rather frequently. As previously stated, when debating the doctrine of infallibility at the First Vatican Council, no less than 40 examples of the errors of reigning Popes were brought forth. To be perfectly honest, these past errors were not so grievous as to contradict revealed Truth as did Pius XII twice in one allocution. Pope Pius XII was infamously weak. In fact, the changes made to the Holy Week Liturgy by Annibale Bugnini, arch-Modernist and author of the Novus Ordo abominations, were promulgated by Pius XII. These changes are acknowledged to be a “bridge to the Novus Ordo.” Many Traditional clergy refuse these changes, as Father Cekada wrote, “Why would you cross the bridge if you don’t want to get to the other side?” This almost innate sense of sacrilege is another indication that “something is not right” with the later pronouncements of Pius XII, as a True Pontiff could not promote something abhorrent in the Sacraments of the Church. Bishop Sanborn expounds the errors of Pius XII in detail in his newsletter, “Sixty Years Since the Death of Pope Pius XII.”

   And now the point where logic must rise to the top and push aside pusillanimity. The Great Apostasy is, by its very definition, an epic event of Biblical proportions. These times we have been living have been foretold by the Old Testament prophets, the Apostles, the saints of the last two thousand years and even by Christ Himself.  It stands to reason that the Apostasy would be precipitated by an equally unique event, and that could be a valid Pontiff’s loss of office. We know that Pope Leo XIII was told of a shepherd being struck, and the sheep scattering when God allowed Satan one hundred years to destroy the Church (see ordoangelorum.org for the complete story). In the Rite of Excommunication, the phrase, “Strike with the Sword of Excommunication” is used, and any Catholic knows that there are no coincidences. It is more than possible, that Pope Pius XII lost his office in his allocution to the midwives, and this event is the rolling stone that started the avalanche. Some have speculated that Pius XII was murdered, and thereby “struck” and thus fulfilling the prophecy. Although he may have indeed been murdered, that fact alone would not constitute such a cataclysmic event for the Church as popes were martyred for centuries without triggering an apostasy.  If we honestly assess the facts, the actions, but even more importantly the inactions, of Pope Pius XII, we must admit they laid the foundation for Apostasy. There is really no way around it. 

• Pope Pius XII is the pontiff directly preceding the Great Apostasy.
• Towards the end of his pontificate, Pius XII wrote and allowed many things that were more than dubious and that opened the door to loss of Faith.

     The practicality of this issue is almost mute, as none of the bishops he created are even living and the important encyclicals (like the doctrine of the Assumption) happened before this lecture. Some have put forward the theory that Cardinal Siri was elected in 1958 and supplanted by Cardinal Roncali. Siri, then could have been the “stricken Pontiff.”  Regardless, the next true pope will have to settle this once and for all. Until then, it is still just academic. The proposition that Pope Pius XII could have lost his office is well within the bounds of Catholic thought and no one should be considered outside of the Church for asserting this possibility. As it is God’s modus operandi to leave allegorical clues in names, dates, and circumstances, it doesn’t surprise me that these abound in life and Pontificate of Eugenio Pacelli (Pius XII). As Judas “denied Christ with a kiss” which started the agony of the Actual Body of Christ, it follows that the Apostasy (the agony of the Mystical Body of Christ) would also be triggered by “a kiss” (NFP, and an “act of love” supplying for baptism).  There are many, many more clues in Pacelli’s life, even tying him to the Apocalypse, but this is beyond the scope of this work; seek and ye shall find.

     Bishop Sanborn’s group refuses to follow any of the liturgical changes by Pope Pius XII as these changes appear to many (including myself) to be lacking in piety. I ask you, what is more “unorthodox”, claiming that a valid Pontiff could lose his office by public heresy, which would remove the safeguard of infallibility and allow his liturgical changes to err? Or, claiming that a valid Pontiff could promulgate liturgical changes that are lacking in piety? The former is well within the realm of possibility, the latter is unthinkable, especially when considering the four marks of the church as One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Yet, Sanborn’s group is accepted by CMRI and the other Sede groups while anyone who suggests that Pius XII lost his office is anathema.

    The concept that Pius XII lost his office does fill in a lot of gaps in the understanding of what went wrong over the last seventy-five years. The Dimonds believe that Pius XII’s errors in the allocution to the midwives were not formal heresy, but I don’t see how. We can debate all we want, but again, it will be up to the next True Vicar of Christ to settle this once and for all.

     In the end, none of the points put forward to support baptism of blood and desire even matter at all. This is because the very act of theorizing about this subject is what is forbidden, and not only forbidden, but proclaimed as mortally sinful. Yes, Pope Pius IX proclaims with the full force of his office as Vicar of Christ that it is nefarious/against divine law even to think about the “bond of divine mercy and justice” outside of One God, One Faith, and One Baptism. Everything that is nefarious and against divine law is necessarily mortally sinful. What else could this admonition mean? The pontiff’s words are more than clear. There is no other way to interpret this. The time has come to put away, even burn, all the booklets published by the various congregations on the three baptisms. Tear out these chapters in catechisms. Remove the references from the Internet and add foot notes to past theologians explaining that they were wrong on this point and this line of conjecture was subsequently condemned. There is no “wiggle room” here. There is no negotiation. All those in positions of authority who wish to save their souls must cease destroying the faith of those who call themselves Catholic, now.

     What about Aquinas, Ligouri, and the rest? Their theorizing all happened hundreds of years before the papal condemnation. No doubt, had they lived after 1854, they would have dropped the subject like so many hot rocks. You shepherds, Traditional Catholic priests, tell me, if you lived in 1854, and the saintly Pope Pius IX told you that it was nefarious even to think about anything other than One Faith, One Church and One Baptism, what would you do? Would you say, “Oh, the Pope didn’t put that admonition in an infallible document, so we can just ignore it”, because that is what you are doing right now. No one should condemn Father Feeney for disobeying orders to go to Rome, when they disobey the orders of Pope Pius IX so egregiously. A positive command from the Vicar of Christ does not need the umbrella of dogma to be enforced. We, every single person who wishes to call themselves Catholic, must follow out of obedience. I know and love many of these shepherds and I firmly believe that vast majority have good will but have just been deceived. Now, the mask has been ripped off the devil and all should see him clearly.

     I have just arrived in the Lord’s Pasture, despite having searched for it my entire life. I sit as a lone black lamb; my wool having been darkened from tending to my brother’s vineyard for so long.  I call the dispersed flock to join me so that we may be One Flock again. I feel that the Dimonds have this one thing wrong, and that God will grant us a Shepherd again, if we set aside our prideful nonsense, learn to cooperate in charity, finally obey Pope Pius IX on this subject of “Who Shall Be Saved?” and JUST. SHUT. UP.

• Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadam: “For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains, ‘we shall see God as He is’ (1 John 3:2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is ‘one God, one faith, one baptism’ [Eph. 4:5]; it is wicked to proceed further in inquiry.”