Baptism of Saint Augustine

I have baptized you with water; but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Mark 1:8

A Catechism on Baptism Against Anti-Baptism of Desire Schismatics (Feeneyite Errors)

This catechism presents the traditional Catholic teaching on the sacrament of baptism as understood prior to the Second Vatican Robber Council, drawing from infallible sources such as the Council of Trent, papal decretals, and the 1917 Code of Canon Law. It emphasizes the necessity of baptism for salvation while explaining the doctrine of baptism of desire (baptismus in voto), demonstrating its harmony with the Church’s dogmatic teachings. It also addresses related questions on Church discipline and historical teachings on circumcision.

Part I: The Nature and Necessity of Baptism

Q1: What is the sacrament of baptism? A: Baptism is the first and most necessary sacrament, instituted by Christ, by which we are spiritually reborn, cleansed from original sin, incorporated into the Church, and made adopted children of God.

Q2: What are the effects of baptism? A: Baptism remits original sin and all actual sins, infuses sanctifying grace and the theological virtues, imprints an indelible character on the soul, and opens the way to the other sacraments. It makes us members of Christ and heirs to heaven.

Q3: Is baptism necessary for salvation? A: Yes, baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, either in re (in reality, by water) or at least in voto (in desire). The 1917 Code of Canon Law states: “Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, is necessary for all unto salvation in re or at least in voto.” (1917 CIC, Canon 737). The Council of Trent anathematizes anyone who says baptism is not necessary: “If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon 5 on Baptism).

Q4: What does the Council of Trent teach about justification and baptism? A: Justification involves a translation from the state of sin to grace, which, after the Gospel’s promulgation, cannot occur without the sacrament of baptism or the desire thereof. As Trent declares: “And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.” (Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4 on Justification).

Part II: Additional Teachings on Baptism

Q5: Who can administer baptism? A: In necessity, anyone can baptize, even a non-Catholic, provided they use proper matter, form, and intention. Ordinarily, it is reserved to priests.

Q6: What is required for valid baptism? A: True water, the Trinitarian formula, and intention to do what the Church does. Trent anathematizes denials: “If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism… let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon 2 on Baptism).

Q7: Can infants be baptized? A: Yes, infant baptism is apostolic and necessary, supplying faith through the Church. Trent condemns denial: “If any one saith, that little children… are not, after having received baptism, to be reckoned amongst the faithful… let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon 13 on Baptism).

Part III: The Threefold Baptism – Water, Blood, and Desire

Q8: What is baptism of water? A: Baptism of water is the ordinary sacrament, licitly conferred by immersion or infusion (pouring) with natural water while pronouncing the words: “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

Q9: What is baptism of blood? A: Baptism of blood is the martyrdom of unbaptized persons who die for the faith of Christ. It supplies for water baptism by perfect charity and confession of faith, remitting sins and conferring grace. See Hugh of Saint Victor’s accounting of the matter, based on the teaching of those who came previously.

“Whether after the precept of baptism was given anyone could be saved without actually receiving the sacrament of baptism….

Some either through curiosity or zeal are accustomed to inquire whether anyone after the enjoining and proclaiming of the sacrament of baptism can be saved, unless he actually receives the sacrament of baptism itself. For the reasons seem to be manifest and they have many authorities, (if, however, they are to be said to have authorities, who do not understand); first, because it is said: “Unless a man be born again of the water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” (Cf. John 3, 5), and again: “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved,” (Mark 16, 16). There are many such passages which seem, as it were, to affirm that by no means can he be saved who has not had this sacrament, whatever he may have besides this sacrament. If he should have perfect faith, if hope, if he should have charity, even if he should have a contrite and humble heart which God does not despise, true repentance for the past, firm purpose for the future, whatever he may have, he will not be able to be saved, if he does not have this. All this seems so to them on account of what is written: “Unless a man be born again of the water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” (Cf. John 3, 5).

Yet if someone should ask what has happened to those who, after shedding
blood for Christ, departed this life without the sacrament of water, they dare not say that men of this kind are not saved. And, although one cannot show that this is written in what is mentioned above, yet they dare not say that, because it is not written there, it is to be denied. For he who said: “Unless a man be born again of the water and the Holy Ghost,” did not add: “or by pouring forth his blood instead of water,” and yet this is true, although it is not written here. For if he is saved who received water on account of God, why is he not saved much more who sheds blood on account of God? For it is more to give blood than to receive water. Moreover, what some say is clearly silly, that those who shed blood are saved because with blood they also shed water and in the very water which they shed they receive baptism. For if those who are killed are said to have been baptized on account of the moisture of water which drips from their wounds together with the corruption of blood, then those who are suffocated or drowned or are killed by some other kind of death where blood is not shed have not been baptized in their blood and have died for Christ in vain, because they did not shed the moisture of the water which they had within their body. Who would say this? So, he is baptized in blood who dies for Christ, who, even if he does not shed blood from the wound, gives life which is more precious than blood. For he could shed blood and, if he did not give life, shedding blood would be less than giving life. Therefore, he sheds blood well who lays down his life for Christ, and he has his baptism in the virtue of the sacrament, without which to have received the sacrament itself, as it were, is of no benefit. So where this is the case, to be unable to have the sacrament does no harm.

Thus, it is true, although it is not said there, that he who dies for Christ is
baptized in Christ. Thus, they say, it is true, although it is not said there, and
it is true because it is said elsewhere, even if it is not said there. For He who said: “Unless a man be born again of the water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” the same also said elsewhere: “He who shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father,” (Cf. Matt. 10, 32). And so what is not said there, is nevertheless to be understood, although it is not said, since it is said elsewhere. Behold therefore why they say it. They say that what is not said is to be understood where it is not said, because it is said elsewhere. If, therefore, this is to be understood in this place where it is not said, since it is said elsewhere, why is it not also to be understood similarly about faith, since it is said elsewhere: “He who believeth in me, shall not die forever,” (Cf. John 11, 26). Likewise, He who said: “Unless a man be born again of the water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” He himself said: “He who believeth in me, shall not die for ever.” Therefore, either deny faith or concede salvation. What does it seem to you? Where there is faith, where there is hope, where there is charity, finally where there is the full and perfect virtue of the sacrament, there is no salvation because the sacrament alone is not and it is not, because it cannot be possessed. “He that believeth,” He said, “and is baptized, shall be saved,” (Mark 16, 16). Therefore behold, there is no doubt but that where there is faith and is baptism, there is salvation.

And what follows? “But he that believeth not shall be condemned,” (CE.
Mark 16, 16). Why did He wish to speak thus? Why did He not say: “He that
believeth not and is not baptized, shall be condemned,” just as He had said: “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved?” Why, unless because it is of the will to believe and because he who wishes to believe cannot lack faith. And so in him who does not believe, an evil will is always shown, where there can be no necessity which may be put forth as an excuse. Now to be baptized can be in the will, even when it is not in possibility, and on this account justly is good will with the devotion of its faith not despised, although in a moment of necessity he is prevented from receiving that sacrament of water which is external. Do you wish to know more fully whether or not this reason is proven elsewhere by more manifest authority, although even those authorities which we have mentioned above seem so manifest that there can be no doubt about the truth of them?

Listen to something more, if by chance this matter about which you should
not be in doubt can be shown you more clearly. Blessed Augustine in his book, “On the One Baptism,” speaks as follows: Again and again, as I consider it, I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can fulfil what was lacking to baptism but also faith and conversion of heart, if perhaps assistance could not be rendered for the celebration of the mystery of baptism in straitened circumstances. You see that he clearly testifies that faith and conversion of heart can suffice for the salvation of good will where it happens that the visible sacrament of water of necessity cannot be had. But lest perhaps you think that he contradicted himself, since afterwards in the book of Retractations he disapproved of the example of the thief which he had assumed to establish this opinion where he had said that the shedding of blood or faith and change of heart could fulfil the place of baptism, saying: “In the fourth book, when I said that suffering could take the place of baptism, I did not furnish a sufficiently fitting example in that of the thief about whom there is some doubt as to whether he was baptized,” you should consider that in this place he only corrected an example which he had offered to prove his opinion; he did not reject his opinion. But if you think that that opinion is to be rejected, because the example is corrected, then what he had said is false, that the shedding of blood can take the place of baptism, since the example itself was furnished to prove that. For he does not say: “When I said that faith could have the place of baptism,” but he says: “When I said that suffering could have the of baptism,” although he had placed both in the one opinion. If, therefore, regarding what he said, that suffering can have the place of baptism, an example has been furnished, since it is established that it is true without any ambiguity, it is clear that the example was afterwards corrected but the opinion was not rejected.

You should, therefore, either confess that true faith and confession of the heart can fulfil the place of baptism in the moment of necessity or show how true faith and unfeigned charity can be possessed where there is no salvation. Unless perhaps you wish to say that no one can have true faith and true charity, who is not to have the visible sacrament of water. Yet by what reason or by what authority you prove this I do not know. We meanwhile do not ask whether anyone who is not to receive the sacrament of baptism can have these, since this alone as far as this matter is concerned is certain: if there were anyone who had these even without the visible sacrament of water he could not perish. There are many other things which could have been brought up to prove this, but what we have set forth above in the treatment of the sacraments to prove this point we by no means think needs reconsideration.” (Hugh of Saint Victor, De Sacramentis, Translation by Roy Deferrari)

Q10: What is baptism of desire? A: Baptism of desire is the implicit or explicit wish for baptism, united with perfect contrition or charity, and supernatural faith, which justifies the soul and supplies for the sacrament in cases where water baptism is impossible. Citation is again made to Hugh of Saint Victor above, himself citing Augustine.

Q11: What papal teachings confirm baptism of desire? A: Pope Innocent II, in his letter Apostolicam Sedem (included in the authoritative Decretals of Gregory IX of 1234 A.D., protected from being harmful to faith or morals, and used as the rule of the Church for centuries), taught that a priest who died without water baptism but persevered in faith was saved: “We assert without hesitation… that the priest… 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.” (Decretals of Gregory IX, Book 3, Title 43, Chapter 2; DZ 388). Pope Innocent III, in Debitum pastoralis officii (also in the Decretals), addressed a self-baptized Jew: “If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith.” (Decretals of Gregory IX, Book 3, Title 42, Chapter 4; DZ 413). These decretals, compiled under Pope Gregory IX in 1234, formed part of the Church’s official canon law corpus for hundreds of years.

Q12: Are the decretals of Gregory IX protected from being harmful to faith and morals? A: Yes. The discipline of the Church is protected from being harmful- no harm can come from the active discipline and decretals pertaining to the Church’s discipline, canons, sacraments, and rites. They are guided by the Holy Spirit. The decretals of Pope Gregory IX were specially compiled and promulgated by Pope Gregory IX around 1234 to be the law of the Church. Few Popes compiled decretals for official promulgation in this way before or since, and these disciplinary decretals were considered a great change in Church governance from before when decretals were mostly scattered and often difficult to assemble or find. Gregory IX’s compilation remained the law of the Church for centuries with full endorsement of the Pontiffs, specifically cited and used by the most renowned canon lawyers of the Church. Pope Gregory XVI and Pope Pius VI support that the laws of the Church cannot be harmful:

“Furthermore, the discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced.” (Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, §9, August 15, 1832).

“The prescription of the synod about the order of transacting business in the conferences, in which, after it prefaced ‘in every article that which pertains to faith and to the essence of religion must be distinuished from that which is proper to discipline,’ it adds, ‘in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burdensome for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstitution and materialism’; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,–false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.” (Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794).

The inclusion of baptism of desire in these papal decretals, canon law, and catechisms (e.g., Catechism of the Council of Trent) confirms its protection from harmfulness or leading to superstition and falsehood, even in discipline that only pertains to specific sacred rites such as the Latin Rite, as Gregory XVI teaches in Mirari Vos.

However, and in any event, the decretals do not pertain only to specific rites, as they contain directives to the other Patriarchs, and thus are universal in scope and character.

See e.g. Pope Gregory IX’s Decretal to the Patriatch of Antioch, LIBER PRIMUS, TITULUS VII. DE TRANSLATIONE EPISCOPI CAP. I.:

Patriarcha, qui confirmatum in archiepiscopum transfert ad sedem episcopalem, ab episcoporum confirmatione suspenditur. Ioan. Andr. [A Patriarch who transfers someone already confirmed as an archbishop to an episcopal see is suspended from confirming bishops. (Johannes Andreae.)]

Innocentius III. Antiocheno Patriarchae. [Innocent III to the Patriarch of Antioch]
Quum ex illo generali privilegio, quod beato Petro et per eum ecclesiae Romanae Dominus noster indulsit, canonica postmodum manaverint instituta, continentia maiores ecclesiae causas esse ad sedem apostolicam perferendas, ac per hoc translationes episcoporum, sicut depositiones eorum, et sedium mutationes ad summum apostolicae sedis antistitem de iure pertineant, nec super his quicquam praeter eius assensum debeat immutari: miramur non modicum et movemur, quod [tu], praedecessoris tui exempla secutus, qui motu propriae voluntatis Mamistanum in Tarsensem dicitur transtulisse, L. quondam Apamensem electum in Tripolitanam ecclesiam transtulisti, nec tibi sufficit dictam praedecessoris tui praesumptionem solummodo imitari, immo etiam in iniuriam nostram ipsius transgressus excessum et, novo quodam mutationis genere parvificasti maiorem, et magnum quodammodo minorasti, episcopare archiepiscopum, immo potius dearchiepiscopare praesumens, quum dictus praedecessor tuus dictum archiepiscopum de Tharsensi ecclesia in ecclesiam transtulerit similis dignitatis. Licet enim dictus L. nondum fuisset in archiepiscopum consecratus, confirmationis tamen munus receperat, et archiepiscopalia, quantum ei licuit, ministrarat, sicut nobis ipsius relatione innotuit, qui se Valiensem episcopum quum in nostra esset praesentia constitutus, asseruit confirmasse. Ne igitur perpetrandi similia ceteris audacia tribuatur, si tantus excessus relictus fuerit impunitus te ab episcoporum confirmatione duximus suspendendum, quousque super hoc aliud statuamus, [sciturus etc. Dat. Lateran. XVI. Kal. Apr. 1198.]

Q13: Does the 1917 Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope Benedict XV, also affirm baptism of desire? A: Yes, explicitly: “Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the sacraments, is necessary for all for salvation in re or at least in voto…” (1917 CIC, Canon 737). This codifies the traditional doctrine, binding all Catholics.

Part IV: False Arguments Feeneyites and Other Heretics Use Against Canon Law and Church Discipline

Q14: Is the claim that the discipline of the Church cannot be spiritually harmful to faith or morals undermined by the argument that its modern policy of always baptizing fetuses unconditionally or conditionally (Canon 747) is contrary to the previous law that some early or deformed monstrous fetuses are not to be baptized (Rituale Romanum, Pope Paul V, De Baptismo Parvulorum)?A: Absolutely not.

First, certain heretics are failing to differentiate between early fetuses and montrous fetuses. Early fetuses were baptized, even if they had a pre-human appearance. Thus there is no contradiction with the 1917 code. This is fully enunciated in the Ritual itself as well as supporting texts from the time period. Here is the full applicable text from the 1614 Ritual:

“De baptizandis parvulis.

Opportune Parochus hortetur eos, ad quos ea cura pertinet, ut natos infantes sive baptizandos, sive baptizatos, quam primum fieri poterit, et qua decet Christiana modestia, sine pompae vanitate deferant ad ecclesiam; ne illis Sacramentum tanto opere necessarium nimium differatur cum periculo salutis; et ut iis, qui ex necessitate privatim baptizati sunt, consuetae caeremoniae, ritusque suppleantur, omissa forma et ablutione.

Nemo in utero matris clausus baptizari debet. Sed si infans caput emiserit, et periculum mortis immineat, baptizetur in capite; nec postea, si vivus evaserit, erit iterum baptizandus. At si aliud membrum emiserit, quod vitalem indicet motum, in illo, si periculum impendeat, baptizetur; et tunc, si natus vixerit, erit sub conditione baptizandus eo modo, quo supra dictum est: Si non es baptizatus, ego te baptizo in nomine Patris, etc. Si vero ita baptizatus deinde mortuus prodierit ex utero, debet in loco sacro sepeliri.

Si mater praegnans mortua fuerit, foetus quam primum caute extrahatur, ac si vivus fuerit, baptizetur; si fuerit mortuus, et baptizari non potuerit, in loco sacro sepeliri non debet.

Infantes expositi et inventi, si, re diligenter investigata, de eorum baptismo non constat, sub conditione baptizentur.

In monstris vero baptizandis, si casus evenerit, magna cautio adhibenda est; de quo, si opus fuerit, Ordinarius loci vel alii periti consulantur, nisi mortis periculum immineat.

Monstrum, quod humanam speciem non praeseferat, baptizari non debet; de quo, si dubium fuerit, baptizetur sub hac conditione: Si tu es homo, ego te baptizo, etc.

Illud vero, de quo dubium est, una ne, aut plures sint personae, non baptizetur, donec id discernatur. Discerni autem potest, si habeat unum vel plura capita, unum vel plura pectora; tunc enim totidem erunt corda et animae, hominesque distincti. Et eo casu singuli seorsum sunt baptizandi, unicuique dicendo: Ego te baptizo, etc.

Si vero periculum mortis immineat, tempusque non suppetat, ut singuli separatim baptizentur, poterit minister, singulorum capitibus aquam infundens, omnes simul baptizare, dicendo: Ego vos baptizo in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti.

Quam tamen formam in iis solum, et in aliis similibus mortis periculis, ad plures simul baptizandos, et ubi tempus non patitur ut singuli separatim baptizentur, alias numquam licet adhibere.

Quando vero non est certum in monstro esse duas personas, ut quia duo capita et duo pectora non habet bene distincta; tunc debet primum unus absolute baptizari, et postea alter sub conditione, hoc modo: Si non es baptizatus, ego te baptizo in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti.”

Here is the full and proper translation from the 1614 Ritual:

“On baptizing infants.

At the proper time the parish priest should urge those to whom this care pertains to bring newborn infants—whether to be baptized or already baptized—as soon as it can be done, and with the Christian modesty that is fitting, without vain pomp, to the church: lest that sacrament, so greatly necessary, be delayed too long to the peril of salvation; and so that for those who, out of necessity, have been baptized privately, the customary ceremonies and rites may be supplied, omitting the form and the washing.

No one enclosed in the mother’s womb should be baptized. But if the infant puts forth its head and danger of death threatens, let it be baptized on the head; nor afterwards, if it escapes alive, is it to be baptized again. But if it puts forth some other member that indicates vital movement, on that member—if danger is pressing—let it be baptized; and then, if it lives after being born, it is to be baptized conditionally, in the manner stated above: If you are not baptized, I baptize you in the name of the Father, etc. But if, having been thus baptized, it then comes forth from the womb dead, it ought to be buried in a sacred place.

If a pregnant mother has died, the fetus should be carefully extracted as soon as possible; and if it is alive, let it be baptized; if it is dead and could not be baptized, it ought not to be buried in a sacred place.

Exposed and found infants, if—after the matter has been carefully investigated—it is not established that they were baptized, are to be baptized conditionally.

In baptizing “monsters” (abnormal births), if such a case occurs, great caution must be used; and concerning this, if necessary, the local Ordinary (bishop) or other experts should be consulted, unless danger of death is imminent.

A “monster” that does not present a human appearance ought not to be baptized; but if there is doubt about it, let it be baptized under this condition: If you are a human being, I baptize you, etc.

But that being about which there is doubt—whether there is one person or several—must not be baptized until this is determined. It can be determined if it has one or more heads, one or more chests; for then there will be as many hearts and souls, and distinct human beings. And in that case each one is to be baptized separately, saying to each: I baptize you, etc.

But if danger of death is imminent and there is not time for each to be baptized separately, the minister may baptize them all at once by pouring water on the head of each, saying: I baptize you (plural) in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

However, this formula may be used only in these cases—and in other similar dangers of death—for baptizing several at the same time, and where time does not permit that each be baptized separately; otherwise it is never lawful to use it.

But when it is not certain that there are two persons in a “monster”—for example, because it does not have two heads and two chests clearly distinct—then one should first be baptized absolutely, and afterwards the other under condition, in this way: If you are not baptized, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.“

The relevant passage for early fetuses is “if a pregnant mother has died, the fetus should be carefully extracted as soon as possible; and if it is alive, let it be baptized; if it is dead and could not be baptized, it ought not to be buried in a sacred place.” This is the passage that relates to early fetuses, not the passage regarding monsters. The passage regarding monsters refers only to abnormal deformed fetuses through the entire pregnancy term until birth, not fetuses normally formed for their early stage. Notice that there is no reference to age with regard to a dead mother, because even the earliest fetuses are included. Extremely early fetuses, including before a clear human appearance, were thus not considered monsters or deformed.

Medical examples that could be cited from the period in support of this include: 1) Jakob Rüff (Rueff), The Expert Midwife (Eng. ed. 1637; based on his 16th-c work).

Rüff’s table of contents separated early formed fetuses from monstrous fetuses: he treats “false conception named Mola” and then (separately) “unperfect children… monsterous births.”

In Chap. I (Mola) he explicitly defines the mola as a deceivable/false conception that can come forth “in the likenesse… of a piece or lump of mishapen flesh,” and he discusses it as arising in the first time of conception.

Then in Chap. III (monstrous births) he talks about “monsters and imperfect or mishapen children” being borne, and gives classic examples like a birth “with two heads” (and more).

So we can see that in a single widely used obstetrics text, a “lump of misshapen flesh” is categorized as Mola / false conception, while monsters are treated as malformed infants/births with describable anatomy.

Further, in Ambroise Paré, Works (English trans. in EEBO; based on his Des monstres et prodiges), he gives a definition that makes “monster” about deviation from the normal order of nature, with examples like an infant “borne with one arme alone, or with two heads.” Thus it was not “early normal development,” but a structural abnormality carried on through the pregnancy period.

Thus for early fetuses, the prescription of the 1614 Ritual, when interpreted in light of then current medical practice, was to always baptize early fetuses, these were not considered monsters by the authorities of the time. This matches as well the practice of the 1917 code and thus is unchanged.

Now, as regard to monstrous and deformed fetuses that remain such through the entire pregnancy term until birth…

The discipline of the Church as reflected in both the 1614 Ritual and the 1917 Code is not undermined and there is no contradiction. The moral theologians in both ages had to balance the risk of offending God’s honor from sacrilege in performing an unnecessary rite of baptism, versus the offense of failing to save a soul through baptism. Both possibilities are gravely offensive to God if the wrong act is chosen. By resorting to one policy (not baptizing the worst of the monsters), versus another policy (always conditionally baptizing even the worst monsters) in another era during the time of the 1917 code, both solutions were acceptable and moral, because both used the reflex principle of Probabilism (or at least Equiprobabilism) in moral theology- which has been allowed by the Supreme Pontiffs. Both the earlier and later ritual and canons relied on resting their canonical or ritual policy and action on approved doctors and authorities in moral theology in determining individual factual cases where it was beyond the purview of the priest’s human knowledge to know whether there was actually a human soul present, and both canons and policies were the result of intrinsic and extrinsic analysis to attempt to fulfill the will of God in an acceptable way. There was no way to enunaciate a general a certain doctrine that the worst monsters (which can exhibit innumerable different kinds of worst monsters) do or do not have a human soul, and it was always uncertain to the priest in the field, due to the innumerable variations that could exist among the worst monsters. By relying on the principles of Probabilism approved by previous Pontiffs in determining the Church’s disciplinary policy, both disciplines are proper and sound workings out of those principles, and thus there is no moral imperfection in either policy, even if the policy changed. Probabilism states that as long as there is a reasonable probability (a solidly probable opinion) that the monstrous fetus is ensouled with a rational human soul and a reasonable probability (a solidly probable opinion) that it is not so ensouled, the Church could choose a policy of either preventing sacrilege and performing no baptism, or alternatively always performing the baptism in the hope of maximizing salvation of the human soul and honoring God’s will in this way. Since both are possible moral paths, God could accept either possibility and disciplinary policy. Due to the innumerable variations in monsters that must be assessed on a case by case basis, both paths of delaying or administering baptism are therefore sound and the change in law is no contradiction and does not cause legal imperfection in the canon.

“The central doctrine of Probabilism is that in every doubt which concerns merely the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an action it is permissible to follow a solidly probable opinion in favour of liberty, even though the opposing view is more probable. Probabilists apply their theory only when there is question merely of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an action, because in other cases certainty might be demanded on various grounds, as happens when the validity of the sacraments, the attainment of an obligatory end, and the established rights of another are concerned. They apply their doctrine whether the doubt about the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an action be a doubt of law, or a doubt of fact which can be reduced to a doubt of law. Thus if it is solidly probable that Friday morning has not yet set in, there is a doubt of fact which can be reduced to a doubt of law as to whether it is lawful in the circumstances to take meat. They also apply their doctrine not merely to human but also to Divine and natural laws on the ground that the Divine legislator is not more exacting than a human legislator. They apply their principles whether the existence or the cessation of a law is concerned, since, in their estimation, liberty is always in possession… On 26 June, 1680 the Holy Office, under the presidency of Innocent XI, issued, in connection with the teaching of Thyrsus Gonzalez, S.J., a Decree of which the authentic text was published 19 April 1902, by the Secretary of the Holy Office. ‘So much controversy has recently arisen in regard to the value of decree, that it is opportune to quote the whole text: Let it be enjoined upon the Father General of the Society of Jesus, as by order [de ordine] of His Holiness, not only to permit the Fathers of the Society to write in favour of the more probable opinion and to attack the opinion of those who assert that in a conflict of a less probable opinion with a more probable, known and estimated as such, it is allowed to follow the less probable- but also to write to all the Universities of the Society [informing them] that it is the mind of His Holiness that whosoever chooses may freely write in favour of the more probable opinion, and may attack the aforesaid contrary [opinion]; and to order them to submit entirely to the command of His Holiness. A report having been made by Father Laurea of the contents of a letter directed by Father Thyrsus Gonzalez, S.J., to Our Most Holy Lord; the Most Eminent Lords said that the Secretary of State must write to the Apostolic Nuncio of the Spains [directing him] to signify to the said Father Thyrsus that His Holiness, having received his letter favourably, and having read it with approval, has commanded that he [Thyrsus] shall freely and fearlessly preach, teach, and defend with his pen the more probable opinion, and also manfully attack the opinion of those who assert that in a conflict of a less probable opinion with a more probable, known and estimated as such, it is allowed to follow the less probable; and to inform him that whatever he does and writes on behalf of the more probable opinion will be pleasing to His Holiness.’” -Harty, J. (1911). Probabilism. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.

Some confused persons have erroneously tried to cite to Wernz-Vidal’s fallible commentary Ius Canonicum, Book IV, Titulus I, Caput II, Art. 2, #33, 1938 on the code of canon law to claim that the past general acknowledgement of the authentic Magisterium on this matter of delayed ensoulment past the time of conception may now be rejected, and that the authentic Magisterium and laws pertaining to rituals (as well as other laws) are therefore unreliable from age to age. However, this comment simply states that there is yet another reason in our age to ensure baptism for fetuses at the youngest ages, something already enjoined in the Roman Ritual as discussed above.

Q15: Is the claim that the 1917 code cannot be spiritually harmful to faith or morals undermined by the fact that Pius XII stated in his encyclical Mystici Corporis #66 that the laws of the Church are spotless when they are “imposed upon all”, and we know the 1917 code for the Latin Rite and its teaching on baptism is not “imposed upon all”? A: No, because in other places the other Pontiffs Gregory XVI and Pius VI plainly declared that all the laws of the Church, even those not binding upon all, were not harmful, without any qualification of universality or locality. No qualification of being “imposed upon all” was indicated in these statements. Therefore, we know even that discipline which is not imposed upon all is free from harm. We already mentioned Gregory XVI (already quoted above in Q12, which states that all the laws of the Church are not imperfect or crippled, even those pertaining to sacred rites which naturally do not bind all, but bind only that particular rite such as the Latin rite), and also Pius VI Auctorem Fidei #78:

So we see in this statement as well as the statement of Gregory XVI, the discipline of the Church is protected whether or not the particular discipline of the Church is universal or local, because these Popes do not qualify their statement in this way. When no qualification (such as universality) is made, we should not assume or import a qualification that is not there.

Indeed, as is understood from basic philosophical principles, a part of the body is still “of the body” or “pertaining to the body”, thus a law approved for only part of the Church is still “of the Church” and “pertaining to the Church”, and unless there is a qualification demanding universality, even local discipline falls under the ambit of this doctrine.

While Pius XII did limit his discussion only to universal laws, the other two Pontiffs did not, and all taught that all the laws in question were not imperfect or crippled.

Q16. Is the infallibility of the discipline of the Church undermined by the statement of Benedict XIV in Ex Quo in 1756, which states, “Consequently We exhort you to set aside previous editions which have been found to contain too many different errors, and to use this edition in sacred rites. The errors of former editions, however, are not to be wondered at, for errors are readily made whenever the same work goes through many editions and the editors do not exert the strictest care. Such care is necessary to prevent the repeated insertion or addition of matters which are not found in the earliest and most faithful editions, whether through deceit or ignorance. Then since these errors have to be excised or somehow restrained, corrections and new editions more faithful to the original eventually are necessary. This has obviously occurred in the Western Church too, even though it is not as subject to these errors as the Eastern Church. Accordingly the Roman Pontiffs have often had to see to it that Missals, Rituals, Breviaries, and Martyrologies were newly issued in improved editions after appropriate corrections”? A: No, while certain heretics have cited a portion of this quote out of context to attempt to lead some astray, this quotation is clearly only referring to typographical errors not true to the original actual prescribed discipline, and thus says nothing about the infallibility of the true discipline.

Q17. Is the fact that the Decretals of Gregory IX were only addressed via the Bull Rex Pacificus to Bologna proof that the Decretals are not infallible or authoritative discipline? A: No, as previously proven, all the discipline of the Church is infallible, even that which is not universal. However, based on many Decretals to other Patriarchs, it is clear in any event they are universal in scope. Further, the Decretals were used by all the canon lawyers of the Church for hundreds of years with full acceptance by the Apostolic See. This was the true discipline of the Church in its most basic form. The limitation of a bull to a certain region does not prevent it from being binding Magisterium. As Leo XIII declared, even the authentic papal magisterium is infallible. “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authentic Magisterium.” (Satis Cognitum #9). Thus, even authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff to specific regions is binding and becomes the universal teaching of the entire Church, since any who recede from it are alien to the Church.

Q18: Doctor St. Robert Bellarmine teaches that even if a letter of Pope Celestine was once placed among the “Decretal Letters,” it does not follow that it was an Apostolic and ex cathedra decree, because many things in the decretals “do not make any matter of faith” but merely report the Pontiffs’ opinions. Does this refute the principle that the Church’s discipline (including decretals used as law) is protected from being harmful to faith and morals? A: No. Bellarmine’s point is about category and level of authority, not about the Church positively promulgating harmful discipline or binding the faithful to doctrinal error.

Bellarmine’s point, as expressed in the cited passage, is simply to deny an unwarranted inference from the fact of a text’s inclusion in a decretal collection to the conclusion that it was thereby issued as an apostolic, ex cathedra definition. He writes: “But as for what Alphonsus says, i.e. that Celestine’s letter was at one time among the Decretal Letters, that indeed is true, but it cannot be thence concluded that a plainly Apostolic and ex cathedra decree was made by Celestine, since it is well known that there are many other things in the Decretal Letters which do not make any matter of faith, but merely declare to us the Pontiffs’ opinions on that matter.” (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book IV, ch. 14).

In other words, Bellarmine is making a standard Catholic distinction: not everything preserved or transmitted in canonical compilations constitutes a solemn definition, and not everything found there is proposed as a matter “de fide.” He is cautioning against treating the mere appearance of a text in a decretal corpus as proof that it must therefore be an ex cathedra decree.

However, this point is quite different from the claim that decretals, as approved ecclesiastical discipline, can positively teach doctrinal falsehood that harms faith and morals. Bellarmine does not assert that. His argument concerns the level of definition and the logical limits of what may be concluded from a document’s placement in a collection; it is not a thesis that the Church may promulgate spiritually dangerous discipline.

Nor does the fact that something is “not de fide” imply that it is harmful or false. A teaching may fail to be a solemn definition and may not be proposed with the note of “de fide,” and yet still be true, authoritative, safe, and binding according to the mode and intention in which it is taught—particularly when it concerns sacramental discipline, pastoral directives, and the Church’s consistent reception. Bellarmine’s distinction therefore blocks only the argument “this is ex cathedra because it is in the decretals,” and it does not establish the different proposition “therefore it can be doctrinally harmful.”

The thesis that ecclesiastical discipline is protected from spiritual harm concerns what the Church actually imposes and approves as discipline and practice, not every incidental remark that may be preserved in an historical archive. Decretal collections contain diverse material: general norms, procedural and juridical rulings, determinations tied to particular cases, explanatory reasoning, and letters retained for record. Bellarmine is warning that presence in such a corpus does not automatically elevate a text to the level of a formal dogmatic definition. That caution does not negate the principle articulated by Popes such as Gregory XVI and Pius VI that the Church, ruled by the Holy Spirit, cannot establish discipline that is “dangerous or harmful” to faith and morals, especially in matters touching sacred rites and the governance of souls. Accordingly, Bellarmine’s remark does not touch the core of the argument: one may still maintain that the Church’s approved discipline and authoritative teaching, particularly when consistently received and applied in catechesis and canon law, is not permitted by God to become spiritually harmful.

Q19: Since the 1917 Code in Canon 1323 states we should be able to judge whether catechumens were unbaptized through no fault of their own, and this ultimately cannot be known and is known only to God, does that mean the 1917 code made a mistake and therefore is not protected from being harmful against faith and morals? A: No. The 1917 Code explicitly distinguishes the external forum from the internal forum and indicates how ecclesiastical acts are conceived in relation to that distinction. It teaches that jurisdiction in the Church is twofold, “of the external forum” and “of the internal forum (of conscience), whether sacramental or extra-sacramental” (1917 CIC, can. 196). It then states a governing juridical principle about forum: “An act of jurisdiction conferred for the external forum is valid also for the internal forum, but not the reverse” (1917 CIC, can. 202 §1: “Actus… collatae pro foro externo, valet quoque pro interno, non autem e converso.”). This framework is precisely why the Code’s references to assessing “fault” cannot reasonably be read as claims about infallibly discerning hidden interior culpability; they are directives for action and judgment in the external forum, according to what can be established outwardly, while recognizing that the internal forum and God’s judgment are distinct.

The canon’s language about judging whether an unbaptized catechumen lacked fault does not presume that ecclesiastical authority can penetrate the internal forum or read the secrets of conscience; it envisions a juridical determination in the external forum, made according to the ordinary standards of canon law—namely, by weighing outward facts, documentary evidence, credible testimony, and the person’s observable conduct. Canon law, by its nature, regulates matters that must be decided publicly and administratively (status, discipline, and the legal effects that follow), and therefore it proceeds by what can be established with moral certainty, not by an impossible demand for absolute certainty about interior motives or God’s hidden providence. In this sense, “without fault” is assessed as far as it can be assessed externally: whether there is evidence of a manifest, imputable refusal of baptism, or whether, on the contrary, the known circumstances show an absence of such refusal or at least an absence of proof sufficient to attribute culpable rejection in the external forum.

Accordingly, the canon is not asserting that the Church can infallibly determine whether a catechumen’s impediment to baptism was “no fault” in the strict, interior, theological sense. Rather, it provides a workable legal standard so that the Church may act prudently where she must sometimes make practical determinations—without pretending to deliver a final judgment on the soul’s interior state before God. This is entirely consistent with how canon law handles many questions touching “fault” and intention (for example, coercion, fear, consent, simulation, contumacy), all of which are inherently interior yet are judged juridically by external signs and proof. Therefore, the objection fails: the canon does not “make a mistake” by acknowledging the need for judgment in such cases, because it is not claiming omniscience; it is supplying a legal method for adjudicating externally knowable facts. And even if particular cases remain difficult to resolve with completeness, that does not render the law spiritually harmful to faith or morals, because the law does not teach doctrinal falsehood about God’s judgment; it governs ecclesiastical action in the external forum while leaving the interior forum to God and, where applicable, to sacramental confession.

Q20: Since canon 1325 states that heretics are those who pertinaciously doubt or deny a dogma of the faith, and yet canon 731 states that heretics can be of “good faith”, does this prove the 1917 code contradicted itself and therefore can be harmful to doctrine? A: No. The word heretic can simply encompass both definitions, one does not exclude the other, although for purposes of determining guilt of the delict in 1325 that is the definition that applies to that section. The Roman Catechism likewise states that is an expansive definition of heretic, when it states that one who first sins against the faith (before pertinacity) does not have to be called a heretic. “Non enim, ut quisque primum in fide peccarit, haereticus dicendus est; sed qui, ecclesiae auctoritate neglecta, impias opiniones pertinaci animo tuetur.” (Pars I Cap. X). “Dicendus est” is a gerundive of obligation, therefore the proper sense is “it is not that one who first offends must be called a heretic”

The alleged contradiction disappears once one recognizes that haereticus can be used with more than one scope. The Code’s stricter definition—heresy as a pertinacious denial or doubt of a dogma—concerns the proper and culpable notion relevant to imputability and canonical delinquency. Yet the same legal and theological tradition also uses the word heretic in a broader, non-technical sense to describe someone who has fallen into heretical error, even before obstinacy is established. This is exactly what the Roman Catechism indicates when it says: “Non enim, ut quisque primum in fide peccarit, haereticus dicendus est; sed qui, ecclesiae auctoritate neglecta, impias opiniones pertinaci animo tuetur.” (Catechismus Romanus, Pars I, Cap. X). The force of dicendus est is important: it does not say that the first offender against the faith cannot be called a heretic in any sense; it says he is not required to be called a heretic as a matter of obligation and precision merely because he has first erred. In other words, the Catechism permits an expansive usage in which error against the faith can be described as “heresy” materially, while insisting that the fully proper attribution—calling someone a heretic in the sense that carries the note of obstinacy against the Church’s authority—belongs to the one who “neglects the Church’s authority” and persists “with a pertinacious mind.” Therefore, when the Code elsewhere recognizes the possibility of “good faith” among those externally described as heretics (i.e., persons holding heretical error without proven obstinacy or full subjective culpability), it is not contradicting itself; it is reflecting the traditional distinction between the broader designation tied to objective error and the stricter notion tied to pertinacity and guilt.

Part V: The Sacraments of the Old Law and Circumcision

Q21: What did the Council of Florence teach about the sacraments of the Old Law? A: The sacraments of the Old Law (e.g., circumcision) did not confer grace directly but only signified the grace to be given through Christ’s Passion. As Florence states: “There are seven sacraments of the new Law… which differ greatly from the sacraments of the old Law. The latter were not causes of grace, but only prefigured the grace to be given through the passion of Christ; whereas the former, ours, both contain grace and bestow it on those who worthily receive them.” (Council of Florence, Decree for the Armenians, Session 8, 1439; DS 1310).

Q22: What did Pope Innocent III teach about circumcision and its relationship to baptism? A: In his letter Maiores Ecclesiae causas to the Archbishop of Arles (1201, included in the Decretals), Innocent III stated: “We respond that baptism has taken the place of circumcision… Although original sin was remitted by the mystery of circumcision, and the danger of damnation was avoided, nevertheless there was no arriving at the kingdom of heaven, which up to the death of Christ was barred to all… For God forbid that all children… would perish, but that also for these the merciful God who wishes no one to perish has procured some remedy unto salvation.” (Decretals of Gregory IX, Book 3, Title 42, Chapter 3; DS 780).

Q23: Does Innocent III’s teaching in the Decretal contradict Florence and thus prove that the Decretals are not infallible? A: No. Innocent III’s statement that circumcision “remitted original sin” refers to an indirect effect through the faith and devotion of the recipient or the Jewish people, not a direct conferral of grace ex opere operato (from the work performed). Florence clarifies that Old Law sacraments were merely prefigurative and not causative of grace, aligning with Innocent’s implication that any remission was via faith in performing the rite (e.g., of parents or the covenant community), not the rite itself. This indirect means via faith harmonizes the teachings: circumcision signified grace but did not directly bestow it, unlike New Law sacraments.

Part VI: Feeneyism

Q24: Who was Father Leonard Feeney, and what were his errors and history regarding the doctrine of baptism? A: Father Leonard Feeney (1897–1978) was an American Jesuit priest, poet, and theologian who gained notoriety in the mid-20th century for his rejection of baptism of desire and blood. Initially a respected figure in Catholic intellectual circles, associated with the St. Benedict Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Feeney began promoting in the 1940s a strict view that salvation requires not only explicit membership in the visible Catholic Church but also baptism by water exclusively, denying the Church’s traditional teachings on baptism of desire (baptismus in voto) and baptism of blood. He contended that these “substitutes” were liberal inventions that diluted the necessity of water baptism as per John 3:5 and Trent’s canons, leading him to assert that all unbaptized persons—including catechumens, martyrs for the faith—are damned, regardless of their faith or charity. This position contradicted authoritative sources like the Council of Trent (Session 6, Chapter 4), papal decretals (e.g., Innocent II and III), and the 1917 Code of Canon Law (Canon 737), which affirm baptism’s necessity “in re or at least in voto.” Feeney’s teachings sparked controversy, resulting in warnings from the Archdiocese of Boston in 1949 and his dismissal from the Jesuits. In 1953, he was excommunicated by the Holy Office for disobedience (refusing to appear in Rome), though his doctrinal errors were implicitly addressed in the Holy Office’s letter Suprema Haec Sacra (1949), which reaffirmed baptism of desire as long as supernatural faith was maintained. The Holy Office’s letter, approved by Pius XII, specifically indicated that supernatural Catholic faith in the true God was necessary for those who received baptism of desire:

“However, it should not be thought that any sort of desire to enter the Church is sufficient for salvation. The desire whereby a person adheres to the Church must be animated by perfect charity. Nor can such an implicit desire produce its effect if it is not animated by supernatural faith, for anyone who comes to God must believe that He exists and rewards those who seek Him. (Heb XI, 6). The Council of Trent declares (session VI. ch. VIII): Faith is the principle of man’s salvation, the foundation and the root of all justification. Without it, it is impossible to please God and to be counted among his children.” (Denz., 801)

This teaching in the protocol letter to Feeney reiterates what was taught long ago by Innocent XI in 1679, that the bare minimum for Catholic faith would be supernatural faith in the true God as Rewarder, due to an angel or inspiration preaching the same to the recipient of this faith:

“Only faith in one God seems necessary by a necessity of means, not, however, the explicit (faith) in a Rewarder.- CONDEMNED” Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Subjects

Obviously, it is impossible to believe in the true God as Rewarder, if you are believing the false gods of the heathen are good or true. Therefore, no one can have baptism of desire and remain pagan, but must instead have supernatural Catholic faith (even if many of the true dogmas are as yet unknown to him- the recipient of baptism of desire could not actively be rejecting them by clinging to his false pagan views).

Feeney joined the false Vatican II sect in 1972, without fully recanting his views or addressing how they reconciled with the false Vatican II robber-council, but his followers (“Feeneyites”) persist in denying baptism of desire. His errors stem from a misguided reading of dogmatic texts, ignoring the Church’s harmonious interpretation that allows extraordinary means of salvation without compromising the extra ecclesiam nulla salus dogma’s rigor. This has led to schism and confusion.

Q25: Do these teachings on baptism of desire contradict the Council of Trent’s canons on baptism? A: No. Feeneyites argue that baptism of desire contradicts the Council of Trent’s declaration on the necessity of baptism for salvation (Session 7, Canon 5), insisting that only the reception in act of “true and natural water” suffices (Session 7, Canon 2). However, Trent itself states in Session 6, Chapter 4, that justification requires “the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof.” In other words baptism and the real and natural water can be necessary through desire, i.e. being the objects of the desire. No one denies that baptism is necessary, but the true Catholic position articulates different ways in which it is necessary (including necessity in desire). Papal teachings in the Decretals and the 1917 Code of Canon Law provide authoritative interpretations of Trent, demonstrating no genuine contradiction. Instead, baptism of desire fulfills this necessity in an extraordinary manner when water baptism is impossible, as the soul ardently desires what the Church intends.

To elaborate on Trent’s distinction: The Council carefully delineates between the ordinary means (baptism by water, necessary in re for those able to receive it) and the extraordinary means (baptism in voto, which suffices when water baptism is unattainable due to impediments). This is clear from Trent’s phrasing, “or the desire thereof” (aut eius voto) in Session 6. Trent in no way denies baptism’s indispensability for salvation; rather, it distinguishes the modes of this necessity—through actual sacramental reception, or through desire for that reception (in which case both the baptism and the real and natural water remain necessary through desire, i.e. being the objects of the desire). This twofold approach averts any real contradiction, as the desire implicitly encompasses the will for water baptism and aligns fully with John 3:5’s mandate. Indeed, John 3:5 neither excludes the possibility of being “born of water” through desire nor specifies a meaning that confines it solely to the Feeneyite heretical interpretation.

Q26: What does Apostle Saint Paul teach in his First Epistle to the Corinthians that supports the sufficiency of baptism of desire? A: In 1 Corinthians 1:17, St. Paul the Apostle states: “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” This emphasizes that the Apostle’s primary mission was to proclaim the Gospel, which engenders faith and charity in the hearer, rather than to administer the sacrament of baptism itself. The Apostle’s emphasis throughout his epistles, including Romans, is mostly on faith and less on baptism. While baptism by water is the ordinary means of regeneration, the Apostle’s words in his epistles implicitly point to the sufficiency of desire (votum) for that water for many, as the faith aroused by preaching can justify the soul even when water baptism is not immediately possible. This aligns with the Church’s teaching on baptism of desire, where an implicit or explicit wish for the sacrament, united with perfect charity, supplies for the rite. Feeneyites might claim this diminishes baptism’s necessity, but it actually highlights the priority of faith (from the Gospel) as the root of salvation, with baptism as its sacramental fulfillment—extraordinarily supplied by desire when circumstances prevent the ordinary form. As the Catechism of the Council of Trent explains, drawing from patristic sources, the desire for baptism, kindled by faith, can effect what the sacrament effects, without contradicting the necessity taught in John 3:5.

Part VII: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and Its Harmony with Baptism of Desire and Blood

Q27: Does accepting baptism of desire and blood mean denying that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church? A: No. The doctrine of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (no salvation outside the Church) is a defined dogma, but baptism of desire and blood do not contradict it. Rather, they incorporate the soul into the Church extraordinarily. Those who receive baptism of desire or blood are not “outside” the Church; their implicit or explicit desire for baptism, united with faith and charity, unites them to the visible Church. One must still hold to Catholic Faith. Therefore, baptism pertaining to blood and desire would normally apply to catechumens, unless God by grace drove a pagan away from his false religion and into a rejection of all its errors via an angel or interior inspiration. One cannot receive baptism of desire and remain a pagan.

Q28: What does the Council of Florence teach about no salvation outside the Church? A: The Council of Florence infallibly declares: “It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Mt 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, Bull of Union with the Jacobites, Session 6, 1442; DS 1351).

Q29: How does Florence condemn those with opposing views, showing that all holding different religions are outside the Church? A: Florence explicitly states: “Therefore it condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares to be outside the body of Christ, which is the church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views.” (Council of Florence, Bull of Union with the Copts, Session 11, 1442). This anathema applies to doctrines contrary to the Catholic Faith, including those of other religions. All who adhere to false religions—pagans, Jews, heretics, schismatics—are condemned and outside the Church, as they reject the true Faith. The doctrine on baptism (including as pertains to desire and blood) does not touch on this issue of the necessity of holding Catholic Faith for salvation, which is a separate matter concerning membership.

Q30: Has the Catholic Church definitively taught no salvation outside the Church and Faith? A: Yes, the Catholic Church prior to the false Vatican II Council, as well as under the presently reigning Pontiff Boniface X (not Leo XIV, an imposter), definitively teaches that there is absolutely no salvation outside of the Catholic Church and Faith. This dogma, repeated in councils like Florence and Trent, papal encyclicals (e.g., Unam Sanctam by Boniface VIII, 1302), and catechisms, admits no exceptions for those who remain outside. Baptism of desire and blood, however, operate within this framework by bringing souls into the Church’s unity through God’s mercy, without diluting the dogma.

Q31: Is the doctrine that pagans, heretics, and Jews might be saved in their false religions compatible with extra ecclesiam nulla salus? A: No, this doctrine is heretical and must be condemned, as it directly contradicts the infallible teaching that false religions cannot save and that all must be united to the Catholic Faith for salvation.

“The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authentic Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodoret, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. ‘No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic‘ (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).” (Pope Leo XIII, Encylical Satis Cognitum, #9, 1896).

Heretical sedevacantists who deny the true papacy of Boniface X, such as Bishop Donald Sanborn and the late Father Anthony Cekada affirm a false version of baptism of desire that effectively allows pagans, heretics, and Jews to be saved as such, through invincible ignorance. For example, Sanborn writes in his Anti-Feeneyite Catechism: “However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.” (The Anti-Feeneyite Catechism, Most Holy Trinity Seminary). No mention is made here of the dogma regarding the necessity to hold the Catholic Faith for salvation. He further states in The New Ecclesiology: An Overview: “Privately, however, they may be not guilty of these sins, owing to invincible ignorance of the true Faith, in which case they may belong to the Catholic Church by desire, provided they fulfill other conditions. In these cases, their adherence to the Roman Catholic Church by desire is sufficient for salvation.” (The New Ecclesiology: An Overview). Again, no mention that holding the Catholic Faith and rejecting their false religion is necessary for salvation. Similarly, Cekada asserts: “Even in such a scenario, of course, God does not use the false religion — in itself a means of damnation — as a means of salvation, He merely tolerates the false religion’s illicit use of a Catholic sacrament. This makes any involvement of the false religion accidental at best.” (Intro to Sedevacantism II: Vatican II on False Religions as Means of Salvation). Similarly, the heretic Archbishop Lefebvre of the schismatic and heretical Society of Saint Pius X taught: “The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.” (Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Chapter 10: Ecumenism, 1986). With statements like these, what was the point in resisting the Vatican II apostasy!?

These teachings, by extending baptism of desire to those invincibly ignorant and still within false religions, implicitly affirm that pagans can be saved as pagans, without faith in the true God, and repudiation of their false religions. This contradicts the Council of Florence, which declares that pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics “cannot become participants in eternal life… unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock,” requiring actual incorporation, not merely implicit desire amid error. Florence explicitly states: “Therefore it [the Catholic Church] condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares to be outside the body of Christ, which is the church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views.” (Council of Florence, Bull of Union with the Copts, Session 11, 1442). Holding the same faith is required to be a member of the Church, as stated here and elsewhere such as the reference from Pope Leo XIII above. Invincible ignorance excuses culpability but does not supply the necessary faith or remove the objective damnation through adherence to false religions; to claim otherwise dilutes the dogma, allowing salvation outside the visible Faith, which is impossible.

Part VIII: Refutation of Various Feeneyite Proof Texts

Q32: Doesn’t Pope Pius XII teach that one must receive the sacrament of baptism through the actual rite and not desire, when he says “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” (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis #22, 1943). A: No, the original authoritative Latin for “baptism” in this passage of Mystici Corporis is “laver of regeneration”. This can refer to the spiritual washing that corresponds and proceeds along with the real and true water of baptism when it is desired. Therefore, this does not contradict the doctrine of baptism of blood and baptism of desire.

Q33: Doesn’t teaching that one does not always have to undergo the ritual of baptism in reality, and can have baptism merely as the object of desire twist into a metaphor the words of Our Lord “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven”, in contravention of Canon II, Session VII, Council of Trent? “Can. 2. If anyone shall say that real [true] 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.‘” A: No, because a metaphor is comparing one thing to being as another thing. Thus, if one were to say baptizing with oil is like baptizing in water, such that the oil is as or like unto the water, and baptizing with oil is also acceptable, it twists the words of Christ into a metaphor regarding baptism with true and natural water. However, to say that one must desire the real and natural water as an object (at least implicitly), is not twisting the need to be born of water into a metaphor, since real and true water is still necessary for salvation as an object of desire.

Further, being “born of water” is not a literal expression of itself, since no one is actually born from the water literally. Instead, it refers to spiritual rebirth in relation to true and natural water in some way. The two possible ways are through the ritual or through desire for it (and its true and natural water).

The doctrine of baptism of desire does not deny that real water is necessary for the sacrament’s validity or that it must be sought; it holds that when a person cannot receive the sacrament, God can grant the grace associated with baptism through an explicit or implicit desire (votum) for baptism together with repentance and charity. This is not a metaphorical reinterpretation of “water,” because it does not replace water with some other “meaning” such as oil. Water is still the required object of desire.

Further, the Council of Trent in Session VI, ch. IV states that the “translation” into grace “cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof,” and then cites John 3:5. Therefore, interpreting John 3:5 in a way that allows “in voto” is not contrary to Trent; it is explicitly contained within Trent’s own teaching.

Q34: Pope St. Siricius says the saving font must not be denied to “those desiring it,” lest they “lose the Kingdom and life.” Does this exclude baptism of desire (baptismus in voto)?A: No. The argument in question rests on a misunderstanding of Pope St. Siricius’ first letter (often cited as Epistola I) addressed to Himerius, Bishop of Tarragona in Spain, written in February of 385. The relevant passage is not a dogmatic definition intended to exhaust every manner in which God may bestow grace, but rather a pastoral and disciplinary directive governing the conduct of ministers: it concerns the grave sin of delaying or refusing water baptism when it can and ought to be administered, especially in cases of urgent necessity. It therefore does not follow from Siricius’ admonition that God can never supply the grace of baptism when the sacrament is truly impossible to receive.

The relevant text is:

LATIN: “Sicut sacram ergo paschalem reverentiam in nullo dicimus esse minuendam, ita infantibus qui necdum loqui poterunt per aetatem vel his, quibus in qualibet necessitate opus fuerit sacra unda baptismatis, omni volumus celeritate succurri, ne ad nostrarum perniciem tendat animarum, si negato desiderantibus fonte salutari exiens unusquisque de saeculo et regnum perdat et vitam.

“Therefore just as we say that the holy paschal observance is in no way to be diminished, we also say that to infants who will not yet be able to speak on account of their age or to those who in any necessity will need the holy stream of baptism, we wish succor to be brought with all celerity, lest it should tend to the perdition of our souls if the saving font be denied to those desiring it and every single one of them exiting this world lose both the Kingdom and life.”

Notice the phrasing. “Lest it should tend” does not have to imply certainty, it might only imply possibility or probability. Therefore, it does not completely exclude baptism of desire.

In its broader context, the letter is aimed at correcting abuses and irregularities regarding the customary celebration of baptism. Siricius recalls the Church’s solemn times—especially Pascha, and also Pentecost—as the ordinary seasons in which baptism was most fittingly administered. Yet he immediately insists that necessity supersedes such ordinary arrangements, particularly with respect to infants and those in danger, who must be aided without delay and with pastoral urgency.

Thus, after acknowledging the special place of Pascha and Pentecost, Siricius commands prompt action for those in necessity and warns against culpably refusing the sacrament to those who request it. He writes: “…si negato desiderantibus fonte salutari… regnum perdat et vitam,” that is, “if the saving font is denied to those desiring it, [one] may lose the kingdom and life.” He then underscores his meaning by enumerating concrete emergencies—shipwreck, hostile attack, siege, bodily illness or desperate peril—and he orders that such persons receive “the prizes of the sought regeneration” at the very moment they ask, rather than being put off for ceremonial times.

Siricius is therefore contemplating the scenario in which the sacrament is actually available through the Church’s ministers, but might be withheld or delayed on account of custom, convenience, or misplaced rigor—for instance, by insisting that baptism must wait until a feast. His warning is directed precisely against that pastoral failure: ministers must not refuse or postpone water baptism for those who are asking for it, especially when danger is present. This discipline is entirely compatible with the traditional doctrine that, when baptism truly cannot be received, God may justify a soul by extraordinary means—such as baptism in voto—because Siricius is not attempting to define the limits of divine action in cases of impossibility. Rather, he is commanding clergy not to presume upon extraordinary divine assistance as a pretext for avoidable refusal or negligent delay.

Accordingly, the teaching of Siricius is best understood as a strict rule of clerical duty and pastoral urgency: water baptism must not be denied or deferred for those who request it in necessity, even outside the customary solemn seasons, because culpable refusal endangers souls and gravely implicates the minister. It is not a doctrinal definition that excludes God’s extraordinary supply of grace when the sacrament cannot be obtained.

Q35: Pope St. Leo the Great calls baptism “the only safeguard of true salvation” and urges that it never be refused to those in peril (siege, persecution, shipwreck). Does this exclude baptism of desire or blood?
A: No. The relevant text is:

Letter 16, Oct. 21, 447, #6: “In a case of necessity any time is allowable for baptism. Wherefore, as it is quite clear that these two seasons [Easter and Pentecost] of which we have been speaking are the rightful ones for baptizing the elect in Church, we admonish you, beloved, not to associate other days with this observance. Because, although there are other feasts also to which much reverence is due in God’s honor, nevertheless a rational and mystical exception must be observed by us for this principal and greatest sacrament: not, however, prohibiting the license to succor those who are in danger by administering Baptism to them at any time. For while we put off the vows of those who are not pressed by ill health and live in peaceful security to those two closely connected and cognate feasts, let us not at any time refuse this which is the only safeguard of true salvation to anyone in peril of death, in the crisis of a siege, in the distress of persecution, in the terror of shipwreck.”

Pope St. Leo the Great is addressing the same practical and disciplinary question treated by Pope St. Siricius, namely the relation between the Church’s ordinary, solemn times for administering baptism—especially to catechumens, commonly associated with Pascha and Pentecost—and the obligation to confer baptism immediately in cases of grave necessity. His teaching is directed to ministers of the Church and concerns the pastoral duty of prompt administration: when danger is present, baptism is not to be refused or delayed on account of customary times or external circumstances. It is called a “safeguard” to administer the sacrament rather than rely on desire, but this does not deny that salvation through holding it as the object of desire remains an uncertain possibility. This is a rule governing ecclesiastical practice and the care of souls; it is not framed as a speculative or dogmatic exclusion of every extraordinary manner in which God may bestow sanctifying grace when the sacrament cannot be received.

Accordingly, Leo’s description of baptism as the “only safeguard” of true salvation is entirely compatible with the doctrine of baptism in voto. Baptism remains the one necessary saving sacrament in the economy established by Christ, ordinarily received in re through the external washing with true water and the prescribed form. Yet, when the sacrament is truly impossible to obtain, the Church has always recognized—explicitly articulated later by the Council of Trent—that God can justify a soul through an authentic desire for baptism united to supernatural faith and charity. Leo’s emphasis, therefore, is to prevent ministers from treating baptism as optional, postponable, or dispensable when it is available and urgently needed; he is not issuing a definition that would foreclose God’s extraordinary operation in cases where the sacrament cannot be obtained by any human means.

Q36: Pope St. Leo the Great declared in his Dogmatic Epistle to Flavian that the Spirit, Water, and Blood are one and none are separable from the others. Does this exclude baptism of desire or blood?

A: The relevant text is

Pope St. Leo the Great: “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 remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others.”(Dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451)

Leo’s statement does not specify in what sense the three are “one” and “indivisible.” For example, the unity does not appear to be a unity of physical identity (i.e. the blood and water are not the same physical substance), nor a requirement that Spirit, water, and blood be present together in the same time and place. The Blood of Christ shed on the Cross is not co-located with the baptismal water applied to an individual centuries later, yet Leo still calls them “one” and “indivisible.”

So what kind of unity is Leo affirming here: a unity of causal order, sacramental signification, or inseparable linkage in the economy of salvation (i.e., the way God ordinarily sanctifies and redeems)?

If Leo’s point is that sanctification (Spirit), redemption (Blood), and baptismal incorporation (water) belong to one unified divine work, then it seems possible that in extraordinary cases a person could be joined to that one work without receiving the external rite—e.g., through an explicit desire for baptism (baptism of desire) or through martyrdom for Christ (baptism of blood). In that reading, “none is separable from its link with the others” would mean not that the external sign must always be present, but that the realities signified (Spirit and Blood) are not severed from God’s saving action that baptism ordinarily signifies and effects.

Thus, it is clear this statement does not exclude baptism of desire or blood.

Q37: Does Pope Pius IX’s statement in Quas Primas (# 15), Dec. 11, 1925 : “Indeed this kingdom is presented in the Gospels as such, into which men prepare to enter by doing penance; moreover, they cannot enter it except through faith and baptism, which, although an external rite, yet signifies and effects an interior regeneration“ disprove baptism of desire or blood?

A: No, one can enter the Catholic Church through the rite of baptism in those cases where it cannot be received the normal way, via making it an object of the desire, as discussed above.

Q38: Does Pope Eugene IV’s statement in The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water” disprove baptism of desire or blood?

A: No, it does not refute baptism of desire and can be reconciled with the doctrine. One enters the gateway by making baptism the object of the desire, as stated above. Through holy baptism we are made members of Christ and the body of the Church, no one denies this, whether by receiving the sacrament or holding it as the object of the desire. Finally, being born of water does not have to mean one has had physical contact with that water.

Part IX: Particulars Regarding the Baptism of Infants

Q39: Are infants regenerated in baptism?

A: Yes infants that are validly baptized in the Catholic Church receive sanctification, justification, and entrance into the Church. “Those, moreover, who pretending a kind of piety condemn the sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord, the baptism of children, the sacred ministry and other ecclesiastical orders, and the bond, of legitimate marriages, we drive as heretics from the Church of God, and we both condemn and we command them to be restrained by exterior powers. We bind their defenders also by the chain of this same condemnation.” II Lateran Council, 1139, Innocent II.

“But the souls of children after the cleansing of baptism, and of adults also who depart in charity and who are bound neither by sin nor unto any satisfaction for sin itself, at once pass quickly to their eternal fatherland.” Innocent IV to the Bishop of Tusculum 1254.

“… or if he denies that that merit of Jesus Christ is applied to adults as well as to infants by the sacrament of baptism, rightly administered in the form of the Church: let him be anathema.” Paul IV, Council of Trent 1546.

“Therefore, just as we say that the sacred reverence of Easter must in no way be diminished, so we will that the saving waters of baptism be brought with all speed to infants who are not yet able to speak because of their age, and likewise to those who in any necessity may require it—lest it turn to the ruin of our souls if, when the saving font is denied to those who desire it, each one departing from this world should lose both the kingdom and life.” Pope Siricius to Bishop Himerius, February 11, 385.

Q40: Do infants count as members of the Catholic Church if they were baptized in, and are being raised within, a schismatic sect?

A: No, infants adhering by their sponsors and parents to, and baptized in, heretical and schismatic sects do not become members of the Church unless they are received into the Church. Gregory XIII approved all of Gratian’s Decretum to be observed by the Church in “Cum Pro Munere”. One canon declares “Baptism can be received outside the Church, but it does not profit”. Further, in Mystici Corporis, Pius XII declared that those divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of the body.

The Roman Catechism and Roman Ritual teach without error (the discipline of the Church cannot promote what is erroneous or harmful- see above) that it is the profession and faith of the parents or sponsors, and Catholic society of the saints, that establish the profession and faith of the infant that participates in that society (see Roman Catechism- Section “Infants Receive the Graces of Baptism”, and the 1925 and 1952 Roman Rituals regarding the supplying of ceremonies for a previous infant baptism administered by schismatics). In the baptismal rite for infants, the Catholic sponsors are required to profess the faith using the infant’s name as the one professing instead of their own name, as the formal beginning of that profession on behalf of the infant.

Validly baptized infants in schismatic sects that follow along with their schismatic sponsors (whether parents or others), and are considered by the governments of those false sects to be their members because of the active participation in worship, are thus divided in government. Through the active participation and false profession of their parents and sponsors they have fallen outside the Church.

This is why infants validly baptized by non-Catholics in schismatic and heretical sects, when they finally convert to the Catholic Church, are required by the Roman Ritual to make a profession of faith, through their sponsors, through the supplying of baptismal rites (absent the baptism itself) when they enter the Church. The Roman Ritual requires that the infant baptismal rites, with a profession of faith, be performed for a newly received infant by its sponsors, if it was previously validly baptized by heretics or schismatics, without repeating that already administered baptism. If the infant was already found to make an adequate profession of faith through its false sect, this part of the ritual of supplying the rites, including a recital of the creed in the infant’s name, would not be necessary.

Further, Leo XIII and Pius XI condemn the idea that the Church can be scattered into membership and allegiance to different sects. “It were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad” (Pius XI, Mortalium Animos #10); “scattered and separated members cannot possibly cohere with the head so as to make one body” (Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum #9). Further, Pius XII declared that only those may be counted as members of the Church who “profess the true faith”. It is ridiculous to assert that infants participating with their sponsors in false sects are actually professing the true faith in their external actions.

Indeed, that men baptized as infants among heretics must be received by the imposition of hands is also teaching of the early Church as taught by Pope Leo the Great and Pope Gregory the Great.

“But if it is established that a man [in infancy from the period he cannot remember] has been baptized by heretics, on him the mystery of regeneration must in no way be repeated, but only that conferred which was lacking there [Latin: ibi], so that he may obtain the power [or virtue] of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the Bishop’s hands.” -Leo I, Letter 166

“For they who have received baptism from heretics, not having been previously baptized, are to be confirmed by imposition of hands with only the invocation of the Holy Ghost, because they have received the bare form of baptism without the power of sanctification. And this regulation, as you know, we require to be kept in all the churches, that the font once entered may not be defiled by repetition, as the Lord says, One Lord, one faith, one baptism. And that washing may not be polluted by repetition, but, as we have said, only the sanctification of the Holy Ghost invoked, that what no one can receive from heretics may be obtained from Catholic priests. -Leo I, Letter 159

“Question 18-Concerning those who have come from Africa or Mauretania and know not in what sect they were baptized, what ought to be done in their case ? Reply. These persons are not doubtful of their baptism, but profess ignorance as to the faith of those who baptized them: and hence since they have received the form of baptism in some way or other, they are not to be baptized but are to be united to the Catholics by the imposition of hands, after the invocation of the Holy Spirit’s power, which they could not receive from heretics.” -Leo I, Letter 167

“And indeed we have learned from the ancient institution of the Fathers that whosoever among heretics are baptized in the name of the Trinity, when they return to holy Church, may be recalled to the bosom of mother Church either by the unction of chrism [which is in the supplied rites of the Roman Ritual even today for infants already baptized], or by imposition of hands, or by profession of the faith only. Hence the West reconciles Arians to the holy Catholic Church by imposition of hands, but the East by the unction of holy chrism. But Monophysites and others are received by a true confession only, because holy baptism, which they have received among heretics, then acquires in them the power of cleansing, when either the former receive the Holy Spirit by the imposition of hands, or the latter are united to the bowels of the holy and universal Church by reason of their confession of the true faith.” -Gregory I, Book XI, Letter 67

Further, Pope Leo XIII in his letter to the Bishop of Poitiers Eximia nos lætitia, July 19, 1893 wrote “baptism is fruitful for these [schismatic children], provided that at the age of discretion they do not adhere to the schism”. Thus the baptism is only fruitful for them PROVIDED THAT they are not adhering to the schism at the age of discretion. This implies that it is not fruitful before that time.

Further, the First Council of Constantinople 382: “ Canon 7: Those who embrace orthodoxy and join the number of those who are being saved from the heretics, we receive in the following regular and customary manner: Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, those who call themselves Cathars and Aristae, Quartodeciman or Tetradites, Apollinarians—these WE RECEIVE when they hand in statements and anathematise every heresy which is not of the same mind as the holy, Catholic and apostolic Church of God. They are first sealed or anointed with holy chrism on the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears. As we seal them, we say: ‘Seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit’. But Eunomians, who are baptised in a single immersion, Montanists (called Phrygians here), Sabellians, who teach the identity of Father and Son and make certain other difficulties, and all other sects—since there are many here, not least those who originate in the country of the Galatians—we receive all who wish to leave them and embrace orthodoxy as we do Greeks. On the first day we make Christians of them, on the second catechumens, on the third we exorcise them by breathing three times into their faces and their ears, and thus we catechise them and make them spend time in the church and listen to the scriptures; and then we baptise them.”

Q41: What about the Canon of the Council of Trent that states “CANON VI.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify; or, that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto; as though they were merely outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession, whereby believers are distinguished amongst men from unbelievers; let him be anathema.”

A: By their parents professing a different religion, the infants have placed an obstacle thereto without realizing it, just like when infants’ Catholic sponsors make a profession for them in the Roman Ritual, the infants also profess it without realizing it. In schismatic and heretical sects, the parents act on behalf of the infant and establish the obstacle of the infant, just as in the Catholic Church and Roman Ritual the parents and other saints and sponsors establish the faith and profession of the infant. Similarly, if an adult professes a different faith immediately before or during his baptism, this places an obstacle to baptismal grace.

Q42: What about the Canon of the Council of Trent that states “CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that little children, for that they have not actual faith, are not, after having received baptism, to be reckoned amongst the faithful; and that, for this cause, they are to be rebaptized when they have attained to years of discretion; or, that it is better that the baptism of such be omitted, than that, while not believing by their own act, they should be baptized in the faith alone of the Church; let him be anathema.”

A: The first part of the canon “if anyone saith, that little children, for that they have not actual faith, are not, after having received baptism, to be reckoned amongst the faithful” alone is not what is condemned, but the canonical condemnation must be taken in its entirety to include the second part, due to the conjunctive “and”, which is the predicate and conclusory part that is ultimately condemned. One should not assume that each part is separately condemned alone, when only the entirety is declared condemned, especially the predicate. The predicate that they must be rebaptized as adults is indeed heretical and false- there is no cause to say they must be rebaptized as adults. This canon is a condemnation of the anabaptist heretics.

Q43: What about this canon: “Pope Innocent IV, Council of Lyons I, March 6, 1254: ‘Moreover, if anyone without repentance dies in mortal sin, without a doubt he is tortured forever by the flames of eternal hell. – But the souls of children after the cleansing of baptism, and of adults also who depart in charity and who are bound neither by sin nor unto any satisfaction for sin, at once pass quickly to their eternal fatherland.’” (Denz. 457)

A: Infants in heretical and schismatic sects do not have the cleansing of baptism, only the valid rite without the cleansing, since an obstacle was placed as already discussed above (through the sponsors- the false heretical profession and adherence to the false government).

Q44: What about Pope Leo XIII, Nobilissima (# 3), Feb. 8, 1884: “The Church, guardian of the integrity of the Faith – which, in virtue of its authority, deputed from God its Founder, has to call all nations to the knowledge of Christian lore, and which is consequently bound to watch keenly over the teaching and upbringing of the children placed under its authority by baptism…”

A: This statement does not teach that baptism necessarily places them in the Catholic Church or in communion with the Pope. Valid baptism where an obstacle to grace was placed through a false profession, whether as an infant (through its sponsors) or adult, does not place the one under a unity of government, even though the Church exercises authority over even heretics and schismatics and does what it can to bring them into the truth.