Dear Michael:

I can see your confusion with what "appears" to be contradictions, but in fact there are no contradictions. I will try to explain the overall issues, and give some specific analysis of why the three Catechisms do not, in fact, contradict each other.

1) Development of Dogma: The dogma of Baptism has not changed, and cannot change -- no Council or Pope can change dogma. The Magisterium, however, is charged by God Himself to be the official guardian of dogma, and its interpreter and teacher. In this task, while the dogma does not change, our understanding of it can change. That is, we can develop a more mature understanding of what God is teaching in the dogma. We can discover deeper levels of understanding of dogma.

The development of dogma in the Catholic sense is not that which is understood by liberals and Modernist.  They assume, as Dr. Ott states about them that they believe in a "substantial development of dogmas, so that the content of dogma changes radically in the course of time." Such an idea is utterly wrong.

Rather the development of dogma in the Catholic sense is properly expressed by Pope St. Gregory the Great when he said:

"With the progress of the times the knowledge of the spiritual Fathers increased; for, in the Science of God, Moses was more instructed than Abraham, the Prophets more than Moses, the Apostles more than the Prophets" (in Ezechielem lib. 2, horn. 4, 12).

Catholic Answers has an interesting article on the question, Can Dogma Develop? that may be useful also in understanding this issue.

Many "Traditionalists" of today have a very hard time understanding this point. As a result they frequently misinterpret the teachings of the Church today and the teachings of the Church in yesteryear. In addition they have made an art form out of confusing form for substance.... but that is another topic.

2) God is not bound by His Sacraments: If we claim to perform Mozart, then we must stick to his score. Mozart himself, however, being the creator of his own score, is not bound by the score he has written, but can go beyond it; the work remains Mozart. This does not invalidate the notion that if one wishes to perform Mozart they need to follow the score as written since they are not Mozart and to go beyond his score would make the music not Mozart's but an adaptation of the performer. That same is with God.

God is the creator and composer of the Sacraments. We must follow the Sacraments as created. God, on the other hand, is not bound by those Sacraments and can go beyond them and yet still be God's will and economy. The Church, in her teaching, attempts to explain this and gives three examples where God has gone beyond the Sacraments: 1) baptism of Blood; 2) baptism of Desire; 3) fate of unbaptized babies.

In your post, by the way, the quotes you give refer to the Sacrament of Baptism, not to the "baptism of blood" or "baptism of desire." The dogma does not include a "baptism" of blood or desire, rather it declares that one must be Sacramentally Baptized with water and with the Trinitarian formula to be saved.

The fact that it is possible to obtain salvation through a baptism of blood or desire, both which are extra-Sacramental, shows that it is possible to receive salvation without being Baptized even though the dogma and Scripture says that Sacramental baptism is necessary.

The Bible itself has examples of those who are saved without baptism: 1) the good thief on the cross; 2) all the Old Testament Saints.

Since God is not bound by the Sacraments, he can choose whom He pleases to save. He has chosen to save not only those who undergo Sacramental Baptism according to the dogma, but also those who are martyred for the faith and also those with faith who desired to be baptized if they were able.

We all know what martyrdom is, but knowledge of the definition of "baptism of desire" is a little fuzzy (and I think that is the crux of your confusion). I will get to that in a moment.

3) Doctrine of Invincible Ignorance: You stated that all were accountable to the Dogma of Sacramental Baptism whether or not they have had it proclaimed to them (i.e. Buddhist, Hindus, etc). This is not what the Church teaches. An examination of the Doctrine of Mortal Sin reveals this.

The Church teaches that those who die in mortal sin will go to hell. Refusal to accept Jesus Christ and be Baptized when one knows that they must do so is a mortal sin. But, we must remember what constitutes mortal sin.

Mortal sin is NOT mortal unless:

1) the sin is grave matter;
2) the person knows the sin is grave matter;
3) the person must deliberately consent to the sin.

If any one of these three factors are missing, then while the sin may be objectively grave, it is not mortal.

This infallible doctrine on mortal sin is the theological and ontological justification for the Church saying in Lumen Gentium 16:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience -- those too may achieve eternal salvation.

This statement is not just a passing statement, but a dogmatic one. Lumen Gentium is the "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church" and is binding on all Catholics.

Thus even if a person commits a grave sin, like failing to be Baptized, it will not be counted to him as "mortal" if "...through no fault of his own, he does not know..."

Of course, this must be a true "invincible ignorance" and not a feigned ignorance or hardness of heart which actually increase culpability. The Church goes on to state in the Catechism:

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

This theological and ontological reality provides for the possibility of an extraordinary way of salvation. It is extraordinary, however, not ordinary, and it applies ONLY to those with invincible ignorance.

To those of us without invincible ignorance, the Sacrament of Baptism is required. If we fail in that, we go to hell. Babies obviously are in invincible ignorance.

Bottomline: God is just, but He is also merciful. He will not allow his children to go to hell merely because they are ignorant of His Son, His Church and her Sacraments. Those who go to hell are those who die in mortal sin, those who know the Truth and have yet have chosen to deliberately reject God, and those who to fail seek God as best as they know how and fail to live by the dictates of the basic principles of moral law that have been written on the hearts of every human being. Those in invincible ignorance have a chance that only God can judge.

4) Only the Pope and Magisterium has the right to Interpret: We must remember that the charism of definitively interpreting and teaching the Faith belongs solely to the Pope and the Magisterium in union with him. We, you and me, have no mandate from the Holy Spirit, no competence, and no right to attempt to interpret Scripture or Church documents contrary to the official Magisterial interpretation and teaching.

5) Incomplete Quotes out of Context: One reason why you may be confused is that the quotes you give from the Baltimore Catechism are not complete. We need to evaluate the teachings in that Catechism in their fuller context in order to be able to discern what they mean. When we do that we find that the Baltimore Catechism "appears" to change the teaching on Baptism from that of Trent.

The fuller text from the Baltimore Catechism #3, which was written 1880's, for Question 632 is:

A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, CANNOT enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.

The Catechism of Trent says unbaptized babies are "are born to eternal misery and destruction." Which is it? Are babies who die without baptism born into "misery and destruction" or are they "free from suffering"?

The complete context of the current Catechism is:

VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Reading the full text of the teaching of the Church in the current Catechism makes it clear that baptism is necessary, but that we cannot put God in a box -- He is not limited to the Sacrament in the granting of His grace.

6) Understanding the rhetoric of the 16th Century: In terms of understanding the language of Trent, we must understand the typical rhetoric used in the 16th Century. The Church was battling the Protestant heresies and rebellion. This was a major battle with souls being lost, people even being killed on both sides. The Faith of our Fathers was under extreme attack. It was a time of war.

With all this going on the Council of Trent used harsh and deliberate rhetoric like that of a father putting his foot down and laying down the law in the midst of his children fighting each other. The Council Fathers, in this manner, made very deliberate statements. We must not confuse strong paternal language for infallible teaching.

The Traditionalist cannot seem to understand this. Thus they constantly misinterpret Church traditions and teaching to make them conform to their opinions of how things should be. As a result they confuse form or substance and declare things to be infallible teaching that are not even eligible for infallibility status. But that is another topic.

7) Development of Understanding: The statement made in the Catechism of Trent is correct in as far as it goes; it is just not the whole story.

The Baltimore Catechism contributes a little more understanding to the fullness of the Dogma of Baptism. The Council of Trent did not mention this fuller understanding either because their understanding had not yet developed to that point, or they decided to not muddy the waters with things the Protestants might misinterpret and use against the Church.

In any event, the Baltimore Catechism 300 years after Trent explains this dogma of Baptism in greater detail and fuller understanding. The dogma has not changed, it is just being explained more fully. The answer to Question #154 of the Baltimore Catechism #4 explains:

Those who through no fault of theirs die without Baptism, though they have never committed sin, cannot enter Heaven -- neither will they go to Hell. . . . God in His goodness will provide a place of rest for them, where they will not suffer and will be in a state of natural peace; but they will never see God or Heaven.

Trent establishes the basic truth that Baptism is required for salvation. The Baltimore Catechism develops a further understanding that salvation from hell is possible for those not innocent persons who are not baptized. This development of understanding is consistent with and is demanded by the theology of invincible ignorance and personal accountability.

The current Catechism brings the understand of the Dogma of Baptism to its fullest understanding:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience -- those too may achieve eternal salvation.

This development of understanding is also consistent with and is demanded by the theology of invincible ignorance and personal accountability, which is a doctrine demanded by the Doctrine of God's Mercy.

8) Understanding the terms "Heaven", "Salvation" and "Baptism of Desire": We need to understand these terms in the way the Church is using them and not in the way that we might personally understand the terms.

When Catechisms of Trent and Baltimore use the term "Heaven" it is referring to the beatific vision. Unbaptized babies will not see the beatific vision. In that sense, they will not see Heaven. But, as the Baltimore Catechism states, they will not go to hell. God will provide a place for them.

The current Catechism just leaves this issue to the mercy of God, since frankly, we do not really know for sure what happens to unbaptized babies:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

The term "Salvation" as used by the current Catechism is referring to Salvation from Hell. Unbaptized babies and perhaps others who are saved (from hell) without baptism may not see the beatific vision, but they are saved from hell.

The term "Baptism of Desire" is not restricted to those people who are intending to be baptized by die before they had the chance. This desire may also extend to the invincibly ignorance. The Church defines this in the Catechism:

1260b Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

9) This is the Infallible teaching of the Church and we Must Believe: I have tried to explain the Church teaching but the bottomline is that what is written in the current Catechism gives us the infallible teaching on Baptism.

If we obstinately doubt this teaching, or deny this teaching, then we are in heresy and thereby automatically excommunicated.

If is fine that you had doubts, but if you obstinately doubt then you risk your soul.

10) Trust Not to your Own Understanding (Prov 3:5): We need to trust the Lord and not our own understanding, insight, or intelligence. The Lord speaks through His Church thus trusting the Lord is trusting the Church Magisterium when it officially teaches. To doubt or deny the official teaching is to distrust God and to puff oneself up with Pride of one's own intellect.

When I converted to the Catholic Church, I had a problem with the Marian Doctrines. I did not believe them even though I believed all the other teachings of the Church. I was in a dilemma.

I solved it by submitting my ego and intellect to the Church. You might want to read this story called: Obedience: the First and Foundational Virtue.

 

I hope all this has helped. One thing is for sure: Until you reconcile yourself with the teaching of the Church on this issue of Baptism, you MUST NOT receive the Eucharist. To receive Communion is to say that you are "in communion" with the Church. If you doubt this teaching on the Baptism then you are not in communion with the Church. Thus, please do not receive the Eucharist until this issue is resolved. If you do, you will be committing one of the worse sins possible -- sacrilege against the Eucharist.

We will be praying for you.

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary