Coulombe, in characteristically witty style, upholds the primacy of the Will over the Intellect and Plato over Aristotle, and he cuts through the fog and the "slithering" of certain theologians and philosophers.
It is Coulombe's assertion that the Church has long taught the necessity of water baptism for salvation, despite common deviation in the last two centuries. Before then, "There were those who believed in Invincible Ignorance, and in Baptism of Desire. But these were for the most part confined to Universities and Seminaries."
He points out that it was common practice for jailed catechumens and those in danger of death to be baptized, and so claims that use them as examples for "baptism of desire" or "baptism of blood" are unsubstantiated -- "one's own fallen blood, sprung of Adam, simply could not have the salvific effects of Christ's Precious Blood", he writes. He argues in response to users of St. Ambrose's Oration that the saint "in fact knew, that Valentinian had indeed been baptized, but was not at liberty to reveal the circumstances of the event, which presumably were bound up with the Emperor's mysterious death". He also highlights potential contradictions in St. Thomas Aquinas' stance. And he says that while the Council of Trent ruled that "the laver of regeneration or its desire" brings *justification*, it does not necessarily bring *salvation* ("which can only come about if the individual goes ahead and receives the Sacrament and then finally perseveres", according to the author).
There's a lot in here. For background, Coulombe shares several enlightening bits on the Americas that are given more context in his other work, and he goes into much detail on the case of Fr. Leonard Feeney, whom he clearly admires a great deal.
It would be nice if this work (written in 1993) were to be expanded to answer CCC #1258-1261.
