Three additional essays are appended to the text of this book. It is hoped that they will deal with several problems which are related to the Sacraments and which frequently come up for discussion. The fist on Baptism of Desire, the Second on Marriage, and the last as conclusion which provides us with true hope in face of all the devastation.
IS
BAPTISM OF DESIRE AND BLOOD A CATHOLIC TEACHING?
And Jesus said to them... Can you drink
the chalice that I drink of: or be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am
baptized?
Mark
"Let
not the son of the stranger, that adhereth
to the Lord, speak, saying the Lord will divide and separate me from his
people... For thus saith the Lord... they that shall keep my sabbaths, and shall choose the things that please me, and
shall hold fast my covenent: I will give to them in
my house, and within my walls, a place, and a name better than sons and
daughters: I will give them an everlasting name which shall never perish."
Isiah, 6.3
"it is one God who justifies the circumcision by faith and
the uncircumcision through faith."
Romans 3:30
The continued debate among
traditionally minded Catholic groups with regard to Baptism of Desire and
Baptism of Blood can only be resolved by examining the constant teaching of the
Church throughout the ages. With this in view, the various arguments, which
bear on this matter will be reviewed in a
semi-historical sequence. Melchior Cano has pointed
to the ten sources or locis theologicis from which Catholic doctrine can be
determined. He lists among these:
1) Holy Scripture
2) Oral Tradition
3) The Authority of the
Catholic Church
4) The Authority of the
Councils
5) The Authority of the
Roman Church
6) The Authority of the Holy Fathers
7) The Authority of the
Scholastic Theologians
8) The
worthiness of natural reason
9) The Authority of the
philosophers
10) The Authority of
History.
It will be seen in what
follows that we have documented the Church's teaching on the issue of Baptism
of Desire from all but the 4th and 9th of these loci. In a certain sense one
can state that the issue is outside the realm of philosophy. That the Councils
have not addressed the issue is understandable if one considers the fact that
issues raised in the Councils were always relative to matters in dispute. The
validity of Baptism of Desire has, before the present century, never been in
doubt. It should be clear that many of
the examples we point to fall within the province of "the ordinary and
universal magisterium" of the Church.
Theologians have spoken of
the triple form of baptism - namely water, desire and blood. St. Paul in
Hebrews 6:2 speaks of the doctrines of baptism in the plural (doctrinae baptismatum),
implying the possibility of more than one form - the sacrament of course being
one by its nature as in "one faith, one baptism."[1] And indeed, Scripture provides us with examples in both the Old and
New Testament. In the Old Testament we have the example of Job who was
"from the
Granting for the sake of
argument that these Scriptural examples fail to close the debate, let us look
to the constant practice and teaching of the Church for further clarification.
TERTULLIAN: Born in the year
160 and writing about the year 200, this author, despite his later defection to
Montanism, is usually considered as a "Church
Father" and certainly one of the earliest exponents of orthodox Catholic
doctrine. The following passage is taken from his writings under the section de
baptismo in the Enchiridion Patristicum:
"In
truth we also have a second laver which is the same as the first, namely that
of blood, concerning which Our Lord said, "And I have a baptism wherewith
I am to be baptized' (Luke 12:50) after He had already been baptized; for He
came by water and blood as John wrote, that He might be baptized by water and
glorified by blood, likewise too that He might make us called by water and
chosen by blood; He poured forth these two baptisms from the wound dug in His
side so that those who believed in His blood might be cleansed by water and
those who were cleansed by water might bear His blood; this is the baptism
which takes the place of the laver which has not been received and restores
what was lost." (emphasis mine)
ST ALBAN AND HIS FELLOW
MARTYR: The Venerable Bede tells us in the
Ecclesiastical History of the Church of the English Nation tells us the story
of an early English Martyr. The story is well summarized by Dom Gueranger (who St. Theresa of Lisieaux
considered to be a saint) in his Liturgical Year:
"When
the mandates of the emperors Diocletian and Maximian
were raging against the Christians, Alban, as yet a pagan, received into his
house a certain priest fleeing from persecution.
Now, when he [Alban] beheld how this priest persevered day and night in
constant watching and prayer, he was suddenly touched by divine grace, so that
he was fain to imitate the example of his faith and piety; and being instructed
by degrees, through his salutary exhortations, forsaking the darkness of
idolatry, he with his whole heart became a Christian."
"The
persecutors, being in search of this cleric, came to Alban's house, whereupon,
disguised in the cleric's apparel - namely, in the caracalla
- he presented himself to the soldiers in the place of his master and guest; by
them he was bound with things, and led off to the judge. This latter finding
himself thus deceived, ordered that the holy confessor of God should be beaten
by the executioners; and, perceiving at last that he could neither overcome him
by torments, nor win him over from the worship of the Christian religion, he
commanded his head to be struck off."
"Alban
having reached the brow of the neighboring hill, the executioner who was to
dispatch him, admonished by a divine inspiration, casting away his sword, threw
himself at the saint's feet, desiring to die either with the martyr, or instead
of him. Alban, being at once beheaded, received the crown of life, which God
hath promised to them that love him."
"The
soldier who had refused to strike him, was likewise
beheaded: concerning whom it is quite certain that, albeit he was not washed in
the baptismal font, still was he made clean in the laver of his own blood and
so made worthy of entering into the kingdom of heaven. Alban suffered at Verulam, on the tenths of the Kalends
of July. And the judge, astonished at the novelty of so many heavenly miracles,
ordered the persecution to cease immediately, beginning to honor the death of
the saints [only St. Alban and the soldier had been executed], by which [death]
he had before thought that they might be diverted from the Christian
faith."
As Martin Gwynne points out,
this last paragraph is taken verbatum from the
writings of Bede, and Bede
is a Doctor of the Church. Moreover, St. Alban, who died on June 22 in the year
303, is considered to be the proto-martyr of the
SAINT EMERENTIANA: Those
familiar with the traditional Breviary (dropped from the Novus
Ordo "missals") will know the story of this
virgin and martyr. The idea that the Church would have her religious
commemorate such a person who was - according to those who deny Baptism of
Desire and Blood - on a yearly basis for some 1800 years - is to say the least
"offensive to pious ears." Let us quote the Breviary directly:
"Emerantiana, a Roman virgin, step-sister of the blessed
Agnes, while still a catechumen, burning with faith and charity, when she
vehemently rebuked idol-worshippers who were stealing from Christians, was
stoned and struck down by the crowd which she had angered.
Praying in her agony at the tomb of holy Agnes, baptized by her own blood which
she poured forth unflinchingly for Christ, she gave up her soul to God."
This virgin and martyr died
in
Yet another example,
enshrined in the Breviary in the office of Nov. 10, is that of ST. RESPICIUS.
"During
the reign of the emperor Decius, as Tryphon was preaching the faith of Jesus Christ and
striving to persuade all
men to worship the Lord, he was arrested by the henchmen of Decius. First, he was tortured on the rack,
his flesh torn with iron hooks, then hung head downward, his feet pierced with
red hot nails. He was beaten by clubs, scorched by burning torches held against
his body. As a result of seeing him endure all these tortures so courageously,
the tribune Respicius was converted to the faith of
Christ the Lord. Upon the spot he publicly declared himself to be a Christian. Respicius was then tortured in various ways, and toggether with Tryphon, dragged
to a statue of Jupiter. As Tryphon prayed, the statue
fell down. After this occurredboth were mercilessly
beaten with leaden tipped whips and thus attained to glorious martyrdom."
ST AMBROSE, another doctor
of the Church, provides us with the fourth example. He has the following to say
with regard to
the death of Valentinian II, who was murdered at
"But
I hear that you are distressed because he did not receive the sacrament of
baptism. Tell me, what attribute do we have besides our will, our intention?
Yet, a short time ago he had this desire that before he came to Italy he should
be initiated [baptized], and he indicated that he wanted to be baptized as soon
as possible by myself. Did he not, therefore, have that grace which he desired?
Did he not have what he asked for? Undoubtedly because he asked for it he
received it. Whence it is written, 'The just man, by whatsoever death he shall
be overtaken, his soul shall be at rest'(Wisdom, 4:7)."[5]
"Those
also who die for the confession of Christ without having received the laver of
regeneration are released thereby from their sins just
as much as if they had been cleansed by the sacred spring of baptism. For He
who said, 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot
enter into the
Lest anyone claim that this
was an isolated opinion of Augustine's, we also give the following drawn his de
baptismo and found in the Enchiridion Patristicum, a source which provides Catholic Scholars
with approved texts on doctrinal issues (paragraph 1629).[6]
"I
do not doubt that a Catholic catechumen, burning with Divine charity, is
superior to a baptized heretic. But even inside the Catholic Church we consider
a good catechumen better than a bad man who has been baptized; and for this
reason we do no injury to the sacrament ob baptism, which the one has not yet
received and the other has, nor do we consider the sacrament of the catechumen
superior to the sacrament of baptism by considering a particular catechumen
more faithful and better than a particular person who has been baptized. For
the centurion Cornelius was better when he was not yet baptized than was Simon
[Magus] after he had been baptized. for the former was
filled with the Holy Ghost even before baptism, while the latter was full of
the evil spirit even after baptism...
"That
the place of baptism can sometimes assuredly be taken by suffering, the blessed
Cyprian takes as no mean proof the words addressed to the thief who was not
baptized: 'This day thou shalt be with me in paradise' (Luke 23:43). In
considering which again, I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ
can supply that which was lacking in respect of baptism [id quod
ex baptismo deerat], but
also faith and conversion of heart if perchance in straitened times it is
impossible to arrange for the celebration of the mystery of baptism."
Since reference to ST.
CYPRIAN (martyred in the year 257) has been made by
"Some
people, as if by human argument they could rob of its truth the teaching of the
Gospel, present us with the case of catechumens, demanding whether, if one of
these, before he was baptized in the church, were captured and killed in the
confession of his belief, he would forfeit his hope of salvation and the reward
of his confession because he had not previously been born again by water. Men
of this kind, who laud and abet heretics, are well aware that those catechumens
who first hold inviolate the faith and truth of the Church and advance, with
full and sincere knowledge of God the Father and Christ and the Holy Ghost, to
fight off the devil from the Divine battlements are certainly not thereupon
deprived of the sacrament of baptism seeing that they have been baptized with
the greatest and most glorious baptism of blood, concerning which Our Lord said
that He had another baptism wherewith to be baptized (Luke 12:50). The same
Lord, however, affirms in the gospel that those who are baptized by their own
blood and sanctified by their sufferings, are consummated and receive the grace
of the Divine promise. This is implied by His words when he spoke to the thief
who believed in and confessed His passion, promising that he would be with him
in paradise."
At this point we will return
to examples taken from history - specifically drawing on the Bollandists who are the official hagioraphers
of the Church. We take two examples drawn from Les Petits
Bollandistes:[7]
The first is the story of
the brother martyrs SAINTS DONATIEN AND ROGATIEN, who were
martyred during the reign of Maximien about the year
287 and who are the patron saints of the city of
"There
was a young man in
"He
gained his elder brother Rogatien who was still an idolator to the Christian faith at a time of great peril,
for it was a period when the profession of Christianity was proscribed. But
such considerations did not deter Rogatien from
adhering to the truth and committing himself to following Jesus Christ, even
unto death. In order to have the strength to undertake this dangerous combat,
he sought out the sacrament of baptism with great ardor, but in the absence of
a priest (sacerdotis absentia fugitiva)
- for the priests had been forced to flee the land - he could only be baptized
in his own blood.
Rogatien and his brother were placed
in the same goal and Rogatien had only one sorrow -
that he had not receive baptism. Continuing the story
as provided by the Bollandists:
"But the faith which he had in God led him to hope that
the kiss of his brother would take the place of the sacred bath [baptism].
Donatien, informed of the sorrow of his brother, made
the following prayer to God: 'Lord Jesus Christ, with whom desires have the
same merit as works, when it is absolutely impossible to fulfill the wishes of
someone who is completely devoted to you, as is the case with your servant Rogatien, grant if the judge persists in his obstinacy,
that his pure faith may take the place of baptism, and that his blood may
become the sacred oils
."
The following morning both
brothers were slain, and "Donatien, having
gained his brother to Jesus Christ, had the consolation of seeing him respond
with dignity to the graces of his vocation; Rogatien,
baptized in his own blood, showed himself in no way inferior to his brother,
and the two achieved an illustrious victory and were united in the happy flock
that is never to be separated from the immortal Lamb, the author and
consummator of their beatitude." There are many churches in the districts
around Nantes dedicated to these two saints.
There is yet another saint
that the Bollandists tell us of - ST VICTOR OF BRAGA
in Portugal - a saint who is commemorated in the Breviary on April 11.
According to our source, "St. Victor of Braga, was as yet only a
catechumen when he refused to adore an idol and confessed with great courage
his belief in Jesus Christ. He was decapitated after many tortures and thus had
the good fortune to be baptized in his own blood - this about the year 300
during the reign of Diocletian."
Returning once again to the
doctors of the Church, we find the following statement in the writings of ST.
CYRIL OF JERUSALEM who died in the year 386.
"If anyone
does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation, excepting only martyrs
who gain the kingdom even without water."[8]
ST. GREGORY NAZIANZEN who
according to the Catholic Encyclopedia (1908), is one
of the greatest theologians of the Church has the following to say about
Baptism:
"I
now also that there is a fourth kind of baptism [i.e., apart from the baptism
of Moses, of John, and of Jesus], namely that which is acquired by martyrdom
and blood, by which Christ Himself was also baptized, and which indeed is
nobler than the others, because it is contaminated by no subsequent
defilements."[9]
Yet another authority is
that of ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOME, (died 407) who the Catholic Encyclopedia (1980)
describes as generally considered "the most prominent doctor in the Greek
Church and the greatest preacher ever heard in the Christian pulpit" makes
the following statement in his Panegyric on St. Lucianus:
"Do
not be surprised that I should equate martyrdom with baptism; for here too the
spirit blows with much fruitfulness, and a marvelous and astonishing remission
of sins and cleansing of the soul is effected; and just as those who are
baptized by water, so, too, those who suffer martyrdom are cleansed with their
own blood."
Yet another authority is
that of ST. FULGENTIUS who died in the early part of the sixth century:
"From
the time when Our Savior said 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy
Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,' without the sacrament of
baptism, apart from those who pour forth their blood for Christ in the Catholic
Church without baptism, no one can receive the kingdom of Heaven, nor eternal
life."[10]
It might seem that most of
our examples are taken from the lives of the martyrs and that hence we only
defend a baptism of blood and not one of desire. However, in the practical
order, one who desires baptism and is not martyred or assassinated,
usually is in no way impeded from obtaining it. Thus it is that the desire for baptism is almost always demonstrated and proven only by
the complimentary baptism of blood - and indeed, the theologians almost always
discuss them together. Let us demonstrate this by turning to ST. THOMAS
AQUINAS whose authoritative teaching few will debate.:
Summa, Part III, Question 66, Eleventh Article
"As
stated in question 62, fifth article, baptism of water has its efficacy from
Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by baptism, and also from the
Holy Ghost as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause,
the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend
on it. consequently, a man may, without baptism of
water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is
conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse
"Augustine
[Ad Fortunatum], speaking of the comparison
between baptisms says: 'the newly baptized confesses his faith in the presence
of the priest; the martyr in the presence of the persecutor. The former is
sprinkled with water, after he has confessed; the latter with his blood. The
former receives the Holy Ghost by the imposition of the bishop's hands; the
latter is made the temple of the Holy Ghost.'"
"As
stated above (article 11), the shedding of blood for Christ's sake, and the
inward operation of the Holy Ghost, are called baptisms, in so far as they
produce the effect of the baptism of water. Now the baptism of water derives
its efficacy from the Holy Ghost, as already stated. These two causes act in
each of these three baptisms; most excellently, however, in the baptism of
blood. For Christ's Passion acts in the baptism of water by way of desire; but
in the baptism of blood by way of imitating the (Divine) act. In like manner,
too, the power of the Holy Ghost acts in the baptism of water through a certain
hidden power; in the baptism of repentance by moving the heart; but in the
baptism of blood by the highest degree of fervor of dilection
and love, according to John 15:13 'Greater love then this no man hath that a
man lay down his life for his friends.'"
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS discusses the matter again in his Commentary on the Gospel of St. John (section 444):
"Two
questions arise here. First, if no one enters the kingdom of God unless he is
born again of water, and if the fathers of old were not born again of water
(because they were not baptized), then they have not entered the kingdom of
God. Secondly, since baptism is of three kinds, that is, of water, of deire and of blood, and many have been baptized in the
latter two ways (who we say have entered the kingdom of God immediately, even
though they were not born again of water), it does not seem to be true to say
that unless one is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the
kingdom of God.The answer to the first is that
rebirth or regeneration from water and the holy spirit takes place in two ways:
in truth and in symbol. Now the fathers of old, although they were not reborn
with a true rebirth, were nevertheless reborn with a symbolic rebirth, because
they always had a sense perceptible sign in which true rebirth was prefigured.
So according to this, thus reborn, they did enter the
PETER LOMBARD, the master of the sentences, also held this doctrine. To quote him directly:
"With regard to this issue it should be noted that Our Lord said in John 3 that 'unless a person be reborn of water and the holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. Now this is generally true... it it is to be understood of those who are capable of receiving but despse baptism. For them, apart from baptism by water and the Holy Spirit there is no salvation. But this same regeneration can be achieved, not only by baptism of water, but also by rependence [and hence desire] and by blood. Hence it follows that many apostolic authorities teach that baptism can be of water, repentence or blood... and this is only reasonable... Whence Augustine asks: which is greater, faith or water? Unquestionably everyone would respond faith. Therefore, iuf what is the lesser can sanctify, why cannot the greater, namely faith, with regard to which Christ said, ' He who believes in me, even though he should die, livith.'" Lib IV, De Sacramentis.
Again, ST. BONAVENTUR teaches that: "there are three distinct forms of Baptism, namely that of fire, that of water and that of blood. Baptism of fire is that provided by repentance and the grace of the Holy Spirit, and purifies from sin. In Baptism of water we are both puurified from sin and absolved of all temporal punishment due to sin. In Baptism of blood we are purified from all misery." [12]
Yet another mediaeval
theologian of authority, HUGH of ST. VICTOR, has spoken to the issue. As his
statement is rather lengthy, it is added as an appendix.b
Let us next turn to the
authority of a pope, namely that of POPE INNOCENT II who reigned from
1130-1143. He wrote to the Bishop of Cremona in a
letter entitled Apostolicam Sedem:
"We
assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and
Ambrose) that the 'priest' whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without
the water of baptism, because he persevered in the Faith of Holy Mother Church
and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and
attained the joys of the heavenly fatherland. Read [brother] in the eighth book
of Augustine's City of
"Similarly,
in a letter to a Bishop Berthold of Metz on August
28, 1206 he stated: "You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jew,
when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in
water while sahying: 'I baptize myself in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.'"
"We respond that, since
there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized,
as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when he says to the
Apostles: 'Go baptize all nations in the names etc.' (cf. Matt. 28:19, the Jew
mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who
is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another... 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." [14]
We next provide a brief
quotation taken from the Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique - not
that the quotation adds any significant information, but rather it demonstrates
that this weighty and orthodox text published around the turn of the century,
is in full concordance with all that has so far been said.
"Nevertheless,
regardless of the absolute necessity of baptism for salvation, are there not
other means [than that of water] of providing for it? The Fathers [of the
Church] admit to baptism of blood or martyrdom, and in a certain measure the
baptism of desire, as a means of replacing the baptism of water." [15]
THE COUNCIL OF TRENT is often appealed to by those who would deny baptism of blood and desire. The argument put forth is based on the second canon of the Council which states:
"If
anyone should say that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and
should therefore twist into some metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ
'unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost', let him be
anathema."
Now, there is nothing in
such a statement which contradicts what has been said throughout this essay. As
is always the case, one must take things in their proper context. This
particular anathema was directed against Calvin who argued that water was
simply a metaphor for the grace of the Holy Ghost. Thus, reference to the
Decree on Justification promulgated by the Council of Trent is necessary for
the full understanding of the doctrine in question. Quoting from Denzinger, yet another unquestionably Catholic
source, we make note of the following:
"This
... translation [i.e. from the state of original sin to the state of grace 'of
the adoption of sons' (Romans
Some have argued against
Baptism of Blood and Desire on the basis of the CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF
TRENT where it is stated that "the Sacrament of Baptism can be said to
exist only when we actually apply the water to someone by way of ablution,
while using the words appointed by our Lord." This statement of course is
only meant to apply to the "normative" form of baptism with water,
and was never meant to be taken out of context as an absolute statement in and
of itself. Proof of this is provided by the fact that in the Definition of
Baptism given in the same section of this Catechism we find the following
statement - "For He gave power to men to be made the sons of God, to them
that believe in His name, who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the
flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God," footnoted by a reference to
St. Thomas Aquinas as quoted above, and to a section in St. Alphonsus
Liguori's Moral Theology. It is worth while seeing
what the latter has to say on this issue.
According to ST ALPHONSUS
LIGUORI:
"Truly
Baptism of Blood is the pouring forth of blood, or undergone for the sake of
the faith, or for some other Christian virtue; as teaches St. Thomas, Viva;
Croix along with Aversa and Gobet,
etc. This is equivalent to real baptism because [it acts] as if it were ex operato and like Baptism remits both sin and punishment. It
is said to be quasi - as if, because martyrdom is not strictly speaking like a
sacrament, but because those privileged in this way imitate the Passion of
Christ as says Bellarmin, Suarez, Sotus,
Cajetane, etc., along with Croix; and in a firm
manner, Petrocorensis."
"Therefore
martyrdom is efficacious, even in infants, as is shown by the Holy Innocents which
are indeed considered true martyrs. This is clearly taught by Suarez along with
Croix and to oppose such an opinion is indeed temerarious. In adults it is
necessary that martyrdom be at least habitually accepted from supernatural
motives as Coninck, Cajetan,
Suarez, Bonacina and Croix etc. teach. ...."
Not in passing that such was
also the teaching of Coninck, Cajetan,
Suarez Bonacina and Croix.
Such also is the teaching of
St. CATHERINE OF SIENNA. Christ addressed the issue of Baptism in response to
her question in the following terms:
"I
wished thee to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to thee open, so that tyou mightest see how much more I
loved than I could show thee by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water,
to show thee the baptism of water which is received in virtue of the Blood. I
also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in
their blood shed for Me which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have
not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also those who are baptized in fire, not being
able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. Thereis no baptism of desire without the Blood, because
Blood is stteped in and kneaded with the fire of
Divine charity, because through love was it shed. There is yet another way by
which the soul receives the baptism of Blood, speaking, as it were, under a
figure, and this wayh the Divine charity provided,
knowing the infirmity and fragility of an, through which he offends, not that
he is obliged, through his fragility and infirmity, to commit sin, unless he
wish to do so; byt falling, as he will, into the
guild of mortal sin, by which he loses the grace which hd
drew from Holy Baptism in virtue of the Blood, it was necessary to leave a
continual baptism of blood. This the Divine charity provided in the Sacrament
of Holy Confession, the soul receiving the Baptism of blood, with contrition of
heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers, who hold the keys of the Blood,
sprinkling It, in absolution, upon the face of the soul. But if the soul is
unable to confess, contrition of heart is sufficient for this baptism, the hand
of My clemency giving you the fruit of this precious
Blood... Thou seest then that these Baptisms, which
you should all receive until the last moment, are continual, and though My works, that is the pains of the Cross were finite, the
fruit of them which you receive in Baptism, through Me, are infinite..."[16]
One penultimate argument is
drawn from CANON LAW. Those who deny Baptism of Desire and Blood are prone to
quote Canon 1239 which states:
"Those
who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial."
However this canon is
immediately followed by Canon 1239 (ii) which states:
"Catechumens
who die without baptism through no fault of their own
are to be counted among the baptized."
Two final witnesses to the
constant teaching of the Church:
“It
must indeed be held by faith that outside the Apostolic roman Church no one can
be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have
entered theein will perish in the flood; but, on theother hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that
they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is
invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God.
Now, in truth, who would arrogate somuch to himself
as to mark the limits
of such ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoles,
regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things?” Piux IX, Singulari quadam,
And again, Pope Saint Pius X.’s Catechism of Christian Doctrine,
paragraph 132 states:
"A
person outside the Church by his own fault, and who dies without perfect
contrition, will not be saved. But he who finds himself outside without
fault of his own, and who lives a good life, can be saved by the
love called charity, which unites unto God, and in a spiritual way also to
the Church, that is, to the soul of the Church." (italics
in original)[17]
CONCLUDING COMMENTS: Once
again, let it be clear that examples of baptism of desire apart from those who
undergo martyrdom are hard to come by, for the simple reason that those so
desirous who do not suffer martyrdom or untimely death, are able to receive the
sacrament in a "normal" manner.
We have provided more than
ample evidence that the Church has always accepted Baptism of Desire and
Baptism of Blood as efficacious means of "regeneration." This
doctrine has been taught by doctors of the Church throughout her history from
the earliest days down to recent times. Individuals so graced have been
repeatedly raised to her altars. The principle has been incorporated into her
liturgy as is demonstrated by examples taken from the Breviary. The doctrine is
accepted by the Bollandists, by those who promulgate
the Church's official "dictionaries," by innumerable saints and
theologians[18] and by Canon Law. As opposed to this, one cannot point to a single
official document of the Church's Magisterium that denies the efficacy of these
other forms of Baptism.[19]
It is true that there are
"anecdotal" stories of individuals who have been brought back to life
in order to receive baptism of water, or who have received the "laver of
regeneration" in some other miraculous manner. Such stories
however - and there is no reason to deny their veracity - in no way
prove the contrary to our thesis. No one can deny but that God is able to
achieve His ends in ways beyond our ken. But such stories are not points of
doctrine; they are not to be found in the liturgy of the Church; they are not
discussed by the doctors of the Church; they are not pointed to in her
Catechisms; and edifying as they may be, they do not command our belief and
acceptance.
I think it can be said that
the Church has more than adequately spoken to this issue. No Catholic "in
good faith" can deny the efficacy of Baptism of Desire and of Blood. May
we all have the purity of heart and faith that those who have been regenerated
through such means are known to have had.
We can do no better than to
conclude this essay with a passage from Father Lacordaire,
translated and taken from the writing of Kenhelm Digby, an Englsh Catholic convert
who live well over 150 years ago.
"Christ
has created the society of souls founded on Him in love. All persons, it is
true, do not know the source of the fire that consumes them. Some cannot name
Jesus Christ because He has never been named to them. Obscure victims of the
cross which saves them,
they have not been led from their birth to the feet of
APPENDIX
Taken from Book Two, Part
Six of De Sacramentis by Hugh of St. Victor, (13th
Century)[20]
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 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
Yet if someone would 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 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
And what follows? “But he
that believeth shall not be condemned,” (Cf. 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 possibility, and on this account justly is good
will with the with the devotion of its faith not to be 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 fulfill 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 Retractions 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 fulfill 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 place 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 by the opinion was not rejected.
You should, therefore,
either confess that true faith and confession of the heart can fulfill 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.
Ó Rama Coomaraswamy 2002
[1] The Thomistic commentator Billuant has a pertinent discussion regarding this 3-fold
baptism.
[2] Most theologians hold that the Sacrament of
Baptism was instituted at the time Christ was Baptized
by John and the Blessed Trinity indicated its presence.
[3] Martin Gwynne has discussed
this issue in his Briton's Catholic Library, Letter No. 5. Some of the material
in this essay is drawn from this source. It should be made clear that Mr.
Gwynne's approval for this journal is not to be presumed, nor do the editors of
this journal give their unequivocal support to the opinions of Mr. Gwynne.
Thomas Hutchinson in his Desire and Deception explains away this episode
by first telling us a miraculous fountain provided St. Alban with the water
required for baptism, and then stating that St. Bede,
"writing four centuries after the fact, using ancient documents, didn't
miss somwthing."
[4] Thomas Hutchinson explains
this away by assuring us that
if at the time of her martyrdom "she had truly not been
baptized, it must be expected that someone would have done it while she lay
dying."
[5] Thomas Hutchinson informs us
that St. Ambrose was using a political ploy, and that he made this statement in
an "highly charged atmosphere of grief, fear, and popular anger
surrounding the funeral." He then
assures us that St. Ambrose in fact "knew" that Valentinian
had indeed been baptized, but was not at liberty to reveal the circumstances of
the evnet, which presumably were bound up with the
Emperor's mysterious death."
[6] Published by B Herder and
printed by Typographus Editor Pontificus.
Needless to say, this text carries a Hihil Obstat and Imprimatur, dated 1911 in my edition.
[7] Hagiography is the study of
the lives of the saints. The Bollandists, branch of
the Jesuits organized under the initial direction of Father Bolland,
(with papal approval)
have taken it as their special function to research the lives of
the saints and provide official versions of both their acts and writings.
[8] Enchiridion Patristicum, (811)
[9] ibid, 1139
[10] ibid,
2269.
[11] Once again, Thomas
Hutchinson assures us that St. Thomas Aquinas, failed to study St. Ambrose as
carefully as he had studied Aristotle, and that in his
teaching about Baptism of Desire he was plain and simply wrong.
[12] Centiloquij, Tertia pars
and De Sacramentorum virtute, Lib. VI.
[13] As Mr. Gwynne points out,
the original letter to which the pope was responding has been lost. The title
'priest' obviously was not applied to a person in holy orders and probably
implies his 'priestly' act of sacrifice. The letter Apostolam
Sedem written by Celestine II (1143-1144) was sent to
the Bishop of Cremona and is quoted in The Seraph,
March, 1993.
[14] Thomas Hutchinson assures us
on hiis own authority that these quotations taken
from Denzinger only represent "a private commiication regarding a prudential and disciplinary jusgment," and that "there is no question of the
lack of infallibility of such a document."
Now Denzinger is entitled “Enchiridion Symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum.” Is everything in Denzinger
which Mr. Hutchinson doesn’t agree with to be declared fallible and hence eroneous?
[15] Section on Baptism - Bapteme d'apres les peres Grecs et
Latins.
[16] I am grateful to Bishop
McKenna for directing me to this passage.
[17] Father E
. Hugueney, O.P. further explains: "Of
those who are
members of the Church, the elect will greatly outnumber the damned; and if we
include as members of the Church all those who are hers in spirit by the
baptism of desire, this immense number of elect will be very great indeed. Yet,
we must not forget that, outside the Church, the chances of salvation are much
less; this means that many pagans will probably lose their souls, because they
are almost defenseless against the devils and their own passions." (L'Opinion traditionnelle
sur le nombre des Elus" in La Revue Thomiste,
1933, pp. 217 and 533.)
[18] How is it possible for a
Catholic to deny tha authority of such theologians as
Ambrose, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Alphonse Liguori
and Catherine of Sienna without declaring themselves "out of
communion" with the Church?
[19] I have in several places
made reference to Thomas A. Hutchinson's defence of
the position that there is no possibility of salvation without Baptism with
water. One cannot dismiss the writings of the saints and the practice of the
Church because of the reasons he offers.
One could give other examples of where he suggests and insinuates that
saints like St. Chrysostome or St. Louis IX fully
agree with him. (Desire and Deception, ,Charlmagne
Press,
[20] Translated by