Confiteor Unum Baptisma
A Compilation of Sources In Defense of
the Catholic Church’s Teaching on Baptism
CLICK ON THE LINKS TO NAVIGATE THROUGH THE DOCUMENT
Introduction TOP
A heated topic of debate in many a Traditional Roman Catholic chapel is
that of the Church’s infallible teaching regarding One Baptism vs. the
fallacy of “Baptism of Desire & Baptism of Blood” taking the place
of the Sacrament of Baptism. However, this debate cannot be avoided
since the topic of salvation and how one must attain it should be the
most important concern of a Catholic who wishes to reach heaven, and we
must expect Satan to sow his errors in something so fundamental for
salvation.
One would presume, however, that all Catholics were on the same page
when it came to the topic of what is necessary for Salvation. From the
dogmatic pronouncements of the Catholic Church, it is clear that she
has believed, does believe, and always will believe – for her Teachings
do not change (Gal. 1:8) – that the reception of the Sacrament of
Baptism is necessary for salvation. Every Sunday, Catholics recite in
the Nicene Creed “I confess one
Baptism for the remission of sins”, not three.
The Sacrament of Baptism was already prefigured in the Old Testament.
Archetypes of Baptism are, according to the Apostles and Fathers of the
Church, the hovering of the Spirit of God over the waters (Gen. 1:2);
the Flood (1 Peter 3:20 et seq.); circumcision (Col. 2: 11 et seq.);
the passing through the Red Sea (1 Cor 10:2) and through the Jordan
(Jos. 3:14). A formal prophecy of the Sacrament of Baptism is found in
Ez. 36:25: “I will pour upon you clean water and you shall be cleansed
from all your filthiness: and I will cleanse you from all your idols.”
An obvious immediate preparation for the Sacrament of Baptism was the
baptism of St. John the Baptist (Mt. 3:11) which encouraged its
recipients to do penance for the remission of their sins. The Johannine
baptism was one of preparation, not of grace, as was declared by the
Council of Trent (Canon 1 On Baptism).
It was Our Lord who gave the mandate to baptize (Jn. 4:2). He explained
to Nicodemus the nature and the necessity of Baptism: “Amen, amen I say
unto thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he
cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3:5), and before His
Ascension into heaven Our Lord gave a universal mandate to baptize:
“Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Mt 28:18). St.
Mark’s gospel records the necessity of baptism with Our Lord’s words:
“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that
believeth not shall be condemned” (Mk. 16:15).
The command to baptize, recorded in St. Matthew’s gospel (28:18), is
guaranteed by all the manuscripts and all the old versions of his
gospel. The passage is also cited twice in The Didache (chapter 7).
From the very beginning of the Church, following Our Lord’s command to
baptize, the Apostles faithfully fulfilled the divine mandate (Acts 2:
38, 41; 8:12 et seq.; 8:36 et seq.; 9:18; 10:47 et seq.; 16:15, 33;
18:8; 19:5; 1 Cor 1:14 et seq.). The most ancient Church documents,
such as The Didache (chapter 7), the Letter to Barnabas (2:2), St.
Justin Martyr (Apol. 1:61) attest the perpetuation of the apostolic
tradition of baptizing.
Baptism:
The Sacrament
TOP
Baptism is one of the seven Sacraments of the Church. St. Bonaventure
speaks of its institution in the following way. According to the matter
(materialiter) Baptism was instituted when Christ was baptized by St.
John; according to the form (formaliter) when Our Lord gave the form to
His disciples (Mt. 28:19); according to the effect (effective), when He
suffered, for it received its power from the Passion; according to the
purpose (finaliter), when He foretold its necessity and its benefit
(Jn. 3:5).
In the confection of a sacrament, there are three requirements: “things
for its matter, words for its form, and the person of the minister
conferring the Sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church
does. If any one of these be wanting, there is no Sacrament” (Decretum
pro Armenis, Council of Florence).
The remote matter of the
Sacrament of Baptism is true and
natural water. This is a “De Fide” teaching of the Church.
The Council of Trent declared against Luther who held that any fluid
suitable for ablution was permissible in case of emergency (Canon 2 On
Baptism).
The only matter of the Sacrament of Baptism known to Sacred Scripture
and Tradition is water (Jn 3:5; Acts 8:36; Acts 10:47; Eph. 5:26). One
of the oldest proofs from Tradition is that offered by The Didache
(chapter 7): “Baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of
the Holy Ghost in living [flowing] water. But if thou hast no living
water, then baptize in another water; if thou canst not do it in cold,
do it in warm. If thou hast neither [in sufficient quantity], then pour
water on the head three times, in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
The proximate matter of the
Sacrament of Baptism is the ablution,
by physical contact, of the body with water. This washing may
occur by immersion, infusion or aspersion. Against the Greek Orthodox,
who formerly did not accept as valid Baptism by infusion, the Council
of Trent declares: “If anyone says that the Roman Church does not teach
the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of Baptism, let him be
anathema” (Canon 3 On Baptism).
The form of the Sacrament of
Baptism consists of the words of
the minister which accompany it and more closely determine it. For the
valid administration of Baptism, the invocation of the Three Divine
Persons, and, according to the teaching of most theologians, also the
designation of the actual baptismal action is requisite. The Roman Rite
baptizes with the formula: N. I Baptize thee in the name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (From the Rituale Romanum).
Baptism: Its Effects
TOP
The Sacrament of Baptism confers the grace of justification.
The Council of Trent teaches that the Sacrament of Baptism effects: a)
the eradication of sins, both original sin and, in the case of adults,
also all personal, mortal and venial sins; b) inner sanctification by
the infusion of sanctifying grace, with which the infused theological
and moral virtues and gifts of the Holy Ghost are always joined.
Together with sanctifying grace the justified person also receives a
claim to those actual graces which are necessary for the fulfilment of
the obligations assumed in Baptism (Session VI, Ch. 7).
In its Decree on Original Sin, the Council of Trent declared: “If any
one denies that by the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ which is
conferred in Baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even
asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of
sin is not taken way… let him be anathema” (Session V, 5).
The Sacrament of Baptism effects the
remission of all punishments of sin, both the eternal and the
temporal.
The Council of Trent teaches that “in the spiritually reborn nothing
remains behind that is hateful to God, and that keeps them from
entering Heaven” (Session V, 5). It is presupposed that the recipient
of the Sacrament of Baptism interiorly renounces all sins, including
venial sins. St. Paul teaches the remission of all punishment of sin
when he states that the old man dies and is buried and a new man arises
(Rom. 6:3 et seq.).
The Sacrament of Baptism places an
indelible character on the soul.
The Council of Trent teaches that “even if it be unworthily received,
valid Baptism imprints on the soul of the recipient an indelible
spiritual mark, the Baptismal Character, and for this reason, the
Sacrament cannot be repeated” (Session VII, On Sacraments in General,
Canon 9; On The Sacrament of Baptism, Canon 11).
The Baptismal Character, then, distinguishes the baptized from the
unbaptized, not visibly, but to the spiritual eye. By his reception of
the Sacrament of Baptism, the individual is entitled to receive the
other Sacraments of the Church (Canon Law 737.1), and to receive all
treasures of grace and truth, which Our Lord has entrusted to His
Church.
The Necessity of the
Reception of The Sacrament of Baptism for Salvation TOP
The Council of Trent teaches that baptism of water (Baptismus fluminis)
is, since the promul-gation of the Gospel, necessary for all men
without exception, for salvation.
“If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for
baptism and thus twists 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” (Session VII, Canon 2 On Baptism).
With the above-stated anathema, the Council of Trent dogmatically
defines that Our Lord’s words in John 3:5 are not to be distorted into
a metaphor, under pain of damnation. That being said, Our Lord expects
mankind to take His words literally. Therefore,
Baptism of Water is necessary for salvation.
“If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for
salvation, let him be anathema” (Canon 5 On Baptism). The Sacrament of
Baptism is necessary for salvation because Our Lord said it was
necessary for salvation: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned” (Mk. 16:16).
Therefore, the necessity of the reception of the Sacrament of Baptism
for salvation is, according to Sacred Scripture (Jn. 3:5, Mk. 16:16), a necessity of means, and,
according to Mt. 28:19, also a
necessity of precept.
The necessity of Baptism for salvation is even more evident by the
Church’s insistence that “conditional baptism is always necessary
whenever there is a doubt, even a slight doubt, about the validity of
the Baptism received, because the
sacrament is indispensably necessary for salvation” (Jone’s
Moral Theology, p. 325).
Again, if something – anything – could take the place of water baptism
for salvation, why would the Council of Florence state that “In case of
necessity, however, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or
a woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long as he
preserves the form of the Church and has the intention of doing as the
Church does” (From the Bull Exultate Deo, 22 Nov 1439)?
As mentioned above, it should be quite clear from the statements of the
Catholic Church – both by way of Sacred Scripture and Tradition – that
the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. Since
dogmatic councils have defined this, all Catholics must accept this
truth. However, many confused Catholics ask: “What about Baptism of
Desire and Baptism of Blood? Have these not been taught by the Church,
too?” We will answer these questions next.
The Three Baptisms
Metaphor In The Baltimore Catechism
TOP
While Catholics are bound to accept the Church’s teaching regarding the
Sacrament of Baptism as necessary for salvation, as we have stated
above, for some this concept “just does not seem fair” for those
outside of her fold. “After all,” some will say, “God would not damn
somebody who was sincere in life but failed to receive the Sacrament of
Baptism and become a member of the Church”.
This attitude, quite common among Catholics today, is one of the
greatest dangers to the salvation of souls. It is nothing less than an
attempt to change the Catholic Church’s teaching on Baptism and
Salvation. What is shocking to most is the fact that, while much has
happened to the Church since the 1960’s, this assault against the Faith
has not come about solely as a result of the Modernists at Vatican
Council II. On the contrary, the attacks, both from outside and within
the Church, on the teaching of the Necessity of the Reception of the
Sacrament of Baptism has been present for quite some time. All of this
seems to stem from the incorrect (un-Catholic) definition given to the metaphorical terms “Baptism of
Desire” and “Baptism of Blood.”
The strongest affront against the Dogma of the Necessity of the
Sacrament of Baptism for salvation is coming from those Traditional
Catholics who purport to be defenders of the Faith! Clergy and laity
alike have taken it upon themselves to state that the Church’s teaching
regarding the necessity of water baptism for salvation can and is
replaced by baptism of blood and baptism of desire. In essence, they
are stating that there are Three Baptisms that bring about salvation.
In corresponding with another priest recently, I was told that I should
not have used the term “Three Baptisms” when writing on this topic
because nowhere in any of the Church’s writings concerning Baptism,
Justification and Salvation is there any mention of "three baptisms,”
as if there is more than one Sacrament of Baptism. And he was right to
state that because the Church does not – she cannot – teach that there
is more than one Baptism. In fact, individuals who support baptism of
desire and baptism of blood will say that they are not Sacraments. But
they will say, nevertheless, that there are three Baptisms - Water,
Desire, Blood - and that, in certain instances, the last two can
replace the first. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, they
believe in “Three Baptisms”. I intend, then, to continue to label it
the error of “Three Baptisms,” identifying it for what it is: three
means by which they say men can be saved.
This horrific crisis of faith in the United States is due, in part, to
the fact that the Catholic Faith in this nation is always ascribed to
The Baltimore Catechism. This is especially true among those attending
Traditional Latin Mass Chapels since that catechism is held up as the
sole source needed to properly educate children of Catholic families.
Many of the Traditional clergy also see it as a litmus test for the
true faith of their parishioners.
This being the case, it is necessary to understand something about this
book. A group of American Bishops under the control and influence of
James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, composed The Baltimore
Catechism during the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore.
Cardinal Gibbons’ main ambition in life was to show that Catholicism
was good Americanism. It is for that reason he went out of his way to
take such metaphorical
expressions in theology such as baptism of desire and baptism of blood
and put them side by side with Baptism of Water.
As a result, every Catholic child in his parochial classroom, from the
time of Gibbons on, has been required to say, in answer to the question,
Q. “How many kinds of Baptism are there?” :
A. “There are three kinds of Baptism: Baptism of
Water, Baptism of Desire, and Baptism of Blood.”
This is nothing but heresy. There is only
one Baptism, just as there is only one Lord and one Faith (Eph.
4:5). The Council of Vienne explicitly defines that “all the faithful
must confess only one baptism,
which regenerated in Christ all the baptized, just as there is one God
and one faith. We believe that this Sacrament, celebrated in water and in the name
of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, is necessary for children and adults
alike for salvation” (De Summa Trinitate et Fide Catholica). Yet,
defenders of The Three Baptisms have their children spew forth error in
the name of Traditional Catholicism by professing heresy?
As we have seen, The Council of Trent, in its second canon on the
subject of Baptism, declares dogmatically: “If anyone shall say that
true and natural water is not of necessity in Baptism, and therefore
shall turn those words of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, ‘unless one be born
again of water and the Holy Ghost’ (John 3:5), into some metaphor, let him be anathema.”
So, “metaphorical” water is forbidden under pain of heresy. Yet,
baptism of desire is nothing but “metaphorical” water substituting
itself for the necessary requirement, demanded by Our Lord, of natural
water.
But the Catechism
Couldn’t Be Wrong, Could It?
TOP
Catechisms are not protected by infallibility. Introduction XXXVI from
the Fifteenth Printing of The Catechism of the Council of Trent states:
“Official documents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain
certain points of Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local
Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises
practically the whole body of Christian doctrine, and is addressed to
the whole Church. Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place
between approved catechisms and what is de fide.”
Since catechisms are not infallible, there is a possibility that
erroneous theories such as baptism of desire and baptism of blood could
make their way into them. Moreover, the original edition of The
Catechism of the Council of Trent did not contain baptism of blood or
baptism of desire. This is attested to by Fr. Wathen in his work Who
Shall Ascend (p.225), where he states, “In the original edition of The
Catechism, there is no mention of either term. In fact, one will not
find the insertion of these terms [baptisms of desire and blood] until
the late nineteenth century.”
“Baptism of
Desire”--Where did it come from?
TOP
“The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three
kinds: the baptism of water (aqua or fluminis), the baptism of desire
(flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis)” [Baptism, The
Catholic Encyclopedia, 1907 Edition].
We must dissect the above-quoted sentence carefully. The fact that a
position has only been “frequently” put forth has never been considered
a determining factor on whether or not it is part of the Church’s
Magisterium. Rather, “always and everywhere” has been the unchanging
traditional factor used to determine whether a position or teaching is
part of the Deposit of Faith. Secondly, the sentence starts with a
fallacy, since not “all” Fathers of the Church – nor even most –
“frequently” divide Baptism into three kinds. In fact, the vast
majority of Church Fathers do not make this distinction regarding
Baptism at all.
A very small number of Church Fathers, Doctors, and Saints believed in
the theory known as baptism of desire. Most noteworthy among them were
St. Augustine, St. Bernard, and St. Thomas Aquinas. They all expressed
views which supported this theory. Other great doctors of the Church,
such as St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus, followed the error.
Bellarmine defined baptism of desire as:
“Perfect conversion and penitence is rightly called baptism of desire,
and in necessity at least, it supplies for the baptism of water. It is
to be noted that any conversion whatsoever cannot be called baptism of
desire; but only perfect conversion, which includes true contrition and
charity, and at the same time a desire or vowed intention of
baptism”(De Sacramento Baptismi, Liber I cap. VI).
St. Robert Bellarmine’s belief that the grace of baptism could be
supplied without the sacra-ment itself being administered is found
later in his catechetical and theology manuals. He never states where
this opinion of his comes from and so we must raise it ourselves.
Most defenders of the theory called baptism of desire rest themselves
upon a fourth century sermon delivered by St. Ambrose. This saint was
delivering a funeral oration for his close friend, Emperor Valentinian
II, a catechumen, who, at twenty years of age, was assassinated. At the
funeral, St. Ambrose spoke of Valentinian, who had intended to receive
Baptism on his return from battle:
“But I hear that you mourn, because he [Valentinian] did not receive
the sacraments of Baptism…. Does he not have the grace that he desired;
does he not have what he asked for? Certainly what he asked for, he
received.”
In light of this statement, the defenders of baptism of desire claim
that this theory was held by the unanimous consent of the early Church
Fathers. Some even dare to say that baptism of desire has always been
held by the common consent of Catholics which, according to Pius IX in
Tuas Libenter, must therefore be held as a matter of faith.
However, a closer look into Church history and the Magisterial
teachings of the Popes will clearly show that such claims in favour of
baptism of desire are untrue.
The Theory’s Defenders TOP
Many priests have elevated the theory of baptism of desire to the
status of Catholic dogma. We hear it preached from pulpits. Some even
refuse Holy Communion to those who do not hold the erroneous theory.
These mistaken clerics state that the ordinary and universal
Magisterium – which is infallible according to Vatican Council I – has
taught the “dogma” of baptism of desire. Thus, those who deny this
“dogma” (according to them) are public heretics.
Such antics, employed by many priests, are not consistent with Church
teaching. Let us consider Canon Law # 1323 of the 1917 Code of Canon
Law which was taken from Pope Martin V at the Council of Constance in
his apostolic constitution, Inter Cuntas, 22 February 1418, Article 11:
“All those truths must be believed fide divina et catholica, which are
contained in the written word of God or in tradition and which the
Church proposes for acceptance as revealed by God, either by a solemn
definition or through her ordinary and universal teaching. To pronounce
a solemn definition is the part of an Ecumenical Council or of the
Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra. No
religious teaching is to be understood as dogmatically declared unless
such declaration or definition has clearly been made.”
We challenge the defenders of baptism of desire to produce a single dogmatic definition of such a
“Baptism”. They will look in vain, for no such pronouncement exists.
Nor can these defenders quote a single Church council (neither regional
nor dogmatic) since not one has ever mentioned the term “baptism of
desire”. The absence of such a term from the dogmatic teachings of the
Church would tell any reasonable Catholic that he is not bound to
believe it. Those clerics who continue such a charade of theory as
dogma – and deny the sacraments to those who hold the Church’s true
teaching – are most certainly not acting in a Catholic way.
Let us address ourselves to the defenders of baptism of desire who
claim that it was held by a unanimous consent of the early Church. The
fourth century doctor, St. Gregory Nazianzen, was vigorously opposed to
the theory of baptism of desire: “If you were able to judge a man who
intends to commit murder, solely by his intention and without any act
of murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one who desired
Baptism, without having received Baptism. But, since you cannot do the
former, how can you do the latter? Put it this way: if desire has equal
power with actual Baptism, you would then be satisfied to desire Glory,
as though that longing itself were Glory!” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers,
Vol. 2:1012).
This quote from a Doctor of the Church quashes the myth that baptism of
desire was held by the unanimous consent of the Church Fathers.
Furthermore, St. Gregory Nazianzen is not alone in his defense of the
Sacrament of Baptism. A further study of St. Ambrose reveals that he
firmly defended the necessity of water for the effects and grace of
Baptism.
St. Ambrose Defends
Water Baptism, Not Baptism of Desire
TOP
Recall what was stated above regarding St. Ambrose’s sermon for the
catechumen Valentinian. Consider the opening words: “But I hear that you mourn, because
he did not receive the sacraments of baptism….”
Reflect on what was said first. The faithful are gathered in the church
and are mourning. Why? They are mourning because there is no evidence
that Valentinian, a known catechumen, received the Sacrament of
Baptism. But if baptism of desire was something contained in the
Deposit of Faith and a part of the apostolic teachings, why should they
mourn? After all, he was a catechumen preparing for Baptism. Surely he
would have been “desiring” it all along. If the faithful believed such
a thing, they would be at peace. Instead, we see the mourners were
grief stricken because they had been taught, and therefore believed,
that “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot
enter the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3:5). And who taught them this? It was
their bishop, St. Ambrose.
It is evident from the words of St. Ambrose that Valentinian got what
he asked for. And for what did he ask? Water Baptism. Moreover, if St.
Ambrose had intended to convey the idea of baptism of desire, why did
he use the term sacraments (plural) of baptism, instead of sacrament?
Was he lamenting the fact that Valentinian was not able to receive
Confirmation and Holy Communion, which were commonly administered
together with baptism in the early Church?
What St. Ambrose exactly meant by his sermon, we may never know, but we
are permitted to assume that it was not his intention to contradict, in
an emotionally charged sermon, what he had put down with much thought
and precision in his work De Mysteriis and elsewhere. Here is what St.
Ambrose wrote:
1) “You have read, therefore, that the three
witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you
withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For
what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any
sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of
regeneration without water: for unless a man be born again of water and
the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. [Jn 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the
cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot receive
the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace”
(Jurgens, The Faith of the
Early Fathers, Vol. 2:1330).
2) “The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s
blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed he
must circumcise himself from his sins so that he can be saved;… for no
one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except
through the Sacrament of Baptism” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers,
Vol. 2:1323).
3) “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy
Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. No one excepted: not infant,
not the one prevented by some necessity” (Jurgens, The Faith of the
Early Fathers, Vol. 2:1324).
The Catholic Encyclopedia, in defense of the necessity of Baptism for
catechumens, states: “A certain statement in the funeral oration of St.
Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a
proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens
who died before baptism. There is not
a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere…The practice of the Church is more
correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga
(572 AD): ‘Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the
service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who
have died without baptism’” (Baptism, The
Catholic Encyclopedia, 1907 Edition).
So, the great “defender” of the theory of baptism of desire turns out
to be a true defender of the Church’s teaching on the necessity of
water baptism for salvation. In fact, no Church Father has ever so
staunchly defended the requirement of this sacrament of salvation than
St. Ambrose. This great doctor, however, was not the only defender of
the Sacrament of Baptism.
A
Poll of the Church Fathers TOP
[Taken from Fr. Feeney and the Truth
About Salvation, St. Benedict Center, 1995]
Saint Ambrose died in A.D.397, the very end of the fourth century.
Before and after his time, there lived hundreds of holy men and saints
who are called "Fathers of the Church." Tixeront, in his classic Handbook of Patrology, lists over
five hundred whose names and writings have come down to us.
Michael Malone, author of the splendid reference book, The Apostolic
Digest, has spent many years researching the works of these Fathers
that have been translated into English, especially their writings
pertaining, or relating, to the dogma, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. In
what he calls a "Poll of the Fathers," he tabulates the different
opinions on baptism by water, blood and desire as recorded by eleven of
these holy men. Listed chronologically by year of death, the eleven are:
Tertullian. . . . . . . . . circa 220
St. Cyprian. . . . . . . . . . . .258
St. Basil the Great. . . . . . .379
St. Cyril of Jerusalem. .. . .386
St. Gregory Nazianzen. . ..389
St. Ambrose. . . . . . . . . . .397
St. John Chrysostom . . . . 407
St. Augustine . . .. . . . . . . .430
St. Prosper of Aquitaine. .. 463
St. Fulgentius . . . . . . . . . . 533
St. Bede . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 735
As we discuss the opinions expressed by these Fathers, the reader
should keep in mind that they were referring only to catechumens,
persons undergoing instruction preparatory to the reception of Baptism
and admission into the Church. That anyone else could qualify for
salvation without first receiving the sacrament of Baptism was never
considered as even a possibility.
All eleven of these Fathers, of course, said that Baptism of water was
the first requirement for Salvation.
All eleven maintained that a martyr went directly to heaven regardless,
apparently, of whether or not he had been baptized with water.
Tertullian, St. Cyprian, and St. Augustine also held that "desire"
replaced the need for Baptism of water.
All of these Fathers seemed to contradict themselves in other places,
or were explicitly con-tradicted by other writers who claimed they
meant otherwise. St. Augustine, for instance, con-stantly expressed
fear for the fate of catechumens who died before Baptism. He felt
certain that they were lost.
In support of the "Baptism of water only" category must go the
remainder of the thirty-six listed by Mr. Malone in The Apostolic Digest, as well as
the mass of the Fathers catalogued by Tixeront.
What are we to learn from these facts presented thus far? It should be
clear to us that, during the early centuries of the youth of the
Church, there was no unanimity among the Fathers in their opinions on
so-called "Baptism of Desire." Some were for it; more appear to have
been against it; and most taught and practiced simply in conformity
with Our Lord’s prescription — Baptism by water and the Holy Ghost. The
idea that desire could replace water for the Sacrament was not believed
everywhere, always, and by everyone. To claim, therefore, that "baptism
of desire" was a constant tradition of the Fathers is a serious
misrepresentation of Church history and Tradition, and to censure those
who object to this misrepresentation is an equally serious injustice.
-[End of Transcript]
The Catholic Church has always adhered, both in theory and practice, to
the use of water (not desire or blood) as the only valid element of
Baptism. Tertullian exclaims: “O happy Sacrament of our water, by
which, cleansed of the faults of pristine blindness, we are made free
unto eternal life” (On Baptism, Ch. 1, n.1). St. Augustine says: “What
is the Baptism of Christ? A bath in the word. Take away the water, and
there is no Baptism; take away the word, and there is no Baptism”
(Tract on St. John, 15, n. 4).
Yet the defenders of baptism of desire continue to use the Doctors of
the Church as proof of their theory. They will state that since one has
been elevated to "Doctor", his teachings and writings have been found
to be without error. Thus,
Catholics can have complete trust in their writings with the assurance
that their teachings are without
doctrinal error. They hold that there are no contradictions
between the teachings of the Church and those who are Doctors of the
Church.
There are many parts in the writings of the Doctors of the Church where
they are not inline with the Dogmatic Teachings of the Church. Just
consider, for one, St. Thomas Aquinas on the Immaculate Conception.
That does not mean, however, that we disregard everything that St.
Thomas wrote. We do, however, ignore his opinion on the Immaculate
Conception because it WAS AN ERROR. And there are six other Doctors of
the Church who also did not believe in the Immaculate Conception: St.
Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Bonaventure, St. Peter Damian, St. Albert the
Great, St. Anselm of Canterbury, and St. John Damascene.
To conclude the consideration of what are and what are not the true
teachings of the Church Fathers pertaining to Baptism, we need only
reference the infallible pronouncements of the Council of Trent.
Everything that had ever been said or written, prior to the Council,
about the necessity of Baptism for salvation must be accepted or
rejected solely on the basis of its conformity or lack of conformity
with the solemn and irreformable decrees promulgated by that Council,
regardless of the authority or saintliness of any previous speaker or
writer. The same must be said for anything written or said following
Trent’s pronouncements.
The defenders’ canonization of everything that a Doctor of the Church
has written is not what the Church teaches. Pius XII's address to the
Gregorian University on 17 October 1953 states:
"The Church has never accepted even the most holy and most eminent
Doctor, and does not now accept even a single one of them, as the
principal source of truth. Certainly, the Church considers Thomas and
Augustine great Doctors, and accords them the highest praise, but the
Church recognizes infallibility only in the inspired authors of the
Sacred Scriptures. By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of
the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within
her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by
herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Ghost, is
the source of truth."
Baptism of Desire
and Baptism of Blood:
Necessary because God Cannot Manage
Otherwise?
TOP
Catholic theology manuals state correctly that “Baptism of Water is
necessary for the attainment of salvation as an indispensable means for
reaching that end” (Jone’s Moral
Theology p.325). Such a statement, of course, is the infallible
teaching of the Church.
HOWEVER, these same theology manuals then go on to state that “only in
exceptional cases can the baptism of desire or of blood take its place”
(Jone’s Moral Theology p. 325).
Well, which is it? How can a theology manual state that “Baptism of
Water is necessary for the attainment of salvation as an indispensable means”, but then
go on to state that there are “exceptions” to an indispensable means?
The Webster’s Dictionary defines indispensable as: “adj. That cannot be
dispensed with: absolutely necessary.” Such a definition is what one
would expect from any intelligent man when asked to define the word
indispensable.
This error is only developed further in The Catholic Encyclopedia:
“It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of
water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be
obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood” [Baptism of
Desire, The Catholic Encyclopedia,
1907 Edition].
We say that the fallacy is developed “further” because there are four
additional errors in this statement. Aside from the fact that it speaks
of the infamous Three Baptisms, it contains these errors:
1. No
Magisterial Teaching Supports Such a Statement
TOP
This sounds like a very “official” statement, listed in a “Catholic”
Encyclopedia. It seems to declare that there is a dogmatic teaching on
the matter of two additional means of salvation. We know that the
Council of Trent has infallibly taught that water baptism is necessary
for salvation. By the definition proposed by The Catholic Encyclopedia, one
would assume that the “other baptisms” were defined at some other
point in time, either before or after Trent. Where, we must ask, is the
documentation that baptism of desire or baptism of blood bring about
the eternal salvation of a soul that has not received water baptism? It
is not found in Sacred Scripture. It is not found in the Councils of
the Church or in an Infallible Definition by any Pope. The above
definition provides nothing to support what it has just declared as
“the teaching of the Catholic Church”.
2. It
is an Implicit Denial of the Attributes of an Omnipotent and Omniscient
God TOP
Is there anything, any circumstance which is actually invincible
against God? Or is there any circumstance that God cannot, or does not
foresee? To believe that there is, or to put forth such a scenario
which implies such a thing, as the definition from The Catholic Encyclopedia presumes,
is to deny that God is Omnipotent (Almighty) and Omniscient (All
Knowing).
Such a statement implies, at least implicitly if not explicitly, that
there are some circumstances that God cannot overcome in order to
enable an individual to fulfill His own Commandment requiring the
necessity of baptism of water for salvation. Surely, God foresees all
situations, from all eternity, for He is all-knowing. And, since God is
perfect in goodness, He would never withhold from someone who sincerely
desires the Sacrament of Baptism that He has commanded as necessary for
salvation in the first place.
The defenders of baptism of desire imply that God is impotent
(powerless) or indifferent in the circumstances that require the “other
two baptisms” for the salvation of souls. This, of course, is
impossible and such a position is blasphemous. Our Blessed Lord has
stated without qualification that no one can enter the kingdom of
heaven unless he is born again of water and the Holy Ghost (Jn 3:5).
Since God is omnipotent and omniscient, as well as all just, every
Catholic must believe that there is absolutely no circumstance which
would prevent God from getting the waters of Baptism to anyone who
needed it. “For nothing is impossible with God” (Lk 1:37) and “He
promises to reward those who seek Him” (Heb. 11:6).
Those who hold to baptism of desire implicitly deny two of the
attributes of Almighty God that have been solemnly defined as dogmas:
His Omnipotence and Omniscience.
“Firmly we believe and we confess simply that the true God is one
alone, eternal, immense, and unchangeable, incomprehensible, omnipotent and ineffable” (On the
Catholic Faith, Ch. 1, Fourth Lateran Council).
“The holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church believes and confesses
that there is one, true, living God, Creator and Lord of heaven and
earth, omnipotent, eternal,
immense, incomprehensible, infinite
in intellect and will, and in every perfection;” (Vatican I,
Session III, Ch. 1).
Since there is no distinction between God and His attributes (for God
is one and simple), the defense of baptism of desire is one which in
effect denies God Himself. We may also argue that such a defense
contradicts God’s goodness and justice as well.
3. It
Presumes a Commandment of God Impossible to Fulfill
TOP
The definition from The Catholic
Encyclopedia reads: “…when the baptism of water becomes a
physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the
baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.”
What do they mean by “moral impossibility”? Do they mean that one is
unable to do something moral, or that something moral cannot be done,
or that morality is impossible in certain instances? They are stating
that God has commanded something that some cannot morally fulfill. They
believe that, in some cases, God demands the morally impossible.
There has NEVER been a consideration of “physical or moral
impossibility” in Sacred Scripture or in any document of the Church’s
Magisterium. We know that there cannot exist any physical or moral
impossibilities for God. The defenders of baptism of desire, and the
authors of The Catholic Encyclopedia,
however, have chosen to add such a clause as “physical or moral
impossibility”, although they have no authority to do so. Such a
qualification pertaining to the necessity of water baptism for
salvation exists nowhere in any magisterial document of the Church.
Could water baptism ever be physically impossible? Only if God were to
cease to exist. We know that God can transport people around the world
as He chooses. Therefore, if God wills, then He will move someone to
the person needing Baptism. Does this sound a bit “far fetched” for
people living in the twenty-first century? For those who doubt,
consider this passage from the Acts of the Apostles (8:26-39):
“Now an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying: Arise, go towards
the south, to the way that goeth down from Jerusalem into Gaza: this is
desert. And rising up, he went. And behold a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch
of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had
charge over all her treasures, had come to Jerusalem to adore. And the
Spirit said to Philip: Go near, and join thyself to this chariot…And as
they went on their way, they came to a certain water: and the eunuch
said: See, here is water: what doth hinder me from being baptized? And
Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he
answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he
commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down into the
water, both Philip and the eunuch: and he baptized him. And when they
were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord took away Philip;
and the eunuch saw him no more. And he went on his way rejoicing.”
So, how can Water Baptism be physically impossible? The answer is:
never. Recall the teaching of the Church: What is impossible for man is
possible for God. Our Blessed Lord pronounced this numerous times (Mt.
19:26; Mk.10:27).
A physical or moral “impossibility” necessarily means that, due to some
unforeseen circum-stance, those who cannot get to the waters of
Baptism, even though they want it, are unable to fulfill what God has
commanded. In fact, the entire premise of the defenders of baptism of
desire is that, due to some “unforeseen” circumstances, for some
individuals the commandment to be baptized is just impossible to
fulfill. In short, they state that God has commanded the impossible.
The Council of Trent has solemnly defined that God does not require
anything that cannot be fulfilled:
“God does not command impossibilities, but by commanding admonishes you
both to do what you can do, to pray for what you cannot do and [He]
assists you that you may be able…” (On Justification, Chapter 11).
“If anyone shall say that the commandments of God are, even for a man
who is justified, impossible to observe, let him be anathema” (Canon 18
On Justification).
In exposing this presumption of an “impossibility” for God, the entire
argument in support of baptism of desire falls. Such a situation
presumes that God has commanded and required that which is impossible
for at least some.
4. It
Denies the Divine Promise of God as “Deliverer of Goods”
TOP
There are two “Divine Promises” that God has given to mankind which
will assist those who still hold to the fallacy of baptism of desire
and baptism of blood:
First, Our Blessed Lord declared “Ask
and it shall be given to you; seek and you shall find; knock and
it shall be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who
seeks finds… how much more shall you Father Who is in heaven give what
is good to those who ask Him” (Mt. 7:7-8,11; Jn. 14:13-14). If someone
truly desires the Sacrament of Baptism, then, by definition, he will
ask for it. According to what God has promised, if someone asks to be
baptized, then God will get them to the waters of baptism.
Since nothing is impossible for God (Lk 1:37), and since God promises
that He will reward those who seek Him (Heb. 11:6), and that He will
give to those who ask (Mt. 7:7) and since God has commanded all to
receive Baptism if they wish to enter His Kingdom (Jn. 3:5; Mk. 16:16),
then He will not withhold water baptism from those who sincerely ask
for it and seek it, especially since it was He Who commanded it of them
in the first place.
Therefore, we must conclude that if someone does not receive water
baptism before they die, they were not sincerely seeking it and/or did
not truly want it. If you refuse to believe this, then you must hold
that it is God’s fault that they did not receive the Sacrament of
Baptism. It would mean that God had failed to keep His own promises.
Therefore, with the defenders of baptism of desire, God becomes either
a liar or impotent (unable to fulfill His promises).
Second, we must believe that God
completes what He begins (if we let Him). Is the “desire” for
baptism a mere human emotion or is it the result of Divine Grace to
which men must respond? The Church has solemnly defined the latter:
“Actual grace, working inwardly, is necessary to make a good act of the
will and/or even a religious thought which is conductive for salvation”
(Council of Orange, On Original Sin,
Canons 4 & 7; Trent, On
Justification, Canons 1 & 3).
This can only mean that the desire of an individual to seek baptism
comes from God. It is He Who leads one to wish for the sacrament in the
first place. God has revealed in Sacred Scripture that He will complete
the work that He has begun in us. St. Paul, in his Epistle to the
Philippians, writes: “Being confident of this very thing, that He Who
hath begun a good work in you will perfect it” (Phil. 1:6). If God has
begun in someone the desire to receive that which He has solemnly
commanded men to receive, that is, baptism of water, then we must
believe that God will get that person to the holy waters of baptism. He
will not forsake them but will complete what He began. If not, then you
must believe that God has forsaken someone in whom He has placed the
desire for baptism in the first place, in whom He has “begun a good
work”, but He [God] chooses not to complete it. Let us remember that
God “neither deceives nor can be deceived”. Since there is no
circumstance invincible against Almighty God or unforeseeable by the
All-knowing God, then the only thing that can prevent one from
receiving the Sacrament of Baptism is his own bad will, his own lack of
openness and good will in cooperating with God’s grace.
But Did Not the
Council of Trent Also Say…?
TOP
There is only one place in all of the twenty Councils of the
Catholic Church that those who hold to the theory of baptism of desire
claim for support of their error. That is from Session VI, Chapter 4,
of the Council of Trent, which states: “…This translation [to the state
of grace] however cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, be
effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it
is written: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he
cannot enter into the kingdom of God’.”
In light of that, those holding the error of baptism of desire
will state that Trent dogmatically teaches that justification can take
place by water baptism or the desire for it.
This passage of the Council of Trent does not teach that Justification
can take place by the water of baptism or the desire for it. It says
that justification in the impious CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT the water
of baptism or the desire for it. This is totally different from the
idea that justification can take place by the water of baptism or the
desire for it.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words
there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious,
how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as
a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons
of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this
transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, CANNOT TAKE PLACE
WITHOUT the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written:
Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter
the kingdom of God (John 3:5)” Denzinger 796, Decrees of the Ecumenical
Councils, Vol. 2, p.672.
In the first place, we must note that this crucial passage from Trent
has been horribly mistranslated in Denzinger, the Sources of Catholic
Dogma. The critical phrase, “this transition, once the gospel has been
promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a
desire for it” has been mistranslated to read: “this transition, once
the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place except through the
laver of regeneration or a desire for it…” This mistranslation of the
Latin word “sine” (without) to “except through” completely alters the
meaning of the passage to favour the error of baptism of desire.
Looking at the correct translation, which is found in many books, the
reader also should notice that, in this passage, the Council of Trent
teaches that John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written (Latin: sicut
scriptum est), which excludes any possibility of salvation without
being born again of water in the Sacrament of Baptism. There is no way
that baptism of desire can be true if John 3:5 is to be taken as it is
written, because John 3:5 says that every man must be born again of
water and the Spirit to be saved, which is what the theory of baptism
of desire denies. The theory of baptism of desire and an interpretation
of John 3:5 as it is written are mutually exclusive (they cannot both
be true at the same time) – and every baptism of desire proponent will
admit this. That is why all of them must – and do – opt for a
non-literal interpretation of John 3:5.
Now we shall consider the next claim in defense of baptism of desire:
the use of the word “or” (Latin: aut) in the above passage means that
justification can take place by the water of baptism or the desire for
it. A careful look at the correct translation of this passage shows
this claim to be false. Suppose one were to say, “A bath cannot take
place without water or the desire to take one.” Does this mean that a
bath can take place by the desire to take a bath? On the contrary, it
means that both (water and desire) are necessary.
One could give hundreds of other examples. Suffice it to say, the
passage above in Trent says that Justification CANNOT TAKE PLACE
WITHOUT water or desire; in other words, both are necessary. It does
not say that Justification does take place by either water or desire!
Aut (or) Used to Mean
“and” in the Context of Councils TOP
The Latin word aut (“or”) is used in a similar way in other passages in
the Council of Trent and other Councils. In the Bull Cantate Domino
from the Council of Florence, we find the Latin word aut (“or”) used in
a context which definitely renders it meaning “and.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex
cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all
those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also
Jews [aut] or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life
and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil
and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of
their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such
importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments
contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of
piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal
rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given
away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ,
unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
The Council of Florence using the word “or” (aut) to have a meaning
that is equivalent to “and.” The Council declares that not only pagans,
but also Jews or (aut) heretics and schismatics cannot be saved. Does
this mean that either Jews or heretics will be saved? No. It clearly
means that none of the Jews and none of the heretics can be saved.
Thus, this is an example of a context in which the Latin word aut (or)
does have a meaning that is clearly “and.”
Similarly, in the introduction to the decree on Justification [Session
VI], the Council of Trent strictly forbids anyone to “believe, preach
or teach” (credere, praedicare aut docere) other than as it is defined
and declared in the decree on Justification.
Does “or” (aut) in this passage mean that one is only forbidden to
preach contrary to the Council’s decree on Justification, but one is
allowed to teach contrary to it? No, obviously “or” (aut) means that
both preaching and teaching are forbidden, just like in chapter 4 above
“or” means that justification cannot take place without both water and
desire. Another example of the use of aut to mean “and” (or “both”) in
Trent is found in Session XXI, Chap. 2, the decree on Communion under
both species (Denz. 931).
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 21, Chap. 2: “Therefore holy
mother Church… has decreed that it be considered as a law, which may
not be repudiated or be changed at will without the authority of the
Church.”
Does aut in this declaration mean that the Council’s decree may not be
repudiated, but it may be changed? No, obviously it means that both a
repudiation and a change are forbidden. This is another example of how
the Latin word aut can be used in contexts which render its meaning
“and” or “both.” And these examples, when we consider the wording of
the passage, refute the claim of baptism of desire supporters: that the
meaning of aut in Chapter 4, Session 6 is one which favors baptism of
desire.
Why does
Trent define that the desire for Baptism, along with Baptism, is
necessary for Justification? TOP
This chapter Trent is defining what is necessary for the
iustificationis impii – the justification of the impious. The impii
(“impious”) does not refer to infants, who are incapable of committing
actual sins (Trent, Sess. V, Denz. 791). The word “impii” in Latin is
not used to describe an infant in original sin only. It is sometimes
translated as “wicked” or “sinner.” Therefore, in this chapter, Trent
is dealing with those above the age of reason who have committed actual
sins, and for such persons the desire for baptism is necessary for
Justification. In fact, the next few chapters of Trent on Justification
(Chaps. 5-7) are all about adult Justification, further demonstrating
that the Justification of adult sinners is the context, especially when
the word impii is considered. That is why the chapter defines that
Justification cannot take place without the water of baptism or the
desire for it (both are necessary).
The interpretation of “or” in Session VI, Chap. 4 as “and” is not only
possible, but it is perfectly compatible with all of these infallible
definitions, while the interpretation of “or” as meaning baptism of
desire is incompatible with all of these definitions, not to mention
(most importantly) the words “as it is written, unless a man is born
again of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,”
which come immediately after “or a desire for it” and in the same
sentence.
The interpretation of “or” as meaning baptism of desire is also
incompatible with the teaching of the Council of Florence on John 3:5,
and there cannot exist disharmony between dogmatic councils.
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439,
ex cathedra: “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.”
Defenders of the theory of baptism of desire will state that one
cannot make such an assumption as has just been done. They will state
that the Council of Trent said “or the desire” because the teaching of
baptism of desire was accepted as a replacement for the Sacrament of
Baptism, and that the Fathers of the Church were unanimous in this
teaching. We have already proved that not to be the case. In addition,
if the ability to “desire” Baptism were accepted as a valid means of
salvation, the same council would not have stated the following:
Canon 2 [On Baptism]: "If anyone shall say that real and natural
water is not necessary for Baptism, and on that account the words of
Our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the
Holy Ghost..." (Jn 3:5), are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let
him be anathema". This canon is clear in stating that water is
essential for Baptism. It excludes any possibility of Baptism by mere
desire.
Canon 5 [On Baptism]: "If anyone saith that Baptism is optional,
that is, not necessary for salvation; let him be anathema". This canon
is clear in stating that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for
salvation.
Even the most staunch defenders of the "Three baptisms" must
concede that baptism of desire is not a sacrament, but [according to
them] merely bestows the grace of baptism [Justification] without
conferring the character or mark (which, of course is not Catholic
teaching).
Let us next consider what the Council of Trent taught regarding
the means by which one is put into the state of Justification
(Sanctifying Grace). It will help us to see that the Church teaches one
is unable to “desire” justification, since the act of Justification for
the unbaptized comes solely through the reception of the Sacrament of
Baptism.
Trent
on Justification
TOP
The Council of Trent, in dealing with the topic of the Causes of
Justification, taught (Session VI, Chapter 7):
In What the Justification of
the Sinner Consists, and What are its Causes:
“Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is
the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the
efficient cause is a merciful God Who washes
and sanctifies gratuitously, signing,
and anointing with the Holy
Ghost of promise, Who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the
meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus
Christ, Who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith
He loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on
the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the
Father; the instrumental cause is the
sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no
man was ever justified; lastly, the alone formal cause is the
justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby
He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him,
are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but
are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one
according to His own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every
one as He wills, and according to each one's proper disposition and
co-operation. For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the
merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet is
this done in the said justification of the impious, when by the merit
of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by
the Holy Ghost, in the hearts of those that are justified, and is
inherent therein: whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in Whom he is
engrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the
remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and
charity. For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither
unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His
body.”
The text of Trent speaks, when teaching on Justification’s efficient
cause, of “washing, signing,
anointing”; all of which are found in the administration of the
Sacrament of Baptism. These are external actions, carried out by the
priest in the ceremonies of Baptism. There is no mention by Trent that
one can “desire washing, signing, and anointing” and be justified.
This text also designates as THE
instrumental cause of justification the Sacrament of Baptism - not a
"desire" or "vow" to receive it. Therefore, the reception of the
Sacrament of Baptism, which is the “Sacrament of Faith”, is the ONLY instrumental means by which man
was ever justified. Therefore, there is no justification without the
reception of the Sacrament of Baptism, which is administered with water.
It is an infallible teaching of the
Church, therefore, that upon the reception of water baptism we receive
our justification. Those who believe in baptism of desire or
that one who is unbaptized can be justified by desire, believe that a
desire is the instrumental cause of Justification. However, as we have
just seen, the Council of Trent teaches that the instrumental cause is
the Sacrament of Baptism.
In short, Justification cannot occur before the Sacrament of Baptism.
The sacrament, which is confected with water, is the sole instrumental
means of this transformation of man from the state of Original Sin to
that of Sanctifying Grace.
Besides this change, at the moment of Justification, the soul also
receives the infusion of supernatural virtues: “whence, man, through
Jesus Christ, in Whom he is engrafted, receives, in the said
justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts)
infused at once, faith, hope, and charity.”
This statement dealing with the remission of sins poses a great problem
for those who believe in baptism of desire. Why? Because if baptism of
desire were true, then catechumens who possess a true desire for
baptism would have received their Justification before water baptism –
something the above statement from Trent says cannot be so. If a
catechumen were to be justified before the reception of water baptism
by a baptism of desire, then he would receive full remission of sins and the infused virtues of faith,
hope, and charity by such a desire. Now, if the catechumen lives to
receive water baptism, the defenders of baptism of desire would have to
admit that the already justified catechumen (made so by his desire)
would not receive the remission of sins when he finally received actual
water baptism. His sins would not be remitted in baptism because they
were already remitted by his desire.
This scenario, however, was expressly condemned by the Council of
Trent, when, in the Decree on Original Sin, it taught: “If anyone
denies that by the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred
in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted…let him be anathema”
(Session V, Canon 5).
Regarding Justification, the Council of Trent states “This faith, in
accordance with apostolic tradition, catechumens beg of the church
before the Sacrament of Baptism, when they ask for ‘faith which bestows
life eternal,’ which, without hope and charity, faith cannot bestow”
(Session VI, Chapter 7).
From the defenders of baptism of desire we wish to hear their
explanation of how catechumens beg for faith which ‘bestows life
eternal’ and at the same time possess faith which ‘bestows life
eternal’. Not only do catechumens not possess the supernatural virtue
of faith (which is infused into the soul at Baptism), but they also
lack the infused virtues of hope and charity which come with the virtue
of faith at the moment of Justification.
In light of these infallible decrees of the Council of Trent, it simply
is not licit for any Catholic to cite its authority in support of any
of the following errors:
· Water is
not absolutely necessary for Baptism, but may be replaced by a desire
for the sacrament.
· The
Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for salvation.
· At the
Council of Trent, the dogma of salvation by means of "baptism by
desire" was solemnly defined; thus, actual reception of baptism of
water is not required for salvation.
In completing this section pertaining to baptism of desire, having seen
what is taught by Sacred Scripture, Tradition, and the Dogmatic
Councils of the Church, one must decide whether or not his answers to
the following questions agree with those of Holy Mother Church:
Question: Did the Council of Trent define that the
Sacrament of Baptism requires water?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Did the Council of Trent define that the
Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Did the Council of Trent define that
desire for Baptism was equivalent to the sacrament and sufficient for
salvation?
Answer: No.
Baptism of
Blood
TOP
Along with the defenders of baptism of desire come those of baptism of
blood. Here, too, they claim that the latter also effects salvation for
those who do not receive the Sacrament of Baptism. As in the case of
baptism of desire, those Catholics who refuse to accept such a theory
as baptism of blood are marked by certain traditional priests as
heretics. However, the previous argumentation used to reveal the error
of salvation by desire can be used to disprove it by shedding one’s
blood.
As with baptism of desire, the defenders of baptism of blood turn to
the Church Fathers, stating that there was unanimous consent among them
pertaining to this “doctrine”. They usually quote the small minority of
Church Fathers who believed (incorrectly) that one could be saved by
shedding his blood for the Catholic Faith, even without water baptism.
However, it is absolutely false that all the Church Fathers
“unanimously” believed this. Even if some of them did, they were wrong
in believing so.
Before going any further, a distinction needs to be made between the
baptism of blood referred to by the “Three Baptisms” defenders, and the
baptism of blood spoken of by Church Fathers and theologians. We will
now address the distinction.
Baptism
of Blood: What’s In a Name? TOP
Our Blessed Lord spoke of the “baptism of blood”. He, of course, gives
us the true meaning of such a baptism. We must hope that the defenders
of The Three Baptisms would accept His definition.
“And Jesus said to them: You know not what you ask. Can you drink the
chalice that I drink of: or be baptized
with the baptism wherewith I
am baptized? But they said to
him: We can. And Jesus saith to them: You shall indeed drink of the
chalice that I drink of: and with the
baptism wherewith I am baptized,
you shall be baptized” (Mk. 10:
38-39).
We can see, from this Gospel passage, that Our Lord, although already
baptized with water by St. John the Baptist, speaks of another baptism
which He is to receive. This is the baptism of His Passion on the
cross, not the Sacrament of Baptism. Thus, “martyrdom” is described by
Jesus Christ as a baptism, a “washing” which occurs in the martyr’s own
blood. Likewise, true baptism of blood is defined not to mean a
substitute for an unbaptized person, but rather a Catholic martyrdom
which remits all the fault and punishment due to actual sin. Catholic
martyrs go straight to Heaven.
The term baptism is used in many different ways throughout Sacred
Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. The baptisms “of water, of
blood, of the spirit, of Moses, and of fire” are all terms that have
been used by Church Fathers to characterize different things, but not to describe that an unbaptized
martyr can attain salvation:
“And all in Moses were baptized,
in the cloud, and in the sea: And did all eat the same spiritual food,
And all drank the same spiritual drink: (and they drank of the
spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ” (1 Cor 10:
2-4).
Are we meant to think, considering this quote from the Epistle to the
Corinthians, that there was an actual “baptism” taking place in the
cloud and sea? Not at all.
There can be no doubt in our minds that types (prefigurements) of
baptism have been illustrated by Church Fathers by applying the term
“baptism” to them. In this way – and only in this way – has baptism of
blood been properly used throughout Church history. St. John Chrysostom
spoke of the martyrdom of St. Lucian as being a “baptism”, even though
St. Lucian had already been baptized with water (Jurgens, Vol. 2: 1139).
The biggest objection, however, brought up by the defenders of baptism
of blood is that the Roman Martyrology contains Saints who, according
to them, were never baptized with water.
We now quote from Br. Robert Mary in
Father Feeney and the Truth About Salvation (pp. 173-175):
We will now examine the historical evidence put forth by those who
claim that "baptism of blood" is a substitute for, even superior to,
the sacrament of Baptism.
This evidence is found in the many writings that have been handed down
to us over the centuries as recorded in various martyrologies, acts of
the martyrs, lives of the saints and similar sources. The most concise
information on martyrs is found in martyrologies.
The present Roman Martyrology
is a catalogue of saints honoured by the Church, not only those
martyred for the Faith. It first appeared in 1584, and was derived from
ancient martyrologies that existed in the fourth century, plus official
and non-official records taken from acts of the martyrs that date back
to the second century. It has been revised several times since its
first compilation. When he was assigned to revise the ancient accounts,
Saint Robert Bellarmine himself had to be restrained from overly
sceptical editorial deletions.
As the reader studies the extracts presented below, he should bear in
mind several important considerations:
First, it was not the intent of those who first reported the
circumstances of the deaths of the martyrs to provide information from
which "baptismal registers" could later be compiled. If the chronicler
makes no mention of the martyr’s Baptism, it does not necessarily mean
that he was never baptized. A case in point is Saint Patrick. He was
not a martyr, but his Baptism was never recorded. Yet, we know
positively that he received the sacrament since he was a bishop.
Next, even if a chronicler states positively that a martyr had not been
baptized, it should be understood to mean that he was "not recorded" as
having been baptized. In those times especially, no person could hope
to know with certainty that another had not been baptized.
Third, if the chronicler says that a martyr was "baptized in his own
blood", this does not automatically preclude prior reception of the
sacrament by water. When Christ referred to His coming Passion as a
"Baptism", He had already been baptized by Saint John in the Jordan.
Note, in that regard, this quote from Saint John Damascene: "These
things were well understood by our holy and inspired fathers - thus,
they strove, after Holy Baptism, to keep...spotless and undefiled.
Whence some of them also thought fit to receive yet another Baptism: I mean that
which is by blood and martyrdom." (Barlaam
and Josaphat, St. John Damascene — our emphasis)
Fourth, "baptism of blood" should be understood as the greatest act of
love of God that a man can make. God rewards it with direct entrance
into heaven for those who are already baptized and in the Church: no
purgatory — it is a perfect confession. If it were capable of
substituting for any sacrament, it would be the sacrament of Penance,
because Penance does not oblige with a necessity of means, but precept
only.
In his book Church History,
Father John Laux, M.A., writes:
If he [the Christian] was destined to lose his life, he had been taught
that martyrdom was a second Baptism, which washed away every stain, and
that the soul of the martyr was secure in immediate admission to the
perfect happiness of heaven.
Fifth, when a martyr is referred to as a "catechumen," it does not
always mean he was not yet baptized. A catechumen was a person learning
the Faith, as a student in a class called a catechumenate, under a
teacher called a catechist. That students continued in their class even
after they were baptized is confirmed conclusively by these words of
Saint Ambrose to his catechumens: "I know very well that many things
still have to be explained. It may strike you as strange that you were
not given a complete teaching on the sacraments before you were
baptized. However, the ancient discipline of the Church forbids us to
reveal the Christian mysteries to the uninitiated. For the full meaning
of the sacraments cannot be grasped without the light which they
themselves shed in your hearts." (On
the Mysteries and On the Sacraments, Saint Ambrose)
Sixth, in those days, a formal Baptism was a very impressive ceremony
conducted by the bishop. However, the Church has always taught that, in
case of necessity, any person of either sex who has reached the use of
reason, Catholic or non-Catholic, may baptize by using the correct
words and intending to do what the Church intends to be done by the
sacrament. Therefore, in the early Church, baptized Christians and
unbaptized catechumens were instructed to administer the sacrament to
each other, if and as needed, whenever persecutions broke out.
Seventh, salvation was made possible for us men when, on the Cross on
Calvary, Our Lord Jesus Christ sacrificed His Sacred Body and Blood in
atonement for our sins. Hence, a man is saved, not by sacrificing his
own human blood, but by the sacrifice of the Most Precious Divine Blood
of Our Holy Saviour.
Let us put it another way: In our opinion, the absolutely certain
remission of original sin and incorporation into Christ and His Church
are accomplished only by the water to which, alone, Christ has given
that power. A man’s blood has no such power. Martyrdom is the greatest
act of love of God a man can make, but it cannot substitute for the
sacrament of Baptism.
– [End of Transcript]
There is absolutely no need to examine the less than 20 individual cases of
the Martyrology (out of millions) which seem to have occurred without
water baptism. All that is needed is to prove that the Catholic Church
has infallibly taught that such claims are false. “And if he will not
hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican” (Mt.
18:17). We need only quote Pope Eugene IV, who spoke ex cathedra at the
Council of Florence in 1441:
"It [the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church] firmly believes,
professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic
Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews, nor heretics and
schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart
‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’
[Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to
the Church; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong
that only to those abiding 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 practised, even if he has shed [his] blood for the
name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has abided in the bosom
and unity of the Catholic Church."
How can the defenders of baptism of blood as a means of salvation for
the unbaptized continue to state that all the Church Fathers, Doctors,
Popes unanimously taught what is dogmatically false? Pope Eugene IV
explicitly excludes from salvation even those who “shed blood for the
name of Christ”, unless they are living within the bosom and unity of
the Church. The unbaptized are not living within the bosom and unity of
the Church.
In closing the discussion on baptism of blood, we offer a quote from
Pope Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis (29 June 1943):
“Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church
who have received the laver of
regeneration and profess the true faith.”
In Conclusion TOP
We must conclude, from our study, that the Catholic Church has clearly
and infallibly defined that the Sacrament of Baptism, administered with
water, is absolutely necessary for salvation, and that there are no
exceptions to this teaching. Therefore, according to Divine Revelation
infallibly proposed and defined by the Church, we are bound to hold
that God, in His great Providence, will provide those who are of good
will and who seek the Truth with the means to know His truth by coming
to the One Faith and will provide a way for them to be baptized with
water.
To use the truth that “God desires all men to be saved” as the
exception to the necessity of Baptism with water is to deceive. Both
parts are presented as absolute truths which are not contradictory yet
which are above our reason. It is a mystery of God’s mercy and justice.
Neither truth is open to interpretation because dogmatic statements are
to be understood by the very words the Church “has once declared”
(Vatican I, Dei Filius, 4).
The defenders of the Three Baptisms mislead the faithful into
interpreting non infallible statements with the pre-established view
that there can be exceptions to what has already been infallibly
defined, rather than reading and understanding these statements in
light of what has already been previously defined.
What arrogance and deception it is to set up before the faithful non
infallible and non-definitive statements, of writings from Doctors,
Catechisms, Sermons, etc., as the final judge over those Church
documents which have no judge,
but by which all else is to be judged: the infallible and definitive
dogmatic decrees, canons and definitions of the extraordinary
Magisterium.