Church Fathers and Baptism of Desire

[Guest Crono22xx]

Hi, I've asked this question on another site before but never got a reply.

I've seen feeneyites use quotes from Church Fathers regarding the fate of catechumen who die before baptism to support their viewpoint.

They use quotes such as
"One is the Baptism which the Church administers: the Baptism of water and the Holy Ghost, with which catechumens need to be baptized. Therefore, the three witnesses in Baptism are one: the water, the blood, and the Spirit (1 John 5:8); for if you take away one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist." (Saint Ambrose)
"How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their death beds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized, and are thus lost forever!" (Saint Augustine)

Do these statements contradict Baptism of Desire or Blood?
Thank you.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Considering that Ambrose and Augustine both speak of baptism of blood and/or baptism of desire I find it hard to assume that these quotes necessarily go against this. It is unfortunate that the sources are not given for these quotes so that we could check the context.

But I suppose we can; fortunately I am familiar with these quotes. The Ambrose quote is from his treatise [i]On the Mysteries [/i](Sacraments), let's looks at that for starters.

[i]I see water, which I have been used to see every day. Is that water to cleanse me now in which I have so often bathed without ever being cleansed? By this you may recognize that water does not cleanse without the Spirit.
Therefore read that the three witnesses in baptism, the water, the blood, and the Spirit, are one, for if you take away one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element, without any sacramental effect. Nor, again, is there the Sacrament of Regeneration without water: "For except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, wherewith he too is signed; but unless he be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive remission of sins nor gain the gift of spiritual grace. [/i]
- St. Ambrose, On the Mysteries, chapter IV, 19b-20

This treatise can be found here: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm[/url]

When I read that chapter of the treatise what strikes me as the main point here is the Trinitarian nature of baptism. He is equating "the blood" with Christ, and "the water" with the Holy Spirit and indicating the trinitarian nature of baptism. He goes on to show that baptism is the work of the Trinity, not Christ alone. It is not enough that a catechumen be signed in the cross of the Lord Jesus, he must be baptised in the Trinity to receive remission of sins and the gift of sanctifying grace. I would say that at face value that little quote seems to contradict baptism of desire or baptism of blood. But does it really?

If you read the treatise you will notice that his intent is to talk about the supernatural character of baptism and its great importance. Explicit questions of baptism of desire or baptism of blood are not a part of the discussion and the brief mention in that quote is sort of in passing; he's not engaging in a real discussion of the matter and the explicit question that you're reading into it is extrinsic to the impetus of this chapter of the treatise.

And it seems evident that this treatise was written for catechumens and thus the point is more direct and basic catechesis, not questions of that sort. I think this should be taken into account in understanding Ambrose in that paragraph. To use a somewhat anachronistic distinction, he is describing the ordinary means of salvation and questions of the extraordinary means of salvation, or that God is not bound by the Sacraments He instituted, are not a part of what Ambrose was trying to do in this treatise. He is writing a treatise explaining the radical supernatural importance of baptism to those about to be baptised; it would be rhetorically backwards and distracting to touch upon the subject in question (extraordinary means of salvation), IMHO anyway.

I would also like to note that the writing of this treatise is dated to around 387 AD (and historically the authorship of this treatise has been disputed, some claiming that Ambrose could not have even been the author. But I must say it seems likely that the attribution to Ambrose is quite correct). In the year 392 AD a fellow by the name of Emperor Valentinian died before actually receiving his baptism. Following this event Ambrose wrote a little something in which he actually speaks of the issues at hand (baptism of desire) quite explicitly and directly:

[i]I hear you lamenting because he has not received the sacraments of baptism (sacramenta baptismatis). Tell me, what else could we have, except the will to it, the asking for it? He too had just now this desire; and after he came into Italy it was begun, and a short time ago [b]he signified that he wished to be baptized [/b]by me. [b]Did he, then, not have the grace which he desires[/b]? Did he not have what he eagerly sought? [b]Certainly[/b], Because sought it, he received it. What else does it mean: "Whatever just man shall be overtaken by death, his soul shall be at rest"?[/i] - St. Ambrose, [i]De obitu Valentintiani consolatio (Sympathy at the Death of Valentinian)[/i], 51. Vienna Corpus, vol 73

So three likely understandings come to mind at this point: 1. Ambrose later changed his mind about baptism of desire; 2. Ambrose was not intending to critique baptism of desire in the treatise on the Mysteries; 3. the treatise was not written by Ambrose.
Without beating this to death I will just say that I believe option #2 to be the obvious answer here.

I'll comment on the Augustine quote in a little bit.

God bless you.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Regarding the Augustine quote, I have seen that quote in Feeneyite literature and to this day have not been able to find the original source. An article on the St. Benedict center's website indicates the following [secondary] source for this quote:
[i]Augustine the Bishop[/i], Van Der Meer, p.150

However another Feenyite article refers the reader to this [a primary source]:
Augustine, [i]On John[/i] 13, no.7

And yet another article I encountered cited this as the actual source of this quotation:
Augustine, Sermon 26, 6

So from what primary source does this quote originate? If you go to the [i]Opera Omnia [/i]of St. Augustine, in its [i]editio latina[/i] ([i]Patrologiae Latinae[/i], 38), here is what you find for sermon 26, paragraph 6:

[i]Sed dicet aliquis: "Per Iesum Christum facti sumus ut etiam homines essemus?". Ita vero, per Iesum Christum facti sunt et pagani. Non pagani, non ut essent pagani, sed ut essent homines, per Iesum Christum facti sunt. Quis est enim Iesus Christus, nisi in principio Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum? Hoc erat in principio apud Deum. Omnia per ipsum facta sunt 25. Illi ergo debent et pagani quod homines creati sunt, et tanto magis puniendi, quia dimiserunt eum a quo facti sunt et coluerunt quae ipsi fecerunt.[/i]

The quote in question is nowhere to be found. Ok, so the pagans were made by Jesus Christ, a quote from John 1, they deserve punishment, they worship idols, etc.. ok great.. but where is the statement about baptism and all that? He does go on in subsequent paragraphs to speak of the common grace of all men having been made by God, the need for redemption, and Christ as the one mediator between God and man, but where is this exact quote? After skimming over this sermon I see a lot of discussion on nature and grace, but no talk of baptism. Interesting.
Maybe the source was truncated? Perhaps they meant sermon 26 of Augustine's "Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament"?
Here is paragraph 6 of sermon 26 from this collection:

[i]Therefore Peter walked on the water by the bidding of the Lord, knowing that he could not have this power of himself. By faith he had strength to do what human weakness could not do. These are the strong ones of the Church. Mark this, hear, understand, and act accordingly. For we must not deal with the strong on any other principle than this, that so they should become weak; but thus we must deal with the weak, that they may become strong. But the presuming on their own strength keeps many back from strength. No one will have strength from God, but he who feels himself weak of himself. "God setteth apart a spontaneous rain for His inheritance." Why do you, who know what I was about to say, anticipate me? Let your quickness be moderated, that the slowness of the rest may follow. This I said, and I say it again; hear it, receive it, and act on this principle. No one is made strong by God, but he who feels himself weak of his own self. And therefore a "spontaneous rain," as the Psalm says, "spontaneous;" not of our deserts, but "spontaneous." "A spontaneous rain" therefore "God setteth apart for his inheritance;" for "it was weak; but Thou hast perfected it." Because Thou "hast set apart for it a spontaneous rain," not looking to men's deserts, but to Thine own grace and mercy. This inheritance then was weakened, and acknowledged its own weakness in itself, that it might be strong in Thee. It would not be strengthened, if it were not weak, that by Thee it might be "perfected" in Thee.[/i]

Once again the quote in question is nowhere to be found and this sermon says nothing of baptism.

Ok, maybe the other alleged source, [i]On John[/i] 13, no.7?

This no doubt refers to Augustine's lectures (or tractates) on the Gospel of John. So we should look up lecture (or tractate) number 13 and we should find this quote in paragraph 7; but it is not so.

[i]Sed dicet aliquis: Sufficiebat ergo ut baptizaret Dominum Ioannes; quid opus erat ut alii baptizarentur a Ioanne? Et hoc diximus, quia si solus Dominus baptizaretur a Ioanne, non deesset ista cogitatio hominibus, quod meliorem habebat baptismum Ioannes quam Dominus. Dicerent enim: Usque adeo magnus erat baptismus quem habuit Ioannes, ut solus Christus illo fuerit dignus baptizari. Ergo ut ostenderetur melior baptismus quem daturus erat Dominus, et ille tamquam servi intellegeretur, ille tamquam Domini, baptizatus est Dominus, ut praeberet humilitatis exemplum: non solus autem baptizatus est ab eo, ne baptismus Ioannis melior baptismo Domini videretur. Ad hoc autem viam praebuit Dominus noster Iesus Christus, sicut audistis, fratres, ne quis arrogans quod habeat abundantiam alicuius gratiae, dedignetur baptizari baptismo Domini. Quantumcumque enim catechumenus proficiat, adhuc sarcinam iniquitatis suae portat: non illi dimittitur, nisi cum venerit ad Baptismum. Quomodo non caruit populus Israel populo Aegyptiorum, nisi cum venisset ad mare rubrum 22; sic pressura peccatorum nemo caret, nisi cum ad fontem Baptismi venerit.

But some one will say, "It were enough, then, that John baptized only the Lord; what need was there for others to be baptized by John?" Now we have said this too, that if John had baptized only the Lord, men would not be without this thought, that John had a better baptism than the Lord had. They would say, in fact, "So great was the baptism of John, that Christ alone was worthy to be baptized therewith." Therefore, to show that the baptism which the Lord was to give was better than that of John,--that the one might be understood as that of a servant, the other as that of the Lord,--the Lord was baptized to give an example of humility; but He was not the only one baptized by John, lest John's baptism should appear to be better than the baptism of the Lord. To this end, however, our Lord Jesus Christ showed the way, as you have heard, brethren, lest any man, arrogating to himself that he has abundance of some particular grace, should disdain to be baptized with the baptism of the Lord. For whatever the catechumen's proficiency, he still carries the load of his iniquity: it is not forgiven him until he shall have come to baptism. Just as the people Israel were not rid of the Egyptians until they had come to the Red Sea, so no man is rid of the pressure of sins until he has come to the font of baptism.[/i]

However, this tractate does say much on the subject of baptism which is a plus I suppose. But I could not find anything in this lecture which matches the quote in question. Perhaps if we could find a copy of that book "Augustine the Bishop" we would discover the source of this elusive quotation.

But let us assume that the quote is authentic. It isn't really a stretch since one could compile a great many quotes from the writings of St. Augustine which makes statements to this effect. But one could also compile quotes from St. Augustine that affirm the reality of baptism of blood and all of that. So is it just that Augustine changed his mind a great deal or was somewhat confused? This is why finding the source of a quote is so important. If one is writing to try and assert the importance of baptism and the absolute necessity of being baptised (especially in response to heretics), one does not introduce the discussion of extraordinary means of salvation and the fact that God's power and mercy are not bound by those sacraments which He instituted. If one could find a source in which Augustine directly speaks of the issue and univocally and explicitly condemns this notion then we could talk about contradictions in Augustine's view on the matter and begin to look to dates of writings and retractions and see whether this was a phase in Augustine's thought. However to date I have yet to see a quote to this effect which cannot be explained simply in terms of the context and intent of the work in which it appears. We must find clear and explicit statements from Augustine on the issue of extraordinary means of salvation if we hope to reach a firm conclusion; fortunately we have some.

A more reliable source for Augustine's comprehensive view on the matter might be his treatise on baptism. Here he addresses the issues explicitly and head on so we need not infer various things which could otherwise be explained as hyperbole or rhetorical emphasis or simply foreign to the discussion at hand or the points Augustine is trying to emphasize.
In book IV, chapter 21 of the Treatise on Baptism, Augustine makes mention of baptism of blood in such as way that it is clearly taken for granted as being true. He sees little need to argue for its validity since clearly it was not something that his readers would have disputed.
However in chapter 22 he does present an argument, but not in such as way which suggests that the point was a matter of dispute, but in a tone suggesting that such an idea is simply self-evident and common knowledge.

[i]That [b]the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by martyrdom [/b]is supported by an argument by no means trivial, which the blessed Cyprian adduces from the thief, to whom, though he was not baptized, it was yet said, "To-day shall thou be with me in Paradise." On considering which, again and again, I find that [b]not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart[/b], if recourse may not be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism for want of time. For neither was that thief crucified for the name of Christ, but as the reward of his own deeds; nor did he suffer because he believed, but he believed while suffering. It was shown, therefore, in the case of that thief, how great is the power. even without the visible sacrament of baptism, of what the apostle says, "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." [/i]

This is similar to another clear and explicit statement Augustine makes in [i]City of God[/i]; this is worth reading as it is an exceptional summary:

[i]For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, "Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven;" and in another place, "Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it." And this explains the verse, "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints." For what is more precious than a death by which a man's sins are all forgiven, and his merits increased an hundredfold? For those who have been baptized when they could no longer escape death, and have departed this life with all their sins blotted out have not equal merit with those who did not defer death, though it was in their power to do so, but preferred to end their life by confessing Christ, rather than by denying Him to secure an opportunity of baptism.[/i] - City of God, book XIII, chapter VII

It is quite easy to take little quotes out of context and suggest a contradiction or assert that the author had a particular view, but in light of a bigger picture of Augustine's thought I think the Feenyite assertions are simply lame. One could do the same thing with the current Catechism of the Catholic Church no doubt. I would say that the key is to understand the context of the quote, and keep in mind the fact that God' goodness, power and mercy are not limited to the ordinary means of salvation that He instituted. If one denies this fact, one does not believe in the God of Christianity. I hate to put it this way, but the God of the Feeneyites is a weakling and a monster; really not God at all.

[Laudate_Dominum]

If you still have questions these resources may be of interest.

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/44"]http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/44[/url]
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/144"]http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/144[/url]
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/135"]http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/135[/url]

God bless you.

[phatcatholic]

also this entry:

Baptism of Blood or Desire
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/536"]http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/536[/url]

[Laudate_Dominum]

Phatty,

Thanks for the link, right on as usual. You know the reference section better than I.

[quote name='Crono22xx' date='Jan 29 2006, 04:37 PM']Hi, I've asked this question on another site before but never got a reply.

I've seen feeneyites use quotes from Church Fathers regarding the fate of catechumen who die before baptism to support their viewpoint. 

They use quotes such as
"One is the Baptism which the Church administers: the Baptism of water and the Holy Ghost, with which catechumens need to be baptized. Therefore, the three witnesses in Baptism are one: the water, the blood, and the Spirit (1 John 5:8); for if you take away one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist." (Saint Ambrose)
"How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their death beds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized, and are thus lost forever!" (Saint Augustine)

Do these statements contradict Baptism of Desire or Blood?
Thank you.
[right][snapback]869544[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
If you have any more quotes that you are curious about feel free to post them. I love discussing this sort of thing.
In short the Anselm quote in context has absolutely nothing to do with baptism of desire or blood. Basing an argument on that quote is like reasoning thus: water is the proper matter for baptism; baptizing someone with orange juice is invalid and not really baptism, therefore baptism of blood or desire does not exist. That's very fallacious and superficial reasoning, typical of the feeneyite camp from what I've seen.
The Augustine quote is suspect and I highly doubt its authenticity. But even if it is authentic it is possible to demonstrate that Augustine strongly affirmed baptism of blood and considered this, as well as baptism of desire, to be pretty much self-evident. Attempting to forge a feeneyite Augustine out of little quotes simply suggests to me that the person either has no appreciation for Augustine's thought, or else doesn't care and is attempting to justify their heresy and mislead people.

But the speculations and opinions of individual theologians (even if they are fathers and doctors) is not really the question. If I was a feeneyite I would focus on authoritative formulations of Church teaching. The exegesis of Church documents is a bit more interesting to me anyway.
But like many heretics of this class (the "more catholic than the pope" camp), they have a false concept of tradition and the magisterium.
This is certainly open to debate, but in my opinion if one reflects deeply upon the nature of language and Divine Revelation it is clear that dogma is essentially apophatic. And the faith is a living mystery, not static and dead propositions. The tensions in doctrine are mysteries and call the person to enter into a transformative communion with God who is beyond being. There are truths which on the level of propositions or rational analysis appear hopelessly in conflict, but which are to be grasped on the level of contemplation. The idea of a single God who is three persons for example. There are plenty of brilliant descriptions of the Trinity that attempt to resolve the tensions inherent in the very concept of God and the Trinity, but in the end all such linguistic constructs fall short and one is left simply with the experience, deep in the soul where no rational analysis can penetrate, of the ever mysterious God who is.
The problem is that many times people mistake the mysterious and supernatural deposit of faith with a philosophical system or perhaps some sort of juridical corpus. In a certain sense the deposit of Faith is God Himself.
Oh, and I'm not advocating fideism or something of that sort. I believe that an authentically Catholic world-view asserts the continuity of nature and grace so that faith and reason are not at odds. However I believe that faith is superior by virtue of the sublime nature of its source and subject. There is a complimentary and reciprocal relationship involved, but I affirm the primacy of faith (not to the detriment of reason, but as the fulfillment of reason). Reason seeks to know the truth, but ultimately truth is beyond reason. Reality is beyond reason and beyond being.