Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Art and Literature for Catholics => Topic started by: Knight Templar on April 02, 2022, 11:28:56 AM
-
https://youtu.be/-PhG-DpAakQ
by Father Leonard Feeney, M. I. C. M.
Certainly you have been noticing that everything new in art looks strange.
And, just as certainly, you have noticed that what is being passed off as the “modern” look in homes, stores, tables, chairs, paintings, and overshoes, has come in for some healthy ridicule from the great bulk of the American people who still retain their sanity. But in the midst of the digs and catcalls, brought on by living rooms full of wire and canvas furniture, and picture frames full of cows in flight over violins melting in frying pans, it is apparent that very few of you realize what is behind all this madness. How did sensible Americans get mixed up in all the current maze of curved concrete, plate glass walls, and egg crates stuck to the ceiling!
Well, like many of our present problems, this one immigrated here from Europe, where it had been gaining momentum since the year 1906. In that year, a young Spanish artist named Pablo Picasso produced the first of his deranged, erratic, twisted, brainsick, moon struck, crackpot canvases. Over night Picasso became the talk of Europe — and not just because of his spectacular queerness. For Pablo Picasso was that wild and fabulous contradiction: a painter who is a Jєω.
Except for a liberal Jєωess named Rosa Bonheur, who had done some pictures of horses a few years before, Europe had never heard of a Jєω owning a paint brush and easel. Image making of any kind was strictly forbidden by the vigilant rabbis. To enter the world of art meant apostasy from the ѕуηαgσgυє. Pictures and statues had been taken over by the Christians, who commemorated in paint and stone the Jєω detested fact that God had become Man — picturable now, along with His Virgin Mother, His Foster Father and His host of haloed saints.
Picasso finally realized all this, and his entrance into art was not in the least a scrapping of his Jєωιѕн loyalties. For Picasso had hit on a new angle for showing his Jєωιѕн hatred of pictures. He was willing to bet that he could get Gentiles to pay money to see how a faithful Jєω, let loose in a studio, ought to behave toward a piece of canvas.
He would use paint not to make images but to break them.
All the Jєωs jumped on Picasso’s bandwagon as soon as they saw what he was doing. Gertrude Stein wrote two books in praise of him, and young Jєωs from every capital in Europe flocked to Paris, Picasso’s headquarters, to be instructed in the new iconoclasm.
It didn’t take long to figure out that there are two basic ways of obliterating the subject matter of a picture. You can either distort it and twist it and stick it in a setting where it never, in reality, could be; or, you can reduce the thing to circles and squares and haphazard lines, leaving no trace of what you started with. The Jєωs decided that these two styles of destruction were entitled to fancy names, so they called the first one “surrealism,” and the second, “abstraction.”
From then on, modern art became a Yiddish field day — but not an intolerant one. Gentiles could enter the race as long as they observed the rules. Consequently a Dutchman named Piet Mondrain became a leader in “abstraction” and “surrealism.”
With the pictures on the wall gone haywire, it was only a matter of time before the rest of the room, the house and the whole neighborhood followed suit. And naturally, there was a Jєω already posted at each foreseeable point in the process, waiting to give you the “latest, up to date fashionably smart” item, just the way you saw it advertised in the sick Jєωιѕн press.
But before we trace the effects of Picasso’s revolution as it spread beyond the studio and art shop, there is this unhappy realization for Catholics: The Jєωιѕн attack was successful where, of all places it most wanted to be — in pictures and statues of Our Lord and the saints. Just enter any of the brand new churches which your local bishop has lately erected with the help of a Jєωιѕн fund raising expert. Apart from the immediately apparent fact that there are hardly any statues at all, you will notice that Our Blessed Lady has been streamlined, the Stations of the Cross have been reduced to fourteen studies in abstract composition, and the Crucifix (above the altar which looks like a drug store counter) has been distorted into some weird sub-human shape.
An investigation will many times reveal that these travesties on Christian art were done by respected Catholics who, in following the Jєωιѕн line in art, imagine that they are keeping our Church “abreast of the times.”
Thus far, however, “liturgical” Catholic sculptors have not yet reached the extremes of distortion which their Jєωιѕн mentors have. No Catholic, for example, has yet produced a statue of Our Blessed Lord that looks quite as grotesque as the totem pole monster with rope bound wrists which is sketched on the title page of this article. This particular bit of diabolism is entitled “Behold the Man,” is meant to be Jesus in His crown of thorns, and comes to us from the Jєωιѕн chisel of an east side New York sculptor named Jacob Epstein. Epstein does all his carving in London now, and as a reward for a steady stream of blasphemies like “Behold the Man,” he has been made a “knight” by the head of the Church of England, the namesake and worthy successor to Queen Elizabeth I.
By the end of World War I, the Jєωs felt Christian art and sculpture were well launched on the road to destruction, and so they decided to have a fling at architecture. Accordingly, there suddenly broke out in all parts of the Jєω inhabited world a rash of delirious designs on everything from office buildings to hamburger stands. At a loss to explain whence this new, sharply distinct architecture had come — arising in every nation at the same moment, and essentially the same form — bewildered Gentiles dubbed it “International Style” and let it go at that.
One reason for the universal sameness of the new architecture was, of course, that the Jєωs contriving it had all been given the same artistic schooling. They were all bent on translating the perversities of Picasso into concrete. But even more potent as a stereotyper was the single, resolute objective in each Jєω’s mind as he sat down to his drawing board. He was determined that, more than a new mode of building, his blueprint should present the setting for a new way of life.
As to what that new way of life ought to be, Jєωs everywhere were agreed. Instructed by their тαℓмυd, they knew that the welfare of the world depended on Gentiles’ taking the place nature intended them to have.
The first thing you noticed about the new Jєωιѕн architecture, and that you still notice, is the stark nakedness of it. A Jєω-designed house, with its vast expanses of unashamed glass, gives its inhabitant the feeling he has made his bed on the front lawn. It leaves him without a scrap of dignity, privacy, or composure.
With unwonted frankness, the Jєωs describe these houses of theirs as “machines of living.” They are meant simply to facilitate man’s biological functions — to give him a place to bring his food and eat it, a place to protect himself from the elements, a place to sleep and to raise his children. And the Jєωs feel these purposes should be plainly and immediately evident in the house’s construction. The modern family dwelling, they hold, should be designed with the straightforwardness of a bird’s nest — which presents no deceitful fripperies, but is clearly and genuously what it is: a secure spot where the bird may lay its eggs.
To go with their animal-function houses, the Jєωs have also designed some animal-form furniture, the most striking specimen of which is probably the Jєωιѕн chair. It is impossible to see the human body — back hunched, arms dangling — trying to conform itself to one of these atrocities, without either snickering in amusement or gasping in horror.
As with painting, the Jєωs are willing to admit an occasional apt Gentile to the fraternity of architects and designers. But it is always made clear that he is there by sufferance, the show belongs to the Jєωs. Thus, the brainstorms of a ferocious Finn, labeled “lamp” or “table,” might be featured by a modern minded furniture store: but you can be sure that the man who ordered them, and who stands by your shoulder urging you to buy, is solidly Jєωιѕн.
To trace the origins of modem Jєωιѕн architecture, as a central, organized movement, it is necessary to look to Germany. There, by the mid-twenties, a certain Walter Gropius, supported by the Jєωιѕн composer Arnold Schoenberg, Jєωιѕн writer Franz Werfel, and Jєωιѕн mathematician Albert Einstein, was operating a successful school of architecture called the “Bauhaus” (German for “building house”).
The Bauhaus had contracted to be the laboratory for all that was new in art and technology. It aimed at coordinating the twentieth century forces of the studio and the machine shop, with all the work done jointly by a “commune” of students, teachers, artists, and grease monkeys.
By the year 1933, Adolph Hitler had arrived on the scene, and it became quite apparent that there would be no room in Germany for two such contradictory enterprises as the Jєω-ridden, communal Bauhaus and the Jєω-Hating National Socialism. The nαzιs chose to stay, and ordered Gropius and company to pack some realistic luggage and get out.
Although Walter Gropius eventuated to Cambridge, Massachusetts, and became our next door neighbor, the idea of a Bauhaus still obsessed his former colleagues. The most capable of them, a Hungarian Jєω named Laszlo Moholy-Nagy, finally persuaded some unwary industrialists to support him in establishing an American Bauhaus in Chicago — the now famous Institute of Design.
When Moholy-Nagy died in Chicago his “new Bauhaus” laid him out in an exhibit of his paintings, sculptures and designs, then hired a Jєωιѕн cantor to come in and lament over the body in proper Hebrew fashion. It was a fitting gesture; for Moholy (as even his wife called him) had rendered his race an immeasurable service.
Under his direction, the Institute of Design had completely assumed the role of the old Bauhaus in Germany, serving as the headquarters for modern architecture. But beyond that, Moholy and his Institute had won the everlasting gratitude of Jєωry by promoting in America the idea of mass housing. This was the most significant advance in the campaign to animalize Gentiles by designing their dwellings since the International Style first burst into being.
It was immediately evident to most Jєωs that there were tremendous advantages in putting lots of Gentile families under one roof and having many such identical roofs congregated in a small area. For those who needed more convincing, the first such assemblages (called by the innocuous name “housing projects”) provided the clincher. Placing the inhabitants in compact, uniform stalls; indiscriminately mixing up black and white families; compelling them to lead a kind of life that strips off the properties and conventions of civilized man — these measures have proven their effectiveness. Housing projects are openly, notoriously, jungles of crime, cruelty, depravity, and vice. As enforcers of тαℓмυdic theology, they are unbeatable.
Although there is no precedent in the animal world which justifies the building of a place for religious meetings, the dispensers of modern Jєωιѕн architecture have produced, along with their housing projects, a number of churches. Each of these looks as though the architect had begrudgingly said to himself as he started off, “Well, if all the pious herd want to be packed into one room at one time, I suppose I can build them a barn for the purpose.”
Lately, the architects have been more enthusiastic about churches. They are now designing a variety which fits quite neatly into the animal pattern. It is popularly called the Interfaith Chapel. It is a communal religious center for the priest, the minister, the rabbi, and its calculated Jєωιѕн effect is to reduce the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, to the level of televangelist fakery and тαℓмυdic filth — a supreme award for eighty five years of plotting on the part of Messrs. Picasso, Epstein, Moholy and company.
-
Father Feeney was a far greater theologian and Church militant than most bishops, cardinals and popes in the Church's history.
-
Father Feeney was a far greater theologian and Church militant than most bishops, cardinals and popes in the Church's history.
Indeed. He has been badly smeared even by most Traditional Catholics, but he was fighting the Vatican II fight well before Vatican II materialized. He knew where it was all going, and was almost alone in the entire world to realize it. Everybody else is operating on 20-20 hindsight. Everybody else in the 1950s believed that things were going just great in the Church since the seminaries and religious orders were full and conversions were happening at a record pace. But Father saw the rot underneath the veneer and sensed that "something was wrong". After pondering the question he realized that the root cause was the denial of EENS dogma (and the resulting false ecclesiology) ... and as it turns out that was the core error behind all the errors of Vatican II. Rahner bragged about how by far the most revolutionary thing about Vatican II was its overturning of traditional EENS dogma and marveled that none of the "conservatives" even noticed it.
-
i never knew that Piccaso was a Jєω ... and yet why am I not the least bit surprised? What else would explain how his garbage became worth milions and that no-talent hack could become the most famous artist in the world? Just like Einstein became the world's greatest genius and is very name synonymous with genius (in expressions like "I'm no Einstein.") ... wherewas he was actually just a fraud, provably stealing the few ideas he became famous for and not particularly bright (couldn't even make it through school).
-
I think Fr. Feeney’s testimonies about the general state of the Church at his time (prior to Vatican II) as well as the execution of EENS by His Holiness Pope Pius XII & the Holy Office at the instigation of the heretic Cardinal Cushing put to rest the myth that Vatican II was the start of the crisis. It was certainly earlier.
-
i never knew that Piccaso was a Jєω ... and yet why am I not the least bit surprised? What else would explain how his garbage became worth milions and that no-talent hack could become the most famous artist in the world? Just like Einstein became the world's greatest genius and is very name synonymous with genius (in expressions like "I'm no Einstein.") ... wherewas he was actually just a fraud, provably stealing the few ideas he became famous for and not particularly bright (couldn't even make it through school).
Piccaso was demonically possessed and insane... and he knew it.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fpre00.deviantart.net%2F5290%2Fth%2Fpre%2Ff%2F2009%2F227%2F5%2F1%2Fpicasso_week_crazy_lady_by_aldrich_beat.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
-
Father Feeney was a far greater theologian and Church militant than most bishops, cardinals and popes in the Church's history.
Father Feeney was in fact a prophet.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholicism.org%2Fimages%2Fslaves%2FFr.Leonard-glasses.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
He knew the Faith and тαℓмυdic judaism and could see what was coming in the early 1940s.
He took the Jєωs head-on at Harvard University... and was winning, until the Jesuits and ʝʊdɛօ-masons collaborated and undermined him.
-
Father Feeney was a far greater theologian and Church militant than most bishops, cardinals and popes in the Church's history.
Sorry but no. In fact, this statement is scandalous. We look up to the teachings of the popes as the vicar of Christ and the final arbiters of Catholic doctrine. We look up to bishops as the successors of the Apostles, who have the authority to teach the Church and are part of the living magisterium. We look up to the cardinals, similarly, as princes of the Church who are appointed to that position by the pope for their learning and piety. To put one ex-Jesuit priest ahead of most of those people is not a Catholic attitude at all.
-
i wasn't aware that Fr Feeney was an "ex- Jesuit"....:confused:
-
i wasn't aware that Fr Feeney was an "ex- Jesuit"....:confused:
I believe he was expelled from the order.
-
I too salute Fr. Feeney. Before him was Fr. Arnold Damen and Fr. Mueller who fought for No salvation outside the church. Fr. Arnold Damen was chosen to come to America under Fr. De Smet!
-
Another who fought for the Dogma was Fr. Paul Trinchard.
-
I believe he was expelled from the order.
Yes -Because of upholding the Faith. Sad testimony to the Jesuits - A badge of honor to Fr. Leonard.
-
Sorry but no. In fact, this statement is scandalous. We look up to the teachings of the popes as the vicar of Christ and the final arbiters of Catholic doctrine. We look up to bishops as the successors of the Apostles, who have the authority to teach the Church and are part of the living magisterium. We look up to the cardinals, similarly, as princes of the Church who are appointed to that position by the pope for their learning and piety. To put one ex-Jesuit priest ahead of most of those people is not a Catholic attitude at all.
(https://static.businessinsider.com/image/52995bfc69bedd1654d2176e/image.jpg)
"You da man... thank you Yeti!"
-
Indeed. He has been badly smeared even by most Traditional Catholics, but he was fighting the Vatican II fight well before Vatican II materialized. He knew where it was all going, and was almost alone in the entire world to realize it. Everybody else is operating on 20-20 hindsight. Everybody else in the 1950s believed that things were going just great in the Church since the seminaries and religious orders were full and conversions were happening at a record pace. But Father saw the rot underneath the veneer and sensed that "something was wrong". After pondering the question he realized that the root cause was the denial of EENS dogma (and the resulting false ecclesiology) ... and as it turns out that was the core error behind all the errors of Vatican II. Rahner bragged about how by far the most revolutionary thing about Vatican II was its overturning of traditional EENS dogma and marveled that none of the "conservatives" even noticed it.
Recall that his punishment resulted from Bobby Kennedy taking offence, running to his Dad Joe who get got the Kennedy house bishop, Cardinal Cushing to organise measures in Rome.
Cushing got complaints from various people including a mother (1961) and a priest (Fr Chabot 1967) about Paul Shanley's crimes against young boys throughout the sixties. His response at the end of the sixties was to make Shanley's apostolate to street youth permanent. Error and moral depravity are so often the closest things. I recall someone claiming that the perverted, tormented Shanley made claims against Cushing.
-
Sorry but no. In fact, this statement is scandalous. We look up to the teachings of the popes as the vicar of Christ and the final arbiters of Catholic doctrine. We look up to bishops as the successors of the Apostles, who have the authority to teach the Church and are part of the living magisterium. We look up to the cardinals, similarly, as princes of the Church who are appointed to that position by the pope for their learning and piety. To put one ex-Jesuit priest ahead of most of those people is not a Catholic attitude at all.
St. Thomas Aquinas
St. Bonaventure
St. Augustine
All could be justly put "ahead" of most people in the realm of theology. Certainly not the apostles, no, but they stand above a good number of Popes, Cardinals, Bishops and priests.
-
Recall that his punishment resulted from Bobby Kennedy taking offence, running to his Dad Joe who get got the Kennedy house bishop, Cardinal Cushing to organise measures in Rome.
Cushing got complaints from various people including a mother (1961) and a priest (Fr Chabot 1967) about Paul Shanley's crimes against young boys throughout the sixties. His response at the end of the sixties was to make Shanley's apostolate to street youth permanent. Error and moral depravity are so often the closest things. I recall someone claiming that the perverted, tormented Shanley made claims against Cushing.
Wonder what offended RFK at the St. Benedict’s Center?
Read that JFK stopped by the St. Benedict’s Center in Boston and was well received.
Before he left, Father Feeney even mentioned that charismatic Irishman had the potential to become a U.S. president.
On the contrary, RFK was said to have visited and was apparently miffed by the SBC’s staunch Catholic militancy. He walked out saying he knew more Protestants that would go to Heaven before the SBC crowd would.
If the jews hadn’t shot RFK,I think he would have won the 1968 election, but would have been a liberal president.
In contrast, JFK had the Catholic graces of wisdom, to seek the Confessional 4 hours before the Jews αssαssιnαtҽd him.
Who’s in Heaven now and who is not? JFK’s & RFK’s murderers surely didn’t make it.
-
I too salute Fr. Feeney. Before him was Fr. Arnold Damen and Fr. Mueller who fought for No salvation outside the church. Fr. Arnold Damen was chosen to come to America under Fr. De Smet!
Fr. Feeney's understanding of EENS clashes with Fr. Muller, who taught BOD extensively throughout his works.
-
I read Fr. Mueller's No Salvation outside the Church. It did not clash at all, it just affirmed for Fr. Feeney that there were communists in the universities 50 years before Fr. Feeney came on the scenes and he saw it as well.
-
I read Fr. Mueller's No Salvation outside the Church. It did not clash at all, it just affirmed for Fr. Feeney that there were communists in the universities 50 years before Fr. Feeney came on the scenes and he saw it as well.
Fr. Muller's teaching on EENS clashes with Fr. Feeney's understanding of it, as can be seen in Chapter 5 of that book, where Fr. Muller, quoting Orestes Brownson and St. Robert Bellarmine, explains:
"'out of the Church no one can be saved,' is to be understood of those who are of the Church neither actually nor in desire."
He goes on to explain in that chapter that catechumens that die without actually receiving the sacrament of baptism can be saved.
"St. Thomas teaches with regard to these, in case they have faith working by charity, that all they lack is the, reception of the visible sacrament in reality; but, if they are prevented by death from receiving it in reality before the Church is ready to administer it, that God supplies the defect, accepts the will for the deed, and reputes them to be baptized. If the defect is supplied, and God reputes them to be baptized, they are so in effect, have in effect received the visible sacrament, are truly members of the external communion of the Church, and therefore are saved in it, not out of it. (Summa, 3, q. 68, a. 2, corp. ad 2. et ad 3)."
Further on in that chapter, he affirms implicit BOD:
"If a person cannot receive Baptism or Penance in reality, and is aware of the obligation of receiving it, he must have the explicit desire to receive it; but, if he is not aware of this obligation, he must have at least the implicit desire to receive it, and this desire must be joined to divine faith in the Redeemer and to an act of perfect charity or contrition, which includes the sincere desire of the soul to comply with all that God requires of it in order to be saved."
In his famous book "Prayer: The Key to Salvation", he says:
“Any other loss can be made up for, but never that of prayer; if, on account of a delicate constitution, you cannot fast, you may give alms; have you no occasion to confess, you may obtain forgiveness of your sins by making an act of perfect contrition; nay, even the Sacrament of Baptism may be supplied by the real desire of it, and a perfect love of God, but no other means of salvation is left for him who does not love to practise prayer.”
Here are some other examples of Fr. Muller's teaching on this:
Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine (1875), p.295 https://archive.org/details/familiarexplana00mlgoog (https://archive.org/details/familiarexplana00mlgoog)
The Prodigal Son (1875), p.398 https://archive.org/details/theprodigalsonor00mulluoft (https://archive.org/details/theprodigalsonor00mulluoft)
God the Teacher of Mankind (1880)
- Vol.I: The Church and Her Enemies, pp.285-286 https://archive.org/details/thechurchandhere00mulluoft (https://archive.org/details/thechurchandhere00mulluoft)
- Vol. V: Dignity, Authority, and Duties of Parents, Ecclesiastical and Civil Powers – Their Enemy, pp.460-464 https://archive.org/details/godtheteacher05meuluoft (https://archive.org/details/godtheteacher05meuluoft)
- Vol.VI: Grace and the Sacraments, pp.218-222 https://books.google.com/books?id=KakKAQAAIAAJ (https://books.google.com/books?id=KakKAQAAIAAJ)
- Vol.VIII: The Sacraments of The Holy Eucharist and Penance, pp.336 & 351 https://books.google.com/books?id=hLwKAQAAIAAJ (https://books.google.com/books?id=hLwKAQAAIAAJ)
- Vol.IX: Sacramentals, Prayer, Vices and Virtues; Christian Perfection, Etc., p.62 https://archive.org/details/GodTheTeacherOfMankindV9 (https://archive.org/details/GodTheTeacherOfMankindV9)
Here's what he teaches in God the Teacher of Mankind, Vol.VI, "Grace and the Sacraments" (pp.218-222):
8. Can the baptism of water be ever supplied?
When a person cannot receive the baptism of water, it may be supplied by the baptism of desire, or by the baptism of blood.
Almighty God is goodness itself. Hence he wishes that all men should be saved. But, in order to be saved, it is necessary to pass, by means of baptism, from the state of sin to the state of grace. Infants, therefore, who die unbaptized, can never enter the kingdom of heaven. The case of grown persons is somewhat different; for, when grown persons cannot be actually baptized before death, then the baptism of water may be supplied by what is called the baptism of desire.
There is an infidel. He has become acquainted with the true faith. He most earnestly desires baptism. But he cannot have any one to baptize him before he dies. Now, is such a person lost because he dies without the baptism of water? No; in this case, the person is said to be baptized in desire.
9. What is the baptism of desire?
An earnest wish to receive baptism, or to do all that God requires of us for our salvation, together with a perfect contrition, or a perfect love of God.
An ardent desire of baptism, accompanied with faith in Jesus Christ and true repentance, is, with God, like the baptism of water. In this case, the words of the Blessed Virgin are verified: “The Lord has filled the hungry with good things.” (Luke i, 35.) He bestows the good things of heaven upon those who die with the desire of baptism. We read of a very interesting instance, in confirmation of this truth, in the Annals of the Propagation of the Faith: It is related by M. Odin, missionary apostolic, and, subsequently, Archbishop of New Orleans, Louisiana: “At some distance from our establishment at Barrens,” he says, “in Missouri, United States of America, there was a district inhabited by Protestants or infidels, with the exception of three or four Catholic families. In 1834 we had the consolation of baptizing several persons there: thus it was that the Lord was pleased to reward the kindness with which one of the most respectable inhabitants gave us hospitality every time we journeyed that way. This worthy man, who was not a Catholic, had three little children, who received with eagerness the instructions we never failed to give them. The tallest of the sons, only eight years old, especially showed such a particular relish for the word of God, that he learned by heart the entire catechism. Evening and morning he addressed his little prayer to the good God; and if ever his little sister missed that holy exercise, he reproached her very seriously. Things were at this point when the cholera broke out in the neighborhood. Then this good little boy said simply to his mother: ‘Mamma, the cholera is coming here: oh! how glad I should be if the priests from the seminary came to baptize me! That cruel disease will attack me, I am sure it will, and I shall die without baptism; then you will be sorry.' Alas! the poor child predicted truly: he was one of the first victims of the dreadful plague. During the short moments of his cruel sufferings he incessantly asked for baptism, and even with his last sigh he kept repeating: “Oh if any one would baptize me! My God! must I die without being baptized?' The mother, thinking that she could not herself administer that sacrament, although there was evident necessity, was in the greatest trouble; neither would the child consent to receive it from the hands of a Protestant minister. At last he died without having obtained his ardent wish. As soon as I heard of the cholera being in that part of the country, I hastened thither; but I only reached there some hours after the child's funeral. The family was plunged in the greatest affliction. I consoled them as much as I could, and especially in relation to the eternal destiny of their poor little one, by explaining to them what the Church teaches us on the baptism of desire. This consoling doctrine much assuaged their grief; after giving the other necessary instructions, I baptized the mother and the two young children, and, some days after, the father failed not to follow the example of his family.” (“Catholic Anecdotes,” p. 547.)
Although it be true that the fathers of the Church have believed and taught that the baptism of desire may supply the baptism of water, yet this doctrine, as St. Augustine observes, should not make any one delay ordinary baptism when he is able to receive it; for, such a delay of baptism is always attended with great danger of salvation.
10. What is the baptism of blood?
Martyrdom for the sake of Christ.
There is still another case in which a person may be justified and saved without having actually received the sacrament of baptism, viz.: the case of a person suffering martyrdom for the faith before he has been able to receive baptism. Martyrdom for the true faith has always been held by the Church to supply the sacrament of baptism. Hence, in the case of martyrdom, a person has always been said to be baptized in his own blood. Our divine Saviour assures us that “whosoever shall lose his life for his sake and the gospel, shall save it.” (Mark viii, 35.) He, therefore, who dies for Jesus Christ, and for the sake of his religion, obtains a full remission of all his sins, and is immediately after death admitted into heaven.
St. Emerentiana, while preparing to receive baptism, went to pray at the tomb of St. Agnes. While praying there, she was stoned to death by the heathens. Her parents were greatly afflicted, and almost inconsolable, when they learned that their daughter had died without having received baptism. To console her parents, God permitted Emerentiana to appear to them in her heavenly glory, and to tell them not to be any longer afflicted on account of her salvation, “for,” said she, “I am in heaven with Jesus, my dear Saviour, whom I loved with my whole heart, when living on earth.” (Her Life, 23d Jan.)
St. Genesius of Arles is also honored as a saint, because, for refusing to subscribe to a persecuting edict of Maximilian, he was put to death, though, at that time, he had not been baptized.