http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/08Nov/nov3str.htm

    Continuing with the second part of this installment on the Baptism of Desire, it is widely known of course that St. Augustine, towards the end of his life, wrote his "Retractions" in which he went through all his works and attempted to correct or modify anything he would have said different from how he said it at the time it was originally written. Furthermore, much mileage is made by those denying BOB and/or BOD his use of the phrase "Considering this over and over again..." as though he thought he were going out on a limb by teaching Baptism of Desire. So invariably is St. Augustine portrayed as reversing himself at various times on even this question, as though sometimes he taught one thing and other times the other.

    In this area, it is actually Richard Ibranyi who goes into the most detail, having posited a supposed sequence of some several "reversals" in St. Augustine's position. In his piece, The Final Position of St. Augustine on Baptism, Richard Ibranyi first claims: "One: He teaches the absolute necessity of sacramental baptism by water for salvation:," after which he provides the following quotes:

    St. Augustine: "How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized, and are thus lost forever! ...When we shall have come into the sight of God, we shall behold the equity of His justice. At that time, no one will say: Why did He help this one and not that one? Why was this man led by God's direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster and not baptized? Look for rewards, and you will find nothing but punishments! ….For of what use would repentance be, even before Baptism, if Baptism did not follow? ...No matter what progress a catechumen may make, he still carries the burden of iniquity, and it is not taken away until he has been baptized." (The Faith of Our Fathers, Fr. Jurgens, bk. 3, 1496; On the Gospel of St. John, Chapter 13, Tract 7.)

    This is actually a run-together of three different quotes, the second from The Faith of Our Fathers, Fr. Jurgens, bk. 3, 1496, and the third from On the Gospel of St. John, Chapter 13, Tract 7. The Jurgens quote begins with the phrase "When we shall have come…" and the Gospel of Saint John quote begins with "For of what use would repentance…" As for the first quote, no source has been given for it, nor have I seen it anywhere, nor is it credible that any Ancient Father would have taught that, so I am quite free to suggest that it is in all likelyhood something Richard Ibranyi invented whole cloth out of his own imagination. If he can identify where such a quote came from then let him name it that we may look it up for ourselves and discover what would have been really meant. As for the Jurgens quote I have already explained that it pertains to those who seek the Kingdom only for rewards and not for being placed at its service, as in they want the salary without the work, so of course those seeking only rewards, though we do not know this of them, God does, and His judgments are righteous though we do not understand them at the time. As for the "burden of his iniquity" that the catechumen carries until his baptism in water, that is the Purgatorial sentence for all the sins of his life he will endure in Purgatory should he die before baptism, but since it be through no fault of his own he will be saved, though "as through fire." The next couple quotes are quite self-evident:

    St. Augustine: "Note that I speak now both to the faithful and to catechumens. What did I mention in connection with the spittle and the clay? This: the Word became flesh. The catechumens can hear this; but just listening to it does not accomplish that for which they were anointed. Let them hasten to the font if they seek the Light." (The Divine Office, bk., p. 1620, from Fourth Week in Lent, Treatise 44 on John.)

    St. Augustine: "What is the Baptism of Christ? A washing in the word. Take away the water, and there is no Baptism. It is, then, by water, the visible and outward sign of grace, and by the Spirit, Who produces the inward gift of grace, which cancels the bond of sin and restores God's gift to human nature, that the man who was born solely of Adam in the first place is afterwards re-born solely in Christ." ("On John," 15:4, Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Latina, Fr. J. P. Migne, Paris, 1855, vol. 35.)

    It doesn't take rocket science to see that the first is simply an admonition to proceed swiftly and surely to the point of one's baptism, not dawdling, and the second reiterates the fact that the Sacrament requires water as its matter. This next quote is a little bit more interesting for two reasons, one which I will explain by putting the quote in its full context and also the overall context of the docuмent from which it came, and another reason I will get to later on:

    St. Augustine: "Or how can they fail to be saved by water… the same unity of the ark saved them, in which no one has been saved except by water. For Cyprian himself says, 'The Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being in all simplicity admitted to the Church, have fallen asleep within her pale.' If not by water, how in the ark? If not in the ark, how in the Church? But if in the Church, certainly in the ark; and if in the ark, certainly by water. …nor can they be said to have been otherwise saved in the ark except by water." (On Baptism (De Baptismo), 5:28.)

    Reading that, one would think St. Augustine was equating the waters of baptism with the waters of the ark. And there is a parallel, for the waters of the ark not only saved those within the ark itself but also killed all those outside, and likewise baptism brings life to those who are within the Church and not sinning, but death to those who are outside (and choosing to remain outside), or else even those inside the Church who fall into mortal sin, and die therein. For this comes from St. Augustine's treatise on Baptism, by which he primarily sought to respond to the heresy of the Donatists, who denied that baptisms administered by sinners could be valid. St. Augustine points out that those baptized outside the Church, whether by the Donatists or any other heretics, do indeed validly baptize (place the mark of baptism on the soul of the recipient), but that it avails them no salvation, but does mean that they should not be baptized when they repent and decide to enter the Church. However, one sees more of what is going on at this point when the quote is given in full:

    St. Augustine, On Baptism, Book 5 Chapter 28 (39): Wherefore, if those appear to men to be baptized in Catholic unity who renounce the world in words only and not in deeds, how do they belong to the mystery of this ark in whom there is not the answer of a good conscience? Or how are they saved by water, who, making a bad use of holy baptism, though they seem to be within, yet persevere to the end of their days in a wicked and abandoned course of life? Or how can they fail to be saved by water, of whom Cyprian himself records that they were in time past simply admitted to the Church with the baptism which they had received in heresy? For the same unity of the ark saved them, in which no one has been saved except by water. For Cyprian himself says, "The Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being in all simplicity admitted to the Church, have fallen asleep within her pale." If not by water, how in the ark? If not in the ark, how in the Church? But if in the Church, certainly in the ark; and if in the ark, certainly by water. It is therefore possible that some who have been baptized without may be considered, through the foreknowledge of God, to have been really baptized within, because within the water begins to be profitable to them unto salvation; nor can they be said to have been otherwise saved in the ark except by water. And again, some who seemed to have been baptized within may be considered, through the same foreknowledge of God, more truly to have been baptized without, since, by making a bad use of baptism, they die by water, which then happened to no one who was not outside the ark. Certainly it is clear that, when we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body, since all who are within in heart are saved in the unity of the ark through the same water, through which all who are in heart without, whether they are also in body without or not, die as enemies of unity. As therefore it was not another but the same water that saved those who were placed within the ark, and destroyed those who were left without the ark, so it is not by different baptisms, but by the same, that good Catholics are saved, and bad Catholics or heretics perish.

    One should see from this that St. Augustine was here writing about what St. Cyprian spoke of regarding those who were baptized by heretics outside the Church, but who converted and were received by the Church without rebaptism, as quoted earlier this installment. St. Cyprian had regarded those heretical baptisms as all categorically invalid, and therefore their receptions into the Church without rebaptism as instances of Baptism of Desire (or of Blood in the case of those heretically baptized, subsequently accepted into the Church without rebaptism, and then martyred). St. Augustine was not denying that there existed Baptism of Blood or Desire, but saying that neither of those had anything to do with the case of these persons who had been baptized only by the heretics since they in fact had been validly baptized already, though outside the Church by heretics.

    Richard Ibranyi then claims: "Two: Contradicting his above teaching, St. Augustine, in City of God, teaches that an unbaptized catechumen-meaning he has explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Most Holy Trinity and an explicit desire to be baptized-can be justified if he dies unbaptized and as a martyr." But of course St. Augustine in no way contradicted himself, he was merely being misquoted before. The single quote given here of a supposed "second" position is merely that from the City of God which has already been given in previous installments, but I give it again here:

    St. Augustine: "I have in mind those unbaptized persons who die confessing the name of Christ. They receive the forgiveness of their sins as completely as if they had been cleansed by the waters of baptism. For, He who said: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,' made exceptions in other decisions which are no less universal: 'Everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge him before my Father in heaven'; and again: 'He who loses his life for my sake will find it.' So, too, in the psalm: 'Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints.' For, what could be more precious than a death, which remits all sin and amasses merit? Men, unable to defer their death, who are baptized, and thus depart from life with all their sins forgiven, are not equal in merit to those who have not postponed death, although they could have done so, because they preferred to lose life by confessing Christ than, by denying Him, to gain time for Baptism." (City of God, Bk. XIII, Chap. 7.)

    Richard Ibranyi then claims: "Three: In another of his works, On Baptism (De baptismo), St. Augustine contradicts himself by teaching baptism is actually administered, invisibly, to worthy catechumens who seemed to die without it," after which he provides the following quote:

    St. Augustine: "Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom has not contempt of religion (the Catholic Religion) but death excludes." (On Baptism, Against the Donatists (De Baptismo), Bk. IV, Chap. 22.)

After which he goes on to comment:

    He teaches, "Baptism is ministered invisibly." By using the word "ministered," he clearly teaches someone, a minister, administers the sacrament of baptism. By invisibly, he means it is not known to anyone but the minister and maybe very few, so that there is no public record. This can take place miraculously if God allows a minister to be transported to baptize such a one with water. Or God can even temporarily raise a catechumen from the dead so he can be baptized by a minister in a way not known by anyone else.

    In point of fact, St. Augustine teaches no such thing. The "invisible baptism" of which he speaks is none other than Baptism of Desire, or of Blood, in which the graces of the Sacrament are placed upon a soul directly by God upon that soul's entrance into the next life. It is invisible in the same sense as the concept, however unwelcome or easily abused, that some spoke of an "invisible" church consisting only of those who are actually in a state of Grace, or else already saved by being in Purgatory or Heaven. The visible Church here on earth has no registry of any water baptism of the soul in question, and in fact believes the soul to have not been baptized in water at all. If ever some unknown minister of the Sacrament were to secretly or quietly perform the sacrament, whether miraculously transported or not, whether the soul was miraculously resurrected for the purpose or not, that secret minister has a duty before God to report what he did to the Church. However, once that occurs, even if known only to that minister, the baptized soul (now gone to its Maker), and some Church official who thereby proceeded to enter the record of the baptism into his parish baptismal registry, it would cease to be "invisible" in any real sense of the word, and that detail would certainly emerge if the life of the soul in question were being investigated, for example in his cause for sainthood.

    I arrive here now however at the second interesting thing about the quote given much above under the heading of a supposed "first" position of St. Augustine, namely the fact that that quote, and this (for his supposed "third" position) both come from the exact same docuмent, namely his piece "On Baptism" regarding the heresy of the Donatists! So much for any claim of any "back-and-forth" sequence!

    Richard Ibranyi then claims: "Final Opinion: What, then, was St. Augustine's final conviction regarding the sacrament of baptism? We have definitive proof from his latter works that he did not favor his former opinions of baptism of desire and blood; instead, he defended the absolute necessity of sacramental baptism by water for salvation. His refutation of the Pelagians, who denied original sin and the necessity of baptism for infants, led him to see the flaws in his earlier opinion and change his position."

    There is no proof offered from any later (or even the same, or earlier) works that St. Augustine ever reversed his belief in Baptism of both Blood and Desire. The refutation of the Pelagians, mentioned above, is never cited for there is nothing in his anti-Pelagian works that oppose BOB or BOD. The statement is simply made, without support, while other works having nothing to do with the Pelagians are variously quoted. There is however a change (perhaps even two) as to how he understood the case of the Thief on the cross, as to whether he was an example of BOB as Cyprian taught, or of BOD, or if he might have been baptized in water after all. Richard Ibranyi alludes to this change, thus:

    We will first present his former and then latter work that deals with the Good Thief. In the former, he teaches the Good Thief had baptism of blood. In the latter, he teaches the Good Thief was, indeed, baptized by water in a way that was not historically recorded.

        St. Augustine's former teaching on Baptism, On Baptism Against the Donatists 4, 22: "That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by martyrdom 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.'"

    St. Augustine does not take into consideration the fact that the sacrament of baptism was not instituted until Christ commanded His apostles to baptize in His Name and was not mandatory (promulgated) until after Ascension Thursday. Even worse, St. Augustine teaches the Good Thief died as a martyr, when in fact he died for his own crimes and not as a martyr for Christ.

    So now, "On Baptism" is quoted yet again under the heading of being his "final" position, with a quote that comes from not at all far from the previous quote given from the same docuмent. He is attempting to portray St. Augustine as accepting St. Cyprian's position, especially by falsely claiming here that "St. Augustine teaches the Good Thief died as a martyr" when in fact St. Augustine had right here rejected that teaching of St. Cyprian's. Even worse, Richard Ibranyi here claims that "the sacrament of baptism was not instituted until Christ commanded His apostles to baptize in His name," which is not true since His baptism seems to have existed since His Own baptism by John, and at any rate was obtainable by the time He preached it to Nicodemus. He may have gone along with St. Cyprian's opinion in the beginning, but by the time he came to write specifically about Baptism, he had rethought it, as brought out by Peter Dimond in his Treatise which I have otherwise been primarily addressing:

    St. Augustine is quoted in favor of the concept of baptism of desire, but he admittedly struggled with the issue, sometimes clearly opposing the idea that unbaptized catechumens could achieve salvation, and other times supporting it.

        St. Augustine, 400: "That the place of Baptism is sometimes supplied by suffering is supported by a substantial argument which the same Blessed Cyprian draws…Considering this over and over again, I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply for that which is lacking by way of Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if… recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the Mystery of Baptism."

        There are two interesting points about this passage. The first relates to baptism of blood: notice that Augustine says that his belief in baptism of blood is supported by an inference or an argument that St. Cyprian made, not anything rooted in the Tradition of the Apostles or the Roman Pontiffs. As we saw already, many of the inferences of St. Cyprian showed themselves to be quite wrong, to put it nicely, such as his "inference" that it was from "apostolic Tradition" that heretics cannot confer baptism. Thus, St. Augustine is revealing by this statement a very important point: that his belief even in baptism of blood is rooted in fallible human speculation, not in divine revelation or infallible Tradition. He is admitting that he could be wrong and, in fact, he is wrong.

        Secondly, when Augustine concludes that he also believes that faith (that is, faith in Catholicism) and a desire for baptism could have the same effect as martyrdom, he says: "Considering this over and over again…" By saying that he considered this over and over again, St. Augustine is admitting that his opinion on baptism of desire is also something that he has come to from his own consideration, not through infallible Tradition or teaching. It is something that he admittedly struggled with and contradicted himself on, as will be shown. All of this serves to prove again that baptism of desire, like baptism of blood, is a tradition of man, born in erroneous and fallible human speculation (albeit from some great men), and not rooted in or derived from any Tradition of the Apostles or of the popes.

    Peter Dimond does bring out one small point passed over in silence by Richard Ibranyi, namely that St. Augustine, after much consideration, did not accept St. Cyprian's teaching that the good Thief was an instance of BOB, but rather of BOD, in view of the fact that the thief was suffering, not for Christ (though he willingly accepted his sufferings in his coming to Christ), but for his crimes, whatever they were.

    But it is in the Treatise (of Peter Dimond) that this one phrase "considering this over and over again…" is being somehow construed to mean that St. Augustine actually had to question the existence of BOB or BOD itself, which as will be seen from the actual context of the statement itself, actually pertains to his opinion regarding only the Thief on the cross. BOB and BOD themselves were never in doubt by St. Augustine, but the exact category to which this thief belonged was something he never quite found a satisfactory answer to. He may have initially accepted the teaching of St. Cyprian that it was an example of BOB, but clearly by the time of writing his piece "On Baptism" to refute the Donatists, he had, with much deliberation and some hesitation, rejected that claim in favor of it being an example of BOD. In his On the Soul and its Origin he would go on to explore other possibilities for this thief, though again whatever category that thief ends up belonging to really has no bearing on the question of BOB and BOD which he accepted without question throughout his entire Christian life.

    Peter Dimond in his Treatise manages to make the same mistake regarding the Good Thief on the Cross as was made by Richard Ibranyi in claiming that he could not have been possibly baptized in water, even before his capture and crucifixion since supposedly Christian baptism had not been instituted. This is rather strange since one could have speculated his being baptized previously, and yet they close off this "out" and supply the most fanciful alternatives. Let us start with Peter Dimond's:

    Interestingly, in the same set of works on Baptism quoted already, St. Augustine made a different error, which he later corrected in his Book of Corrections. In this set of works he had originally stated his opinion that the Good Thief who died on the Cross next to Our Lord was an example of Baptism of Blood. He later corrected this, by noting that the Good Thief could not be used as an example of Baptism of Blood because we don't know if the Good Thief was ever baptized. But actually, the Good Thief cannot be used as an example of baptism of blood primarily because the Good Thief died under the Old Law, not the New Law; he died before the Law of Baptism was instituted by Jesus Christ after the Resurrection. For that reason, the Good Thief, like the Holy Innocents, constitutes no argument against the necessity of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation.

    If the Good Thief died under the Old Law, then he will have been judged by the Old Law. Clearly he had not kept it since he was being justly punished for some crime that no doubt included at least wanton theft and murder. By the Old Law he is simply to be condemned and cannot be saved. He is saved therefore only because of the New, namely that he turns to Christ the Great Physician of Souls for healing, and repents, and Christ accepts his repentance and forgives him. That therefore comes under the heading of the New Law (of Christ, which is the Law Baptism, not Circuмcision which he had utterly failed to keep). Richard Ibranyi's take on the Good Thief is even more bizarre:

    One possibility as to how the Good Thief was baptized, which St. Augustine did not consider, is, in my opinion, the true one. St. Augustine touches upon a profound truth that has not yet been infallibly defined by a pope, that being, all men must be baptized by water before they can enter heaven, even the Old Testament Elect who waited in Limbo of the Fathers. Therefore, the Good Thief, indeed, was baptized by water, along with the Old Testament Elect, sometime within the 40 days after our Lord's Resurrection and before His Ascension.

    Nowhere has anyone ever seen any claim that the Old Testament worthies (or any other Pre-Christian era ancients) were ever baptized or to be baptized in water, at least in the specifically Christian sense. One cannot even imagine just where this whole cloth fantasy would have come from. At least, the Old Law which Peter Dimond was trying to invoke was a reality, even if it couldn't have done the Good Thief any good, but this? He is inventing his own eschatology! As incorporeal beings awaiting the resurrection of the dead promised at the end of time, how would they have been baptized? With spirit water?

    Saint Augustine wrote that whole piece on the subject of baptism, primarily to address the Donatists, to be sure, but nevertheless taking the time to explore every nook and cranny of the Church's teaching on Baptism as known in his time. It is his position taken in this docuмent which is therefore to be regarded as his definitive position, apart from where he specifically would note what he wrote and specifically claim a change of mind. That is the only time that anything else can be taken as representing his position, in any way contrary to what he wrote here. So let us look at the relevant chapters at length:

    St. Augustine, On Baptism, Chapters 21-25:

    Chapter 21.
    29. With regard to the objection brought against Cyprian, that the catechumens who were seized in martyrdom, and slain for Christ's name's sake, received a crown even without baptism, I do not quite see what it has to do with the matter, unless, indeed, they urged that heretics could much more be admitted with baptism to Christ's kingdom, to which catechumens were admitted without it, since He Himself has said, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Now, in this matter I do not hesitate for a moment to place the Catholic catechumen, who is burning with love for God, before the baptized heretic; nor yet do we thereby do dishonor to the sacrament of baptism which the latter has already received, the former not as yet; nor do we consider that the sacrament of the catechumen is to be preferred to the sacrament of baptism, when we acknowledge that some catechumens are better and more faithful than some baptized persons. For the centurion Cornelius, before baptism, was better than Simon [Magus], who had been baptized. For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled with the Holy Spirit; Simon, even after baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit. Cornelius, however, would have been convicted of contempt for so holy a sacrament, if, even after he had received the Holy Ghost, he had refused to be baptized. But when he was baptized, he received in no wise a better sacrament than Simon; but the different merits of the men were made manifest under the equal holiness of the same sacrament - so true is it that the good or ill deserving of the recipient does not increase or diminish the holiness of baptism. But as baptism is wanting to a good catechumen to his receiving the kingdom of Heaven, so true conversion is wanting to a bad man though baptized. For He who said, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," said also Himself, "except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of Heaven:" For that the righteousness of the catechumens might not feel secure, it is written, "Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." And again, that the unrighteousness of the baptized might not feel secure because they had received baptism, it is written, "Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." The one were too little without the other; the two make perfect the heir of that inheritance. As, then, we ought not to depreciate a man's righteousness, which begins to exist before he is joined to the Church, as the righteousness of Cornelius began to exist before he was in the body of Christian men, - which righteousness was not thought worthless, or the angel would not have said to him, "Thy prayers and thine alms are come up as a memorial before God;" nor did it yet suffice for his obtaining the kingdom of Heaven, or he would not have been told to send to Peter, - so neither ought we to depreciate the sacrament of baptism, even though it has been received outside the Church. But since it is of no avail for salvation unless he who has baptism indeed in full perfection be incorporated into the Church, correcting also his own depravity, let us therefore correct the error of the heretics, that we may recognize what in them is not their own but Christ's.

    Chapter 22.
    30. That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by martyrdom 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 not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, 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." But the want is supplied invisibly only when the administration of baptism is prevented, not by contempt for religion, but by the necessity of the moment. For much more in the case of Cornelius and his friends, than in the case of that robber, might it seem superfluous that they should also be baptized with water, seeing that in them the gift of the Holy Spirit, which, according to the testimony of holy Scripture, was received by other men only after baptism, had made itself manifest by every unmistakable sign appropriate to those times when they spoke with tongues. Yet they were baptized, and for this action we have the authority of an apostle as the warrant. So far ought all of us to be from being induced by any imperfection in the inner man, if it so happen that before baptism a person has advanced, through the workings of a pious heart, to spiritual understanding, to despise a sacrament which is applied to the body by the hands of the minister, but which is God's own means for working spiritually a man's dedication to Himself. Nor do I conceive that the function of baptizing was assigned to John, so that it should be called John's baptism, for any other reason except that the Lord Himself, who had appointed it, in not disdaining to receive the baptism of His servant, might consecrate the path of humility, and show most plainly by such an action how high a value was to be placed on His own baptism, with which He Himself was afterwards to baptize. For He saw, like an excellent physician of eternal salvation, that overweening pride would be found in some, who, having made such progress in the understanding of the truth and in uprightness of character that they would not hesitate to place themselves, both in life and knowledge, above many that were baptized, would think it was unnecessary for them to be baptized, since they felt that they had attained a frame of mind to which many that were baptized were still only endeavoring to raise themselves.

    Chapter 23.
    31. But what is the precise value of the sanctification of the sacrament (which that thief did not receive, not from any want of will on his part, but because it was unavoidably omitted) and what is the effect on a man of its material application, it is not easy to say. Still, had it not been of the greatest value, the Lord would not have received the baptism of a servant. But since we must look at it in itself, without entering upon the question of the salvation of the recipient, which it is intended to work, it shows clearly enough that both in the bad, and in those who renounce the world in word and not in deed, it is itself complete, though they cannot receive salvation unless they amend their lives. But as in the thief, to whom the material administration of the sacrament was necessarily wanting, the salvation was complete, because it was spiritually present through his piety, so, when the sacrament itself is present, salvation is complete, if what the thief possessed be unavoidably wanting. And this is the firm tradition of the universal Church, in respect of the baptism of infants, who certainly are as yet unable "with the heart to believe unto righteousness, and with the mouth to make confession unto salvation," as the thief could do; nay, who even, by crying and moaning when the mystery is performed upon them, raise their voices in opposition to the mysterious words, and yet no Christian will say that they are baptized to no purpose.

    Chapter 24.
    32. And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circuмcision, which was received by God's earlier people, and before receiving which Abraham was justified, as Cornelius also was enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized. Yet the apostle says of Abraham himself, that "he received the sign of circuмcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith," having already believed in his heart, so that "it was counted unto him for righteousness." Why, therefore, was it commanded him that he should circuмcise every male child in order on the eighth day, though it could not yet believe with the heart, that it should be counted unto it for righteousness, because the sacrament in itself was of great avail? And this was made manifest by the message of an angel in the case of Moses' son; for when he was carried by his mother, being yet uncircuмcised, it was required, by manifest present peril, that he should be circuмcised, and when this was done, the danger of death was removed. As therefore in Abraham the justification of faith came first, and circuмcision was added afterwards as the seal of faith; so in Cornelius the spiritual sanctification came first in the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the sacrament of regeneration was added afterwards in the laver of baptism. And as in Isaac, who was circuмcised on the eighth day after his birth, the seal of this righteousness of faith was given first, and afterwards, as he imitated the faith of his father, the righteousness itself followed as he grew up, of which the seal had been given before when he was an infant; so in infants, who are baptized, the sacrament of regeneration is given first, and if they maintain a Christian piety, conversion also in the heart will follow, of which the mysterious sign had gone before in the outward body. And as in the thief the gracious goodness of the Almighty supplied what had been wanting in the sacrament of baptism, because it had been missing not from pride or contempt, but from want of opportunity; so in infants who die baptized, we must believe that the same grace of the Almighty supplies the want, that, not from perversity of will, but from insufficiency of age, they can neither believe with the heart unto righteousness, nor make confession with the mouth unto salvation. Therefore, when others take the vows for them, that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete in their behalf, it is unquestionably of avail for their dedication to God, because they cannot answer for themselves. But if another were to answer for one who could answer for himself, it would not be of the same avail. In accordance with which rule, we find in the gospel what strikes every one as natural when he reads it, "He is of age, he shall speak for himself."

    Chap. 25.
    33. By all these considerations it is proved that the sacrament of baptism is one thing, the conversion of the heart another; but that man's salvation is made complete through the two together. Nor are we to suppose that, if one of these be wanting, it necessarily follows that the other is wanting also; because the sacrament may exist in the infant without the conversion of the heart; and this was found to be possible without the sacrament in the case of the thief, God in either case filling up what was involuntarily wanting. But when either of these requisites is wanting intentionally, then the man is responsible for the omission. And baptism may exist when the conversion of the heart is wanting; but, with respect to such conversion, it may indeed be found when baptism has not been received, but never when it has been despised. Nor can there be said in any way to be a turning of the heart to God when the sacrament of God is treated with contempt. Therefore we are right in censuring, anathematizing, abhorring, and abominating the perversity of heart shown by heretics; yet it does not follow that they have not the sacrament of the gospel, because they have not what makes it of avail. Wherefore, when they come to the true faith, and by penitence seek remission of their sins, we are not flattering or deceiving them, when we instruct them by heavenly discipline for the kingdom of heaven, correcting and reforming in them their errors and perverseness, to the intent that we may by no means do violence to what is sound in them, nor, because of man's fault, declare that anything which he may have in him from God is either valueless or faulty.

    As one should be able to see, there are a number of points to be drawn from this above lengthy discourse. For one thing, Augustine points out that the salvation of those who were crowned (saved) without the baptism has nothing to do with the question of St. Cyprian regarding those who were baptized by heretics since the heretics did often baptize validly. That is to say that the two were really two different questions, and so whatever criticism he has of Cyprian's position has nothing to do with our issue, and furthermore that BOB and BOD are taken as assumed ("With regard to the objection brought against Cyprian, that the catechumens who were seized in martyrdom, and slain for Christ's name's sake, received a crown even without baptism, I do not quite see what it has to do with the matter, unless, indeed, they urged that heretics could much more be admitted with baptism to Christ's kingdom, to which catechumens were admitted without it").

    He next states in no uncertain terms that the unbaptized catechumen is in a much more favorable condition than any baptized heretic ("Now, in this matter I do not hesitate for a moment to place the Catholic catechumen, who is burning with love for God, before the baptized heretic"). He next mentions the insecurity (not yea verily damnation) of the catechumen who, if he dies as such, though he is on shaky ground and in real danger, is not necessarily damned. The baptized have a security that as long as they can make a good examination of conscience and find no unconfessed mortal sin, they know they are justified, but the catechumen has much to fear as to whether his love of God is perfect enough to be saved ("For that the righteousness of the catechumens might not feel secure, it is written, 'Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'"). He then parallels that to a corresponding fear that the baptized ought to have ("And again, that the unrighteousness of the baptized might not feel secure because they had received baptism, it is written, 'Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.'")

    He acknowledges the value of a man's righteousness even before his entry into the Church ("As, then, we ought not to depreciate a man's righteousness, which begins to exist before he is joined to the Church, as the righteousness of Cornelius began to exist before he was in the body of Christian men")

    We then arrive at the part where he mentions considering it "again and again" in which he explains that the Good Thief is not merely a precedent for Baptism of Blood (since strictly he doesn't belong to that category), but also a precedent for Baptism of Desire, since the perfected charity in the man was enough to qualify him for the graces of either ("That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by martyrdom 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 not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, 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.'")

    Immediately after this comes his statement how the want for baptism can be supplied invisibly, which does not mean any such ridiculous scenario as a spirit being "baptized" with "spirit-water," but rather the more obvious and basic belief that the graces of the sacrament are applied to the soul in such cases, exactly how BOB and BOD work ("But the want is supplied invisibly only when the administration of baptism is prevented, not by contempt for religion, but by the necessity of the moment."). He goes on to reiterate the point again and again, stating in different ways to make sure the reader understands ("But what is the precise value of the sanctification of the sacrament (which that thief did not receive, not from any want of will on his part, but because it was unavoidably omitted) and what is the effect on a man of its material application, it is not easy to say. Still, had it not been of the greatest value, the Lord would not have received the baptism of a servant." and again "But as in the thief, to whom the material administration of the sacrament was necessarily wanting, the salvation was complete, because it was spiritually present through his piety, so, when the sacrament itself is present, salvation is complete, if what the thief possessed be unavoidably wanting.")

    He affirms BOB and BOD yet again and again in no uncertain terms ("the sacrament of baptism is one thing, the conversion of the heart another; but that man's salvation is made complete through the two together. Nor are we to suppose that, if one of these be wanting, it necessarily follows that the other is wanting also; because the sacrament may exist in the infant without the conversion of the heart; and this was found to be possible without the sacrament in the case of the thief, God in either case filling up what was involuntarily wanting." and again "with respect to such conversion, it may indeed be found when baptism has not been received, but never when it has been despised.").

    In this large extract, St. Augustine contrasts the salvation of baptized infants who have made no act of Faith with the salvation of adults who, though unbaptized have nevertheless exercised faith and also attained salvation. And again (as we also saw many times before), only if the lack of baptism is not from any contempt for the sacrament. A knowing contempt for the sacrament is always damnable, but failure through circuмstances has never been regarded as damnable. And one does not see here any consideration for speculating that "maybe if God wanted that soul to be saved He would have provided an opportunity to get baptized" or anything of the kind. There really is in fact no place for that kind of speculation.

    In the context of all this position, one should be able to see the following quotes now in their proper context:

    St. Augustine: "Not one of the elect and predestined perishes, regardless of his age at death. Never be it said that a man predestined to life would be permitted to end his life without the sacrament of the Mediator. Because, of these men, Our Lord says: 'This is the will of the Father, that I should lose nothing of what he has given me.'" (Against Julian 5, 4)

    St. Augustine: "As, therefore, that one man [Christ] was predestinated to be our Head, so we being many are predestinated to be His members. Here let human merits which have perished through Adam keep silence, and let that grace of God reign which reigns through Jesus Christ our Lord, the only Son of God, the one Lord. Let whoever can find in our Head the merits which preceded that peculiar generation, seek in us His members for those merits which preceded our manifold regeneration. For that generation was not recompensed to Christ, but given; that He should be born, namely, of the Spirit and the Virgin, separate from all entanglement of sin. Thus also our being born again of water and the Spirit is not recompensed to us for any merit, but freely given; and if faith has brought us to the laver of regeneration, we ought not therefore to suppose that we have first given anything, so that the regeneration of salvation should be recompensed to us again; because He made us to believe in Christ, who made for us a Christ on whom we believe. He makes in men the beginning and the completion of the faith in Jesus who made the man Jesus the beginner and finisher of faith; for thus, as you know, He is called in the epistle which is addressed to the Hebrews." (The Predestination of the Saints, 31)

    In these two quotes he is discussing Predestination, which to Catholics only means that the Lord knows those who are His. The Good Shepherd knows His sheep and the sheep know Him, and recognize His voice. So of course all those whom He knows to be ultimately His will be baptized, whether in water (most usual case since the coming of the Christian Covenant), or by blood or desire, or even by circuмcision (in the case of those ancient faithful Jews who died under the Law of Circuмcision and were found worthy by it). So when he mentions in that first quote "the sacrament of the Mediator" he is plainly not even addressing the question of BOB or BOD but simply speaking of the usual case, and thereby including all exceptions under that most direct and common example. The second quote so obviously has nothing to do with the question of BOB or BOD as to make one wonder why it was even brought in. The Treatise however, though utilizing some of the above quotes, in addition uses the following quotes as supposed evidence that St. Augustine might not have always held to his belief in Baptism of Desire, or perhaps even of Blood:

    St. Augustine, 395: "… God does not forgive sins except to the baptized."

    St. Augustine, 412: "… the Punic Christians call Baptism itself nothing else but salvation… Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ hold inherently that without Baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the Kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too."

    Both of these quotes have already been explained in previous installments, namely that the first refers to the Sacrament of Penance which plainly does not apply to the unbaptized, and the second mentions not only Baptism, but also the "table of the Lord" by which the Eucharist is meant. If that quote were to mean that Baptism must be received in order to be saved, then by that same token so would the Eucharist. In that case one would need not only emergency baptisms, but also emergency communions!

    Given St. Augustine's lengthy discourse above, and no place where he ever referred back to it with any expressed desire to have taught otherwise, that has to be regarded as his definitive position. Yet there are those who would contend that with a later work, he changed his mind.

    In his On the Soul and its Origin, St. Augustine does seem to revisit his position regarding the status or category of the Good Thief.

    St. Augustine's latter teaching on Baptism, On the Soul and Its Origin 1, 11: "Besides all this, there is the circuмstance, which is not incredibly reported, that the thief who then believed as he hung by the side of the crucified Lord was sprinkled, as in a most sacred baptism, with the water which issued from the wound of the Saviour's side. I say nothing of the fact that nobody can prove, since none of us knows that he had not been baptized previous to his condemnation. However, let every man take this in the sense he may prefer; only let no rule about baptism affecting the Saviour's own precept be taken from this example of the thief."

    One would think St. Augustine is here stating that the Good Thief instance can no longer be used as any sort of precedent regarding BOB and/or BOD, or at least that is what Richard Ibranyi would want the reader to think this quote is saying:

    St. Augustine, On the Soul and Its Origin, Book 1 Chapter 11: Accordingly, the thief, who was no follower of the Lord previous to the cross, but His confessor upon the cross, from whose case a presumption is sometimes taken, or attempted, against the sacrament of baptism, is reckoned by St. Cyprian among the martyrs who are baptized in their own blood, as happens to many unbaptized persons in times of hot persecution, For to the fact that he confessed the crucified Lord so much weight is attributed and so much availing value assigned by Him who knows how to weigh and value such evidence, as if he had been crucified for the Lord. Then, indeed, his faith on the cross flourished when that of the disciples failed, and that without recovery if it had not bloomed again by the resurrection of Him before the terror of whose death it had drooped. They despaired of Him when dying, - he hoped when joined with Him in dying; they fled from the author of life, - he prayed to his companion in punishment; they grieved as for the death of a man, - he believed that after death He was to be a king; they forsook the sponsor of their salvation, - he honored the companion of His cross. There was discovered in him the full measure of a martyr, who then believed in Christ when they fell away who were destined to be martyrs. All this, indeed, was manifest to the eyes of the Lord, who at once bestowed so great felicity on one who, though not baptized, was yet washed clean in the blood, as it were, of martyrdom. But even of ourselves, who cannot reflect with how much faith, how much hope, how much charity he might have undergone death for Christ when living, who begged life of Him when dying? Besides all this, there is the circuмstance, which is not incredibly reported, that the thief who then believed as he hung by the side of the crucified Lord was sprinkled, as in a most sacred baptism, with the water which issued from the wound of the Saviour's side. I say nothing of the fact that nobody can prove, since none of us knows that he had not been baptized previous to his condemnation. However, let every man take this in the sense he may prefer; only let no rule about baptism affecting the Saviour's own precept be taken from this example of the thief; and let no one promise for the case of unbaptized infants, between damnation and the kingdom of heaven, some middle place of rest and happiness, such as he pleases and where he pleases. For this is what the heresy of Pelagius promised them: he neither fears damnation for infants, whom he does not regard as having any original sin, nor does he give them the hope of the kingdom of heaven, since they do not approach to the sacrament of baptism. As for this man, however, although he acknowledges that infants are involved in original sin, he yet boldly promises them, even without baptism, the kingdom of heaven. This even the Pelagians had not the boldness to do, though asserting infants to be absolutely without sin. See, then, what a network of presumptuous opinion he entangles, unless he regret having committed such views to writing.

    The overall context of all that is that a certain Renatus, a monk, had received a couple books written by one Vincentius Victor in which several heresies had been advocated, and he in turn related this to Augustine who replies to him with this, the first of four books on the Soul and Its Origin. St. Augustine explains to Renatus in no uncertain terms that Vincentius Victor is wrong to deny that the soul of a person is propagated by the person's parents as their body is. He had also denied that God created the souls, leaving one with little to conclude that human souls must therefore be in some sense a part of God, and of the same nature as God, two quite blasphemous propositions, to be sure. Vincentius Victor furthermore claimed that the good soul emanated (or whatever) by God perfect and sinless would then gained original sin only by being joined to fallen flesh from fallen parents. What he could not explain, and which Augustine hammered him again and again on was why it would be that a sinless soul could in any way deserve to be forced into sin by being united to sinful fallen flesh tainted by Original Sin. Vincentius Victor then went on to claim that infants dying unbaptized would nevertheless attain the Kingdom of Heaven, and had apparently attempted to use the Good Thief as some sort of example to justify that since he was not baptized and yet was saved, then also unbaptized infants are also saved. St. Augustine responds to that claim thus:

    St. Augustine, On the Soul and Its Origin, Book 1 Chapter 10: But when he wished to answer with respect, however, to those infants who are prevented by death from being first baptized in Christ, he was so bold as to promise them not only paradise, but also the kingdom of heaven, - finding no way else of avoiding the necessity of saying that God condemns to eternal death innocent souls which, without any previous desert of sin, He introduces into sinful flesh. He saw, however, to some extent what evil he was giving utterance to, in implying that without any grace of Christ the souls of infants are redeemed to everlasting life and the kingdom of heaven, and that in their case original sin may be cancelled without Christ's baptism, in which is effected the forgiveness of sins: observing all this, and into what a depth he had plunged in his sea of shipwreck, he says, "I am of opinion that for them, indeed, constant oblations and sacrifices must be continually offered up by holy priests." You may here behold another danger, out of which he will never escape except by regret and a recall of his words. For who can offer up the body of Christ for any except for those who are members of Christ? Moreover, from the time when He said, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven;" and again, "He that loseth his life for my sake shall find it; " no one becomes a member of Christ except it be either by baptism in Christ, or death for Christ.

    And again, one sees here that St. Augustine, when it comes right down to it, again accepts that a death in Christ (which could refer both to martyrs and also to those who otherwise die before baptism through no fault of their own, as he had previously enunciated in his On Baptism quoted above, the key point to that exception being that a person must specifically choose Christ to be saved in this case, something an infant is incapable of doing), as an exception to the requirement of water baptism.

    Now one does see Augustine mention the possible scenarios of the Good Thief perhaps having been baptized before and then subsequently fallen into whatever crimes put him on the cross, or else of being splashed with the water (and blood) squirting from the Savior's side at the cross, but there is nothing in the way that Augustine brings up these alternatives as any seriously likely possibilities, only as ideas he cannot absolutely rule out. In the second book of On the Soul and Its Origin, yet another possible scenario is mentioned for the case of the Good Thief, this time however as one Augustine rejects as it is only the position of this same Vincentius Victor:

    St. Augustine, On the Soul and Its Origin, Book 2 Chapter 14: Just as in the case of the thief on the cross, who confessed but was not baptized, the Lord did not give him the kingdom of heaven, but paradise; the words remaining accordingly in full force, 'Except a man be born again of water and of the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' This is especially true, inasmuch as the Lord acknowledges that in His Father's house are many mansions, by which are indicated the many different merits of those who dwell in them; so that in these abodes the unbaptized is brought to forgiveness, and the baptized to the reward which by grace has been prepared for him." You observe how the man keeps paradise and the mansions of the Father's house distinct from the kingdom of heaven, so that even unbaptized persons may have an abundant provision in places of eternal happiness.

    So, while Vincentius Victor's speculation about the infants going to some painless abode outside the Kingdom of Heaven (which ultimately has been widely accepted as the teaching of the Limbo of the Infants) may well have been of some merit (albeit only accidently), he (Vincentius Victor) had based it on the idea that the Good Thief had gone to the same place, namely the idea that the "paradise" our Lord referred to was not the Kingdom of Heaven (nor even the Limbo of the Fathers, within which all were already saved, though not as yet able to enjoy the full fruit of their salvation), but something comparable to the Limbo of the Infants. One gets the distinct impression that so much ink had been spilled over speculating over the condition of the Good Thief that Augustine had gotten tired of even talking about him.

    The third and fourth books of On the Soul and Its Origin were written directly to Vincentius Victor, and from the third book Richard Ibranyi takes yet two more quotes:

    St. Augustine, On the Soul and its Origin 3, 12: "As for the thief, although in God's judgment he might be reckoned among those who are purified [i.e., as in, a second time, that is, after baptism and his fall] by the confession of martyrdom, yet you cannot tell whether he was not baptized. For, to say nothing of the opinion that he might have been sprinkled with the water which gushed at the same time with the blood out of the Lord's side, as he hung on the cross next to Him, and thus have been washed with a baptism of the most sacred kind, what if he had been baptized in prison, as in after times some under persecution were enabled privately to obtain? or what if he had been baptized previous to his imprisonment? If, indeed, he had been, the remission of his sins which he would have received in that case from God would not have protected him from the sentence of public law, so far as appertained to the death of the body. What if, being already baptized, he had committed the crime and incurred the punishment of robbery and lawlessness, but yet received, by virtue of repentance added to his baptism, forgiveness of the sins which, though baptized, he had committed? For beyond doubt his faith and piety appeared to the Lord clearly in his heart, as they do to us in his words. If, indeed, we were to conclude that all those who have quitted life without a record of their baptism died unbaptized, we should calumniate the very apostles themselves; for we are ignorant when they were, any of them, baptized, except the Apostle Paul. If, however, we could regard as an evidence that they were really baptized the circuмstance of the Lord's saying to St. Peter, "He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet," what are we to think of the others, of whom we do not read even so much as this,--Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, Silas, Philemon, the very evangelists Mark and Luke, and innumerable others, about whose baptism we should never entertain any doubt, although we read no record of it?"

        St. Augustine: "If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that 'they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.' There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief." (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)

    And again, the usual deception is being used of finding a passage that pertains to the question of unbaptized infants, but then all reference to infants is carefully removed. The actual context of these quotes is revealed in the following:

    St. Augustine, On the Soul and Its Origin, Book 3 Chapters 12-13: If you wish to be a catholic, refrain from believing, or saying, or teaching that "infants which are forestalled by death before they are baptized may yet attain to forgiveness of their original sins." For the examples by which you are misled - that of the thief who confessed the Lord upon the cross, or that of Dinocrates the brother of St. Perpetua - contribute no help to you in defense of this erroneous opinion. As for the thief, although in God's judgment he might be reckoned among those who are purified by the confession of martyrdom, yet you cannot tell whether he was not baptized. For, to say nothing of the opinion that he might have been sprinkled with the water which gushed at the same time with the blood out of the Lord's side, as he hung on the cross next to Him, and thus have been washed with a baptism of the most sacred kind, what if he had been baptized in prison, as in after times some under persecution were enabled privately to obtain? or what if he had been baptized previous to his imprisonment? If, indeed, he had been, the remission of his sins which he would have received in that case from God would not have protected him from the sentence of public law, so far as appertained to the death of the body. What if, being already baptized, he had committed the crime and incurred the punishment of robbery and lawlessness, but yet received, by virtue of repentance added to his baptism, forgiveness of the sins which, though baptized, he had committed? For beyond doubt his faith and piety appeared to the Lord clearly in his heart, as they do to us in his words. If, indeed, we were to conclude that all those who have quitted life without a record of their baptism died unbaptized, we should calumniate t

What's it matter one way or the other if a Father believed in explicit BOB & BOD of the catechumen? It is just a smokescreen, for you BODers don't believe (you deny that) explicit desire for baptism, or martyrdom, or to be a Catholic, nor explicit belief in Christ, is necessary for salvation. By writing or posting the article above of quotes by the Fathers about BOB, you BODers actually condemn yourselves one way or the other, whether they condemn explicit BOB of the catechumen or he believed it.

 The mind process of the BODer never fails to astound me, I can't conceive of any other word for it than sheer insanity.

I haven't had time to read the responses but I'm supposing you all finally get it now.  I'm glad Catholic sense has prevailed and reality set in.

Show this to your friends and see if they are unable to refute it as you are.

Historical Testimony: Saint Augustine’s Recantation of Baptism of Desire

The following extracts are taken from Fritz Hoffman’s work, Das Kirchenbegrifft des hl Augustinus. (Saint Augustine’s  Concept of the Church, Fritz Hoffmann, 2. Part, 2. Chapter, The relation of the Mystical Body of Christ to the Visible Catholic Church) They were translated from German by Dr. Leonard Maluf, S.S.L, S.T.D., who once was a translator for L’Osservatore Romano and now translates for a Biblical journal called Dei Verbum. The German author uses these passages to demonstrate that, in his anti-Pelagian writings, Saint Augustine recanted his earlier opinion on the saving efficacy of baptism of desire. I will leave the Latin text in italics for those who wish to check Dr. Maluf’s English translation (in brackets) from the Latin citations of Dr. Hoffman.

The Concept of the Church in St. Augustine, Fritz Hoffmann:

“[p. 464, c] Over against the efforts of the Pelagians, and their African following, to locate, and thus to secure, the salvation of human beings in their own free choice, Augustine’s efforts went ever more in the direction of grounding salvation and the certainty of salvation entirely in God and in the sacramental, saving mediation of the Church as given by God. Just as belonging to the corpus Adam and therewith to the massa damnata rests on the objective fact of human birth, so belonging to the Corpus Christi rests on the no-less objective reality of sacramental rebirth operante gratia spirituali, quae data est per secundum hominem, qui est Christus (Aug. ep. 187, 31) [under the influence of the spiritual grace which is given through the second man, who is Christ.] The ecclesiastical teacher was convinced of the all-powerful will of God for the salvation of man, of the supernatural and grace character of Christianity, and of the powerlessness of any ethical striving that remains in the sphere of the purely human.

“Nowhere could Augustine bring this conviction to stronger expression than in the way he attached Christian rebirth, justification, and grace ever more exclusively to the outward sacramental [p. 465] signs of salvation, thereby insuring against all human inadequacy. This represents the end-point of a development, which at an earlier time had already led from an over-stress on the subjective side of justification, to an equal ordering of sacrament and conversion; and finally to elevating sacrament over conversion. In order to exclude any possibility of self-redemption on the part of human beings, Augustine came out strongly for the indispensable necessity for salvation of the two primary sacraments, Baptism and Eucharist: Just as for the pre-Christian era, faith in the mediator was necessary, so for the Christian era the reception of the sacraments of faith is also necessary by a necessity of means (necessitate medii). Without this sacramental reception there is no liberation from original sin or from personal sins: Animas non liberat sive ab originalibus sive a propriis peccatis nisi in ecclesia Christi baptismus Christi (de Nat. et orig. an. 1, 13, 16; cf. ibid. 4, 11, 16) [It is only Christ’s baptism, in the Church of Christ, that frees from both original sin and from personal sins]. Whoever denies this necessity empties the cross of Christ, whose honor Augustine wishes to champion, of its value: Evacuatur autem (scil. crux Christi) si aliquo modo praeter illius sacramentum ad iustitiam vitamque aeternam pervenire posse dicatur (Aug. de nat. et grat. 7. 7). [Whoever thinks that one can arrive at justification and eternal life in any other way than through the sacrament of the cross of Christ empties it of value].

“ ‘Crucem Christi evacuare’ and ‘baptismum evacuare’ thus mean one and the same thing for the ecclesiastical teacher: Gratiam Christi simul oppugnant (scil. Manichaei et Pelagiani), baptismum eius simul evacuant carnem eius simul exhonorant (c. duas ep. Pel. 2, 2, 3) [They (the Manicheans and the Pelagians) at once assail the grace of Christ, empty his baptism of value, and dishonor his flesh.] Punic linguistic usage well expresses the absolute necessity of Baptism (immediately following which even underage children were regularly given the Eucharist): “In a happy turn of phrase, Punic Christians call Baptism simply ‘salvation’ and the sacrament of the Body of Christ ‘life.’ Where could this come from if not from an old, in my opinion, even apostolic tradition, according to which Christians hold fast to the belief that outside Baptism and the participation in the Lord’s table no human being can attain either to God’s kingdom or to salvation and eternal life” (Aug. de pecc. mer. et rem 1, 24, 34).

“To one who held such a strict view, even the doctrine of baptism of desire must have already seemed scandalous. [p. 466] Augustine did not hesitate to withdraw from his earlier opinion on this topic [see pp. 381 ff. of Hoffman’s book]. Even on the subject of the good thief, whom he had earlier thought of as the classic example of baptism of desire, he would now prefer to assume that the man was perhaps baptized after all, or that his death could be viewed as a kind of martyrdom. (Aug. Retr. 2, 18 [Knöll 2, 44, 3]; de nat. et orig. an 1, 9, 11; 3, 9, 12) So, too, he now considers even a good catechumen who dies before Baptism as lost, whereas a bad man, who (naturally not without inner conversion) is baptized just before death, is saved: Quare iste adductus est a gubernatione Dei, ut baptizaretur; ille autem cuм bene catechumenus vixerit, subita ruina mortuus est et ad baptismum non pervenit? Ille autem cuм scelerate vixerit, cuм luxuriosus, cuм moechus, cuм scenicus, cuм venator aegrotavit, baptizatus est, discessit,… Peccatum in eo deletum est? Quaere merita! Non invenies nisi poenam. Quaere gratiam: O altitudo divitiarum! (de nat. et orig. an p. 27, 6) [Why is it that the latter (the evil man) was led by divine providence to be baptized, while the former died by sudden catastrophe, although he lived well as a catechumen, without arriving at baptism? (Why is it that) the evil man although he had lived the life of a villain, although he displayed the weaknesses of the wanton, of an adulterer, of a stage artist, of a hunter, was nevertheless baptized before he died, … and his sins were wiped out? If you are looking for what people properly deserve, you will find only punishment. If you are looking for grace: O the depths of the riches of God...!]

“[Augustine] [pages 466-467] would even go so far as to say that since the time of Christ there has not been one predestined person who has not received baptism before his death: Absit enim, ut praedestinatus ad vitam sine sacramento mediatoris finire permittatur hanc vitam (Aug. c. Julianum. 5, 4, 14) [Perish the thought that a person predestined to eternal life could be allowed to end this life without the sacrament of the mediator]; to wish to assume that people whom God has predestined, could be whisked off by death before being baptized amounts to setting a power over God which prevents him from carrying out what he had intended. An eos et ipse praedestinat baptizari et ipse quod praedestinavit non sinit fieri? (Aug. de nat. et orig. an. 2, 9, 13). [Is it possible that (God) himself predestines people to be baptized and then he himself does not allow to happen what he has predestined?] But in another sense too, the heightened sacramentalism shows itself with Augustine in this period: While earlier the forgiveness of sins appears simply as the effect of Baptism, against the Pelagian narrowing of the baptismal effect to the remission of sins, he now also stresses the communication of new, positive vital forces which he had previously attributed to the moral efforts of human beings supported by grace, without bringing them into direct causal [p. 468] relationship with the sacrament. It is now Baptism itself that gives the disciple the necessary grace for the victorious struggle against passion, according to de Gen. ad litt. 10, 14, 25.”

Skipping now to the bottom of page 472, Hoffman concludes: “It has thus been shown that the Pelagian controversy, which caused the ecclesiastical teacher to look for as objective a basis for salvation as possible, drove Augustine toward a sacramentalism that was foreign to his way of thinking in his youth, and even well into his time as bishop, and that was capable of strengthening him still further in his belief in the necessity of the visible Church for salvation.”

As I stated at the start, this article is focused on the issue of baptism of desire in its origins. Concerning baptism of blood, Saint Augustine continued to believe, as did Saint Cyprian, that an unbaptized martyr went straight to heaven. While not every father of the Church identified with this belief, there is none that I am aware of who wrote anything contrary to it. Baptism of desire, on the other hand, owes its formal genesis to Saint Augustine, as is clear from the passage already quoted from his Fourth Book against the Donatists: “In considering which again and again, I find [that] also the Faith and conversion of heart, if it happens that lack of time prevents the celebration of the sacrament of baptism,” can make up for the lack of baptism. The fact that he recanted this opinion would remove the foundation stone of the argument from the authority of the fathers concerning baptism of desire.

You mean to say that every single Doctor, Saint, theologian etc. that has taught BOD ever since, was unaware that St. Augustine changed his mind? Was St. Thomas unaware?

How can such a blatant error be possible?

Quote from: Ladislaus

Historical Testimony: Saint Augustine’s Recantation of Baptism of Desire

The following extracts are taken from Fritz Hoffman’s work, Das Kirchenbegrifft des hl Augustinus. (Saint Augustine’s  Concept of the Church, Fritz Hoffmann, 2. Part, 2. Chapter, The relation of the Mystical Body of Christ to the Visible Catholic Church) They were translated from German by Dr. Leonard Maluf, S.S.L, S.T.D., who once was a translator for L’Osservatore Romano and now translates for a Biblical journal called Dei Verbum. The German author uses these passages to demonstrate that, in his anti-Pelagian writings, Saint Augustine recanted his earlier opinion on the saving efficacy of baptism of desire. I will leave the Latin text in italics for those who wish to check Dr. Maluf’s English translation (in brackets) from the Latin citations of Dr. Hoffman.

The Concept of the Church in St. Augustine, Fritz Hoffmann:

“[p. 464, c] Over against the efforts of the Pelagians, and their African following, to locate, and thus to secure, the salvation of human beings in their own free choice, Augustine’s efforts went ever more in the direction of grounding salvation and the certainty of salvation entirely in God and in the sacramental, saving mediation of the Church as given by God. Just as belonging to the corpus Adam and therewith to the massa damnata rests on the objective fact of human birth, so belonging to the Corpus Christi rests on the no-less objective reality of sacramental rebirth operante gratia spirituali, quae data est per secundum hominem, qui est Christus (Aug. ep. 187, 31) [under the influence of the spiritual grace which is given through the second man, who is Christ.] The ecclesiastical teacher was convinced of the all-powerful will of God for the salvation of man, of the supernatural and grace character of Christianity, and of the powerlessness of any ethical striving that remains in the sphere of the purely human.

“Nowhere could Augustine bring this conviction to stronger expression than in the way he attached Christian rebirth, justification, and grace ever more exclusively to the outward sacramental [p. 465] signs of salvation, thereby insuring against all human inadequacy. This represents the end-point of a development, which at an earlier time had already led from an over-stress on the subjective side of justification, to an equal ordering of sacrament and conversion; and finally to elevating sacrament over conversion. In order to exclude any possibility of self-redemption on the part of human beings, Augustine came out strongly for the indispensable necessity for salvation of the two primary sacraments, Baptism and Eucharist: Just as for the pre-Christian era, faith in the mediator was necessary, so for the Christian era the reception of the sacraments of faith is also necessary by a necessity of means (necessitate medii). Without this sacramental reception there is no liberation from original sin or from personal sins: Animas non liberat sive ab originalibus sive a propriis peccatis nisi in ecclesia Christi baptismus Christi (de Nat. et orig. an. 1, 13, 16; cf. ibid. 4, 11, 16) [It is only Christ’s baptism, in the Church of Christ, that frees from both original sin and from personal sins]. Whoever denies this necessity empties the cross of Christ, whose honor Augustine wishes to champion, of its value: Evacuatur autem (scil. crux Christi) si aliquo modo praeter illius sacramentum ad iustitiam vitamque aeternam pervenire posse dicatur (Aug. de nat. et grat. 7. 7). [Whoever thinks that one can arrive at justification and eternal life in any other way than through the sacrament of the cross of Christ empties it of value].

“ ‘Crucem Christi evacuare’ and ‘baptismum evacuare’ thus mean one and the same thing for the ecclesiastical teacher: Gratiam Christi simul oppugnant (scil. Manichaei et Pelagiani), baptismum eius simul evacuant carnem eius simul exhonorant (c. duas ep. Pel. 2, 2, 3) [They (the Manicheans and the Pelagians) at once assail the grace of Christ, empty his baptism of value, and dishonor his flesh.] Punic linguistic usage well expresses the absolute necessity of Baptism (immediately following which even underage children were regularly given the Eucharist): “In a happy turn of phrase, Punic Christians call Baptism simply ‘salvation’ and the sacrament of the Body of Christ ‘life.’ Where could this come from if not from an old, in my opinion, even apostolic tradition, according to which Christians hold fast to the belief that outside Baptism and the participation in the Lord’s table no human being can attain either to God’s kingdom or to salvation and eternal life” (Aug. de pecc. mer. et rem 1, 24, 34).

“To one who held such a strict view, even the doctrine of baptism of desire must have already seemed scandalous. [p. 466] Augustine did not hesitate to withdraw from his earlier opinion on this topic [see pp. 381 ff. of Hoffman’s book]. Even on the subject of the good thief, whom he had earlier thought of as the classic example of baptism of desire, he would now prefer to assume that the man was perhaps baptized after all, or that his death could be viewed as a kind of martyrdom. (Aug. Retr. 2, 18 [Knöll 2, 44, 3]; de nat. et orig. an 1, 9, 11; 3, 9, 12) So, too, he now considers even a good catechumen who dies before Baptism as lost, whereas a bad man, who (naturally not without inner conversion) is baptized just before death, is saved: Quare iste adductus est a gubernatione Dei, ut baptizaretur; ille autem cuм bene catechumenus vixerit, subita ruina mortuus est et ad baptismum non pervenit? Ille autem cuм scelerate vixerit, cuм luxuriosus, cuм moechus, cuм scenicus, cuм venator aegrotavit, baptizatus est, discessit,… Peccatum in eo deletum est? Quaere merita! Non invenies nisi poenam. Quaere gratiam: O altitudo divitiarum! (de nat. et orig. an p. 27, 6) [Why is it that the latter (the evil man) was led by divine providence to be baptized, while the former died by sudden catastrophe, although he lived well as a catechumen, without arriving at baptism? (Why is it that) the evil man although he had lived the life of a villain, although he displayed the weaknesses of the wanton, of an adulterer, of a stage artist, of a hunter, was nevertheless baptized before he died, … and his sins were wiped out? If you are looking for what people properly deserve, you will find only punishment. If you are looking for grace: O the depths of the riches of God...!]

“[Augustine] [pages 466-467] would even go so far as to say that since the time of Christ there has not been one predestined person who has not received baptism before his death: Absit enim, ut praedestinatus ad vitam sine sacramento mediatoris finire permittatur hanc vitam (Aug. c. Julianum. 5, 4, 14) [Perish the thought that a person predestined to eternal life could be allowed to end this life without the sacrament of the mediator]; to wish to assume that people whom God has predestined, could be whisked off by death before being baptized amounts to setting a power over God which prevents him from carrying out what he had intended. An eos et ipse praedestinat baptizari et ipse quod praedestinavit non sinit fieri? (Aug. de nat. et orig. an. 2, 9, 13). [Is it possible that (God) himself predestines people to be baptized and then he himself does not allow to happen what he has predestined?] But in another sense too, the heightened sacramentalism shows itself with Augustine in this period: While earlier the forgiveness of sins appears simply as the effect of Baptism, against the Pelagian narrowing of the baptismal effect to the remission of sins, he now also stresses the communication of new, positive vital forces which he had previously attributed to the moral efforts of human beings supported by grace, without bringing them into direct causal [p. 468] relationship with the sacrament. It is now Baptism itself that gives the disciple the necessary grace for the victorious struggle against passion, according to de Gen. ad litt. 10, 14, 25.”

Skipping now to the bottom of page 472, Hoffman concludes: “It has thus been shown that the Pelagian controversy, which caused the ecclesiastical teacher to look for as objective a basis for salvation as possible, drove Augustine toward a sacramentalism that was foreign to his way of thinking in his youth, and even well into his time as bishop, and that was capable of strengthening him still further in his belief in the necessity of the visible Church for salvation.”

As I stated at the start, this article is focused on the issue of baptism of desire in its origins. Concerning baptism of blood, Saint Augustine continued to believe, as did Saint Cyprian, that an unbaptized martyr went straight to heaven. While not every father of the Church identified with this belief, there is none that I am aware of who wrote anything contrary to it. Baptism of desire, on the other hand, owes its formal genesis to Saint Augustine, as is clear from the passage already quoted from his Fourth Book against the Donatists: “In considering which again and again, I find [that] also the Faith and conversion of heart, if it happens that lack of time prevents the celebration of the sacrament of baptism,” can make up for the lack of baptism. The fact that he recanted this opinion would remove the foundation stone of the argument from the authority of the fathers concerning baptism of desire.

You mean to say that every single Doctor, Saint, theologian etc. that has taught BOD ever since, was unaware that St. Augustine changed his mind? Was St. Thomas unaware?

How can such a blatant error be possible?

It is mind-boggling how obstinate people are in rejecting Church teaching and calling those who accept it heretics.

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Exurge

You mean to say that every single Doctor, Saint, theologian etc. that has taught BOD ever since, was unaware that St. Augustine changed his mind? Was St. Thomas unaware?

How can such a blatant error be possible?

Why does it matter what this or that saint or doctor opined?

The Council of Trent decreed that the sacraments are a necessity unto salvation, and that the sacrament of baptism is a necessity unto salvation and that the sacrament of baptism is not optional. We are bound under pain of sin to profess and believe this.

Trent settled the matter for all time - a BOD is not a sacrament and can save no one at all, no matter how many saints thought otherwise.



 

Your attitude is Protestant, because, instead of the Bible, you are interpreting the Council and the Magisterium in your own way. I have to admit i was deluded into this line of thinking for a long time too, courtesy of the Dimond boys.

Just like that other guy crossbro says "What Jesus said in John 3:5 is enough for me", like a total Protestant.

The fact is that denying bod/bob makes the Church look ridiculous, for you have 7 Doctors of the Church and the majority, if not ALL of the theologians, preachers, teachers etc. teaching them. You would have to say the Church contradicts itself and is totally unaware such a "contagion" has been brewing for centuries undisturbed.

Trent said it too: "or the vow thereof". Or "desire", whatever you like.

I was influenced by the Dimonds on this issue as well.  But eventually the truth overwhelmed me and I could no longer deny it as the current anti-BOB/Ders do.  Take for instance the above article.  Instead of refuting it, because they can't.  They call me a liar.  The article was not even written by me and they call me a liar because they cannot legitimately deny the truth presented.

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Exurge

You mean to say that every single Doctor, Saint, theologian etc. that has taught BOD ever since, was unaware that St. Augustine changed his mind? Was St. Thomas unaware?

How can such a blatant error be possible?

Why does it matter what this or that saint or doctor opined?

The Council of Trent decreed that the sacraments are a necessity unto salvation, and that the sacrament of baptism is a necessity unto salvation and that the sacrament of baptism is not optional. We are bound under pain of sin to profess and believe this.

Trent settled the matter for all time - a BOD is not a sacrament and can save no one at all, no matter how many saints thought otherwise.



 

Your attitude is Protestant, because, instead of the Bible, you are interpreting the Council and the Magisterium in your own way. I have to admit i was deluded into this line of thinking for a long time too, courtesy of the Dimond boys.

Just like that other guy crossbro says "What Jesus said in John 3:5 is enough for me", like a total Protestant.

The fact is that denying bod/bob makes the Church look ridiculous, for you have 7 Doctors of the Church and the majority, if not ALL of the theologians, preachers, teachers etc. teaching them. You would have to say the Church contradicts itself and is totally unaware such a "contagion" has been brewing for centuries undisturbed.

Trent said it too: "or the vow thereof". Or "desire", whatever you like.

The problem with BODers is they cannot answer a straight question with a straight answer thereby avoiding the truth of the matter as best as they can.

V1 decrees that dogma are to be understood as declared, not interpreted, not explained under the pretext or in the name of a better or more profound understanding. It is quite clear on that.

That being fact, Trent meant exactly what it said - the sacrament of baptism is a necessity unto salvation - not optional. Whoever says otherwise is anathema per Trent and V1.

Trent's catechism explains wonderfully that "or the desire thereof" means you must have the proper disposition when you receive the sacrament - but the NSAAers keep ignoring that teaching thereby allowing them to continue to make their own exceptions to defined dogma by rejecting the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation.

I defy YOU to defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation - you will NEVER in your whole life be able to defend the necessity of the sacraments because YOU, and all BODers believe no sacrament at all is necessary unto salvation - -  and you all think that such a belief is Catholic.

So far, not one BODer has been honest enough to admit it, they simply continue to defend the mythical non sacrament, which is responsible for making non catholic saints - yet these same BODers criticize Pope Francis in anticipation of his making JP2 and JXXIII saints in a few weeks.

Go figure.
 

Good article.

The Dimonds are sectarians and schismatics whom no Catholic should read. It takes a great deal of study and knowledge, and a lot of help from others, to be able to overcome the errors they spread, and more than that, the sectarian mentality that pervades their works. In a happier time, the Church would simply have censured them, and prevented Her children from reading it.

Baptism of desire, on the other hand, owes its formal genesis to Saint Augustine

This does not seem exact. Leaving aside some of the early Fathers, St. Eusebius in the early fourth century before St. Augustine records this, "And of women, Herais died while yet a catechumen, receiving baptism by fire."

What is your explanation of martyred catechumens like St. Emerentiana and scores of others, whom the Church has for centuries venerated precisely as such?

Edit: As for you, Stubborn, your claim above, that no "BODer" has defended the necessity of the sacraments, is a laugh and a half. I showed you how the "BODer" Pope St. Pius X defended the necessity of the sacraments, and I'm still waiting for proof of your claims in that matter, that St. Pius X did not really write the Catechism. When I showed you the Pio-Benedictine Code also defended the necessity of baptism as a necessity in fact or at least in desire, to this too you answered nothing other than an arbitrary offhand claim that the Code contains error and heresy against Trent.