And as proof I give you this...
St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390?391 A.D.: “You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”
St. John Chrysostom, 392 A.D.:
“Weep for the unbelievers; weep for those who differ not a whit from them, those who go hence without illumination, without the seal! … They are outside the royal city…. with the condemned. ‘Amen, I tell you, if anyone is not born of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”142
St Augustine, 395 A.D.: “… God does not forgive sins except to the baptized.”143
Pope St. Innocent, 414 A.D.: “But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic.”144
Pope St. Gregory the Great, c. 590 A.D.: “Forgiveness of sin is bestowed on us only by the baptism of Christ.”145
Theophylactus, Patriarch of Bulgaria, c. 800 A.D.: “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved. It does not suffice to believe; he who believes, and is not yet baptized, but is only a catechumen, has not yet fully acquired salvation.”146
Many other passages could be quoted from the fathers, but it is a fact that the fathers of the Church are unanimous from the beginning of the apostolic age that no one at all can be saved without receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, based on the words of Jesus Christ in John 3:5. The eminent Patristic Scholar Fr. William Jurgens, who has literally read thousands of texts from the fathers, was forced to admit the following (even though he believes in baptism of desire) in his three volume set on the fathers of the Church.
Fr. William Jurgens: “If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”147
The eminent scholar Fr. Jurgens is admitting here three important things:
The fathers are constant in their teaching that John 3:5 is absolute with no exceptions; that is, no one at all enters heaven without being born again of water and the Spirit;
The fathers are so constant on this point that it likely constitutes divine revelation, without even considering the infallible teaching of the popes;
The constant teaching of the fathers that all must receive water baptism for salvation in light of John 3:5 excludes exceptions for the “invincibly ignorant” or “physically impossible” cases.
And based on this truth, declared by Jesus in the Gospel (John 3:5), handed down by the Apostles and taught by the fathers, the Catholic Church has infallibly defined as a dogma (as we have seen already) that no one at all enters heaven without the Sacrament of Baptism.
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Canon 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (John. 3:5): let him be anathema.”148
NOT ALL OF THE FATHERS REMAINED CONSISTENT WITH THEIR OWN AFFIRMATIONDespite the fact that there is a constant tradition from the beginning that no one at all is saved without water baptism, not all of the fathers always remained consistent with their own affirmation on this point. And that is where we come across the theories of “baptism of blood” and “baptism of desire,” each of which will be discussed in turn. But it must be understood that the fathers of the Church were mistaken and inconsistent with their own teaching and the apostolic Tradition on many points – since they were fallible men who made many errors.
Fr. William Jurgens: “… we must stress that a particular patristic text [a particular statement from a father] is in no instance to be regarded as a ‘proof’ of a particular doctrine. Dogmas are not ‘proved’ by patristic statements, but by the infallible teaching instruments of the Church. The value of the Fathers and writers is this: that in the aggregate [that is, in totality], they demonstrate what the Church believes and teaches; and again, in the aggregate [that is, in totality], they provide a witness to the content of Tradition, that Tradition which is itself a vehicle of revelation.”149
The fathers of the Church are only a definite witness to Tradition when expressing a point held universally and constantly or when expressing something that is in line with defined dogma. Taken individually or even in multiplicity, they can be dead wrong and even dangerous. St. Basil the Great said that the Holy Ghost is second to the Son of God in order and dignity, in a horrible and even heretical attempt to explain the Holy Trinity.
St. Basil (363): “The Son is not, however, second to the Father in nature, because the Godhead is one in each of them, and plainly, too, in the Holy Spirit, even if in order and dignity He is second to the Son (yes, this we do concede!), though not in such a way, it is clear, that He were of another nature.” 150
When St. Basil says above that the Godhead is one in Father, Son and Holy Spirit, he is correctly affirming the universal, apostolic Tradition. But when he says that the Holy Spirit is second in dignity to the Son he ceases to remain consistent with this Tradition and falls into error (material heresy, in fact). And the fathers made countless errors in attempting to defend or articulate the Faith.
St. Augustine wrote an entire book of corrections. St. Fulgentius and a host of others, including St. Augustine, held that it was certain that infants who die without baptism descend into the fires of Hell, a position that was later condemned by Pope Pius VI. As Pope Pius VI confirmed, unbaptized infants go to Hell, but to a place in Hell where there is no fire.151
But St. Augustine was so outspoken in favor of this error that it became the common and basically unchallenged teaching for more than 500 years, according to The Catholic Encyclopedia.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 9, “Limbo,” p. 257: “On the special question, however, of the punishment of original sin after death, St. Anselm was at one with St. Augustine in holding that unbaptized infants share in the positive sufferings of the damned; and Abelard was the first to rebel against the severity of the Augustinian tradition on this point.”152
This is why Catholics don’t form definite doctrinal conclusions from the teaching of a father of the Church or a handful of fathers; a Catholic goes by the infallible teaching of the Church proclaimed by the popes; and a Catholic assents to the teaching of the fathers of the Church when they are in universal and constant agreement from the beginning and in line with Catholic dogmatic teaching.
Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”153
Errors of the Jansenists, #30: “When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold it and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope.”? Condemned by Pope Alexander VIII154
Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: “This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.’”155
The Catholic Church recognizes infallibility in no saint, theologian or early Church father. It is only a pope operating with the authority of the Magisterium who is protected by the Holy Ghost from teaching error on faith or morals. So, when we examine and show how Churchmen have erred on the topics of baptism of desire and blood this is 100% consistent with the teaching of the Church, which has always acknowledged that any Churchman, no matter how great, can make errors, even significant ones. Finally, after dealing with baptism of desire and blood, I will quote a Pope, who is also an early Church father, whose teaching ends all debate on the subject. I will now proceed to discuss baptism of blood and baptism of desire.
THE THEORY OF BAPTISM OF BLOOD ? A TRADITION OF MANA small number of the fathers – approximately 8 out of a total of hundreds – are quoted in favor of what is called “baptism of blood,” the idea that a catechumen (that is, one preparing to receive Catholic Baptism) who shed his blood for Christ could be saved without having received Baptism. It is crucial to note at the beginning that none of the fathers considered anyone but a catechumen as a possible exception to receiving the Sacrament of Baptism; they would all condemn and reject as heretical and foreign to the teaching of Christ the modern heresy of “invincible ignorance” saving those who die as non?Catholics. So, out of the fathers, approximately 8 are quoted in favor of baptism of blood for catechumens. And, only 1 father out of hundreds, St. Augustine, can be quoted as clearly teaching what is today called “baptism of desire”: the idea that a catechumen could be saved by his explicit desire for water baptism. This means that with the exception of St. Augustine, all of the few fathers who believed in baptism of blood actually rejected the concept of baptism of desire. Take St. Cyril of Jerusalem, for example.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, 350 A.D.: “If any man does not receive baptism, he does not receive salvation. The only exception is the martyrs...”156
Here we see that St. Cyril of Jerusalem believed in baptism of blood, but rejected baptism of desire. St. Fulgence expressed the same.
St. Fulgence, 523: “From that time at which Our Savior said: “If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven,’ no one can, without the sacrament of baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church, without Baptism pour out their blood for Christ…”157
Here we see that St. Fulgence believed in baptism of blood but rejected the idea of baptism of desire. And what’s ironic and particularly dishonest is that the baptism of desire apologists (such as the priests of the Society of St. Pius X) will quote these patristic texts (such as the two above) in books written to prove baptism of desire, without pointing out to their readers that these passages actually deny baptism of desire; for we can see that St. Fulgence, while expressing belief in baptism of blood, rejects baptism of desire, only allowing martyrs as a possible exception to receiving baptism. (What would St. Fulgence say about the modern version of the heresy of baptism of desire, also taught by such priests of the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, etc. whereby Jєωs, Muslims, Hindus and pagans can be saved without Baptism?)
St. Fulgence, On the Forgiveness of Sins, 512 A.D.: “Anyone who is outside this Church, which received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, is walking a path not to heaven but to hell. He is not approaching the home of eternal life; rather, he is hastening to the torment of eternal death.”158
St. Fulgence, The Rule of Faith, 526 A.D.: “Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that not only all the pagans but also all the Jєωs and all the heretics and schismatics who end this present life outside the Catholic Church are about to go into the eternal fire that was prepared for the devil and his angels.”159
We can see that St. Fulgence would have – like all of the other fathers – sternly condemned the modern heretics who hold that those who die as non?Catholics can be saved.
But what is most interesting about this is that in the same docuмent in which St. Fulgence expresses his error on baptism of blood (quoted already), he makes a different and significant error.
St. Fulgence, 523: “Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that not only men having the use of reason but even infants who… pass from this world without the Sacrament of holy Baptism… are to be punished in the everlasting torment of eternal fire.”160
St. Fulgence says “Hold most firmly and never doubt” that infants who die without baptism are “to be punished in the everlasting torment of eternal fire.” This is wrong. Infants who die without baptism descend into Hell, but to a place in Hell where there is no fire (Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei).161 St. Fulgence shows, therefore, that his opinion in favor of baptism of blood is quite fallible by making a different error in the same docuмent. It is quite remarkable, in fact, that in almost every instance when a father of the Church or someone else expresses his error on baptism of blood or baptism of desire that same person makes another significant error in the same work, as we will see.
It is also important to point out that some of the fathers use the term “baptism of blood” to describe the Catholic martyrdom of one already baptized, not as a possible replacement for water baptism. This is the only legitimate use of the term.
St. John Chrysostom, Panegyric on St. Lucian, 4th Century AD: “Do not be surprised that I call martyrdom a Baptism; for here too the Spirit comes in great haste and there is a taking away of sins and a wonderful and marvelous cleansing of the soul; and just as those being baptized are washed in water, so too those being martyred are washed in their own blood.”162
St. John is here describing the martyrdom of a priest St. Lucian, a person already baptized. He is not saying that martyrdom replaces baptism. St. John Damascene describes it the same way:
St. John Damascene: “These things were well understood by our holy and inspired fathers ??? thus they strove, after Holy Baptism, to keep... spotless and undefiled. Whence some of them also thought fit to receive another Baptism: I mean that which is by blood and martyrdom.”163
This is important because many dishonest scholars today (such as the priests of the Society of St. Pius X) will distort the teaching on this point; they will quote a passage on baptism of blood where St. John is simply speaking of baptism of blood as a Catholic martyrdom for one already baptized, and they will present it as if the person were teaching that martyrdom can replace baptism – when such is not stated anywhere.
Some may wonder why the term baptism of blood was used at all. I believe that the reason the term “baptism of blood” was used by some of the fathers was because Our Lord described His coming passion as a baptism in Mark 10:38?39.
[Mark 10:38?39]: “And Jesus said to them: You know not what you ask. Can you drink the chalice that I drink of: or be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized? But they said to him: We can. And Jesus saith to them: You shall indeed drink of the chalice that I drink of: and with the baptism wherewith I am baptized, you shall be baptized.”
We see in the aforementioned passage that Our Lord, although already baptized by St. John in the Jordan, refers to another baptism which He must receive. This is His martyrdom on the cross, not a substitute for baptism of water. It is His “second baptism,” if you will, not his first. Thus, baptism of blood is described by Our Lord in the same way as St. John Damascene, not to mean a substitute baptism for an unbaptized person, but rather a Catholic martyrdom which remits all the fault and punishment due to sin.
The term baptism is used in a variety of ways in the scriptures and by the Church fathers. The baptisms: of water, of blood, of the spirit, of Moses, and of fire are all terms that have been implemented by Church Fathers to characterize certain things, but not necessarily to describe that an unbaptized martyr can attain salvation. Read the verse of scripture in which the term baptism is used for the Old Testament forefathers:
[1Cor. 10:2?4]: “And all in Moses were BAPTIZED, in the cloud, and in the sea: And did all eat the same spiritual food, And all drank the same spiritual drink: (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.)”
I believe this explains why a number of fathers erred in believing that baptism of blood supplies the place of baptism of water. They recognized that Our Lord referred to His own martyrdom as a baptism, and they erroneously concluded that martyrdom for the true faith can serve as a substitute for being born again of water and the Holy Ghost. But the reality is that there are no exceptions to Our Lord’s words in John 3:5, as the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church confirms. Anyone of good will who is willing to shed his blood for the true faith will not be left without these saving waters. It is not our blood, but Christ’s blood on the Cross, communicated to us in the Sacrament of Baptism, which frees us from the state of sin and allows us entrance into the kingdom of Heaven (more on this later).
Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino,” Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”164
TWO OF THE EARLIEST STATEMENTS ON BAPTISM OF BLOODOut of the few fathers that can be quoted in favor of baptism of blood being a possible replacement to actual Baptism, two of the very earliest statements supporting the idea come from St. Cyprian and Tertullian.
St. Cyprian, To Jubaianus (254): “Catechumens who suffer martyrdom before they have received Baptism with water are not deprived of the Sacrament of Baptism. Rather, they are baptized with the most glorious and greatest Baptism of Blood…”165
Let’s examine this passage. While teaching baptism of blood, notice that St. Cyprian makes a significant error in the same sentence. He says: “catechumens who suffer martyrdom before they have received Baptism are not deprived of the Sacrament of Baptism.”
This is completely wrong, even from the point of view of the baptism of blood/desire advocates. All baptism of desire and blood advocates readily admit that neither is a sacrament, because neither confers the indelible character of the Sacrament of Baptism. Hence, even the staunchest advocates of baptism of blood would admit that St. Cyprian’s statement here is wrong. Therefore, in the very SENTENCE in which St. Cyprian teaches the error of baptism of blood, he makes a significant error in explaining it – he calls it “the Sacrament of Baptism.” What more proof is necessary to demonstrate to the liberals that the teaching of individual fathers is not infallible and does not represent the universal Tradition and can even be dangerous, if held obstinately? Why do they quote such erroneous passages to attempt to “teach” the faithful when they do not even agree with them?
Furthermore, St. Cyprian’s errors in this very docuмent (To Jubaianus) don’t end here! In the same docuмent, St. Cyprian teaches that heretics cannot administer valid baptism.
St. Cyprian, To Jubaianus (254): “… in regard to what I might think in the matter of the baptism of heretics… This baptism we cannot reckon as valid…”166
This is also completely wrong, as the Council of Trent defined that heretics, provided they observe the correct matter and form, confer valid baptism. But St. Cyprian actually held that it was from apostolic Tradition that heretics could not confer a valid baptism! And this false idea was opposed by the then Pope St. Stephen and later condemned by the Catholic Church. So much for the claim that St. Cyprian’s Letter To Jubaianus is a sure representation of apostolic Tradition! In fact, St. Cyprian and 30 other bishops declared in a regional council in 254 A.D.:
“We… judging and holding it as certain that no one beyond the pale [that is, outside the Church] is able to be baptized…”167
This again proves the point: Jesus Christ only gave infallibility to St. Peter and his successors (the popes).
“And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have all of you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” (Luke 22:31?32)
Jesus Christ did not give unfailing faith to bishops, theologians or fathers of the Church; He only gave it to Peter and his successors when speaking from the Chair of Peter or when proposing a doctrine for the faithful to be believed as divinely revealed.
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, ex cathedra: “So, this gift of truth AND A NEVER FAILING FAITH WAS DIVINELY CONFERRED UPON PETER AND HIS SUCCESSORS IN THIS CHAIR…”168
Another early father who is frequently quoted in favor of baptism of blood is Tertullian. His statement is the earliest recorded statement teaching baptism of blood.
Tertullian, On Baptism, 203 A.D.: “If they might be washed in water, they must necessarily be so by blood. This is the Baptism which replaces that of the fountain, when it has not been received, and restores it when it has been lost.”169
But guess what? In the same work in which Tertullian expresses his opinion in favor of baptism of blood, he also makes a different and significant error. He says that infants should not be baptized until they are grown up!
Tertullian, On Baptism, 203 A.D.: “According to circuмstance and disposition and even age of the individual person, it may be better to delay baptism; and especially so in the case of little children…Let them come, then, while they grow up…”170
This contradicts the universal Catholic Tradition, received from the Apostles, and the later infallible teaching of the popes, that infants should be baptized as soon as possible.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “Regarding children… holy baptism ought not be deferred…”171
But in addition to this, in the same work On Baptism, Tertullian actually affirms the universal teaching of Tradition on the absolute necessity of water baptism, contrary to the idea of baptism of blood.
Tertullian, On Baptism, 203: “… it is in fact prescribed that no one can attain to salvation without Baptism, especially in view of that declaration of the Lord, who says: ‘Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life [John 3:5]…”172
Thus, those who think that baptism of blood is a teaching of the Catholic Church simply because this error was expressed by a number of fathers are simply mistaken. As many or more fathers held that unbaptized infants suffer the fires of Hell and that heretics cannot validly baptize. The theory of baptism of blood was not held universally or constantly in Catholic Tradition and it has never been taught or mentioned by any pope, any council or in any Papal Encyclical.
http://www.onetruecatholicfaith.com/Roman-Catholic-Articles.php?id=641&title=14.+Baptism+of+Blood+and+Baptism+of+Desire+-+Erroneous+Traditions+of+Man&category=Outside+the+Catholic+Church+there+is+no+Salvation&page=2
Topic: A Reminder To Avoid Forbidden Books (Read 2692 times)