Author Topic: Testimony of the Sacred Liturgy to Baptism of Blood (Read 3003 times)

Caminus · « **on:** February 03, 2010, 02:56:12 PM »

Quote

S. Emerentiana: Patroness of Feeneyites?

It is time again to wish a happy feast day to the Feeneyites! Today is the feast of St. Emerentiana. I think she should be made the Patroness of Feeneyism. The reason is evident from her official acta which form part of the Roman Liturgy (Divine Office at matins, second nocturn):

Emerentiána virgo Romána, collactánea beátæ Agnétis, adhuc catechúmena, fide et caritáte flagrans, furéntes in Christiános idolórum cultóres cuм veheméntius accusáret, a concitáta multitúdine lapídibus óbruta est. Quæ in cruciátibus orans ad sepúlcrum sanctæ Agnétis, próprio sánguine, quem pro Christo constánter effúdit, baptizáta, ánimam Deo réddidit.

Emerentiana, a Roman virgin and the foster-sister of the blessed Agnes, while she was still a Catechumen, burning with faith and charity, rebuked the idol-worshippers who were full of fury against the Christians, whereupon a mob assembled and stoned her. Praying in her torment at the grave of Saint Agnes, and having been baptized in her own blood, so generously shed for Christ, she gave up her soul unto God.

Thus, the Universal Liturgy, that most certain and infallible witness of Sacred Tradition, proposes to us for our veneration a Saint who never received sacramental baptism!

Nor is she the only such saint whom the Church venerates. There is also St. Genesius of Arles, whose feast day is on August 25. His official acta read thus:

Genesius, native of Arles, at first a soldier became known for his proficiency in writing, and was made secretary to the magistrate of Arles. While performing the duties of his office the decree of persecution against the Christians was read in his presence. Outraged in his ideas of justice, the young catechumen cast his tablets at the feet of the magistrate and fled. He was captured and executed, and thus received baptism in his own blood.

The corresponding text from the Roman Martyrology (Aug. 25) suggests the same:

Areláte, in Gállia, beáti item Genésii, qui, cuм ímpia edícta, quibus Christiáni puníri jubebántur, exceptóris offício fungens, nollet excípere, et, projéctis in públicuм tábulis, se Christiánum esse testarétur, comprehénsus et decollátus est, atque ita martyrii glóriam, próprio cruóre baptizátus, accépit.

At Arles in France, another blessed Genesius, who, filling the office of notary, and refusing to record the impious edicts by which Christians were commanded to be punished, threw away his books publicly, and declared himself a Christian, was seized and beheaded, and thus attained the glory of martyrdom, having been baptized through his own blood.

Another martyr that we venerate in the Sacred Liturgy even though he did not receive sacramental baptism is St. Victor of Braga . Here is his entry in the Roman Martyrology (April 12):

Brácari, in Lusitánia, sancti Victóris Mártyris, qui, adhuc catechúmenus, cuм noluísset idólum adoráre, et Christum Jesum magna constántia conféssus fuísset, ídeo, post multa torménta, cápite abscísso, méruit próprio sánguine baptizári.

At Braga in Portugal, the martyr St. Victor, who, still a catechumen, when he refused to adore an idol, and confessed Jesus Christ with great constancy, after suffering many tortures, having been beheaded, merited to be baptized through his own blood.

Another is St. Rogatian, who was martyred together with his brother St. Donatian. Their commemoration is on May 24. Donatian had been baptized when they were martyred, but Rogatian was still a catechumen.

Some of these examples are a bit more subtle than others, but everyone in Christendom has always known (until the Feenyites denied it) that they are examples of saints who were saved, not through sacramental baptism, but through martyrdom.

On a more serious note... If we were Protestant we could simply deny, as do the Feeneyites, the value of the texts of the Sacred Liturgy as a witness of Divine Revelation. But we are not. We must not limit our fidelity (as do the Feeneyites) only to Scripture and to the infallible pronouncements of the Magisterium. We must extend this fidelity to all of the witnesses of Sacred Tradition, including the texts of the Sacred Liturgy, the consensus of the Fathers, the consensus of the Theologians, the consensus of the faithful, etc. If the Fathers agree that there is such a thing as baptism of blood--and they undoubtedly do--then we must believe so. If the liturgy tells us that these saints received baptism of blood and that we must venerate them--and it is now evident that it does--then we must do so. Futher, if the Theologians tell us that these saints are indeed proof of the reality of baptism of blood (cf. Tanquerey, Sola, and many others), then by all means we must accept this.

I will be the first one to defend the necessity of baptism (with a necessity of means) for salvation. (I have already done so here and here.) The Church proposes this truth for our belief as an article of faith. However, She also proposes, through the testimony of the Fathers, Theologians, and the Sacred Liturgy, the reality of baptism of blood as a truth that, though not necessarily an article of faith, is nonetheless so certain (sententia theologice certa) and so connected with the articles of the faith, that its obstinate denial would amount to a great theological error worthy of censure (Cf. Bl. Pius IX, Tuas libenter (1863), in Denzinger no. 1684).

The fact that this doctrine of baptism through blood seems to be at odds with the dogma of the necessity of baptism should not make us hesitate in accepting its truth. The fact that our intellects cannot grasp the coherence of these two teachings should not make us rashly conclude that they are incompatible in themselves. Our faith is filled with mysteries that transcend human reason. We must learn this lesson from the early Church: at that time, the great theological syntheses of the Fathers and Scholastics had not yet explained the profound harmony between the mysteries of faith, and most doctrines were believed despite the fact that they seemed paradoxical to the first Christians. The Unity of God seemed to be at odds with his being Triune; the humanity of Christ seemed to be at odds with his Divinity; the duality of wills in Christ seemed to be at odds with His conformity to the will of the Father. However, none of this prevented the early Fathers from assenting to all of these truths. Their minds did not grasp the harmony of the mysteries, but their faith forced them to trust that, since it all was part of the same Divine Revelation, and truth cannot contradict truth, it must all harmonize in the mind of God.

Let us prove ourselves faithful Catholics in doing the same: baptism is necessary for salvation, and yet there are some saints in heaven who never received sacramental baptism, but rather "were baptized in their own blood."

Sancta Emerentiana, ora pro nobis et pro feeneyitis.

Sancte Genesie, ora pro nobis et pro feeneyitis.

Sancte Victor, ora pro nobis et pro feeneyitis.

Sancte Rogatiane, ora pro nobis et pro feeneyitis.

http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2008/01/s-emerentiana-patroness-of-feenyites.html#links

Ladislaus · « **Reply #1 on:** February 03, 2010, 04:55:10 PM »

1) the Roman Martyrology is not infallible, either historically or doctrinally

2) none of these passages positively rules out the reception of sacramental baptism as well; Church regulations at the time mandated conferring sacramental baptism upon catechumens in danger of death (during the persecutions), which would in fact be superfluous if BoB actually existed

None of this actually proves anything. There are a handful of Church Fathers who believed in BoB, but their argument entailed a bad reference to Jesus speaking of His Passion as a baptism. Jesus obviously did not require sacramental baptism. BoB could in many of the Fathers been a reference to BoB as being analogous to baptism in that it completely blots out all sin and temporal punishment due to sin for the Catholic martyr (i.e. the martyr goes straight to heaven as if he had just been baptized). That does NOT mean that the person could have gone to heaven without having first received sacramental baptism.

If you look at the Latin, the phrase adhud catechumenus/a breaks up the intial clause, i.e. the clause that explains WHY the catechumen was killed. In other words, the Latin says "such and such, while just a catechumen, did so and so, and then was killed". That doesn't mean the person DIED while still a catechumen and unbaptized.

While it's OK to raise these examples and consider them, to imply that this is a slam-dunk case against those who reject BoB doesn't hold water (pun intended).

Caminus · « **Reply #2 on:** February 03, 2010, 05:31:49 PM »

Quote

...that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.

Wow...that's pretty bad, even for you David. That quote refers heretics outside the Church incurring pseudo-martyrdoms. It says nothing about martyrs for the true faith.

Caminus · « **Reply #3 on:** February 03, 2010, 07:35:10 PM »

Quote from: CM

It says they cannot be saved outside the Church, and it is Baptism in water that makes men members of the Church.

No, the quote itself, not what you infer from it or how you might try to appropriate it. They were not addressing baptism of blood at all. The text was speaking about heretics shedding their blood. This is proof-texting at its worse.

Caminus · « **Reply #4 on:** February 03, 2010, 09:50:59 PM »

I don't think I've ever seen you answer a post with any substance yet. That is truly bizarre.

Caminus · « **Reply #5 on:** February 03, 2010, 10:42:39 PM »

Please quote the part where he has dealt with a subject in substance.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 04, 2010, 12:24:48 AM »

Caminus is right on this one. Cantate Domino refers to those who fall out of the Church and shed their blood for Christ, it is not referring to catechumens who shed their blood.

If you don't admit at least this much David, you have proved yourself willfully dishonest. Sorry.

Ladislaus said:

Quote

2) none of these passages positively rules out the reception of sacramental baptism as well; Church regulations at the time mandated conferring sacramental baptism upon catechumens in danger of death (during the persecutions), which would in fact be superfluous if BoB actually existed

No, that would not be superfluous. It would actually be PRESUMPTUOUS for clergy not to baptize catechumens in danger of death. BoD and BoB rely for their efficacy on the catechumen making every effort to be baptized. Someone who thinks "Ah, I don't feel like dealing with the priest today, I'll get baptized next year" does not qualify for BoD if he dies in that state. Someone in danger of death from persecution should also be baptized for the same reason -- if he didn't, he'd be playing dice with God. BoD is for those who do everything in their power to be baptized but are prevented somehow.

It is the same with someone who intends to confess but cannot because all the priests are heretics or there are no priests. If there was a priest, it would be presumptuous not to confess, and would be an insult to the sacrament of Penance. But if there are no priests, he is not presumptuous, but relies on the sacrament of Penance as a necessity of precept.

The difference with baptism is that no one should ever RELY on it as a necessity of precept, being a more important sacrament. It is just that sometimes it IS only a necessity of precept -- theoretically. No one knows if anyone has ever really been saved by BoD or BoB, but it is no heresy to suggest the possibility.

It is easier to be baptized than it is sometimes to find a priest to confess to, also ( in the Crusades many soldiers confessed to each other while dying, hopefully having perfect contrition ). Anyone can do it in an emergency. Rare would be the occasion when someone cannot be baptized if they desire it, but then there is Valentinus...

Raoul76 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 04, 2010, 12:34:14 AM »

It is one step forward, and one step back for you today, David.

One step forward, since you showed me that Robert Bellarmine was canonized by Pius XI.

One step back, since you won't acknowledge you have misinterpreted Cantate Domino.

Were there Feeneyites before Father Feeney? Can you provide some sources of 19th century or 18th century Feeneyites? How about even 13th century Feeneyites?

I think Father Michael Muller referred to someone who believed water baptism to be necessary in his book "The Catholic Dogma." I'll have to scour the book. I remember him writing, "But this seems to us too harsh..."

Agobard · « **Reply #8 on:** February 04, 2010, 01:50:55 AM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Were there Feeneyites before Father Feeney? Can you provide some sources of 19th century or 18th century Feeneyites? How about even 13th century Feeneyites?

Because the necessity of water baptism was the given. This is like saying: "Why weren't there any 'anti-wine baptismites' back in the 1500s? See, you can baptize people using wine. Wine even has some water content in it! You can even use olive oil for baptism, because olive has traces of water in it! Where were the 'anti-olive oilites' in the 16th Century? Huh? Yeah, that's what I thought!"

But Raoul, I do appreciate you clausing your BOD position to catechumens only. BOD is often used to say some pagan in Amazon who believes in a "Great Spirit" and desires to serve the "Great Spirit" and lives a "good" life can attain BOD even without having the Catholic faith.

You also have ABL who claimed pagans can be saved outside the Catholic Church. ABL believed his position of "salvation outside the Catholic Church" was compatible with Outside the Church there is NO salvation.

Can we stick to the commands of Jesus: Go therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Commentary in Douay-Rheims Bible: "Unless a man be born again"... By these words our Saviour hath declared the necessity of baptism; and by the word water it is evident that the application of it is necessary with the words. Matt. 28. 19.
http://www.drbo.org/chapter/50003.htm

This is also confirmed in many Church Councils. Even the misunderstood Council of Trent confirms it:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT THE LAVER OF REGENERATION (you cannot baptize without water) OR A DESIRE FOR IT (you cannot baptize an adult who does not believe and who does not desire baptism - this is forbidden. He would not be open to the Holy Ghost) AS IT IS WRITTEN: UNLESS A MAN BE BORN AGAIN OF WATER AND THE HOLY GHOST, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD (JOHN 3:5)."

Raoul76 · « **Reply #9 on:** February 04, 2010, 02:33:21 AM »

Hello Agobard and welcome to the site!

Yes, I am a strict BoD-er who clings to Father Michael Muller's position. You will often find me railing against the idea of salvation in false religions, as well as what Abp. Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay said.

I am also a bit unusual for a BoD-er in that I confess your reading of Trent is valid. It makes more sense that way in context. In my opinion the Decree on Justification neither denies nor teaches BoD or BoB -- it doesn't discuss it at all. The Catechism of Trent, however, does at least suggest it.

This is why I say BoD is not de fide; but not heresy either.

So you are saying that the majority of people, the Ordinary Magisterium as it were, the simple faithful, believed it was heresy to say that a catechumen might be saved by BoD or BoB, and that this has been flushed down the memory hole?

Yet BoD and BoB are taught in the Douay-Rheims as well as by the bulk of what are considered to be the great theologians. I am aware that almost the entire lot of late-19th century/ 20th-century theologians are heretics but we are not talking about them when it comes to BoD.

Also, I am unconvinced by Feeneyite interpretations of Cantate Domino and other decrees. If these were really intended to put paid to unwonted speculations about BoD, they did a poor job. But I do not think that was their intention, nor that it is even a valid reading of them to say that was their intention.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 04, 2010, 03:19:35 AM »

CM said:

Quote

Whose intention? God the Holy Ghost? He simply meant the infallible words of the Pontiffs to be absolutely true from any angle you can think of, hence the word "irreformable".

But if you're not reading these decrees in the spirit of the Holy Ghost how can you suss out what the Holy Ghost was really saying?

You are unreservedly positive that you are reading these decrees correctly. But I have seen occasions where you do not read decrees correctly, such as Cantate Domino, which clearly says dying for the faith will not save you if you fall OUT of the Church, and is not referring to catechumens who die on their way to the font. From this, and other mistakes -- such as your idea that anyone who went to church when Benedict XV was Pope was in "schism" and is damned -- I know your judgment is not as authoritative and sound as you think it to be, despite your many insights.

What I think the Holy Ghost is telling me is that Vienne neither confirms nor denies baptism of desire, nor do any of the decrees you cite.

The Council of Vienne is not your trump card by any stretch of the imagination, because of how it says "perfect means." You know what I'm talking about. That is why you came up with your elaborate theory about what an imperfect means might be; confession after a fall.

But can you PROVE that this is what the Holy Ghost had in mind? You can no more prove it than I can prove that BoD is the imperfect means of salvation.

All these decrees just stress the necessity of baptism. No one who believes in BoD has done otherwise, except the ones who extend it to save those who have never even considered baptism and hate Christ, like the Jєωs. This is not even baptism of desire. It's another kind of BoD -- Baptism of Despite. DESPITE oneself, one is baptized... No correspondence with grace necessarily! Just spit on grace and be saved!

I must admit that I have received a blow by learning that St. Robert Bellarmine was sainted by Pius XI and that he proposed some kind of nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. I am not comfortable basing my belief in BoD anymore on Bellarmine and Liguori, who I'm sure were saintly men but who were not perfect. Liguori has always been a controversial figure.

So the teachings on BoD from the 16th century come from Jesuits, Bellarmine and the Trent Catechism. If I am going to follow my Jesuit paranoia too far, though, I'll end up rejecting Trent itself!

I am more comfortable relying on St. Thomas and St. Augustine. Since I do not believe any of your decrees, CM, abolish baptism of desire, I also do not share your "BoD became a heresy in 1344" or whatever it was chronology. But the evidence for BoD is not as rock-solid as it once was for me. At this point, I actually believe the Holy Ghost intentionally has left the existence or lack thereof of BoD ambiguous.

I'm feeling pretty disturbed right now, so here's your chance to exploit some vulnerabilities! I don't think I will ever say it's heresy but I might be persuaded to move to Ladislaus' position -- MIGHT. I do for some reason believe strongly in it; based on a gut feeling. But my conviction is being put to the test.

P.S. Thanks for informing me that the Holy Ghost is to be referred to as He and not "it." How did I miss this?

Agobard · « **Reply #11 on:** February 04, 2010, 03:32:34 AM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Hello Agobard and welcome to the site!

Thank you.

Quote from: Raoul76

You will often find me railing against the idea of salvation in false religions, as well as what Abp. Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay said.

:nunchaku:

I've noticed. I've been a lurker for a short while.

Quote from: Raoul76

I am also a bit unusual for a BoD-er in that I confess your reading of Trent is valid. It makes more sense that way in context. In my opinion the Decree on Justification neither denies nor teaches BoD or BoB -- it doesn't discuss it at all. The Catechism of Trent, however, does at least suggest it.

Do you mean this:
http://www.thecatholicfaith.info/Errors_In_The_Catechism_Of_The_Council_Of_Trent.htm

Quote from: Raoul76

This is why I say BoD is not de fide; but not heresy either.

If water baptism is the only valid form of baptism and Church Councils have indicated as such, then it would be heresy. Personally, I would like to believe in BOD/BOB (for catechumens), but I have not come across any evidence of it being de fide, only to the contrary.

Quote from: Raoul76

So you are saying that the majority of people, the Ordinary Magisterium as it were, the simple faithful, believed it was heresy to say that a catechumen might be saved by BoD or BoB, and that this has been flushed down the memory hole? I am aware that almost the entire lot of late-19th century/ 20th-century theologians are heretics but we are not talking about them when it comes to BoD.

The spreaders of heresy did not begin in the 19th Century. The original terrorists have been trying to destroy/divide & conquer the Church for nearly 2,000 years.

Quote from: Raoul76

Yet BoD and BoB are taught in the Douay-Rheims.

I'd like to know where. It wouldn't be ex cathedra, but I'd like to read what they said.

Quote from: Raoul76

Also, I am unconvinced by Feeneyite interpretations of Cantate Domino and other decrees. If these were really intended to put paid to unwonted speculations about BoD, they did a poor job. But I do not think that was their intention, nor that it is even a valid reading of them to say that was their intention.

I'm not a Feeneyite or Buchananite (agent) or Paulite (Agent provocateur) or whatite, I am searching for the Truth, I don't care about following personalities, whether they be sincere or agents.

Agobard · « **Reply #12 on:** February 04, 2010, 03:37:56 AM »

Quote from: CM

Abogard you have to act fast. Edit your post. Delete the whole thing. Copy it to notepad. Then repost it again, but preview first. This is the only way to salvage it. Do it quick you only have about a minute left.

It's not working. :stare:

Raoul76 · « **Reply #13 on:** February 04, 2010, 03:39:22 AM »

CM said:

Quote

To this one Baptism which baptizes all people who in Christ are regenerated,

I see what you're saying now. One baptism baptizes ALL who in Christ are regenerated. When the sentence is read in one gulp, the one baptism is the baptism in water...

Uh oh.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #14 on:** February 04, 2010, 03:40:57 AM »

I honestly cannot see how this leaves any room open for baptism of desire. It has just hit me. I need to go to sleep and then attack this with a fresh mind. First of all, I need to translate the Latin of Vienna myself, which should take about fourteen hours considering my Latin "ability" or lack thereof.

Edit: The phrase "perfect means" leaves the door open a little. Maybe. Now if you'll excuse me, I am a little flabbergasted and need to be alone.