Baptismus de Voto & the Consensus Patrum

Overview

The Dimond Brothers rely heavily upon the theory that the universal consensus among the Church Fathers was against salvation for anyone without the reception of baptism in water. This “consensus” can only be constructed when ​all references to "Baptism" are assumed to exclude any form other than that of water and when all references to baptism by blood and desire are ignored. When these two elements are removed, however, the “consensus” ceases to exist.

To begin with, quotations in favor of Baptism of Blood and of Desire (which are known among theologians as baptismus de voto) are not lacking among the Fathers. For instance, Pope St. Clement wrote to Corinth in the first century as follows:

Let us go through all generations, and learn that in generation and generation the Master has given a place of repentance to those willing to turn to Him. Noah preached repentance, and those who heard him were saved. Jonah preached repentance to the Ninivites; those who repented for their sins appeased God in praying, and received salvation, even though they were aliens of God.
- Letter to the Corinthians, 7, available: http://newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

St. Irenaeus says that “those who are saved” are “they who love God, and follow the Word of God”:

For to whomsoever the Lord shall say, Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, [Matthew 25:41] these shall be damned for ever; and to whomsoever He shall say, Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you for eternity, [Matthew 25:34] these do receive the kingdom for ever, and make constant advance in it; since there is one and the same God the Father, and His Word, who has been always present with the human race, by means indeed of various dispensations, and has wrought out many things, and saved from the beginning those who are saved, (for these are they who love God, and follow the Word of God according to the class to which they belong,) and has judged those who are judged, that is, those who forget God, and are blasphemous, and transgressors of His word.
- Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 28, Verse 2, available: http://newadvent.org/fathers/0103428.htm

St. Justin Martyr quite explicitly gives the name of “Christian” to “those who lived reasonably”:

We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them; and among the barbarians, Abraham, and Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael, and Elias, and many others whose actions and names we now decline to recount, because we know it would be tedious.
- First Apology, Chapter 46, available: http://newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

Further quotations from Saints Gregory, John Damascene, Cyril, Nilus, Prosper, Augustine, Ambrose, John Chrysostom, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr besides Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, Clement, Hegemonius, Arnobius, Eusebius, Primasius, Haymo, and Oecumenius can be found in “The Father William Most Collection” under “Appendix: Is There Salvation Outside the Church?” Another list of authorities supporting Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood can be found at catholicessentials.net in the article “Baptism of Desire, and Baptism of Blood”. The purpose of all this is not to overwhelm the reader with historical material but to provide sufficient proof to demonstrate that the Feenyite appeal to a “Consensus Patrum" is false.

St. Gregory Nazianzen

Although it would be excessively time-consuming to examine every quotation which the Dimond Brothers bring forward in favor of their position, one passage from St. G​regory Nazianzen deserves particular attention. It is as follows:

And so also in those who fail to receive the Gift, some are altogether animal or bestial, according as they are either foolish or wicked; and this, I think, has to be added to their other sins, that they have no reverence at all for this Gift, but look upon it as a mere gift— to be acquiesced in if given them, and if not given them, then to be neglected. Others know and honour the Gift, but put it off; some through laziness, some through greediness. Others are not in a position to receive it, perhaps on account of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circumstance through which they are prevented from receiving it, even if they wish. As then in the former case we found much difference, so too in this. They who altogether despise it are worse than they who neglect it through greed or carelessness. These are worse than they who have lost the Gift through ignorance or tyranny, for tyranny is nothing but an involuntary error. And I think that the first will have to suffer punishment, as for all their sins, so for their contempt of baptism; and that the second will also have to suffer, but less, because it was not so much through wickedness as through folly that they wrought their failure; and that the third will be neither glorified nor punished by the righteous Judge, as unsealed and yet not wicked, but persons who have suffered rather than done wrong. For not every one who is not bad enough to be punished is good enough to be honoured; just as not every one who is not good enough to be honoured is bad enough to be punished. And I look upon it as well from another point of view. If you judge the murderously disposed man by his will alone, apart from the act of murder, then you may reckon as baptized him who desired baptism apart from the reception of baptism. But if you cannot do the one how can you do the other? I cannot see it. Or, if you like, we will put it thus:— If desire in your opinion has equal power with actual baptism, then judge in the same way in regard to glory, and you may be content with longing for it, as if that were itself glory. And what harm is done you by your not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have the desire for it?​
​- Oration 40: The Oration on Holy Baptism, para. XXIII, avail: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310240.htm​

In the first section of this passage, St. Gregory describes those who, “are not in a position to receive [Baptism], perhaps on account of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circumstance through which they are prevented from receiving it, even if they wish” and who, “have lost the Gift through ignorance or tyranny, for tyranny is nothing but an involuntary error.” Of these, St. Gregory states they, “will be neither glorified nor punished by the righteous Judge, as unsealed and yet not wicked, but persons who have suffered rather than done wrong.”

St. Gregory Nazianzen is clearly teaching that the involuntary deprivation of Baptism to those who desire it is not cause for either glorification or punishment. The Dimond Brothers take this to be evidence of the idea that it is impossible to obtain the glory of salvation other than by actually receiving Baptism in water, yet this inference is inaccurate as we can easily prove by quoting the Oration immediately preceding that cited above:

Now, since our Festival is of Baptism, and we must endure a little hardness with Him Who for our sake took form, and was baptized, and was crucified; let us speak about the different kinds of Baptism, that we may come out thence purified. Moses baptized [Leviticus xi] but it was in water, and before that in the cloud and in the sea. [1 Corinthians 10:2] This was typical as Paul says; the Sea of the water, and the Cloud of the Spirit; the Manna, of the Bread of Life; the Drink, of the Divine Drink. John also baptized; but this was not like the baptism of the Jews, for it was not only in water, but also unto repentance. Still it was not wholly spiritual, for he does not add And in the Spirit. Jesus also baptized, but in the Spirit. This is the perfect Baptism. And how is He not God, if I may digress a little, by whom you too are made God? I know also a Fourth Baptism— that by Martyrdom and blood, which also Christ himself underwent:— and this one is far more august than all the others, inasmuch as it cannot be defiled by after-stains. Yes, and I know of a Fifth also, which is that of tears, and is much more laborious, received by him who washes his bed every night and his couch with tears; whose bruises stink through his wickedness; and who goes mourning and of a sad countenance; who imitates the repentance of Manasseh and the humiliation of the Ninevites [Jonah 3:7-10] upon which God had mercy; who utters the words of the Publican in the Temple, and is justified rather than the stiff-necked Pharisee; [Luke 18:13] who like the Canaanite woman bends down and asks for mercy and crumbs, the food of a dog that is very hungry. [Matthew 15:27]
- Oration 39: Oration on the Holy Lights, para. XVII, available: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310239.htm

In the passage above, St. Gregory teaches us that there was first a baptism of water which Moses gave and second, a baptism of water and repentance which John gave, but that only the baptism of Christ is the “perfect” baptism because it was “in the Spirit”. Next, we learn of a “Fourth Baptism” which is “by Martyrdom and blood” that is “far more august than all the others”, and finally, St. Gregory describes the “Fifth” Baptism “which is that of tears”.

We must begin by noting that the perfection of Christ’s Baptism is caused by the Spirit, not the water, since this water is common to the perfect Baptism of Christ along with the imperfect ones of St. John and Moses. This is explained by St. Gregory in his 40th Oration:

And since we are double-made, I mean of body and soul, and the one part is visible, the other invisible, so the cleansing also is twofold, by water and the spirit; the one received visibly in the body, the other concurring with it invisibly and apart from the body; the one typical, the other real and cleansing the depths.
- Oration 40: Oration on Holy Baptism, para. VIII, available: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310240.htm

When we understand that the real cleansing occurs “invisibly and apart from the body”, we have understood the principle by which the baptismus de voto operates. God is able to anything or even nothing exteriorly in order to impart the invisible cleansing of the soul. This is the essence of the point at issue with the Dimond Brothers.

Continuing the inquiry, we are immediately struck by the fact that the Baptism of Blood is called “far more august than all the others” despite the fact that it does not involve water. The august nature of this form of Baptism strongly implies that it can validly substitute for any of its inferiors, and this theory is reinforced by the flow of logic up until this point which has been that of superior forms of Baptism superseding their inferior predecessors. The standard defense against the quotation on the “five baptisms” (along with all the others which confess the Baptism of Blood) is that the Baptism of Blood is only effective for those already baptized with water; however, this line of defense is ineffective first of all because there is not the slightest evidence for this opinion in St. Gregory’s writings.

Furthermore, the logic by which martyrdom is only effective after baptism infers that the baptism of Christ is only effective for those who first received John’s baptism which was only be effective for those who received Moses’ baptism. Although the early Judaizers of St. Paul’s day are well known to have denied the efficacy of Christ’s baptism to those outside the Old Covenant, the Church has long since rejected this opinion as heresy. Thus, the logical attraction of this attack on the validity of Baptism in blood outside of water can be safely rejected as a fallacious “post hoc ergo propter hoc” argument. It is safe to say, therefore, that the evidence from St. Gregory Nazianzen not only allows, but even positively encourages the efficacy of Baptism in blood for salvation even apart from the font of Baptism in water.

Similarly with regards to Baptism by tears, we have evidence that St. Gregory was not of the same mind as the Dimond Brothers on this issue. This evidence is present in paragraphs eighteen and nineteen of the Saint’s 39th Oration:

XVIII. I, however, for I confess myself to be a man—that is to say, an animal shifty and of a changeable nature,— both eagerly receive this Baptism, and worship Him Who has given it me, and impart it to others; and by showing mercy make provision for mercy. For I know that I too am compassed with infirmity, [Hebrews 5:2] and that with what measure I mete it shall be measured to me again. [Matthew 7:2] But what do you say, O new Pharisee pure in title but not in intention, who dischargest upon us the sentiments of Novatus, though you share the same infirmities? Will you not give any place to weeping? Will you shed no tear? May you not meet with a Judge like yourself? Are you not ashamed by the mercy of Jesus, Who took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses; [Matthew 8:17] Who came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; Who will have mercy rather than sacrifice; who forgives sins till seventy times seven. How blessed would your exaltation be if it really were purity, not pride, making laws above the reach of men, and destroying improvement by despair. For both are alike evil, indulgence not regulated by prudence, and condemnation that will never forgive; the one because it relaxes all reins, the other because it strangles by its severity. Show me your purity, and I will approve your boldness. But as it is, I fear that being full of sores you will render them incurable. Will you not admit even David's repentance, to whom his penitence preserved even the gift of prophecy? Nor the great Peter himself, who fell into human weakness at the Passion of our Saviour? Yet Jesus received him, and by the threefold question and confession healed the threefold denial. Or will you even refuse to admit that he was made perfect by blood (for your folly goes even as far as that)? Or the transgressor at Corinth? But Paul confirmed love towards him when he saw his amendment, and gives the reason, that such an one be not swallowed up by overmuch sorrow, [2 Corinthians 2:7] being overwhelmed by the excess of the punishment. And will you refuse to grant liberty of marriage to young widows on account of the liability of their age to fall? Paul ventured to do so; but of course you can teach him; for you have been caught up to the Fourth heaven, and to another Paradise, and have heard words more unspeakable, and comprehend a larger circle in your Gospel.

XIX. But these sins were not after Baptism, you will say. Where is your proof? Either prove it— or refrain from condemning; and if there be any doubt, let charity prevail.

- Oration 39: Oration on the Holy Lights, para. XVIII and XIX, available: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310239.htm

In the above passage, St. Gregory Nazianzen is continuing his discourse on the “Fifth Baptism”. He begins by expostulating from Scripture against “Novatus”. Novatus (or “Novatian”) was the third-century schismatic founder of the Novatians, who called themselves the “katharoi” (“pure”). He was known for refusing to absolve Christians who had committed idolatry during the Roman persecutions. Beginning with Novatus himself, the Novatians maintained a schismatic hierarchy against the Catholic Church in Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and elsewhere which persisted into the beginning of the 7th century in some places (cf “Novatian and Novatianism” in the Catholic Encyclopedia). Among other things, his followers were known for not only refusing to absolve penitents from idolatry but also murder, adultery, and fornication.

With Novatian’s puritanism in mind, Saint Gregory cites the various incidents of Scripture wherein God forgave sin in response to the tears of the Fifth Baptism, and St. Gregory then gives the standard Novatianist response: “But these sins were not after Baptism”, meaning that if they had been after Baptism, God would have refused forgiveness. In response to this, St. Gregory gives what can only be called the ultimate refutation of all “Katharoi” heresies throughout time, including that of the Feenyites: “Either prove it— or refrain from condemning; and if there be any doubt, let charity prevail.”

This passage conclusively sets St. Gregory against the Dimond Brothers for two reasons. First, he clearly accepts the possibility that the sins remitted through tears could have been committed before Baptism since he does not deny the Novatianist objection that the sins forgiven through tears were committed prior to Baptism. Second, St. Gregory also does not distinguish whether the sins were committed before or after baptism in water. What this means is that ultimately St. Gregory’s teaching is very simple: it is that God forgives sins to those who repent whether this occurs before or after Baptism. This teaching is so utterly contrary to the spirit and dogma of Fr. Leonard Feeney, the Dimond Brothers, and all their puritanical kind from Novatian, Mani, and the Medieval Cathari to Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli that it is a disgraceful libel for anyone to cite the blessed doctor of Nazianzus in their favor.

Having considered the question of whether or not St. Gregory taught forgiveness of sins through tears prior to baptism in water, let us consider the further question of whether or not he allowed for the the possibility of obtaining glory in this way prior to baptism in water. His position would at first seem quote uncompromising on this point:

If desire in your opinion has equal power with actual baptism, then judge in the same way in regard to glory, and you may be content with longing for it, as if that were itself glory. And what harm is done you by your not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have the desire for it?​
​- Oration 40: The Oration on Holy Baptism, para XXIII, avail: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310240.htm

In this passage, St. Gregory teaches that the desire of baptism does not have the same power as baptism itself, and that those who desire baptism are not to be content with merely so desiring. This is clear in so far as it goes, yet the inference that it contradicts the teaching of baptismus flaminis is unfounded. To establish this, however, we must understand what the baptismus flaminis actually is. The Catholic Encyclopedia explains it succinctly as follows:

The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin.
- The Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism, “The baptism of desire”, available: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

It is immediately clear from the above that the english translation of baptismus flaminis is inadequate in that it does not convey the supernatural quality of this form of baptism. This is unfortunate because it obscures the critical fact that like all the “perfect” forms of baptism, the baptismus flaminis must be imparted by the Holy Ghost and, as such, is beyond the natural powers of human nature. This point is fundamental to the issue of Feenyism since this error draws its strength from the inaccurate characterization of baptismus flaminis as being an expression of modernist naturalism which systematically vitiates the Gospel of all its supernatural qualities. The fact that this characterization of baptismus flaminis is entirely false can be readily perceived by understanding the meaning its essential prerequisite act: perfect contrition. This is explained in the Encyclopedia as follows:

Catholic teaching distinguishes a twofold hatred of sin; one, perfect contrition, rises from the love of God Who has been grievously offended; the other, imperfect contrition, arises principally from some other motives, such as loss of heaven, fear of hell, the heinousness of sin, etc. (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, ch. iv de Contritione)... In accordance with Catholic teaching contrition ought to be prompted by God's grace and aroused by motives which spring from faith, as opposed to merely natural motives, such as loss of honour, fortune, and the like (Chemnitz, Exam. Concil. Trid., Pt. II, De Poenit.). In the Old Testament it is God who gives a "new heart" and who puts a "new spirit)" into the children of Israel (Ezekiel 36:25-29); and for a clean heart the Psalmist prays in the Miserere (Psalm 1:11 sqq.). St. Peter told those to whom he preached in the first days after Pentecost that God the Father had raised up Christ "to give repentance to Israel" (Acts 5:30 sq.). St. Paul in advising Timothy insists on dealing gently and kindly with those who resist the truth, "if peradventure God may give them full repentance" (2 Timothy 2:24-25). In the days of the Pelagian heresy Augustine insisted on the supernaturalness of contrition, when he writes, "That we turn away from God is our doing, and this is the bad will; but to turn back to God we are unable unless He arouse and help us, and this is the good will." Some of the Scholastic doctors, notably Scotus, Cajetan, and after them Francisco Suárez (De Poenit., Disp. iii, sect. vi), asked speculatively whether man if left to himself could elicit a true act of contrition, but no theologian ever taught that makes for forgiveness of sin in the present economy of God could be inspired by merely natural motives. On the contrary, all the doctors have insisted on the absolute necessity of grace for contrition that disposes to forgiveness (Bonaventure, In Lib. Sent. IV, dist. xiv, Pt. I, art. II, Q. iii; also dist. xvii, Pt. I, art. I, Q. iii; cf. St. Thomas, In Lib. Sent. IV). In keeping with this teaching of the Scriptures and the doctors, the Council of Trent defined; "If anyone say that without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and without His aid a man can repent in the way that is necessary for obtaining the grace of justification, let him be anathema."
- The Catholic Encyclopedia, Contrition, available: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04337a.htm

The supernatural quality of perfect contrition is not to be forgotten or underestimated as it places the baptismus flaminis entirely outside the natural scope of what human nature is capable apart from divine assistance. Man can desire the glory of baptism within the bounds of his weakness using the natural motives of this life, but to merit the glory of Baptism requires the supernatural infusion of grace into the soul by the Holy Spirit. Thus, baptismus flaminis is not only separate from the modernist error of naturalism, it is absolutely opposed to naturalism at its most fundamental level because the doctrine of baptismus flaminis closes the gates of Heaven once and for all to purely natural human nature unaided by the supernatural power of the Holy Ghost.

Pope St. Siricius

Having considered St. Gregory Nazianzen, it behooves us to examine one further passage from the Patristic Age that is commonly relied-upon to support the Feenyite position. This passage is from Pope St. Siricius writing in the 4th century:

As we maintain that the observance of the holy Paschal time should in no way be relaxed, in the same way we desire that infants who, on account of their age, cannot yet speak, or those who, in any necessity, are in want of the water of holy baptism, be succored with all possible speed, for fear that, if those who leave this world should be deprived of the life of the Kingdom for having been refused the source of salvation which they desired, this may lead to the ruin of our souls. If those threatened with shipwreck, or the attack of enemies, or the uncertainties of a siege, or those put in a hopeless condition due to some bodily sickness, ask for what in their faith is their only help, let them receive at the very moment of their request the reward of regeneration they beg for. Enough of past mistakes! From now on, let all the priests observe the aforesaid rule if they do not want to be separated from the solid apostolic rock on which Christ has built his universal Church.
- ​Letter to Himerius, 385

The Dimond Brothers bring this quotation forward as part of their larger argument that because the Church has always conferred water baptism in case of imminent danger of death, therefore, She must have always believed that the desire for baptism was insufficient to obtain the grace thereof. This assumption, however, is a non sequitur because baptism of water in danger of death assumes that such baptism is possible whereas the teaching on baptism of blood and desire assumes that baptism in water is not possible, as the Catholic Encyclopedia says [emphasis mine]:

It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.
- Baptism, “Substitutes for the Sacrament”, available: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

Thus, when a person is in danger of death and it is possible for him to receive baptism by water, then the entire question of baptism by desire or blood is moot: there is no such thing as baptismus de voto if it is possible to receive baptism of water. Put another way: it is impossible to receive the grace of salvation if baptism of water is refused. What Pope St. Siricius is teaching in the passage quoted above is that it is wrong for anyone to withhold baptism from those who desire it and are in danger of death. He is not teaching that when it is impossible for someone to receive baptism of water, they are damned to Hell for eternity.

On the contrary, if we read the passage carefully, we see that the Pope says baptism is to be conferred in such cases lest it “lead to the ruin of our souls” [emphasis mine]. This is a curious turn of phrase for someone who is supposed to believe that denial of baptism leads inevitably to the ruin of the recipient’s soul, not the minister’s! St. Siricius is clearly not teaching that if the minister withholds baptism from a candidate that the candidate is damned; he is teaching that the act of withholding baptism places the minister in danger of damnation!

It may be objected that the font of Baptism is referred to as a “source of salvation” and the “reward of regeneration”, yet (as has been stated before), the saving power of baptism in water is by no means abrogated by the validity of baptism in blood or desire; therefore, it is entirely appropriate to confess that both baptism of water and the baptismus de voto are “sources of salvation” and “rewards of regeneration”. In short, when we say that baptism of water imparts salvation, we do not thereby add that baptism of desire or blood do not impart salvation.

It may also be objected that “what in their faith is their only help” means the un-baptized candidates believe baptism by water to be their only means of salvation, yet this is by no means clear from the text since there is nothing to show that the “what” refers specifically to baptism in water and not baptism in general. Furthermore, the translation which the Feenyites give is somewhat slanted, for other translations do not use the phrase “what in their faith is their only help”, as we see here [emphasis mine]:

Whoever, indeed, suffers the peril of shipwreck, the assault of an enemy, the uncertainty of a siege, or the despair of any bodily illness and demands to be supported by the singular help of belief, at the very same moment when they demand, the advantages of the sought for regeneration should follow.
- Letter of Pope Siricius to Bishop Himerius of Tarragona, 385. Ed. Pierre Coustant, Epistolae Romanorum pontificum (Paris, 1721; reprint Farnborough, 1967), 623-638. Available: http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Canon%20Law/Decretals/SiriciusDecretal.htm#Concerning Baptism

This is anything but conclusive proof that baptism in water was considered as the sole means of salvation by those requesting it. What we do know is that if someone is in mortal danger, they should receive baptism. The Pope does not say whether they can be saved if it is impossible to receive baptism. The entire quotation does not apply to the baptismus de voto since this assumes the impossibility of baptism in water whereas the Pope in this quotation expressly assumes its possibility.

Conclusion

Having removed any illusions concerning a “consensus Patrum” in favor of the Dimond Brothers, and having particularly examined the spurious nature of their claims concerning St. Gregory Nazianzen and Pope St. Siricius, let us conclude by examining their curious assertion that they represent the consistent teaching of the conservative Catholic Church prior to Vatican II. Thanks to the efforts of Fr. Anthony Cekada, it is now an established historical fact that the overwhelming consensus of pre-Vatican II theologians was entirely in favor of baptismus de voto. Fr. Martin Stephanich explains this in his article on The “Unbaptized Saints” Deception:​

Speaking of the teaching of theologians on Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, the exceptionally competent Father Anthony Cekada found time to examine the writings of as many as 25 prominent pre-Vatican II theologians who taught at great theological schools of Europe—a very laborious and tiresome task. (Thomas A Droleskey note: See Father Cekada's Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles.) Every single one of those 25 clearly taught the reality of both Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, making it plain that it was the common teaching of theologians, and that it was the certain belief and teaching of the Church. Seven of those 25 theologians did not hesitate to declare Baptism of Desire to be a truth of the Faith—that is, de fide, as it is expressed in Latin. Father Cekada published his findings in a 125-page spiral bound volume some time in the year 2000. His correct conclusion was that “belief in Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood is required of all Catholics.” But the considerably less than Catholic Feeneyites are much too far gone to pay any attention to that.
- available: http://www.christorchaos.com/TheUnBaptizedSaintsDeceptionbyFatherStepanich.htm

​Further on in the same article quoted above, Fr. Martin brings our attention to further evidence for the tradition of baptismus de voto in the Magisterium of the Church:

Before going further on the issue of infallibility, it is good to mention here that The Reign of Mary magazine (year 2004, Vol. 35, No. 116) [available at ​cmri.org/reign_of_mary_back.html] published a detailed compilation of quotes (21 of them!) on “Baptism of Desire and of Blood” from the Council of Trent, and the teachings of the Popes, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the Roman Martyrology, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and various theologians.
- The “Unbaptized Saints” Deception

Given these facts, it is evident that either the magisterium ordinarium of the Catholic Church (cf The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Infallibility”, III. Organs of Infallibility) is fallible or baptismus de voto has the power to justify human nature. There is no middle ground between these alternatives. Regarding which one is correct, St. Vincent of Lerins famously exhorts us as follows:

In the Catholic Church itself we must take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly catholic, as the very force and meaning of the word show, which comprehends everything almost universally. And we shall observe this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses...
- Commonitorium

It has been shown that the teaching of the Catholic Church has always affirmed the fact that God can impart the grace of salvation by means of martyrdom and of perfect, supernatural contrition. There is no consensus either ancient or modern which could countenance the position which the Dimond Brothers defend for a moment. It suffices, therefore, to conclude with the words of St. Gregory Nazianzen:

What say you? Are we convincing you by these words? Come and stand here on our side, that is, on the side of humanity. Let us magnify the Lord together. Let none of you, even though he has much confidence in himself, dare to say, Touch me not for I am pure, and who is so pure as I? Give us too a share in your brightness. But perhaps we are not convincing you? Then we will weep for you. Let these men then if they will, follow our way, which is Christ's way; but if they will not, let them go their own. Perhaps in it they will be baptized with Fire, in that last Baptism which is more painful and longer, which devours wood like grass, [1 Corinthians 3:12-19] and consumes the stubble of every evil.
- Oration 39: Oration on the Holy Lights, para. XIX, available: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310239.htm

Download this article