Baptismus de Voto: Infants, Martyrs, Saints & Catechumens

Infants

The fact that infants require baptism through water has been raised as an objection to the validity of baptismus flaminis; however, these two teachings are perfectly harmonious since infants lack the reasoning faculty by means of which adults achieve the necessary desire for salvation. Pope Pius XII explained this very clearly and simply in his Address to Italian Midwives, Oct. 29, 1951:

If what We have said up to now concerns the protection and care of natural life, much more so must it concern the supernatural life, which the newly born receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason. Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open.
- As quoted in Outside the Church There is No Salvation by Fr. Martin Stephanich

This establishes beyond doubt that Pius XII believed and taught that adults can obtain sanctification by means of an act of love which is inaccessible to infants. As further confirmation of the Catholic teaching on this point, Steven Speray (stevensperay.wordpress.com) calls our attention to the Roman Catechism:

The Roman Catechism states that baptism for infants should not be delayed “Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism…” (p. 178)

On the next page, the Catechism states that adults “are not baptized at once… The delay is not attended the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any foreseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.” (p 179)

- Systematically debunking the Dimond Brothers on Baptism of Desire – PART 3
July 23, 2013

The Dimond Brothers would have us believe that baptism in water is the only means of sanctification for both infants and adults, yet the passages above show quite clearly that this directly contradicts the teaching of both the Roman Catechism and Pope Pius XII. Since there is no reconciliation between these doctrines, let each and every one of us put aside the darkness of error and be illumined by the divine light of the pure and true Catholic dogma as preserved and handed-down to us by the Catechism and the Holy Father.

Martyrs

​The objection that the baptismus sanguinis is effective only for those already washed in the font has already been briefly addressed in the discussion of St. Gregory Nazianzen’s Oration on Holy Baptism; however, this argument is of such significance to the Feenyite position that it deserves special treatment in its own right.

It is important first of all to realize that there exists absolutely no direct proof that any of the Fathers or Doctors of the Church ever taught that those martyred for Christ were only justified if they had received the water of Baptism prior to their death. Instead of presenting such direct evidence, the Dimond Brothers assert that “baptism” is frequently used in a metaphorical sense by the Fathers such that it is safe to infer any reference to “baptism in blood” is purely figurative and has no reference to real justification.

While it is true that the Fathers often use the word “baptism” in a metaphorical sense, this alone is entirely insufficient proof of the idea that any and all references to the baptismus sanguinis are metaphorical. This lack of objective evidence against the justifying efficacy of baptismus sanguinis becomes conclusive when contrasted with the evidence in favor of this efficacy. :

Further, in the book, De Eccl. Dogmat., 41, it is written: "We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life except if he suffer martyrdom, which constitutes all the sacramental power of Baptism".
​​​​- Part III, Question 68, Article 2, Objection 2

The book referred to by St. Thomas Aquinas is De Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus written in the 5th century of our Lord by Gennadius of Massilia. As such, it represents not only very clear testimony but also very primitive testimony to the fact that martyrdom contains in itself the power of Baptism without the necessity of water. Even if it is objected that St. Thomas and Gennadius were not correct in their teaching, it certainly cannot be denied that they represent a consistent tradition concerning the baptismus sanguinis stretching back at least to the 5th century.

St. Thomas Aquinas is able to trace this tradition back even further than the 5th century, however, and in doing so, he gives us a very clear explanation of the principle by which the baptismus sanguinis causes justification in the human soul:

I answer that, As stated above (Question 62, Article 5), Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins...
- Summa, Part III, Question 66, Article 11

The principle by which the baptismus sanguinis justifies man is the Passion of Christ, and this Passion is the same which makes Baptism in water effective for salvation. As such, they are ultimately one and the same in their effect and their cause. The classical example of this principle at work is the record of the justification of the Thief on the Cross:

Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): "The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable."
- ​Summa, Part III, Q 66, Article 11

This quotation is particularly poignant since it cites both St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Cyprian of Carthage as authorities in favor of the dogma on baptismus sanguinis. At this point, the objection that St. Thomas, St. Augustine, St. Cyprian, and Gennadius were all teaching heresy with regard to the baptismus sanguinis becomes increasingly strained.

This objection becomes even further strained, if not completely broken, when we add to the testimony of all the above ancient Fathers that of Cardinal Henry Newman:

On the other hand, it was the doctrine of the Church that Martyrdom was meritorious, that it had a certain supernatural efficacy in it, and that the blood of the Saints received from the grace of the One Redeemer a certain expiatory power. Martyrdom stood in the place of Baptism, where the Sacrament had not been administered. It exempted the soul from all preparatory waiting, and gained its immediate admittance into glory. "All crimes are pardoned for the sake of this work," says Tertullian.
- Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Chapter 10, para. 6, avail: http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter10.html

The force of this quotation is greatly augmented by the simple, matter-of-fact manner in which Cardinal Newman delivers his judgment that martyrdom stood in the place of Baptism. It is clear that in Cardinal Newman’s mind, this fact is not even doubtful or debatable. It is simply a historical reality. Unlike Fr. Leonard Feeney, Cardinal Newman was never suspect of heresy for his views, nor was he excommunicated for failing to be examined on this point of doctrine. On the contrary, Newman stands as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, theologians of the 19th century, and as such is not only a reliable witness to the mind of the Church on this matter at his time, but also a far more erudite and competent judge of this question than either of the Dimond Brothers, or the entirety of the Feenyite controversialists combined.

​Concerning the Thief, the Dimond Brothers object that Baptism only became obligatory after the Resurrection such that the other means of salvation previous to it became nullified after it. This idea is entirely repugnant to ​the dogmatic principle of the superiority of the New Covenant to that of the Old since it requires us to believe that salvation was significantly easier to obtain previous to the Gospel than it was subsequently. According to this theory, in other words, Christ came to close the doors of Heaven to men, not open them.

Assuming for the moment that this principle is acceptable, by what means under the Old Covenant did the Thief obtain salvation? He can hardly be considered one of the “departed just” of the Old Testament who resided in the Limbus Patrum, for although we are not told the precise nature of his crime(s), we are more than safe in assuming that he had not “attained the perfect holiness required for entrance into glory” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Limbo). It might be objected that the Thief had been incorporated into the body of the Faithful by means of circumcision, yet this would not explain how he could obtain justification directly from Christ upon the Cross without any of the prescribed rites of restitution required by the Old Covenant for crimes of theft (cf Ex. 22:1,7; Num. 5:6 - 8). We are left, therefore, with the incontestable fact that the Thief received justification directly from Jesus Christ without any of the external rites prescribed by either the Old or the New covenants.

Although the evidence above is sufficient to establish that the Church has expressly upheld the baptismus sanguinis as a valid substitute for the Font continuously and consistently from the very earliest centuries, let us conclude all doubt on the matter by recalling the words of St. Tertullian on the matter:

We have indeed, likewise, a second font, (itself withal one with the former,) of blood, to wit; concerning which the Lord said, I have to be baptized with a baptism, when He had been baptized already. For He had come by means of water and blood, 1 John 5:6 just as John has written; that He might be baptized by the water, glorified by the blood; to make us, in like manner, called by water, chosen by blood. These two baptisms He sent out from the wound in His pierced side, in order that they who believed in His blood might be bathed with the water; they who had been bathed in the water might likewise drink the blood. This is the baptism which both stands in lieu of the fontal bathing when that has not been received, and restores it when lost.​​
- On Baptism, Chapter 16. Of the Second Baptism - With Blood, avail: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0321.htm

Saints

The fact that there are many hagiographies which omit or preclude the possibility of water Baptism for canonized Saints is well known and openly admitted by the Dimond Brothers. They take refuge in the argument that the lives of the Saints are not trustworthy in every detail and therefore can be excused for directly contradicting the extreme and unprecedented theory that every single Saint in the Calendar received the water of Baptism.

Regarding the reliability of the Lives of the Saints, ​Fr. Martin comments as follows:​

A shameless attempt was made by that author to discredit the Roman Martyrology as supposedly being full of errors, and therefore untrustworthy and unreliable for providing the real facts. No attention is paid to the fact that the Church long ago accepted the Roman Martyrology as worthy of being one of the official liturgical books, one that was assigned to be read by priests and religious in the Divine Office, during the Hour of Prime.
- The "UnBaptized Saints" Deception

​Another difficulty with the Feeneyite position with regard to the Saints is that Baptism of water has never been a prerequisite for canonization. The full significance of this lies in the fact that when a saint is canonized, he is officially declared to be saved, so if Baptism by water were necessary for this salvation, then it would be impossible for the Church to solemnly declare a person to be saved without first confirming that he was baptized in water. Despite this fact, the Church has never incorporated a verification of the reception of water baptism into the process of beatification or canonization. It is true that it is impossible to be considered for canonization as a Catholic Saint without being a Catholic, yet this has not prevented the Church from canonizing persons as Saints of whom there is not only no record of water Baptism but also of whom are recorded circumstances which absolutely preclude the possibility of its reception.

Although the Feenyites emphatically deny that there is a single Saint who was not baptized with water, the cases of conversion during the trials of the ancient martyrs form a consistent theme​ in the martyrologies of the Saints and are usually totally incompatible with Baptism of water either before or after conversion. Guards, torturers, and onlookers regularly renounced paganism in favor of Christ after witnessing the superhuman perseverance of the early Christians. The fact that water baptism is rarely (if ever) mentioned in these cases shows that in the mind of the Church from earliest times, it was not considered necessary for martyrs to be baptized except in their blood. The Dimond Brothers' idea that such converts were actually recalcitrant Christians is an extreme stretch of imagination at best and a total impossibility at worst.

After spending much energy attacking the credibility of the hagiographies and martyrologies which omit Baptism of water, the Dimond Brothers ironically change their tone of skepticism to one of blind assent when discussing the various miracles attributed to water Baptism. It is entirely unreasonable for the Dimond Brothers to rely on these records as evidence for their own position while rejecting those histories which contradict their position as spurious and corrupted. Even when accepted as completely factual (which doubtless often the case), the Dimond Brothers make the completely unwarranted assumption that those being baptized in water would certainly have been damned otherwise. There are two reasons for this: first, such miracles may have been given to increase the faith of the witnesses without necessarily implying certain damnation for the recipients otherwise. Second, even if this were not the case, there is no reason to assume that these miraculous baptisms saved their recipients from Hell because they could just as easily be considered to be saved from Purgatory, which fact is explained in more detail further on.

Catechumens

It is known that the Church at one time ruled against allowing ecclesiastical burial for Catechumens. The Dimond Brothers argue that the Church did this because She believed they are going to Hell. Be this as it may, it is not necessary to debate the point because if we actually look at what the Canons rule on baptismus de voto for Catechumens (rather than the tangential issue of whether or not they can be ecclesiastically buried), we find the following:​

...the traditional 1917 Code of Canon Law clearly indicates what the constant belief [and] teaching of the Catholic Church is and always has been, in regard to Baptism of Desire in two of its canons: namely, Canon 7371. “Baptism... if we are to attain salvation, must be either actually received or at least desired...”; and, Canon 1239: “...catechumens who, through no fault of theirs, die without having received baptism... are to be regarded as among those baptized”—the reason being that such catechumens had the desire and intention to be baptized before they died.
​- ​The "Un-​Baptized Saints" Deception by Fr. Martin Stephanich

Either Canon Law is being grossly contradictory, or the Dimond Brothers are not accurate in their interpretation of the canons pertaining to the burial of unbaptized Catechumens.

Aside from the issue of ecclesiastical burial, the Dimond Brothers lay great stress on the idea that many of the early Fathers can be cited as saying that Catechumens are not saved if they die before Baptism. ​Saint Augustine, for instance, is typically quoted in support of this:

When we shall have come into His [God’s] sight, we shall behold the equity of God’s justice. Then no one will say:… ‘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 was not baptized?’ Look for rewards, and you will find nothing except punishments.

A similar quote from St. Augustine is as follows:

However much progress the catechumen should make, he still carries the load of his iniquity: nor is it removed from him unless he comes to Baptism.

St. Thomas Aquinas explains what Augustine is really saying as follows:

​​Objection 2. Further, in the book, De Eccl. Dogmat., 41, it is written: "We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life except if he suffer martyrdom, which constitutes all the sacramental power of Baptism". But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case especially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have "faith which works through charity" (Gal 5, 6). Therefore it seems that no one can be saved without Baptism​...

Reply to Objection 2: No man obtains eternal life unless he be free of all guilt and debt of punishment. Now, this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom, for which reason it is stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental power of Baptism", that is, as to full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catech​umen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in is good works, which cannot be without "faith which works through charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire", as is stated in 1 Cor 3, 15".

- Summa, as quoted in Outside the Church There is No Salvation by Fr. Martin Stephanich

​The correct understanding ​of "you will find nothing but punishments" and "he still carries the load of his iniquity" is that Catechumens dying without Baptism must suffer punishment for the load of their iniquities in Purgatory, not eternally in Hell. The Dimond Brothers assume the latter because they must in order to support their opinion, yet this was not the opinion of such great teachers as St. Thomas Aquinas. The question only remains as to whose opinion it is more secure to follow. Suffice it to say that neither the schismatic Dimond Brothers nor the excommunicate Fr. Freeney show signs of being beatified, canonized, or declared Doctors of the Church in the near future...

Not only can many of the quotations which the Dimond Brothers allege as proof of their position be explained by reference to Purgatory rather than eternal damnation, but also we can reference not a few of the Early Fathers who very explicitly taught the baptismus de voto. Fr. Martin points out St. Ambrose as an instance:

Among the Fathers of the Church, long before modern theologians could supposedly invent Baptism of desire, the 4th century St. Ambrose of Milan said this in reference to the Emperor Valentinian II, who died without receiving Baptism of water: "I hear you express grief because he (Valentinian) did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism. Tell me, what else is there in us except the will and petition? But he had long desired to be initiated (i.e,, baptized) before he came to Italy, and he expressed his intention to be baptized by me as soon as possible, and it was for this reason, more than any other, that he hastened to me. Has he not, therefore, the grace which he desired? Has he not received it because he asked for it"!
- Outside the Church There is No Salvation, Parts One and Two of Seven Parts, available: www.christorchaos.com\OutisdetheChurchThereIsNoSalvationbyFatherStepanich.htm

Then again, St. Augustine himself is not remiss in this regard, for he says the following:

For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, [John 3:5] made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven; [Matthew 10:32] and in another place, Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it. [Matthew 16:25] And this explains the verse, Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints. For what is more precious than a death by which a man's sins are all forgiven, and his merits increased an hundredfold? For those who have been baptized when they could no longer escape death, and have departed this life with all their sins blotted out have not equal merit with those who did not defer death, though it was in their power to do so, but preferred to end their life by confessing Christ, rather than by denying Him to secure an opportunity of baptism.
- City of God, Book XIII, Chapter 7, available: http://newadvent.org/fathers/120113.htm

The Dimond Brothers allege that such quotations are in the minority and can therefore be discounted, but the majority of the quotations which the Dimond Brothers bring against this “minority” refer to the necessity of Baptism and not to a denial of its reception de voto. Even without this important distinction, it is clear at this point that the faith in baptismus de voto is not difficult to find among the very earliest doctors of the Gospel. What remains, therefore, is not to continue critiquing each particular passage and participle of the patristic evidence on the subject, but rather to learn what the Church has ruled concerning this evidence. Only in this way can we achieve true knowledge of the Fathers’ meaning because this meaning ultimately lies solely in the source from which it originated: the Holy Ghost, and not in the interminable ambiguities of human wisdom.

Download this article.