+++ 61. Shifting Gears +++
Now, in spite of all of the
very powerful & lucid arguments we’ve made against BOD being
absolutely certain --- that it is a theological opinion and not
yet an infallible & explicit teaching of the Church, if ever it will
be --- many BOD partisans may be nevertheless tempted to exult.
“The greatest of
Church doctors agrees with us!” they exclaim. “Other doctors, too.
Our position is overwhelmingly vindicated.”
And, to be fair to them,
they have a lot of weight on their side with Thomas Aquinas, Alphonsus Liguori and the many
other scholastic or post-scholastic doctors & theologians upholding their
‘baptism of desire’ for catechumens (and we stress that it must be
for catechumens) stance.
This, along with the fact
that pretty much all ostensible Catholics, be they learned or not, had come to
believe in some form of BOD (whether this form was orthodox or not) by the
middle of the 20th century, is the strongest evidence by far
that ‘baptism of desire’ aficionados have for their side --- bar
none.
There is, though, some
unfinished business. You’ll remember we began this latest section with
the goal of investigating what certain pertinent saints & doctors had to
say about BOD. Yet we have only seen the teaching of four doctors who
are also saints but no saints who are not also doctors. In addition to
this, we still have not examined closely the teaching of one more very
pertinent doctor in this matter, as well as the telling testimony of a
medieval theologian.
Shall we complete the
present task?
+++ 62. WO (Doctoral) Exhibit No. 1: +++
St. Gregory Nazianzen
And so we turn to St.
Gregory Nazianzen, which surname he bears because he
was bishop of a city in present-day
As part of this fight he
contended with the chaotic results of various forms of Arianism,
as well as other heresies, that ravished the minds of former Catholics for
decades. He briefly became bishop of
These orations were, in
essence, an intimate explanation of the teachings of the Nicene Council, which
had occurred in 325 not far from
And what did Gregory have to
say that relates to ‘baptism of desire’?
A real doozy!
+++ 63. St. Gregory’s Doozy of a
Quote +++
“But then, you say, is
not God merciful [God is merciful, isn’t He?], and since He knows our
thoughts and searches out [examines] our desires, will He not
[won’t God] take the desire of Baptism instead of Baptism [in
place of water baptism]? You are speaking in riddles [you’re talking
nonsense], if what you mean is that because of God’s mercy the
unenlightened [the unbaptized person] is [treated just like he’s]
enlightened [baptized] in His [God’s] sight; and he [and that anyone] is
within [belongs to] the kingdom of heaven who merely desires to attain to it
[get into heaven], but refrains from doing that which pertains to the kingdom
[but won’t do what he knows he’s supposed to do out of obedience in
order to enter heaven, and hence get baptized in water]… [Gregory then
mentions all kinds of people who fail to receive water baptism for various bad
reasons.] …Others are not in a position to receive it [others can’t
get baptized in water], perhaps on account of infancy [maybe because
they’re still helpless babies and can’t do it on their own],
or some perfectly involuntary circumstance through which they are prevented
from receiving it, even if they wish [circumstances beyond their
control keep them from getting water baptism, despite them truly wanting
it]… They who altogether despise it [water baptism] are worse than
they who neglect it through greed or carelessness. These are worse [those who
neglect water baptism through greed or carelessness are worse] than they who
have lost the Gift [water baptism] through ignorance or tyranny [those
who fail to get baptized in water either because they don’t know about it
or are prevented, by circumstances beyond their control, from receiving water
baptism], for [because] tyranny is nothing but an involuntary error
[if kept by circumstances beyond your control from getting water baptism, then
the fault can’t possibly be yours]. And I think that the first
[group, who despise water baptism altogether] will have to suffer punishment,
[just] as [they will have to suffer punishment] for all their sins, so [also
they will have to suffer punishment] for their contempt of baptism [those who
altogether despise water baptism by purposefully neglecting it or refusing it are
the worst of all and will suffer terrible torments in hell from God]; and that
the second [group, who neglect water baptism because of greed or carelessness]
will also have to suffer [punishment], but less, because it was not so much
through wickedness as through folly that they wrought their failure [those who
fail to get baptized in water out of greed or carelessness are also guilty, but
will suffer less torment in hell than the first group who did so out of blatant
rebellion against God]; and that the third [group, those who don’t get
water baptism because they’re powerless to get it, and not because
they consciously reject it or carelessly neglect it] will be neither
glorified [in heaven] nor punished [by torments in hell for their lack of water
baptism] by the righteous Judge [God Himself], as unsealed [not
baptized in water] and yet not wicked, but [like] persons who
have suffered [an evil] rather than [who have] done [something] wrong [those
who fail to be baptized in water due to circumstances beyond their control
will neither enter into the glory of heaven nor suffer torments in hell for
their lack of water baptism since they, while not baptized in water
and thus sentenced to an eternity in hell apart from the Beatific Vision of
God, are not wholly wicked and rebellious, having failed to get water
baptism through no fault of their own]… And I look upon it as
well from another point of view. If you judge the murderously disposed man
[a man filled with murderous feelings] by his will alone, apart from the act
of murder [if you think the murderous man is as fully guilty for murder as
is the man who simply feels murderous but doesn’t actually commit
murder], then you may reckon as baptized him who desired baptism apart
from the reception of baptism [even so, you could then call a man baptized
in water just because he wants baptism and not because he actually gets
baptized in water]. But if you cannot do the one [then] how can you do
the other? I cannot see it [I don’t believe it’s possible]. Or,
if you like, we will put it thus [we’ll put it this way]: [i]f desire in your opinion has equal power
with actual baptism, then judge in the same way in regard to glory [then
judge someone’s desire for heavenly glory in the same way], and
[therefore] you may be content with longing for it [heavenly glory], as
if that were itself glory [and hence you can be just as satisfied with longing
for heaven as you would be with having heaven itself]. And what harm is
done you by your not attaining [to] the actual glory, as long as you
have the desire for it? [if desire for heavenly glory is equal to actually
having heavenly glory, then what harm is there in not actually getting
heavenly glory just so long as you have the desire for heavenly
glory?]” (St. Gregory Nazianzen’s
Orations, Book 40, Chapters 22 & 23. All emphasis & annotations
added.)
+++ 64. The Huge Beam in the BOD Camp’s +++
Eye When It Comes to the Church Fathers & Doctors
These words from St. Gregory
Nazianzen are a stumbling block for the BOD camp.
Most of them have no idea that Gregory said what he said about water baptism.
This is because most BODers are not learned about
early Church history and get their belief about ‘baptism of desire’
from the catechism books that every Catholic in the United States was raised
with before Vatican II since the early 20th century, a set of ideas
every so-called ‘catholic’ in the world gets taught after Vatican
II as if it were the absolute certain truth.
Yet even the few BOD
enthusiasts who are familiar with St. Gregory Nazianzen
--- if only barely --- are strangely blind to the enormous implications of his
words. This blindness is not because they lack intellect; indeed, the
most well-known traditionalist proponent of BOD in the last twenty-five years,
Fr. François Laisney of the SSPX, is quite
intelligent and highly trained. Rather, it’s because they are so
wedded to the idea of ‘baptism of desire’ that they cannot see, or
cannot stand to see, anything in logical opposition to their pet
baptismal notion.
And so, ironically, these
BOD partisans who are simply appalled at the general lack of knowledge amongst
most WOers when it comes to Church fathers or doctors
who upheld ‘baptism of desire’ (the speck in the eye of these
‘water only’ folks) are themselves completely ignorant about or
utterly blinded toward a Church father who very soundly trounced the BOD
teaching in the 4th century. And yet apart from BOB, which had
gained traction by the 200s, the WO position --- the rather rare ‘baptism
of blood’ thought to apply to martyrs being the only exception, of course
--- was the firm stance of almost all Catholics during the AD 300s!
Is this not a huge beam
in the eye of BODers, whose trust in so-called
‘desire’ for baptism, as it is known nowadays, did not even
exist amongst Catholics in the earliest centuries of the Church?
+++ 65. Gregory Soundly Refutes BOD… and Despite +++
Only Aiming at Those Who Wrongfully Neglect Water Baptism
Yet clever and somewhat well-informed
BOD supporters, however few they may be, have a standard rebuttal against St.
Gregory’s words:
“Gregory was only
aiming at catechumens who purposefully or carelessly neglect to get baptized in
water,” they say. “He was never addressing BOD per se. He was
admonishing these insincere catechumens for not getting baptized so that they
could continue to sin and yet later have these sins wiped away via water
baptism in order to go to Heaven. These bad catechumens claimed to
‘desire’ the Sacrament of Baptism and insisted --- in spite of the
concerns of good Catholics all around them --- that they would get into Heaven
regardless if they accidentally died without water baptism since they
‘desired’ it. This is not the correct and proper teaching of
BOD. A travesty against the true religion is what it was. So how can
Gregory’s words be used as ammunition against
the ‘baptism of desire’ teaching?”
This is what they say. And
some of what they claim is correct, which is why the argument can be convincing
to someone who takes time to read through Gregory’s relevant orations
carefully but is already doggedly determined to believe in BOD.
This, by the way, is partly
why I gave such a long quote, including the words at the very beginning which
reveal Gregory’s primary intent... an intent that had nothing to do,
directly, with what we today call ‘baptism of desire’. I
don’t want anyone able to wiggle out of the situation by accusing
intelligent & learned WOers of ignoring what
Gregory was trying to address. Most WO adherents are oblivious to this point,
and hence guilty as charged --- albeit unintentionally. They honestly think
Gregory was addressing our more recent version of ‘baptism of
desire’ head on.
Not so the intelligent &
learned WO adherent. Such a man realizes St. Gregory wasn’t trying
to talk about BOD as we know it today. How could he, when no Catholic
back then in the fourth century even knew that the idea of BOD --- as it is now
understood since the time of Thomas Aquinas --- existed?
But that’s not the
point. The real point is this:
Since at least the time of
Thomas Aquinas, BOD enthusiasts have taught that a catechumen can have perfect
contrition for his sins and, consequently, have total remission of all mortal
iniquity (including the mortal iniquity of original sin that afflicts every
human except for Jesus & Mary) which then merits him entrance into
Heaven even before he receives the water of baptism.
Why?
Because this catechumen,
through his perfect contrition and willingness to obey (i.e., to finish his
training in the Catholic Faith and receive water baptism), has a good,
acceptable and adequate ‘desire’ for the Sacrament of
Baptism.
Nevertheless, is this
‘desire’ truly adequate for salvation like BOD enthusiasts
insist?
According to St. Gregory Nazianzen, no!
For while Gregory
didn’t address BOD head on, he did very soundly nix one of the key
linchpins of the BOD notion --- namely, that a mere ‘desire’ for
water baptism can be absolutely equivalent to (the same thing as)
actual baptism in water when it comes to the opportunity to enter the Glory
of Heaven. In other words, both ‘desire’ for the
Sacrament of Baptism and the sacrament itself will let you be glorified
in Heaven, per the BOD camp. The two different things are absolutely
equivalent in their final eternal results, according to BODers.
Did Gregory Nazianzen see it that way, though?
“And I look upon it as
well from another point of view. If you judge the murderously disposed man
[a man filled with murderous feelings] by his will alone, apart from the act
of murder [if you think the murderous man is as fully guilty for murder as
is the man who simply feels murderous but doesn’t actually commit
murder], then you may reckon as baptized him who desired baptism apart
from the reception of baptism [even so, you could then call a man baptized just
because he wants baptism and not because he actually gets baptized in water].
But if you cannot do the one [then] how can you do the other? I cannot see it
[I don’t believe it’s possible]. Or, if you like, we will put
it thus [we’ll put it this way]: [i]f desire
in your opinion has equal power with actual baptism, then judge
in the same way in regard to glory [then judge someone’s desire for
heavenly glory in the same way], and [therefore] you may be content with longing
for it [heavenly glory], as if that were itself glory [and hence you can
be just as satisfied with longing for Heaven as you would be with having
Heaven itself]. And what harm is done you by your not attaining [to] the actual
glory, as long as you have the desire for it? [if desire for
heavenly glory is equal to actually having heavenly glory, then what
harm is there in not actually getting into Heaven and enjoying its glory, just
so long as you have the desire for this heavenly glory?]”
(St. Gregory Nazianzen’s Orations, Book
40, Chapter 23. All emphasis & annotations added.)
+++ 66. Gregory’s Coup de Grace Against
BOD +++
It should be plain to the patient
and intelligent reader that St. Gregory did not teach or uphold
today’s notion of BOD. Which is, then, yet more hard evidence that BOD is
not --- we repeat, not --- a teaching that goes back
unbroken all the way to the first century with Jesus & His Twelve Apostles.
Not to mention that Gregory’s opposition to BOD, coupled with the fact
that a mere three Church fathers (at most, supposedly!) believed in the idea of
‘baptism of desire’, proves there is no unanimity
amongst the Church fathers for BOD and hence no proof that the
BOD teaching belongs to the ordinary infallible magisterium of the Roman
Catholic Church.
Yet if the BOD aficionado is
still not satisfied with our proof of Gregory’s unintentional but very
real opposition to what we now call ‘baptism of desire’ --- and
despite Gregory not trying to talk about BOD way back then in the AD 300s as we
understand it today --- we here administer the coup de grace and
logically force the intelligent & honest man to admit the truth:
“They who altogether
despise it [water baptism] are worse than they who neglect it through greed or
carelessness. These are worse [those who neglect water baptism through greed or
carelessness are worse] than they who have lost the Gift [water baptism] through
ignorance or tyranny [those who fail to get baptized in water either
because they don’t know about it or are prevented, by circumstances
beyond their control, from receiving water baptism], for [because] tyranny
is nothing but an involuntary error [if kept by circumstances beyond
your control from getting water baptism, then the fault can’t possibly be
yours]. And I think that the first [group, who despise water baptism
altogether] will have to suffer punishment, [just] as [they will have to suffer
punishment] for all their sins, so [also they will have to suffer punishment]
for their contempt of baptism [those who altogether despise water baptism by
purposefully neglecting it or refusing it are the worst of all and will suffer
terrible torments in hell from God]; and that the second [group, who neglect
water baptism because of greed or carelessness] will also have to suffer
[punishment], but less, because it was not so much through wickedness as
through folly that they wrought their failure [those who fail to get baptized
in water out of greed or carelessness are also guilty, but will suffer less
torment in hell than the first group who did so out of blatant rebellion
against God]; and that the third [group, those who don’t get water
baptism because they’re powerless to get it, and not because they
consciously reject it or carelessly neglect it] will be neither glorified
[in heaven] nor punished [by torments in hell for their lack of water baptism]
by the righteous Judge [God Himself], as unsealed [not baptized in
water] and yet not wicked, but [like] persons who have suffered
[an evil] rather than [who have] done [something] wrong [those who fail
to be baptized in water due to circumstances beyond their control will neither
enter into the glory of heaven nor suffer torments in hell for their lack of
water baptism since they, while not baptized in water and thus
sentenced to an eternity in hell apart from the Beatific Vision of God, are not
wholly wicked and rebellious, having failed to get water baptism through
no fault of their own]…” (St. Gregory Nazianzen’s
Orations, Book 40, Chapter 23. Emphases & annotations added.)
Here Gregory exposits three
different groups of people who fail to receive water baptism --- and even though
they may be argued to have a ‘desire’ for it. First of all, those
who know about the Sacrament of Baptism but purposefully refuse or neglect
to receive it. Second, those who know about the Sacrament of Baptism but,
because of the pleasures of this world, carelessly lose the chance to
receive it. And, third, those who may, or may not, know about the Sacrament of
Baptism, but, through no fault of their own, literally cannot receive
it.
And what does Gregory teach
about this third group, the ones who through no fault of their own
literally cannot get the Sacrament of Baptism?
“…and that the
third [group, those who don’t get water baptism because they’re
powerless to get it, and not because they consciously reject it or
carelessly neglect it] will be neither glorified [in heaven] nor punished
[by torments in hell for their lack of water baptism] by the righteous
Judge [God Himself], as unsealed [not baptized in water] and
yet not wicked, but [like] persons who have suffered [an evil] rather
than [who have] done [something] wrong [those who fail to be baptized in
water due to circumstances beyond their control will neither enter
into the glory of heaven nor suffer torments in hell for their lack of water
baptism since they, while not baptized in water and thus
sentenced to an eternity in hell apart from the Beatific Vision of God, are not
wholly wicked and rebellious, having failed to get water baptism through
no fault of their own]…” (Ibid.)
This is the beginning of the
coup de grace thrust of St. Gregory’s words into the BOD belly.
For what does Gregory say?
Does he tell us that these poor souls --- the ones who don’t get water
baptism through no fault of their own --- are allowed
to enter into the Glory of Heaven regardless of their lack of
water baptism, if only they ‘desire’ it?
To the contrary!
“…the third
[group, those who don’t get water baptism because they’re powerless
to get it, and not because they consciously
reject it or carelessly neglect it] will be neither glorified [in heaven]
nor punished [by torments in hell for their lack of water baptism]…”
(Ibid.)
They will not
be “glorified”, teaches St. Gregory in his capacity as one of the
greatest of Church fathers & doctors from the East. That is to say, they
will not enter the Glory of Heaven without baptism
in water… and even though it’s not their fault that they
didn’t get water baptism to begin with.
Do you see why, my dear
soul, Gregory is the most powerful evidence against BOD amongst the early
Church fathers, clearly appearing to uphold the absolute necessity for baptism
in water?
+++ 67. The Sword Thrust in Deep to the Hilts, Part 1 +++
Notwithstanding, the most
stubborn or blind of BOD partisans are not finished. They have one last card to
play in order to protect themselves against the
obvious lack of support from Gregory Nazianzen for
the idea of ‘baptism of desire’.
To
wit, the ‘helpless infant’ card.
“Oh,” say they,
“Gregory in that third group of people who fail to receive water baptism was
only talking about babies. They can’t know about the Catholic Faith or
the requirement for water baptism, hence they can’t even have BOD since
they aren’t capable of knowing that they should desire or wish for
the Sacrament of Baptism. This is exactly what Aquinas and the scholastic doctors teach, and thus agrees perfectly with the
properly understood BOD position!”
This, indeed, is what Fr.
François Laisney of the SSPX claims in his
handling of the quote from St. Gregory, and how he very neatly dispenses with
Gregory’s quite blatant opposition to the baptismal ‘desire’
stance.
Unanswerable?
Not
at all.
Look at Gregory’s
quote very, very carefully. As a matter of fact, first look at the words of
Gregory right before the smaller quote we have just been focusing on,
regarding the third group who, through no fault of their own, fail to receive
the Sacrament of Baptism.
“Others are not
in a position to receive it [others can’t get baptized in water],
perhaps on account of infancy [maybe because they’re still helpless
babies and can’t do it on their own], or some perfectly
involuntary circumstance through which they are prevented from receiving
it, even if they wish [circumstances beyond their control keep
them from getting water baptism, despite them truly wanting
it]…” (Ibid.)
Do you see?
Gregory makes a clear
distinction --- in this third group who, through no fault of their own,
fail to get water baptism --- between those who fail to get the
Sacrament of Baptism because they are merely babies and those who fail
to get the Sacrament of Baptism because of “…some perfectly
involuntary circumstance through which they are prevented from receiving
it, even if they wish…” (Ibid.)
We say again:
“…even if they wish…” (Ibid.)
In other words, that second
distinct segment of poor souls within the third group are certainly not
babies since they are, per Gregory’s teaching, fully capable of knowing
to “wish” for the Sacrament of Baptism!
Consequently, they are grown
up enough to have adequate minds.
+++ 68. The Sword Thrust in Deep to the Hilts, Part 2 +++
Yet need we more proof? Then
look a little bit further on into Gregory’s larger quote.
“They who altogether despise
it [water baptism] are worse than they who neglect it through greed or
carelessness. These are worse [those who neglect water baptism through greed or
carelessness are worse] than they who have lost the Gift [water baptism] through
ignorance or tyranny [those who fail to get baptized in water either
because they don’t know about it or are prevented, by circumstances
beyond their control, from receiving water baptism], for [because] tyranny
is nothing but an involuntary error [if kept by circumstances beyond
your control from getting water baptism, then the fault can’t possibly be
yours].” (Ibid.)
We repeat:
“…than they who
have lost the Gift [water baptism] through ignorance or tyranny [those
who fail to get baptized in water either because they don’t know about it
or are prevented, by circumstances beyond their control, from receiving water
baptism], for [because] tyranny is nothing but an involuntary
error [if kept by circumstances beyond your control from getting water
baptism, then the fault can’t possibly be yours].” (Ibid.)
Now babies are those who are
ignorant; they can’t possibly know about the requirement for water
baptism. Nonetheless, Gregory again makes a stark distinction between those
in the third group who fail to receive the Sacrament of Baptism because they
are helplessly ignorant about it, not knowing to receive it
(meaning babies), and those who fail to receive the Sacrament of Baptism
because they are helplessly tyrannized against it, knowing indeed
to receive it but prevented against their will from being able to do so
(meaning anyone who is not a baby).
Or, to put it yet another
way, because, despite knowing about it and wishing for it, someone or
something despotically stops them from getting the Sacrament of Baptism!
This is, for example,
precisely what occurs if, say, a wicked parent prevents an older child from
getting baptized in water or if, say, a wicked ruler prevents a sudden convert
from having time to get baptized in water before he is slaughtered for the
Catholic Religion. In either hypothetical case --- or in a similar situation
--- the poor soul is tyrannized and doesn’t have a chance
to follow through obediently on his very pious & holy wish to
receive water baptism.
Case closed.
The sword is now thrust in
deep to the hilts, and rather clever & learned… but not quite fully
clear-minded or honest… BOD enthusiasts are shown to illogically duck the
hard and irrefutable evidence that St. Gregory Nazianzen,
while not meaning to oppose the notion of a ‘baptism of desire’
that did not even back then yet exist in people’s minds, nevertheless
disposes of the notion in a rationally decisive fashion.
Because, again, what else
did our renowned doctor and father of the Catholic Church in the East say in
reference to this third group of poor souls, who through no fault of their own
fail to receive the Sacrament of Baptism and some of whom are forced not
to get it?
Does he tell us that they
can enter into the Glory of Heaven through a mere ‘desire’ alone?
Does he try to teach us that
they can attain to heavenly glory without the water of baptism?
Au contraire!
“…the third
[group, those who don’t get water baptism because they’re powerless
to get it, and not because they consciously
reject it or carelessly neglect it] will be neither glorified [in heaven]
nor punished [by torments in hell for their lack of water baptism]…”
(Ibid.)
+++ 69. The Clear Implications of Gregory’s Teaching +++
for Souls Who, by No Fault of Their Own, Die Unbaptized
The testimony from St.
Gregory Nazianzen is plain. He neither faults such
poor souls --- who couldn’t help failing to receive water baptism --- as
deserving of the torments of Hell for their lack of water baptism, nor exalts
them as entirely guiltless of other sins and thus worthy of the reward of
Heaven. Rather, he hints at what later became known as ‘limbo’. To
wit, the outer part of Hell, where no torment for actual sin that you’ve
committed occurs, but where poor souls are separated from the Beatific Vision
of God forever due to the original sin into which they were conceived…
and from which they never got cleansed by the sacramental water of baptism.
For mere babies without
water baptism and with no actual sins on their souls (apart from the
unavoidable original sin in which they were conceived, which is a state of
mortal iniquity and hence damnable), limbo is the edge of Hell --- the Latin
‘limbus’ literally means
‘edge’ --- and they will reside there eternally with no torment yet
no supernatural joy of seeing God, either.
For those who are not babies
yet fail to get water baptism through no fault of their own, per St. Gregory,
they will not enter Heaven because they don’t have the Sacrament of
Baptism and still have original sin upon their souls. Yet it isn’t their
fault, so they won’t be tormented for this lack of water baptism in Hell.
And, while Gregory doesn’t go so far as to tell us this, the correct
Catholic understanding of these poor souls’ fate is that --- provided BOD is not
real --- then they’ll suffer torments only for those sins that they
actually commit during earthly life and for which they have no excuse not to
have known better. Like, for instance, murder… which any person of sound
mind knows inside himself is absolutely wrong, even if he isn’t Catholic.
+++ 70. A Warning to BOD Partisans Lest +++
They Try to Fall Back Upon the Council of
At this point the BOD camp
may be tempted to retreat to the Council of Trent.
“The Council of Trent
clearly teaches that either the Sacrament of Baptism or a desire
for water baptism is sufficient for justification and salvation!” they
might say. “The fathers of the Tridentine
Council were infallible; St. Gregory Nazianzen
was not.”
Which is a curious thing to
assert when clever & learned BODers are usually
so eager, in support of ‘baptism of desire’, to tout the teachings
of men like St. Augustine of Hippo (father and doctor of the Catholic Church)
or Thomas Aquinas (greatest of all doctors of the Church) as practically
definitive and absolutely authoritative. For, though we must be fair to them
and admit that WO supporters will do almost the same thing by discounting the
BOD teachings of Augustine or Aquinas as not infallible, how can BODers selectively tout Augustine & Aquinas as so very
authoritative, whilst arbitrarily discounting Nazianzen
as irrelevant or just plain wrong?
Are not all of them doctors
of the Roman Catholic Church? Are not both Augustine and Nazianzen fathers of the Church as well?
But, of course, the real
flaw in such a response from the BOD camp is their claim that
(Please review Chapters 3 to
22 in this book, Baptismal Confusion, my dear reader, if you are still
confused or skeptical about this.)
Nor are we alone in this assertion.
For the prominent 20th century German theologian, Dr. Ludwig Ott, concurs, calling BOD not ‘de fide’
but only ‘sententia fidei
proxima’, while at the same time citing Trent
as part of the proof of his imprimatured position.
That is to say, he does not teach that BOD has been explicitly &
solemnly defined by the Church as infallibly true, but only that it is a
teaching that is proximate and near to the defined teachings of the
Church, and that most theologians of his time (the 1950s) believed it to be a
true teaching of the Church.
(Please review Chapter 59 in
this book, Baptismal Confusion, if you are still mixed up or skeptical
about this, my dear soul.)
The
upshot?
A BOD partisan, to be wholly
logical & honest about this matter, must admit that an intelligent &
rational WOer is neither heretical nor
foolish to take the position of ‘water only’ --- provided that the
WO advocate does not dare to accuse the ‘BOD for
catechumens’ stance of being heterodox and against the Catholic Faith.
It is not.
Just as the WO position is not
heterodox and against Catholicism, either.
Both are acceptable teachings within the pale of orthodoxy at this
point in time. And Gregory Nazianzen’s teaching
in the matter is rock solid evidence of this. For how could he be both a
father and doctor of the Church if he was teaching heresy by opposing the BOD
stance, and how could it continue to be in his writings --- without being
edited out or having the reader of his works warned that this doctrine is now
condemned by the Church as heretical --- if Trent had only clearly &
infallibly condemned the teaching of WO much, much later, in the AD 1500s?
It does not add up.
And so we see that
‘water only’ was actually the dominant understanding of
most, if not all, Catholics during earliest centuries. Gregory Nazianzen is the plainest proof of this, as well as
evidence that there was no unanimity of the early Church fathers upon
this topic --- truly, that most fathers never even mentioned the
subject, either not knowing about it or not thinking it worthwhile to address,
as if it were one of the common and universal teachings of the Church from the
very beginning with Christ and the Apostles.
Period.
+++ 71. A Quick Aside re Gregory & BOB +++
A last thought before we
move on to the next exhibit.
Because there is at least
one BOD enthusiast who claims that St. Gregory supported BOB. This may or may
not be true. I have not yet found it in my own reading of his words.
Nonetheless, there is nothing in my knowledge about the early history of the
Church to think that it could certainly not be true. Rather, at least half of
the early Church fathers believed in BOB.
Gregory very well could have
been one of those Church fathers at some point during his life.
Notwithstanding, does this
possible fact then destroy Gregory’s unintentional but powerful argument
against the BOD position, as this BOD enthusiast seems to think?
The
furthest thing from it.
BOB and BOD are two
separate doctrines. They are only really similar in that both of them
allow for a waterless remission of sins and consequent entrance into the Glory
of Heaven. Beyond that, they are very dissimilar. BOB operates primarily in
the external forum, while BOD operates primarily in the internal
forum. Although, if the scholastic doctors are correct, BOD can be
considered as ‘enfolded’ in BOB and a kind of lesser
‘subset’ of it, as it were, through the amount of charity operating
in the heart of a catechumen who has died without water baptism.
(Dear soul, please review
Chapter 28 of this book, Baptismal Confusion, if you are uncertain or
skeptical about this distinction between BOB and BOD.)
Ergo, whether or not St.
Gregory believed in BOB, it has very little relevance for his words about the
Sacrament of Baptism in Book 40 of his Orations. A learned Catholic back
then could believe in the one (BOB) without believing or even knowing about the
other (BOD).
Therefore, Gregory’s
unintentional yet powerful argument against BOD stands unscathed.
+++ 72. WO (Saintly) Exhibit No. 2: +++
St. Fulgentius of Ruspe
And so we arrive at St. Fulgentius of Ruspe.
Born in AD 468 and having
reached the end of his life by 533, he was the bishop of the city of
He also, like Gregory Nazianzen prior to him, did theological battle with the
Arian heretics, who tyrannized the Romanized part of
And what did Fulgentius have to say about the Sacrament of Baptism in
this book?
“Hold most firmly,
and have absolutely no doubt, that, apart from those who are baptized
in their blood for the name of Christ, no man shall receive eternal
life, who has not been converted here below from his evils by
penance and has not been freed by the sacrament of faith and penance,
i.e., by Baptism.” (St. Fulgentius
of Ruspe’s On the Faith, Chapter 38, Section
30. All emphasis & annotations added.)
Yet Fulgentius
has more to say.
“From the moment when
our Savior said: ‘Unless one is born again from water and the Holy Ghost,
he cannot enter in the kingdom of God,’ no one can enter the kingdom
of heaven nor receive eternal life without the sacrament of baptism, except
those who, without baptism, shed their blood for Christ in the Catholic
Church.” (St. Fulgentius of Ruspe’s On the Faith, Chapter 3, Section 41.
Emphases & annotations added.)
+++ 73. BOB & BOD Blatantly Distinguished, and +++
Proof Again BOD Was Not Prevalent in the 1st
Millennium
The vast majority of BOD
partisans are not aware of St. Fulgentius’
words here, if, indeed, they’re even aware that he existed. This
is because most people claiming to be Catholic --- whether BODers
or WOers --- are not learned. They’ve
never bothered to study the writings of long departed scholars, theologians,
clergy, saints or doctors. And why should they? In normal circumstances, there
would be little need and most people are not capable of such scholarly pursuit.
As a result, their knowledge of the Catholic Faith is limited to the relatively
simple teaching of priests, nuns, a catechism, some other book, webpages on the Internet, or etc.
However, the few persons in
the BOD camp who are aware of Fulgentius,
concerning the necessity of baptism, are nevertheless totally clueless
about the blatant import of his words!
Why?
Again, it’s because
the modern BOD aficionado is so convinced of his ‘baptism of desire’
stance that, confronted with hard & literal evidence only of an
ancient Catholic’s support of ‘baptism of blood’, he
then assumes --- out of thin air --- that the two waterless positions are so
very similar as to be identical. Hence, in his mind, belief in BOB
is belief in BOD, and thus a supposed ‘proof’ of this
BOD. Not to mention that the scholastic doctors of the first half of the 2nd
millennium (well over five hundred years after the life of St. Fulgentius around the turn of the 6th century)
had a habit of ‘enfolding’ BOD into the notion of BOB, which is
probably what makes the most intelligent & educated of these BODers think (if, indeed, they even ever do think
about it consciously) that their conflation and equating of BOB with BOD is
wholly justified by theology.
Period.
Nevertheless, prior
to the scholastic doctors at the beginning of the second millennium, Catholic
thinkers did not try to ‘enfold’ BOD into BOB. BOB was
generally accepted by the latter half of the first millennium, while the idea
of BOD was still a novelty and not yet known or accepted by everyone.
Therefore, when Fulgentius speaks in the quotes above
near the turn of the AD 500s, there is absolutely no literal mention at
all of a so-called ‘baptism of desire’ and thus absolutely
no possible hint of the merest thought, either, of
‘enfolding’ BOD into BOB without actually talking about BOD by name
or via a precise description of ‘baptism of desire’.
We repeat:
There is absolutely no
literal mention at all or even tiniest hint possible of a so-called
‘baptism of desire’ or ‘baptism of spirit’ in Fulgentius’ words as given in the quotes above. To
the contrary, ‘baptism of blood’ is singled out and
plainly touted by Fulgentius as the sole
exception to water baptism!
For what does St. Fulgentius really & literally say?
He is very clear and teaches
quite bluntly:
“…no one
can enter the kingdom of heaven nor receive eternal life without the
sacrament of baptism…” (Ibid.)
This statement appears
non-negotiable. That is, it smacks of the language of absolutes. Left here, one
could easily presume that Fulgentius was a
‘water only’ advocate.
But then he adds a proviso,
doesn’t he? To wit:
“…except those
who, without baptism, shed their blood for Christ in the
Catholic Church.” (Ibid.)
St. Fulgentius
is also very clear and teaches quite bluntly:
“Hold most firmly,
and have absolutely no doubt, that… no man shall receive
eternal life, who has… not been freed by the sacrament of
faith and penance, i.e., by Baptism.” (Ibid.)
This statement is vividly
non-negotiable and couched firmly in the language of absolutes. One would
think, left here without any further clarification, that surely Fulgentius was a ‘water only’ purist.
But he adds a conditional
clause, doesn’t he? Accordingly:
“…apart from those who are baptized in their blood
for the name of Christ…” (Ibid.)
Point made and conclusion
stark. There is a blatant distinction between BOB and BOD (or else
why didn’t Fulgentius mention BOD literally by
name or description?), and, here in these quotes just barely a century
after BOD enthusiasts think that Ambrose and Augustine upheld the notion, it is
evident that BOD was not a universal teaching (or else why
didn’t Fulgentius, like Augustine a hundred or
so years earlier, clearly describe ‘baptism of desire’ as an
alternative to the sacramental water, in addition to BOB, when this would be
the very place that a bishop & teacher of souls like him should do so,
considering the absolutist language he uses?).
The import of Fulgentius’ words is inescapable.
Per him, the only
exception to water baptism permitted is the shedding of “blood”
for Christ “in the Catholic Church.”
End of story.
+++ 74. Being in Christ’s Catholic Body +++
We take a moment to
highlight something important, dear soul. For, in allowing for a single
exception to the otherwise unbreakable necessity of water baptism, Fulgentius says, “…apart from
those who are baptized in their blood for the name of
Christ…” What’s more, this blood must be shed “for
Christ in the Catholic Church.”
Which may be theologically
imprecise by today’s technical standards amongst Catholic scholars ---
because water baptism is the only thing that can place you visibly
inside the Catholic Body of Jesus Christ, per these scholars (despite their
belief in BOD, which cannot join you visibly to the Church) --- yet which very
capably conveys the most orthodox teaching that he was trying to express.
Namely, that martyrdom without the profession of Jesus’ Singular Catholic
Religion whole & entire is useless, since it will never get
you into Heaven.
As the Council of Florence
pronounced infallibly:
“The most Holy Roman
Catholic Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those
existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics
and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal
[heaven forever]; but that they will go into the eternal fire [hell neverending] which was prepared for the devil and his
angels, unless before death they are joined with Her [the Catholic Church];
and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only
those remaining within this unity can receive an eternal recompense for
their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the
duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it
may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the name of
Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the
Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV’s Cantate
domino in AD 1442. All emphasis and annotations added)
Consequently, the shedding
of blood for Christ --- if not yet baptized into His Catholic Body --- must
be done with the explicit aim of obeying the Catholic Church, if
water baptism turns out to be impossible before you’re murdered for the
Testimony of Jesus. Only this kind of martyrdom can be an exception
to the otherwise absolute necessity of baptism in water, explains St. Fulgentius quite simply, allowing you to enter Heaven and
live forever.
This infallible teaching is
in opposition to the sentiment of purported ‘catholics’
during the last century or two, who cling to the idea of a practically
universal application of
‘salvation-through-ignorance-and-sincerity’ for most of mankind.
Whereas in reality, after
the Holy Ghost descended on Pentecost Sunday, no adult of sound mind
enters Heaven without knowing that God exists, that He is Three Persons in One
God, that one of these Divine Persons became a true man to redeem us from our
mortal sin, and that this Incarnate God, Jesus Christ, taught and established
the authority of His Roman Catholic Church, outside of which no one can hope to
be saved.
Therefore, both BOB and an
‘implicit’ BOD are only real --- if indeed they are true at all ---
inasmuch as they presuppose a man’s knowledgeable and thus explicit
intent to obey what this Catholic Church teaches. Which means that a
man must at least, if only implicitly, intend to be baptized in water just as
Jesus through His Catholic Body commands.
(Please review Chapters 55
to 58 if you are still hazy on this, dear reader.)
+++ 75. Do Not Confuse an Explicit Intent to Obey +++
With an Implicit
‘Desire’ for Baptism
Meanwhile, do not
confuse an explicit intent to obey with the orthodox comprehension of an
implicit ‘desire’ for baptism. The two things are not
the same, nor have those who are doctrinally correct BODers
ever believed that adults of sound mind can be saved through mere ignorance
& sincerity apart from an actual knowledge of the True Faith.
If in danger of immediate
death, a man must know about Christ & His Catholic Church.
Not everything about them, or else no one far from the reach of Catholicism and
without time to be catechized could hope to be saved aside from sudden &
miraculous infusion of knowledge. But a man must know at least something
solid about the Trinity and the Incarnation, and that Catholicism is the
source of all teachings necessary for the salvation of our souls.
This same man, of sound
adult mind, must also truly intend to believe and obey all that
this divinely established Catholic Church commands. One of those commandments is
to be baptized in water. Hence, a man of sound mind in danger of immediate
death could know about the Trinity, Incarnation & Catholicism
(however rudimentarily) and save his soul through BOB or BOD. Notwithstanding,
it’s possible he might not know that water baptism is one of those
commandments and so end up saving his soul with only an ‘implicit’
intent for baptism.
That is to say, if
the teachings of BOB and BOD are true, and if the theological
musings of the later scholastic doctors on this subject are correct.
These situations of adults
with only rudimentary knowledge of the Catholic Faith but in danger of
immediate death may be exceedingly rare. Yet a human soul is exceedingly
valuable.
Which
leads us to ask…
Can you see, dear reader,
why this subject --- without perfectly explicit & clear infallible
certainty in the matter --- is fraught with eternal peril?
+++ 76. WO (Theological) Exhibit No. 3: +++
Hugh of St. Victor
Now we consider the last of
our exhibits in this series of Church fathers, doctors, saints and theologians.
To wit, Hugh of St. Victor. Who was he?
Arguably, one of the most
influential religious teachers of the 12th century in Catholic
Europe, just prior to the
Living from AD 1096 to 1141,
he was born in
Hugh’s great strength
and fame, though, was his knowledge of the writings of
What did he have to say
about the notion of BOD?
“Some say that it is impossible
that anyone should [could] have [Catholic] faith and charity and yet die
without baptism [in water], for, as they say, God would not permit them
to die without baptism.
But, it seems to me, that since they are not counselors of God [since God
doesn’t seek the opinions of others, not needing the advice of anyone
before making a decision], it is [then] foolish and presumptuous for them to
affirm this [it is not wise for people to teach this about the Sacrament of
Baptism as if WO were certainly true].” (Hugh of
St. Victor’s Summa Sententiarum, Book 5,
Chapter 5. All emphasis & annotations added.)
+++ 77. The (Almost) Absolute Necessity of Water +++
Was Still Taught by at Least a Few During
the AD 1100s
Clearly, Hugh of St. Victor
was not sold on the idea of ‘water only’. The catch,
however, is this:
For while the more learned
& intelligent of BOD partisans may use Hugh as further ‘proof’
that their theological opinion was continuously believed in as a ‘complete
certainty’ by every Catholic since most ancient times, Hugh’s words
are actually evidence to the contrary!
Consider.
Hugh admits that “[s]ome say that it is impossible” for a
good-willed catechumen to die without water baptism, God not permitting
this atrocity to occur. Yet this is then rock hard proof at that point
in time, during the first half of the twelfth century, that there
were still Catholics who either did not know about or did not
believe in the ‘baptism of desire’ opinion.
Period.
We cannot get around this,
dear reader, and remain intellectually honest. Part of the problem with the BOD
crowd is that they usually think the notion of ‘baptism of desire’
goes back to the very beginning with Christ & His Apostles. Everyone
believed in BOD, they assume, from the earliest of centuries. Or, at least ---
presume somewhat more knowledgeable BODers --- every
leader & theologian since most ancient times has believed in the essential pith
of BOD.
Yet we have seen that this
is not true.
+++ 78. How BOD Spread in the Course of 1600 Years +++
Most ancient Church fathers
and doctors never mention by name ‘baptism of
desire’.
St. Cyprian of Carthage
taught something like it in the third century, but only an attenuated version
that uniquely applied to a few persons who had lived in the two hundred years
before him and who he mistakenly thought were baptized ‘invalidly’
--- not something potentially ongoing for centuries on end and applicable to
anyone prior to water baptism, like is taught now. Meanwhile, BODers claim St. Ambrose of
(Please go over Chapters 34
to 41 if you’ve lost sight of these details, dear soul.)
And that’s it.
I’ve never been able
to find the merest hint of anyone else prominent in the first
Granted, the BOD camp then
tries to turn to BOB, acting like this is similar enough to BOD to be the same
thing… and thus ‘proof’ that ancient Catholics believed in it
anyhow, although most of them never literally said so. Yet neither is this
true. BOB and BOD are distinct. No one clearly & inarguably
taught the latter notion, as we understand it now, until Augustine speculated
in AD 400 about the matter. Then, and only then, did BOD begin to propagate,
due to Augustine’s growing reputation as well as the time it took for his
writings to spread during the first millennium.
St. Fulgentius
of Ruspe, who wrote around AD 500, is evidence of
this. One hundred years after Augustine’s support of BOD, would we
not expect Fulgentius to say something explicit about
the topic, if, indeed, he knew of ‘baptism of desire’ and thought
it was true?
Of course he would have. The
quotes we examined from him make it clear how strict he was about the
necessity for water baptism. (Not to mention that only about half of the early
Church fathers speak of BOB explicitly, in my studies thus far. Hence, BOB cannot
be in the Ordinary Magisterium without unanimity of the Church fathers since
this unanimity is the only way we have of knowing plainly --- ordinarily ---
what was universally taught by the Church in earliest times.) And the only
exception Fulgentius allowed for this urgent need for
water baptism is ‘baptism of blood’. Ergo, if indeed Fulgentius knew about and believed in BOD, then why
wouldn’t he explicitly mention it in these quotes, too, in
addition to BOB?
Why only BOB
and not BOD?
The answer is simple and
logical:
Because
he either didn’t know about BOD or didn’t believe in BOD.
BOD as we have known it
didn’t start --- in a simple version of the more intricate form we have
presently --- until Augustine first considered it a possibility at the start of
the fifth century. From there it spread slowly till, by the beginning of the
second millennium, many if not most Church leaders & theologians thought it
true. And by the AD 1500s it had started to make its way into catechisms, being
gradually taught to the laity as part of their normal formation in the Roman
Catholic Faith. Whereupon, having reached more recent times, BOD consequently
took on the aura of an unquestionable and universally taught
‘dogma’.
This is why, then, Hugh of
St. Victor could encounter the ‘water only’ stance during the early
twelfth century --- because it still existed in the minds of some
Catholics at this point in Church history. Either a few theologians, clergy
and religious were still clinging to the idea of a kind of WO, trumpeting it
staunchly to others, or else some prominent laity were
champions of the notion in opposition to BOD and did likewise. Or perhaps both.
Notwithstanding, by the
early AD 1100s, the WO stance may not have been exactly identical to the WO
stance taken today. Remember --- BOB was entrenched in people’s minds
by the fifth century. At least half of the Church fathers spoke of it and
believed in it during the first millennium. Consequently, by the end of this
first millennium BOB was a foregone conclusion and seemingly nobody thought
to gainsay it. Not so BOD. Hence, it’s very likely that the WO
supporters which Hugh grappled with in the twelfth century were believers
in ‘baptism of blood’… whereas WO folks during our
contemporary era eschew both BOD and BOB.
Which
may make it look a bit odd to call them WO believers. I mean, it’s not ‘water only’ if BOB is an
exception to the sacramental water, is it?
Clearly.
Nevertheless, the quotes
from Fulgentius we just read in Chapter 72 serve our
purpose here. For how did he speak about the Sacrament of Baptism? As if it is
almost an absolute necessity.
The only exception he
literally and explicitly acknowledged was ‘baptism of blood’.
End of story.
This was the common understanding
of Roman Catholic leaders & thinkers during that period of the
Church’s history from the middle of the 1st millennium to the
turn of the 2nd millennium. The need for water baptism was upheld
quite staunchly and in no uncertain terms --- very different from us today.
Recollect the example of the unbaptized catechumen in the AD 300s who
died as recorded in the ancient biography of St. Martin of Tours, as we
discovered in Chapter 31 of this book, Baptismal Confusion, and who
Martin miraculously raised from the dead by his faith & prayers simply
to save him from damnation via the regenerating waters of the Most Holy
Sacrament of Baptism.
+++ 79. Further Evidence That BOD Was Still Not +++
Firmly Entrenched in the Minds of All Catholics
But need we further proof
that BOD was not yet as firmly entrenched in the minds of Catholics during the
AD 1100s as it became in later centuries?
Then examine the short quote
from Hugh of St. Victor more closely. For he says, after informing us how some Catholics
during the 12th century thought it impossible that God would
let a catechumen die without water baptism:
“But, it seems
to me, that since they are not counselors of God [since God
doesn’t seek the opinions of others, not needing the advice of anyone
before making a decision], it is [then] foolish and presumptuous for them to
affirm this [it is not wise for people to teach ‘water only’ about
the Sacrament of Baptism as if it were certainly true].” (Ibid.)
We reiterate:
“…it seems to
me…”
In other words, Hugh does not
say, “Christ commands us,” or, “The blessed apostles inform
us,” or, “Our Holy Mother the Church instructs us,” or,
“The fathers of the Church tell us,” or so forth and so on.
No. He merely asserts, “…it
seems to me…”
To wit, Hugh does not
pretend to put forth an authoritative & infallible teaching of
Christ, His Apostles, the Catholic Church, the early Church fathers, or etc.,
when he opposes the ‘water only’ folks of his day.
He simply tells them,
“…it seems to me…”
I.e., it was his theological
opinion, based on his own personal reasoning as a theologian, which
led him to this conclusion, not the solemn, apostolic or (as of yet)
universal teaching --- if merely as a result of the opinion becoming very
popular amongst Catholics, albeit only fallibly so and not yet explicitly
defined by a pope --- of the One & Only Catholic Church.
We cannot get around this
either, dear reader. If Hugh of St. Victor had better proof than his own personal
reasoning for upholding BOD, then we could expect him to have used it,
referring to his basis of authority for daring to say so, and we could expect
BOD proponents to have broadcast it along with the quote above in Chapter 76
that the most learned of them already trumpet on their behalf, thinking it yet
more powerful ammunition for their stance of baptismal aridity.
But they don’t. And
this is because, as far as I can tell in my studies thus far, Hugh had no
better evidence for the ‘baptism of desire’ position than
what we’ve found in his quote --- namely, his own personal reasoning as
summed up in the clause, “…it seems to me…”
+++ 80. Fascinating Speculation +++
(A Short Augustinian Detour)
Which
leads us to some fascinating speculation. Because both he (Hugh) and St. Bernard of Clairvaux lived at the same time in the same country, the
We’ve even seen a
snatch of Bernard’s reply to Hugh of St. Victor already, back in Chapter
38 where we considered the great Church doctor of the western Roman Empire, St.
Augustine of Hippo, and what he had to say about BOD. We quote Bernard’s
letter to Hugh again:
“We adduce only the
opinions and words of the Fathers and not our own; for we are not wiser than
our fathers… Believe me, it will be difficult to separate me from these
two pillars, by which I refer to Augustine and Ambrose. I confess that
with them I am either right or wrong in believing that people can be saved by
faith alone [Bernard here means the common dogmas of the Roman Catholic Faith
alone and not what many Protestant heretics mean by the phrase] and the desire
to receive the sacrament, even if untimely death or some insuperable force keep
them from fulfilling their pious desire.” (St.
Bernard’s Letters, Letter 77, Paragraphs 1 & 8. All
emphasis & annotation added.)
This letter from Bernard ---
and perhaps others that I do not yet know about --- is, at a bare minimum, one
thing that apparently helped convince Hugh that WO was a foolish opinion.
Bernard even refers to Augustine in the quote just above. Which
was right up Hugh’s alley, he being an expert on
For in studying Augustine
minutely, Hugh would presumably have been able to find only one thing
said in explicit favor of BOD (not BOB, which Augustine mentioned favorably
several times). Leastwise, there is only one place so far in St.
Augustine’s writings that I have found where he explicitly favors the
idea of ‘baptism of desire’… and BODers
seemingly can’t come up with anything more, or else I would have
encountered it while examining their writings.
Yet in studying Augustine
minutely, Hugh would also have been able to find where Augustine later on
rescinds --- that is, rejects --- his argument from Sacred Scripture when he
used the Good Thief to uphold his one single instance of explicit support for
BOD. This happened toward the end of Augustine’s life (as recorded in
public writing, at least), he wishing to correct any errors and mistakes he had
made so as not to be guilty of misleading those who depended on him by their
implicit trust in his teachings. This, then, would have suggested to Hugh that
Augustine rejected, too, his former support for the theological opinion of
‘baptism of desire’.
And, lastly, in studying
Augustine minutely, Hugh would probably have noted that Augustine never
explicitly upheld BOD elsewhere in his writings, as well as seeing that
Augustine seemed to get stricter and stricter about the necessity of water
baptism as time went on. That is to say, Augustine explicitly upholds BOD in AD
400. Through the mid-420s, though, he mentions only BOB without mentioning BOD
explicitly again. And, finally, as he nears the end of his life in the late
420s, he foregoes mention of both BOD and BOB altogether, stressing only
the need for baptismal water all by itself.
(My dear soul, please review
Chapters 38 to 41 in this book, Baptismal Confusion, if your memory is
too foggy about these details regarding St. Augustine of Hippo.)
The
upshot?
I would bet my bottom dollar
that this is why Hugh doesn’t come straight out and say that the
‘water only’ stance is just plain wrong. To my knowledge, Hugh
never said anything more about BOD than what we’ve read in the quote in
Chapter 76. And he does not say that ‘water only’ is wrong
--- merely that it is “foolish and presumptuous” to talk
like WO is for sure.
This is in stark contrast to
St. Bernard’s tone. If one reads the words of St. Bernard in favor of BOD
whilst in opposition to the WO devotees, his position is much stronger. Bernard
does not dare to assert his theological opinion as an infallible certainty, nevertheless, he does treat it as if
it’s a moral certainty. Ergo, the idea of ‘water only’
must be wrong… very wrong.
Whereas
Hugh says nothing of the sort. WO
is not wrong for sure. It’s just that it’s foolish to pretend that
it couldn’t be wrong, and to act like BOD is certainly
mistaken, opines he. If I had to guess, I would assume that Hugh leaned quite
heavily toward the BOD side, being surrounded with theological peers --- such
as Bernard --- who already by the twelfth century were most of them in favor of
the notion of ‘baptism of desire’… or ‘baptism of
spirit’ as they called it back then. Notwithstanding, Hugh probably couldn’t
help noticing, being an expert on Augustine’s writings, that Augustine
upped BOD only once, upped BOB but not BOD later, rejected the scriptural
argument in BOD’s favor afterward, and finished
talking at the end of his life as though water baptism was the sole
option, with neither BOB nor BOD mentioned again.
+++ 81. The Fulcrum Tips +++
What are we to conclude?
That the AD 1100s were part
of a tipping point, a fulcrum for waterless regeneration.
Here we see in transition,
as one generation of theologians bled into another, the opinion of
‘baptism of desire’ going from obscurity & uncertainty to
popularity & sureness --- but not quite entire certainty, the knowledge of
most Catholic’s understanding of the Sacrament of Baptism during ancient
times still persisting in some quarters, and expert familiarity with
Augustine’s writings still enough to make someone like Hugh pause before
committing to BOD wholly.
The next century --- the
period of the AD 1200s --- was a different story. Here the scholastic wave
crested in its crowning achievement, the theological writings and thought of
St. Thomas Aquinas. Here a few more generations of Church thinkers &
leaders had elapsed, imbibing at the fount of a waterless baptism and growing
used to the idea of justifying it through the Mercy of God allied with a
perfect contrition in the catechumen. And once Aquinas ascended the throne of
sainthood during the AD 1300s at his official canonization, the zenith of his
reputation was reached by the AD 1400s. Henceforward, Catholic scholars &
priests were taught Thomistic theology as an
excellent certainty in almost every way.
This is what generations of
Catholic priests & scholars were taught, in deed if not in word, along with
a massive respect for the teachings of the scholastic doctors in general. And
as this teaching disseminated into the instruction of lay Catholics in the last
five centuries via the imprimatured texts of various
catechisms, belief in ‘baptism of desire’ became so influential
& pervasive that recent generations assume BOD is at least
‘proximate’ to dogma, many Catholics even thinking it
‘infallibly defined’ at the Council of Trent!
For who was to tell them
otherwise when nearly everyone --- including many, if not most, leaders &
theologians of the Church during the last few hundred years --- presume it to
be true?
+++ 82. Another Brief Warning for the WO Crowd +++
WO adherents may be tempted
to crow a little. For although the evidence from the saints & doctors is
heavily on the ‘baptism of desire’ side, the BOD camp tends to make
more of it than is warranted. Which is why I have gone out my
way to point out the flaws in their BOD reasoning.
All the same, this is not,
then, justification for WO adherents to act like their side has won!
Far
from it.
Because
the evidence is heavily on the side of ‘baptism of
desire’ when it comes to the saints & doctors, especially in the last
one thousand years. There is no
way to duck this. And this is why an intelligent, reasonable,
learned & honest WO proponent cannot act like his stance is
either infallible or even morally certain:
For doing this would be to
act unintelligent, unreasonable, unlearned, or dishonest.
(Again, this is an example
of Catholic fundamentalism, about which you may read
here.)
End of sentence.
Which
is not to say that ‘water only’ doesn’t have some very
powerful evidence on its side.
It does.
But it is
to say that, when both sides have strong evidence for their opposing stances, only
a perfectly explicit infallible ruling in the matter can resolve the
conflict with finality.
+
+ +
Part One of Baptismal Confusion (Chapters 1-32)
Part Two of Baptismal Confusion (Chapters 33-60)
Part Four of Baptismal Confusion (Chapters 83-105)
Part Five of Baptismal Confusion (Chapters 106-132)
Part Six of Baptismal Confusion (Chapters 133-169)
Part Seven of Baptismal Confusion (Chapters 170-197)
+
+ +
NOTE: If the reader has enjoyed, or
benefited from, this book, you may wish to examine
Baptismal Confusion: Sheepishly Shy or Gaunt as a Goat? and
Baptismal Confusion: Dilemmas of ‘Desire’; or, It Is Foolish
to Presume Either ‘BOD’ or ‘WO’, as of Yet in Our Era, to Be the
‘Inarguable’ Stance, Not Even Bothering to Honestly Study Each Sides’s
Evidence!
, in the Letters & Admonishments and Great Apostasy sections, respectively. The three
deal with similar dilemmas resulting from confusion, during the Great Apostasy, over the
Sacrament of Holy Baptism after the Vatican II Pseudo-Council, resulting in acrimony,
stupidity, cruelty, rashness, impatience, heresy & schism in the fight of
BOD vs. WO.
+
+ +
Pilate’s
query met:
Note:
if you’ve come
to this webpage directly from a search
engine or other
website, then, when done viewing this webpage
--- and assuming
you wish to view more of this website’s pages ---
please type the
website’s address (as given above right before this
note) into the
address bar at the top of your browser and hit the
‘enter’ button on the keyboard of your computer.
Please go here about use of the writings
on this website.
© 2013 by
Paul Doughton.
All rights
reserved.