Saturday, March 9, 2024

Notes on Baptism of Desire and Eucharistic of Desire in Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers

 Baptism of Blood//Baptism of Desire:

 

[Besides the Baptisms of Moses, John, and Jesus], I know also a fourth Baptism, that by martyrdom and blood, by which Christ Himself was baptized. This one is far more august than the others, since is cannot be defiled by later stains. (Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration on the Holy Lights 39.17, A.D. 381, The Faith of the Early Fathers, 3 vols. [trans. William A. Jurgens; Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1979], 2:36)

 

That the place of Baptism is sometimes supplied by suffering is supported by a substantial argument which the same Blessed Cyprian draws from the circumstance of the thief, to whom, although not baptized, it was said: “today you shall be with Me in paradise.” Considering this over and over again, I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply for that which is lacking by way of Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart if, perhaps because of the circumstances of the time, recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the Mystery of Baptism. (Augustine, Baptism 4.22.29, A.D. 400, The Faith of the Early Fathers, 3 vols. [trans. William A. Jurgens; Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1979], 3:67)

 

In the Corrections 2, 44 Augustine regrets having used the good thief as an example in this instance: for he now recalls that we have no certainty at all that the thief was not in fact baptized. Augustine’s regret, of course, is solely over the example used; for he has no doubts at all about the efficacy of so-called Baptism of blood. (Ibid., 69 n. 11)


 

When we offer as objection to these arguments the countless multitude of infants, who, except for original sin, under which all men alike are born into the condemnation of the first man, have as yet no will, no propre actions, and who, not without a judgment of God, are cut off and are to be carried away before any experience of this life gives them a discernment of good and evil, so that some, through rebirth, are enrolled among the heirs of the heavenly kingdom, while others, without Baptism, pass over among the debtors of eternal death: such are lost, they say, and such are saved, according to what the divine knowledge foresees they would have done in their adult years, if they had been preserved in a responsible age (si ad activam servarentu aetatem)! (Prosper of Aquitaine, Letter to Augustine of Hippo 225.5, c. A.D. 428-29, The Faith of the Early Fathers, 3 vols. [trans. William A. Jurgens; Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1979], 3:189)

 

 

Baptism of Desire//Eucharist of Desire

 

 

Let each one think what he likes contrary to any of Cyprian’s opinions but let no one hold any opinion contrary to the manifest belief of the apostle. . . . A reason must be sought and given why souls, if they are newly created for each one being born, are damned if the infants die without Christ’s Sacrament. That they are damned if they so depart the body is the testimony both of Holy Scripture and of Holy Church. (Augustine, Letter to Sicilian Layman Hilary 66.8.24-25, A.D. 414, The Faith of the Early Fathers, 3 vols. [trans. William A. Jurgens; Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1979], 3:9)

 

The state of infants who die without Baptism has long been one of the knottier problems of theology. If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of “unless a man be born again et reliqua” is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found to constant as to constitute revelation. The Church has always admitted Baptism of desire as a rescuing factor, when the desire is a personal and conscious one on the part of the one desiring Baptism for himself, as in the case of a catechumen.

 

Some loose thinkers are content to apply Baptism of desire to an infant, who is incapable of knowing and desiring. That being pointed out, they will posit the desire in parents on behalf of children; but if in fact the parents do not desire or if they positively reject Baptism for their infant child, is the infant then to be damned because of the parents’ ignorance or malice? Many today are content to ignore the problem as if it did not exist, or to treat it as a ridiculous scruple. We hear them quote the Scriptures, that God desires all men to be saved, as if that had any application here! Let us turn back to the notion of Baptism of desire, and I think we will find a solution apart from the generous but questionable notion of limbo, without condemning these infants outright as Augustine reluctantly does, and without doing violence either to Scripture or Tradition.

 

Saint Thomas notes that the Eucharist is absolutely necessary for salvation. If a man has never received the Eucharist, he cannot be saved. But Thomas then adds these distinctions; that if one is dying and has never received the Eucharist, his positive desire for it will suffice (the precise parallel of Baptism of desire); or in the case of infants or ignorant savages, the desire on their behalf on the part of the Church herself will suffice. If this latter is true in regard to the Eucharist, why not in regard to Baptism? Tradition already admits Thomas’ first Eucharistic distinction in regard also to Baptism: a desire on the part of the individual himself. Why not, then, his second distinction in regard also to invincibly ignorant, a desire supplied by the desire of the Church herself? This obviates the necessary objection to a desire supplied by parents: they may not have such a desire. The Church always desires the welfare of mankind and it is impossible that she should not desire it. (Ibid., 14-15 n. 31)