Saint Augustine on Baptism of Desire & Blood.

Everyone,

Great article on Saint Augustine's positions on Baptism of Desire & Blood:

http://www.romancatholicism.org/augustine-final.htm

A couple of points:

1) If Baptism of Desire & Blood were clearly defined as being part of the Deposit of Faith, then one can only wonder why Saint Augustine would hold different positions on the question throughout his life.

2) If Saint Augustine erred, then one would wonder why no one, especially after his death, took him to task over his "errors" and why no Pope and/or Church council defined Baptism of Desire & Blood as being binding upon the faithful.

3) If Saint Augustine did, indeed, err, one can only wonder why St. Prosper of Aquitaine followed in his footsteps.

Trying to force contradictions in the teachings of St. Augustine where there really are none is no different from taking the teachings of certain Fathers on the absolute necessity of water baptism (just as St. Aquinas taught) and inferring from this that they "rejected" baptism of desire and baptism of blood. This overreaching is based on the false assumption that when a St. Augustine teaches "Take away the water, and there is no Baptism", or "nor can they be said to have been otherwise saved in the ark except by water” that this positively "contradicts" his clear and consistent teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire, when it does no such thing.

This no different from accusing the Church of contradiction and error when she teaches that she knows of no way other than water baptism by which anyone can be assured of their salvation, while also teaching that she has always held the firm conviction that baptism of blood and baptism of desire bring about the essential fruits of baptism.

This is no different from accusing the Church of contradiction and error when she teaches that no one can be a member of the Mystical Body other than by faith, baptism and incorporation; and also teaching that one may be invisibly united to the Mystical Body through the essential bonds of faith and charity.

It works something like this: Take the definition of membership in the Mystical Body of Pope Pius XII, and then take his clear teaching on baptism of desire in his Allocution to midwives, and then accuse him of "contradiction" and "error" by suggesting that he was so ignorant or confused that he was not aware that these respective teachings stand in contradiction.

Now, simply apply this same reasoning to the teachings of St. Augustine and presto, we have a Saint who was in "error" and who clearly "contradicted" himself.

Final Opinion: What, then, was St. Augustine’s final conviction regarding the sacrament of baptism?

St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ "

And why would this be a "contradiction" to his earlier teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire? Anyone familiar with his tracts on predestination should not be surprised at what he is saying, and what he is not saying. He does not raise the question here of whether God predestines every soul to water baptism, but highlights the absurdity of saying that the elect predestined for baptism ("they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism") "can be can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined."

Those who believe St. Augustine is "contradicting" himself assume, rashly, that he changed his position to one where God predestines every one of His elect to water baptism, when this is not what he is saying. There is no proof for this and there is nothing in his "Book of Corrections" that would warrant the assumption of such a complete turn-about.

It is true that the infamous Karl Rahner believed that St. Augustine "rejected" baptism of desire in his later anti-Pelagian/Donatist period, but other commentators and scholastics do not accept this theory and point, rather, to St. Augustine's penchant for exaggerating one aspect of a particular doctrine to the exclusion of another depending on his target audience (as he himself admitted), whether it was the Pelagians, the Donatists, or whomever; to prevent them from doing precisely what today's critics do when they turn his teachings against him (having "distinctions" they do not understand or reject) and accuse him of teaching contrary doctrines, or of being in "error".

This is not to say that there was no development in doctrine over the long course of St. Augustine's teaching apostolate, especially in the progression he made on Grace from a theory of providential control to how the Holy Spirit works within a person's heart to overcome his opposition to Christ and to effect his decision to convert. But a "development" that includes a change in his teachings on baptism of blood and baptism of desire is not what most scholastics point to, especially given the long tradition of acceptance of Augustine's teachings that do not in any way suggest such a pivotal "change" in position.

In the end, it is only what the Church teaches that matters, and these debates over what St. Augustine "really" taught favor the traditional consensus that he did in fact remain consistent on baptism of desire and baptism of blood, notwithstanding the minority opinion of some, like Fr. Rahner, who believe otherwise.