sign in sign up
<<
Home , Bernard of Clairvaux, Canonization

DE OBITU VALENTINIANI: ABELARD, , AND THE OF OF ON BAPTISM BY DESIRE

Marcia L. Colish

The most recent Roman Catholic catechism treats baptism by desire as a standard and uncontroversial truth. While affirming that the church “does not know any means other than baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude,”1 it also states that baptism by desire conveys the fruits of rit- ual baptism: “For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their ex- plicit desire to receive it together with repentance for their sins, and char- ity, assures them the salvation they were not able to receive through the sacrament.”2 Citing the Lumen gentium proclaimed 2 November 1964, this teaching, the catechism asserts, is one on which “the church has always held a firm conviction.”3 Such a retrojection of current into earlier church tradition, if not unique, is notable. For, historically, the defense of baptism by desire began only in the late fourth century, and had a checkered medieval career before reaching its present safe haven in the Catholic consensus. Baptism by desire first gained extended discus- sion and vigorous support in Ambrose of Milan’s De obitu Valentiniani (hereafter DoV) of 392, a funeral oration on the western Roman emperor Valentinian II delivered in a decidedly unsettled political situation. With- out citing Ambrose, Augustine gave this doctrine equivocal treatment. It then lay fallow until the turn of the twelfth century. When theologians re- vived it, they targeted Ambrose’s text as its sturdiest support. While not first out of the gate, both and Bernard of Clairvaux played a

1 Catechism of the , 2nd ed., ed. Peter Cardinal Gasparri (: Libre- ria Editrice Vaticana, 1994), 6.1257 (p. 320). 2 Ibid. 6.1258-6.1260; quotation at 6.1260 (p. 321). 3 Ibid. 6.1281 (p. 325), citing Lumen gentium; cf. Lumen gentium 2.14-2.16 in The Doc- uments of Vatican II (1963-1965), ed. and trans. Gallagher (New York: Guild Press, 1966), 32-35. See, in particular, at 2.14 (p. 35): “Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spir- it, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined to her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.” On this point see also the post-Vatican II Dutch catechism, in A New Catechism: Catholic Faith for Adults, trans. Kevin Smyth (New York: Seabury Press, 1965), 249. 330 marcia l. colish key role in canonizing the DoV, setting the stage for its citation as an au- thority on this issue in the scholastic sequel. As a valid substitute for the font, it was baptism by blood that drew earliest attention. The first to offer a theological rationale was , who locates the equivalence of these alternative modes of baptism in the water and blood flowing from the side of the crucified Christ: “These two baptisms He sent forth from the wound in His pierced side, in order that those who believed in His blood might be washed with water, and those who had been washed with water might carry the stain of His blood.”4 of agrees while negating the efficacy of both baptism and martyrdom for heterodox Christians. It is only catechumens of the true church, crushed before they can receive the rite, who “are not de- prived of the pledge of baptism on the grounds that they are baptized with the glorious and highest baptism of blood.”5 Heterodoxy remained a problem after the legitimization of and the influx of converts, many of whom delayed baptism and the intel- lectual and moral reforms it required. Fourth-century stressed the need of catechumens to proceed to the font. Closest in time to Ambrose, Gregory Nazianzen makes this point in his Epiphany sermon in 381. He outlines five modes of baptism. First is the Israelites’ baptism in the Red Sea, prefiguring the Christian rite. Next is the baptism of John the Bap- tist, involving repentance for sin but water alone. Third is the baptism of Christ, involving water and the Holy Spirit; Gregory does not specify when he thinks it was instituted. Fourth is the ’ baptism by blood. Fifth and last is what he calls the baptism of tears. Gregory does not mean

4 Tertullian, De baptismo, ed. J.G.P. Borleffs, CCSL 1 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1993), 16.1-2 (pp. 290-91): “Proinde nos facere aqua vocatos sanguine electos duos baptismos de vulnere percussi lateris emisit, quia in sanguinem eius crederent aqua lavarentur, qui aqua lavissent et sanguine opporterent;” Tertullian, Concerning Baptism, trans. Alexander Souter (Lon- don: SPCK, 1919), 66. Most useful on Tertullian’s influence on this point in early and pat- ristic theology is Franz Josef Dölger, “Tertullian über die Bluttaufe: Tertullian, De baptismo 16,” Antike und Christentum: Kultur- und religionsgeschichliche Studien, 2nd ed. (Münster: Aschendorff, 1974), 2:117-41. See also Peter Cramer, Baptism and Change in the Early Mid- dle Ages, c. 200-c. 1150 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 73-86; G. Barielle, “Baptême d’après les pères grecs et ,” DthC 2/1:208-11. 5 Cyprian, Epistulae, ed. G.F. Diercks, CCSL 3C (Turnhout: Brepols, 1996), 73.22.2 (pp. 556-57): “nec privari baptismi sacramento, utpote qui baptizentur gloriossisime et maximo sanguinis baptismo . . .;” Cyprian, On the Church: Selected Letters, trans. Allen Brent (Crest- wood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2006), 212. See most recently Attilio Carpin, Bat- tezati nell’unica vera chiesa? Cipriano di Cartagine e la controversia battesmale (Bologna: Edizioni Studio Domenicano, 2007), 11-77, and for Cyprian’s later influence, ibid., 78-251 with emphasis on episcopal vs. Roman jurisdiction.