I think that two different considerations are typically conflated in this notion of "implicit" Baptism of Desire.
There's the idea of implicit desire for Baptism proper and then idea of implicit faith.
So, for instance, I am converted to the Church and want to become a Catholic, but I do not form the explicit intention "I desire to be Baptized." One can see the DESIRE here to be implicit in the desire to become a Catholic.
Then there's the notion of implicit faith, which many have promoted. "I am a well-meaning pagan who follow my lights regarding the natural law."
So this discussion gets confused the the degrees of "implicit"-ness, i.e. the degrees of separation from the explicit.
It's absolutely indisputed that supernatural faith is required for salvation. Lots of modern BoDers focus on the "desire" (an act of the will) but ignore the intellectual requirements for salvation, as if one can will to have supernatural faith without believing anything. What's at issue is what are the requirements to have supernatural faith. Can faith be implicit in my desire to know God? All theologians agree that SOME things must be explicitly believed, with the vast majority (and absolute unanimity before the year 1600) holding that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation were necessary for salvation. In other words, no Jєω, Muslim, or any kind of infidel can possibly be saved.
This was believed by all Catholics everywhere for the first 1600 years of Church history, meeting the criteria for infallible dogma based on the OUM. Yet some Jesuits felt they were permitted to theorize that these were not necessary and that it was sufficient for supernatural faith just to believe in a God who rewards the good and punishes the wicked. This was motivated by the desire to extend the possibility of salvation to infidels.
Of course, recent Novus Ordo developments hold that atheists can be saved without ANY explicit belief whatsoever.
I hold that Rewarder God theory is objectively heretical based on the teachings of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. Those who lived before Vatican II might be excused of formal heresy because the OUM had not clearly been defined, but this notion must now be rejected as absolutely heretical.
Lad,
Very true - implicit desire for baptism of someone with faith in Christ and an implicit faith in Christ for someone who believes in God but lacks explicit faith in Christ are different, and that is a difference of some importance in terms of the discussion of the issue
However, St. Alphonsus confuses the issue by not positing faith in Christ as essential to an implicit baptism of desire - in the cited quote - but "perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things," something brought about by the "wind[flaminis or flamen]" of the impulse of the Holy Ghost, which is really talking about grace and its work of converting the heart/mind/soul of man.
Now, I contend that this is something which is a sine qua non for salvation, for the OT saints and all men everywhere. Most theologians accept that that faith may have been implicit - in the sense you discuss - before Christ and the promulgation of the Gospel, but not after. I believe St. Alphonsus himself believed that, though he noted the minority opinion. Perhaps he is conceding the minority opinion for purposes of his definition of implied BOD in the quotation from his Moral Theology. If so, he goes wrong there I think, and creates some of the confusion.
I asked the question of how the OT saints were justified because I believe that they needed to be justified in a manner that meets the conditions laid down by St. Alphonsus in the quote - "perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things," something brought about by the "wind[flaminis or flamen]" of the impulse of the Holy Ghost.
How else would the OT saints be justified? They could not w/o the operation of the Holy Ghost in a manner that meets St. Alphonsus's definition of BOD.
Now, the Church explicitly notes a distinction in the manner of justification under the New Covenant after the promulgation of the Gospel with reference to baptism in the Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter 4:
CHAPTER IV.
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html (https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html)
(https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html)
There is now no justification without the laver of baptism, or desire thereof. The preceding clause indicates that this is a difference in the manner of justification. St. Alphonsus's definition obliterates this difference, or certainly appears to take no account of it if men could be saved by a perfect contrition or love of God (sans explicit faith in Christ) as they could before the promulgation of the Gospel.
As a corollary, this is why I maintain that an explicit desire for the sacrament of baptism is necessary as reflective of the change in the manner of justification after promulgation of the Gospel in the "age of grace," a justification which, again, could have been available without such a desire before the institution of the law of baptism - thus falsifying Trent's assertion of a change in the manner of justification after the promulgation of the Gospel.
This understanding of a distinction in the manner of salvation is expressed also in the subsequent Catechism of Trent:
Baptism Made Obligatory After Christ's Resurrection
The second period to be distinguished, that is, the time when the law of Baptism was made, also admits of no doubt. Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave to His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.
This is inferred from the authority of the Prince of the Apostles when he says: Who hath regenerated us into a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead;' and also from what Paul says of the Church: He delivered himself up for it: that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life. By both Apostles the obligation of Baptism seems to be referred to the time which followed the death of our Lord. Hence we can have no doubt that the words of the Saviour: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, refer also to the same time which was to follow after His Passion.
http://catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Baptism.shtml (http://catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Baptism.shtml)
The same distinction is very strongly implied in Benedictus Deus of Pope Benedict XII:
By this Constitution which is to remain in force for ever, we, with apostolic authority, define the following: According to the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints who departed from this world before the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ and also of the holy apostles, martyrs, confessors, virgins and other faithful who died after receiving the holy baptism of Christ- provided they were not in need of any purification when they died, or will not be in need of any when they die in the future, or else, if they then needed or will need some purification, after they have been purified after death-and again the souls of children who have been reborn by the same baptism of Christ or will be when baptism is conferred on them, if they die before attaining the use of free will: all these souls, immediately (mox) after death and, in the case of those in need of purification, after the purification mentioned above, since the ascension of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ into heaven, already before they take up their bodies again and before the general judgment, have been, are and will be with Christ in heaven, in the heavenly kingdom and paradise, joined to the company of the holy angels.
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/ben12/b12bdeus.htm (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/ben12/b12bdeus.htm)
(https://www.papalencyclicals.net/ben12/b12bdeus.htm)
So I disagree with St. Alphonsus (as the quote seems to indicate anyway) and those who hold out the possibility of justification (and subsequent entry into glory) by an implicit baptism of desire without an explicit faith in Christ (and also arguably an explicit desire for the sacrament), which may have been available before the change in the manner of justification that followed after the Passion of Our Lord and promulgation of the Gospel.
A continuing availability for justification by a love of God etc. (St. Alphonsus's definition of an implied BOD) without explicit faith in Christ (and I believe also an explicit desire for the sacrament of baptism) doesn't accord with the change in the manner of justification in the "age of grace" as infallibly set forth by the Council of Trent and consistent with, and signaled by, the Magisterium prior.
Interesting words of St. Thomas Aquinas on the effect of circuмcision during the Old Law:
Tertia Pars (Q. 70, Art. 4):
Article 4. Whether circuмcision bestowed sanctifying grace?
Objection 1. It seems that circuмcision (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm) did not bestow sanctifying grace (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm). For the Apostle (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) says (Galatians 2:21 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/gal002.htm#verse21)): "If justice (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08571c.htm) be by the Law (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10582c.htm), then Christ (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) died in vain," i.e. without cause (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03459a.htm). But circuмcision (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm) was an obligation (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11189a.htm) imposed by the Law (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10582c.htm), according to Galatians 5:3 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/gal005.htm#verse3): "I testify . . . to every man (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) circuмcising himself, that ne is a debtor to do the whole law (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm)." Therefore, if justice (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08571c.htm) be by circuмcision (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm), "Christ (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) died in vain," i.e. without cause (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03459a.htm). But this cannot be allowed. Therefore circuмcision (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm) did not confer grace (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm) whereby the sinner is made righteous.
Objection 2. Further, before the institution of circuмcision (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm) faith (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) alone sufficed for justification (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm); hence Gregory (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06780a.htm) says (Moral. iv): "Faith (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) alone did of old in behalf of infants that for which the water of Baptism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) avails with us." But faith (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) has lost nothing of its strength through the commandment of circuмcision (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm). Therefore faith (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) alone justified little ones, and not circuмcision (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm).
Objection 3. Further, we read (Joshua 5:5-6 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/jos005.htm#verse5)) that "the people that were born in the desert, during the forty years . . . were uncircuмcised." If, therefore, original sin (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm) was taken away by circuмcision (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm), it seems that all who died in the desert, both little children and adults, were lost. And the same argument avails in regard to those who died before the eighth day, which was that of circuмcision (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm), which day could nol be anticipated, as stated above (Article 3, Reply to Objection 3 (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4070.htm#article3)).
Objection 4. Further, nothing but sin (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) closes the entrance to the heavenly kingdom. But before the Passion (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11527b.htm) the entrance to the heavenly kingdom was closed to the circuмcised (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm). Therefore men were not justified from sin (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) by circuмcision (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm).
Objection 5. Further, original sin (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm) is not remitted without actual sin (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) being remitted also: because "it is wicked (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) to hope for half forgiveness from God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm)," as Augustine (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm) says (De Vera et Falsa Poenit. ix). But we read nowhere of circuмcision (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm) as remitting actual sin (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm). Therefore neither did it remit original sin (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm).
On the contrary, Augustine (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm) says, writing to Valerius in answer to Julian (De Nup. et Concup. ii (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15072.htm)): "From the time that circuмcision (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm) was instituted among God's (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) people, as 'a seal of the justice (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08571c.htm) of the faith (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm),' it availed little children unto sanctification by cleansing them from the original and bygone sin (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm); just as Baptism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) also from the time (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14726a.htm) of its institution began to avail unto the renewal of man (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm)."
I answer that, All are agreed in saying that original sin (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm) was remitted in circuмcision (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm). But some said that no grace (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm) was conferred, and that the only effect was to remit sin (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm). The Master (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11768d.htm) holds this opinion (Sent. iv, D, 1), and in a gloss (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06586a.htm) on Romans 4:11 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/rom004.htm#verse11). But this is impossible, since guilt is not remitted except by grace (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm), according to Romans 3:2 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/rom003.htm#verse2): "Being justified freely by His grace (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm)," etc.
Wherefore others said that grace (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm) was bestowed by circuмcision (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm), as to that effect which is the remission of guilt, but not as to its positive effects; lest they should be compelled to say that the grace (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm) bestowed in circuмcision (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm) sufficed for the fulfilling of the precepts of the Law (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10582c.htm), and that, consequently, the coming of Christ (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) was unnecessary. But neither can this opinion stand. First, because by circuмcision (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm) children. received the power of obtaining glory (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06585a.htm) at the allotted time, which is the last positive effect of grace (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm). Secondly, because, in the order of the formal (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06137b.htm) cause (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03459a.htm), positive effects naturally (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm) precede those that denote privation, although it is the reverse in the order of the material cause (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03459a.htm): since a form does not remove a privation save by informing the subject.
Consequently, others said that grace (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm) was conferred in circuмcision (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm), also as a particular positive effect consisting in being made worthy of eternal life (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm); but not as to all its effects, for it did not suffice for the repression of the concupiscence (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm) of the fomes, nor again for the fulfilment of the precepts of the Law (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10582c.htm). And this was my opinion at one time (Sent. iv, D, 1; 2, 4). But if one consider the matter (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm) carefully, it is clear that this is not true (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm). Because the least grace (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm) can resist any degree of concupiscence (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm), and avoid every mortal sin (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm), that is committed in transgressing the precepts of the Law (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10582c.htm); for the smallest degree of charity (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) loves God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) more than cupidity loves "thousands of gold and silver" (Psalm 118:72 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/psa118.htm#verse72)).
We must say, therefore, that grace (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm) was bestowed in circuмcision (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm) as to all the effects of grace (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm), but not as in Baptism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm). Because in Baptism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) grace (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm) is bestowed by the very power of Baptism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) itself, which power Baptism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) has as the instrument of Christ's Passion (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11527b.htm) already consummated. Whereas circuмcision (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm) bestowed grace (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm), inasmuch as it was a sign of faith (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) in Christ's (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) future Passion (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11527b.htm): so that the man (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) who was circuмcised (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm), professed to embrace that faith (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm); whether, being an adult, he made profession for himself, or, being a child, someone else made profession for him. Hence, too, the Apostle (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) says (Romans 4:11 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/rom004.htm#verse11)), that Abraham (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01051a.htm) "received the sign of circuмcision (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm), a seal of the justice (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08571c.htm) of the faith (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm)": because, to wit, justice (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08571c.htm) was of faith (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) signified: not of circuмcision (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm) signifying. And since Baptism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) operates instrumentally by the power of Christ's Passion (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11527b.htm), whereas circuмcision (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm) does not, therefore Baptism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) imprints a character that incorporates man (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) in Christ (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), and bestows grace (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm) more copiously than does circuмcision (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm); since greater is the effect of a thing already present, than of the hope thereof.
Reply to Objection 1. This argument would prove (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12454c.htm) if justice (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08571c.htm) were of circuмcision (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm) otherwise than through faith (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) in Christ's (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) Passion (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11527b.htm).
Reply to Objection 2. Just as before the institution of circuмcision (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm), faith (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) in Christ (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) to come justified both children and adults, so, too, after its institution. But before, there was no need of a sign expressive of this faith (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm); because as yet believers had not begun to be united together apart from unbelievers for the worship of one God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm). It is probable, however, that parents who were believers offered up some prayers (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12345b.htm) to God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) for their children, especially if these were in any danger. Or bestowed some blessing (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02599b.htm) on them, as a "seal of faith (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm)"; just as the adults offered prayers (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12345b.htm) and sacrifices (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13309a.htm) for themselves.
Reply to Objection 3. There was an excuse for the people in the desert failing to fulfill the precept of circuмcision (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm), both because they knew (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) not when the camp was removed, and because, as Damascene (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08459b.htm) says (De Fide Orth. iv) they needed no distinctive sign while they dwelt apart from other nations. Nevertheless, as Augustine (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm) says (QQ. in Josue vi), those were guilty of disobedience who failed to obey through contempt.
It seems, however, that none of the uncircuмcised died in the desert, for it is written (Psalm 104:37 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/psa104.htm#verse37)): "There was not among their tribes one that was feeble": and that those alone died in the desert, who had been circuмcised (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm) in Egypt (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05329b.htm). If, however, some of the uncircuмcised did die there, the same applies to them as to those who died before the institution of circuмcision (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm). And this applies also to those children who, at the time (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14726a.htm) of the Law (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10582c.htm), died before the eighth day.
Reply to Objection 4. Original sin (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm) was taken away in circuмcision (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm), in regard to the person (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm); but on the part of the entire nature (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm), there remained the obstacle to the entrance of the kingdom of heaven (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08646a.htm), which obstacle was removed by Christ's (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) Passion (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11527b.htm). Consequently, before Christ's Passion (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11527b.htm) not even Baptism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) gave entrance to the kingdom. But were circuмcision (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm) to avail after Christ's Passion (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11527b.htm), it would give entrance to the kingdom.
Reply to Objection 5. When adults were circuмcised (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm), they received remission not only of original, but also of actual sin (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm): yet not so as to be delivered from all debt of punishment, as in Baptism (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm), in which grace (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689a.htm) is conferred more copiously.
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4070.htm
Sean,
St. Thomas wrote before Trent. At the Council of Trent, Session VI, the Church stated:
CHAPTER I.
On the Inability of Nature and of the Law to justify man.
The holy Synod declares first, that, for the correct and sound understanding of the doctrine of Justification, it is necessary [Page 31] that each one recognise and confess, that, whereas all men had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam-having become unclean, and, as the apostle says, by nature children of wrath, as (this Synod) has set forth in the decree on original sin,-they were so far the servants of sin, and under the power of the devil and of death, that not the Gentiles only by the force of nature, but not even the Jєωs by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom; although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them.
https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html (https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html)
I'm not saying that St. Thomas's thought there couldn't still be sound; that's a long passage you quoted, and needs to be thought on. But I wanted to at least point the above out.
Baptism and the Baptism of Desire
By Raymond Taouk (SSPX)
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm
What is the Church's teaching on the Necessity of Baptism?
It is by baptism that we are incorporated into the mystical body of Christ. However, what makes one a member of the Church primarily in a certain sense is faith, since even amongst the damned souls in hell there are those who have the baptismal character and yet are not members of the Church in any sense of the term. While the sacraments give a visible dimension to the faith, as an external profession of the Church, it is nevertheless true to state that faith is a more fundamental requirement for Church membership for those on earth.[1] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn1) For that reason the Church teaches that, “Baptism of water is really necessary by necessity of means, but extrinsically only, according to the positive will of God. But what is necessary only extrinsically can be supplied through something else; it was altogether fitting that this would be supplied through charity or perfect contrition, which are the best depositions". [2] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn2)
While for infants, baptism is the sole means of salvation, (as they cannot make an act of faith, which requires the use of reason), yet it may be rightly affirmed ask if “regardless of the absolute necessity of baptism for salvation, are there not other means [than that of water] of providing for it? The Fathers [of the Church] admit to baptism of blood or martyrdom, and in a certain measure the baptism of desire, as a means of replacing the baptism of water."[3] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn3)
Fr. Marin-Sola states in his theological treaties on the sacraments: “Certain heretics have affirmed that no adult can be saved without receiving baptism itself before he dies, however much he would burn with desire for it, and that it would do him no good unless he were washed with water. Baius (in a proposition condemned by Pope V) also taught that charity was not always joined to the remission of sins.” He continues on to state “Against the second part (baptism of blood) there are hardly any adversaries, save for a few theologians who disagree over the manner in which martyrdom achieves its effect.” [4] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn4)
The great theologian and doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus Liguori (1691-1787) teaches the same saying: “But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind␅ [flaminis] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind [flamen]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”- Moral Theology Book 6.
Is this the constant teaching of the Church?
This doctrine has been taught by doctors of the Church throughout her history from the earliest days down to recent times: "the Doctrine that Baptism of Water may be replaced by the Baptism of desire or by Baptism of Blood is not, as is some times supposed, a recent development of doctrine, it is taught for instance by St. Gregory nαzιanzen in a sermon preached in 381,[5] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn5) where mention is made of the Baptism of water, of Martyrdom and of tears. It must be observed that we do not hold that there are three kinds of Baptism, for in the creed read in the Mass, we confess one Baptism for the remission of sins, the actual reception of which, however, may be replaced in either of the two ways mentioned." [6] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn6)
Archbishop Francis Patrick Kenrick (1796-1863), while expounding on the necessity of baptism points out that:
"The martyr alone, or any other who desired the laver, but could not receive it, was excepted: because the desire of the heart is equivalent to the act itself, where necessity prevents its performance. Of the soldier, who took the place of a weak apostate, and filled up the glorious band of forty martyrs, St. Basil remarks: "he was baptized in Christ, not by another, but by his own faith; not in water, but in his own blood." "If any one receive not baptism," says St. Cyril of Jerusalem, "he is void of salvation, unless the martyrs alone, who without water receive the kingdom: for the Saviour having ransomed the world by His cross, and His side being pierced, water and blood issued from it, so that in time of peace some are baptized in water, and others, in time of persecution, are baptized in their own blood: for the Saviour calls martyrdom baptism, saying: 'Can you drink the chalice which I drink, and be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized?" (A Treatise on Baptism and a Treatise on Confirmation, by Francis Patirck Kenrick, 1852 edition, page 85)
Baptism of desire is not the sacrament of baptism and yet applying the term “baptism” to the baptism of blood and baptism of desire has been a practice of the Church for centuries. Even if it is not a baptism in the strict sense, it nevertheless is a baptism in the analogical sense. Just as receiving the Eucharist by making a spiritual “Communion” is not a true Communion, but given the name “Spiritual Communion” in the analogical sense. In both cases, no one is denying the primary term. On the same point, St. Albert the Great says that the baptism of blood and the baptism of desire can only be called baptism when water baptism is lacking.[7] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn7)
In this sense, "Baptisms of desire" and "Baptism of blood" are not sacraments, but simply fulfil the requirements when the sacrament cannot be received due to extraordinary circuмstances. Thus, one speaks metaphorically of "different Baptisms" yet they all obtain the same sanctifying grace. In fact, Our Lord Himself spoke of different Baptisms during His public ministry. There was "the Baptism wherewith I am to be baptized" (Lk. 12:50), referring to a Baptism of blood, which was His crucifixion. Describing the descent of the Holy Ghost on Pentecost, he says "For John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence" (Act. 1:5).
Concerning the necessity of the sacraments for salvation Peter Lombard (1160 AD) points out that, “God did not bind his power by the Sacraments.”[8] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn8) In other words, God is not bound by the sacraments to draw men to heaven (Cf. Job 33:15-18). St. Thomas Aquinas affirms the same as he points out “It belongs to the excellence of Christ power, that He (Christ) could bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the exterior sacrament.”[9] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn9)
In fact, if we turn to the authority of the Church Fathers we also find that their unanimity on the point gives us a sure certitude for this teaching since “the unanimity of the Fathers (Consensus Patrum), in matters of faith and morals, begets complete certainty and commands assent, because they, as a body, bear witness to the teaching and belief of the infallible Church, representing the Church herself. So the authority of the Fathers is binding only when they all agree upon a question of faith and morals. The consensus, however, need not be absolute; a moral agreement suffices, as, for instance, when some of the greatest Fathers testify to a doctrine of the Church, and the rest, though quite aware of it, do not positively oppose it.” [10] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn10)
What does it mean to belong to the Church by desire’ or ‘longing’?
St. Thomas Aquinas states that" 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 (Apoc. 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: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this, it is written (Is. 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." 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 shall you 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." [11] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn11) He also states "Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. Moreover, such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that works by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for." [12] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn12)
What do you mean by an implicit desire?
By an implicit desire we mean that it requires some supernatural faith, but with invincible ignorance of the Church as St. Paul put it "He that comes to God must believe he is; and is a rewarder of them that seek him" (Heb 11:6). Although the Church dose not judge the subjective dispositions of individuals is able to affirm this teaching based on the words of Christ, "Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my heavenly father" (Matt 10:32). This implicit faith also implies a detestation of sin (Acts 2:38) and a will to obey God (James 2:17, 2:24 -6, Jn 14:15, 1 Cor 13:2) as sin and the obstinacy to God are both incompatible to the state of grace which is essential to salvation.
By an implicit faith in God the Church does not mean a mere knowledge of God (as can be derived from reason alone) but a supernatural knowledge which is accompanied by a supernatural act of faith (Heb 11:16, Rom 5:1-5, Rom 10:13). In declaring that baptism may be had by desire or by blood, we can clearly see just how necessary it is to be baptized, since if one does not even have the efficacious desire to be baptized then he cannot be saved! This alone shows us the reality of the number of the damned since even an implicit desire for baptism requires a supernatural faith in God.
Thus, there is need of explicit faith in some article of faith. In the implicit desire of baptism, the act of Faith and hope must be explicit while it suffices for the desire of baptism itself to be implicit since he who desires the whole desires necessarily every part of that whole. For example if a Pagan is touched by the Martyrdom of some Catholic and then openly declares himself to believe in the God of this Christian who was put to death and in turn is himself put to death. He would have an explicit faith in Christ yet knowing little about Christ or the Sacraments. Our Lord has promised: "Every one that confess me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in Heaven." St. Augustine points out that these words are as universal in their scope and import as those in which our lord taught the general necessity of baptism of water. Hence he deduces the consequence that the remission of sins is secured by death for Christ, as certainly as by the sacrament of Baptism. [13] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn13)
St. Thomas States, "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification; it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification”.[14] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn14)
Further the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X states that "The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least IMPLICIT OF BAPTISM, and this is called Baptism of Desire".
It is for this reason that the Council of Trent teaches: "the state of grace cannot be had except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it". [15] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn15)
The word “Votum” (as used by the Council of Trent) is not some superficial wish. That is not the meaning of the word at all. In fact, we must keep in mind that the very nature of faith means that it cannot be totally implicit as it is necessary to know and believe something divinely revealed with a supernatural faith. Laboring under invincible ignorance does not prevent a person from being converted to God by contrition or by an act of perfect Charity. In this act of contrition or perfect act of charity must be contained either an explicit or implicit desire to receive baptism by water according as the notion of baptism is or is not present to the mind of the Person who has turned his heart and mind to God.
St. Alphonsus Liguori in his commentary on the Works of the Council of Trent, openly states regarding the sacrament of Baptism that" Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament." [16] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn16)
St. Augustine also distinguishes between the sacrament of Baptism and the turning of the heart to God. He teaches that if either of these conditions cannot be secured, the other will be sufficient. A baptized Child is saved, without turning its heart to God, should it die before coming to the age of reason, and a man who turns his heart to God is saved without water baptism, provided he in no way despise the sacrament. [17] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn17)
Although those who obtain the state of grace by means of the baptism of Blood or Desire, are members of the Church, but they do not have “social membership” here on earth unless baptized with water, since they do not have the character[18] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn18) of baptism which is imprinted on the soul in the baptism of water. However, it is essential to maintain that we have only one baptism (Eph. 4:4-5) as in all cases it is baptism we are referring to and not another type of sacrament. While it is true to say that they do not receive the character of baptism, it is also true to affirm that they do not receive the total remission of temporal punishments due to sin.
In any case, there is no Baptism of desire without the supernatural virtue of faith and a certain explicit knowledge of the essential points of faith. Since the nature of faith means that is impossible, that it be completely implicit since faith is a supernatural light to the intelligence.
What does Scripture say on this issue?
In Sacred Scripture Our Lord alludes frequently to the internal dispositions, which must precede the outward manifestation of faith. In verses John 3:3-8, Christ speaks of Baptism five times but Baptism of water only once. For instance, He mentions the man "who is born of the spirit" (6, 8). St. Thomas Aquinas discussed the verse concerning Baptism by water (Jn 3:5) in the following context:
As it is written (I King 16:7), "Man sees those things that appear, but the Lord beholds the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in the heart, though not in body: thus the Apostle says (Rom. 2:29) that "The circuмcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but God."
The primacy of the spirit is nowhere more plainly expressed than when Cornelius, a Roman centurion, is received into the Church. Note the sequence of events:
"While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word. And the faithful of the circuмcision, who came with Peter, were astonished, for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also.... And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" (Act. 10:44-48).
Archbishop Francis Patrick Kenrick (1796-1863), points out in this regard that: " Cornelius and his family received the Holy Ghost whilst Peter was yet speaking to them, before they were baptized. (Acts 10, 44) Others may receive grace in like manner, and be justified before the actual reception of the sacrament, the grace whereof they may receive by anticipation, God accepting the desire of their heart, and subsequently in its reception conferring more abundant grace. This may particularly happen in regard to such as are snatched out of life before they can receive the sacrament. The believer, whilst preparing for its reception, may suddenly feel the approach of death, when no minister of God or other person is at hand to make the sacred ablution. Relatives, under the influence of strong prejudices, may refuse to the dying man the opportunity of receiving the sanctifying rite. In such circuмstances his faith, desire, and love will no doubt obtain for him from the divine goodness the grace which he earnestly implores. This sentiment is not at all inconsistent with the belief of the necessity of Baptism for all who have it in their power to receive it, and of its efficacy, whereby grace is imparted to the worthy receiver." (The Catholic Doctrine on Justification, Archbishop Francis Patrick Kenrick, page 133-134)
Our Lord also stated, "Everyone that shall confess me before men, I will also confess before My Father in Heaven" (Mt. 10:32). This was later taken by many saints as a reference to Baptism of blood in place of water, as undergone by the catechumen martyrs.
Our Lord also declares; “Unless[19] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn19) you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven” (John 6:8). Now if we affirm that someone who dies in the state of grace without receiving the Eucharist will be saved we would obviously have to qualify the statement of Our Lord by adding "at least in desire".[20] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn20)
What is more is that St. Paul clearly states that by the state of Justification (being in the state of grace) we are made sons of God “Being justified therefore by faith, let us have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access through faith into this grace wherein we stand: and glory in the hope of the glory of the sons of God” ( Romans 5:1).
Now St. Paul also affirms “And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God and joint heirs with Christ” - Romans 5:17 (See also Titus 3:7). Hence, it clearly follows that if we die justified we indeed shall attain to the reward of the just, which is eternal life.
Doesn't this go against the Dogma "No Salvation outside the Church"?
No. The Dogma "No Salvation outside the Church" is an objective judgment based on the words of Christ and Church teaching. The Church however by means of this does not propose to judge the internal dispositions of individuals as this judgment is reserved to God alone for the Church does not Judge the internals or the dead for that matter, she judges objective facts. With this in mind, we must further affirm that even if we distinguish the visible, structural elements of the Church from the spiritual life of grace flowing in her members (body and soul of the Church) they only designate differently the same Church.[21] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn21) We must affirm this fact since we must never forget that there is no belonging to the soul of the Church if one refuses to belong to its body[22] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn22). Since what is meant by "the Body of the Church" is simply the visible Society of the Roman Catholic Church, while by the term "the Soul of the Church" we are simply referring to the supernatural bonds of faith, hope and Charity.
The Church is necessary for all for salvation. This necessity is not only one of precept[23] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn23) but also of means (either as a cause or condition without which one cannot be saved) and this at least in desire. Disobedience to this command would forestall salvation.
As regards those who belong to the Church St. Augustine points out that, "When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body . . . All who are within in heart are saved in the unity of the ark" (Baptism 5:28:39). Yet we must keep in mind that no one who positively repudiates the Church can be said to belong to the Church in any sense. As St. Cyprian put it: "he will not have God for his Father who would not have the Church for his mother."
Pope Pius XII exclaimed the same when he stated, "those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church . . . we ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in he Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with us in the one, organic Body of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the society of glorious love".[24] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn24)
Further more St. Robert Bellarmine in his work" De Ecclesia Militante" states "there are those who belong to the soul [of the Church] and not the body, as [are] catechumens or the excommunicated, if indeed they have charity [state of grace], which can happen." Again he also affirms that "Catechumens however if not in re at least in voto are in the Church and are therefore able to be saved."[25] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn25)
While such persons are said to belong to the Soul of the Church it's important to keep in mind that no body can be said to belong to the soul of the Church if he does not at least desire to belong to the body of the Church.
Ultimately, to understand this dogma we must primarily understand primarily that when the Church declares it to an infallible to truth that "There is no Salvation outside the Church", she (the Church) is making an "Objective" judgment. She is not making a "Subjective" Judgment! She judges from the facts and hence she does not seek to judge the individual dispositions of men. This is for God alone. She judges from the facts. These facts are that those who separate themselves from the Church or those who are not part of her have not communion with her and with this knowledge and the Truths of the gospel she can unhesitatingly declare with Christ (her divine founder) that those who reject the Church reject salvation (Matt 18:17). The Church does not claim to judge each individual person, but errors. Hence, those who hold to these errors and die in them cannot be saved. This is precisely how this dogma is to be understood.
St. Thomas Aquinas when speaking of the salvation of infidels states that “Granted that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, no untenable conclusion follows even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to divine providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that of his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, (in which case a desire for baptism would still be necessary) or would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20).” [26] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn26)
In dealing with the same issue St. Bonaventure states that “God obliges no one to do the impossible and therefore it must be admitted that the baptism of desire without the baptism of water is sufficient, provided the person in question has the will to receive the baptism of water, but is prevented from doing so before he dies." [27] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn27)
As early as 1713 Clement XI condemned in his dogmatic Bull "Unigenitus" the proposition of the Jensenist Quesnel that affirmed that “no grace is given outside the Church” just as Alexander VIII has already condemned in 1690 the Jansenistic proposition of Arnauld that “Pagans, Jєωs, heretics, and other people of the sort, receive no influx [of grace] whatsoever from Jesus Christ”.
A dilemma that we pose for those who deny this teaching (baptism of desire) is that when Pope Boniface VIII declared that there "Outside the Church there is no salvation nor remission of sins"[28] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn28). We all agree that a person can be justified outside the Church. However, this justification means remission of sins, because it puts one in the state of grace. Thus, if we are to take this Bull rigorously as the Feeneyites wish[29] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn29), then we must say also that there can be no justification/remission of sins before entrance in the Church/water Baptism. How is it that such persons will often admit that one can be justified before baptism of water and then at the same time declare that such justified persons are still totally outside the Church and are not members of the Church in any sense of the word? This goes directly against the words of Pope Boniface VIII who made it clear that "Outside the Church is no salvation nor remission of sins". This must obviously mean that those who are justified without water baptisms are indeed members in some sense of the term or else one could never admit that a person could be justified (have the remission of their sins) before baptism (by water).
It is only with a proper understanding of the faith that we are able to put the Church's teaching on this issue in its proper context, without avoiding excess or defect. For that same reason, it is worth noting that the Church has always condemned the following as errors opposed to the faith:[30] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftn30)
First error: "Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true." (Proposition XV).
Second error that: "Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation and arrive at eternal salvation." (Proposition XVI).
Third error: "Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ." (Proposition XVII).
Fourth error: "Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church." (Proposition XVIII).
Conclusion:
While it might seem insignificant to have given an in-depth analysis to this question on baptism. Yet like in all questions of controversy, the elaboration of the truth on any given point of doctrine is essential for a clear understand of what we are required to believe as Catholics.
This teaching of the Church far from taking away the obligation to be baptized or to enter the Church rather affirms to us not only the necessity for entering the Church but also the necessity for baptism. It shows us the real implications for willfully neglecting to receive baptism and enter the Church, which is the sole ark of Salvation. Even if the Church teaches that it is possible to attain salvation by of the "baptism of desire" or "Baptism of Blood", she is not teaching that it is the ordinary means of salvation for anyone. It would only be by a moral miracle that a person could be saved in such a manner, since what is by definition beyond the ordinary is extraordinary. There is no question of individuals being saved by their own efforts, without God's grace, and therefore outside the Church. On the contrary, it is stated that because these individuals are holding to the true teaching of Christ that they are joined invisibly to the Church. Thus, strictly speaking, one does not say "non-Catholics may be saved" or "Protestants can go to heaven." There are no non-Catholics in the Church and there are no non-Catholics in heaven. The only souls in heaven are those who have joined themselves to the Church in fact or desire.
[1] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref1) (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref1) Cf. Summa Theologica III Q. 8. Art 3
[2] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref2) (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref2) AD. TANQUEREY, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, Vol II, 1959, Pg. 229
[3] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref3) (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref3) Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique, Section on Baptism - Bapteme d'apres les peres Grecs et Latins.
[4] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref4) (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref4) De Sacramentis, (BAC, 1954), 69.
[5] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref5) (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref5) Orat. 39, In Sancta Lumina, 17; P.G. 35; 356
[6] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref6) (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref6) Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Sylvester J. Hunter, S.J. (London, Longmans Green & Co) 1896, Vol III, No. 696, Pg. 228
[7] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref7) (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref7) Opera Omnia Tomus XXVI, pp.35-40, See also De Baptismo Q.I, art. 7, De Divisione Baptismo
[8] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref8) (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref8) DTC Col. 537
[9] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref9) (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref9) Summa Theologica III, Q. 64, Art. 3. He also states elsewhere “God did not bind his power to the sacraments, so as to be unable to bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament’ – Ibid, Art. 7.
[10] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref10) (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref10) Manual of Patrology, by Rev. Bernard Schid, O.S. B, Herder Book Co., 1917, Pg. 31.
[11] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref11) (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref11) - Summa Theologica, III, q 66. a 11
[12] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref12) (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref12) Cf. Summa Theologica III, q68, a 2
[13] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref13) De Civitate Dei, 13,7.
[14] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref14) Summa Theologica III, q68, a 2
[15] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref15) DzB 796.
[16] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref16) (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref16) St. Alphonsus Liguori on the Council of Trent, 1846, Pg. 128 -129 (published by James Duffy, Dublin, 10 Wellington Quay).
[17] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref17) (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref17) De Baptismo, IV.25,32.
[18] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref18) (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref18) St. Thomas states (Cf. Summa Theologica, III, Q63) that the purpose of the Character is to depute/ordain us for the Public worship of God in this life, since in the next life it will have no purpose as such even though it shall not be blotted out as the Council of Trent points out (Dz 852). This Character is a spiritual power or potency by which we participate in the priesthood of Christ, either actively (as is the case for priests) or passively (as is the case for the faithful) so that we may render public worship to God as members of Catholic Church. Yet this does not prevent an individual by means of virtue or religion of rendering private worship to God and directing their acts God as desiring to be united to God and his Church.
[19] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref19) Note that in both John 3:5 and John 6:8 the same Latin word “nisi” is used for unless/except.
[20] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref20) (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref20) St. Thomas Aquinas points this out when dealing with the question of the Eucharist and its necessity for salvation - (Summa Theologica, III, Q73, Art. 3).
[21] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref21) (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref21) Cf. Mystici Corporis # 62f, #1063f, Satis Cognitum #543.
[22] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref22) (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref22) Billot, De Eccl. Pg323
[23] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref23) (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref23) 1 Thess. 5:12-13, Heb. 13:7, 17; Matt. 16:15-18; 10:14, Luke 10:16, Acts 20:28
[24] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref24) Mystici Corporis 103
[25] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref25) (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref25) De Ecclesia Militante, Lib. III, Cap. 3
[26] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref26) (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref26) De Veritate, Q14, Art. 11 ad 1.
[27] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref27) (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref27) St. Bonaventure, In Sent. IV, d.4,P.2,a.I,q.I.
[28] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref28) (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref28) Bull Unam Sanctum, 1302 Feen
[29] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref29) (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref29) “Feeneyites” – The Followers of Fr. Feeney, who denied the Church’s teaching on the Baptism of desire and blood. His followers deny the possibility to anyone who has not received baptism by water to enter the kingdom of heaven, without exception.
[30] (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref30) (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm#_ftnref30) Pius IX: Principal errors concerning the Church, Syllabus, Dec. 8, 1884
Yes, this is a big problem with the circuмcision position. I personally do not believe that circuмcision remitted Original Sin, as it were, ex opere operato. So in the OT there were no just women who were saved, not even the likes of St. Ann? There's something missing with the circuмcision theory. St. Paul seemed to indicate that OT justification came through faith in the coming Redeemer.
And then there's Trent:
CHAPTER I.
On the Inability of Nature and of the Law to justify man.
The holy Synod declares first, that, for the correct and sound understanding of the doctrine of Justification, it is necessary [Page 31] that each one recognise and confess, that, whereas all men had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam-having become unclean, and, as the apostle says, by nature children of wrath, as (this Synod) has set forth in the decree on original sin,-they were so far the servants of sin, and under the power of the devil and of death, that not the Gentiles only by the force of nature, but not even the Jєωs by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom; although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them.
https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html (https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html)
(https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html)Shawn side-stepped the issue when I brought it up with a straw man stuffed with imaginary claims on my part that one couldn't follow St. Alphonsus and accusations of "grievous error" in St. Alphonsus and the pre-Vatican II Church that made him a saint/doctor that spelled out an interregnum well before Vat II.
St. Paul indeed indicated that OT justification came through faith, and spent chapters of Romans pointing that out with regard to the OT saint of saving faith, Father Abraham. One could argue that Abraham's faith was not implicit - Christ said Father Abraham "saw his day and was glad" in the Gospel of John - but here's my point again, differently worded.
Even if one were to maintain that one could be justified by circuмcision, it would be true that one could also be justified under the old dispensation by, as St. Alphonsus says, "perfect conversion to God by contrition and love of God above all things" moved by the grace ("wind") of the Holy Ghost.
If one could also be justified that way after the promulgation of the Gospel, it appears to me then that Trent would be just blowing so much smoke in saying that the manner of justification, under the "law of grace," "since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof."
Now, whatever you want to think about BoD, I'm not that interested in the question. I'm only interested in the contention that those who do not have an at least rudimentary explicit Catholic faith can be saved. ALL OF THE VATICAN II ERRORS can be traced directly to this notion, the new ecclesiology, religious liberty, everything.
Ladislaus made a distinction between implicit BOD and implicit faith, and I agree that the distinction is important, but there is a connection between the two in an important sense.
Many of the problems in the Church today stem from a reaction to the Protestant revolt of the 16th century. While Ladislaus correctly identified the Jesuit response to the reality of large masses of men in the New World that had not been exposed to the Gospel, which of course has nothing to do with the Prot revolt, the Prot revolt contributed to the humanism (the "enlightenment" etc.) that influenced Jesuit thinking by exacerbating it with a spirit of a sort of "if the Prots emphasize this and make it a cause celebre it must be bad and the truth must be other."
The Prot emphasis I speak of is the the Biblical (and quite Catholic) doctrines of Predestination and divine election of the saints. Perhaps the Prot emphasis on this was in itself a reaction to early speculations in the Church (there was essentially only "the Catholic Church" in the West prior to the revolt) upon the discovery of the New World shortly before the revolt, a speculation which was taken up by the Jesuits in force shortly after. In any event, I think there was a gut, Catholic response in the other direction - an overemphasis on man's freedom of will - to the Prot emphasis of Luther and later Calvin etc. upon Predestination and divine election of the saints, and I propose that this response is a primary cause of the excessive development of BOD and the erosion of EENS.
Simply put, if man is free and God wills the salvation of all men and gives all a meaningful shot at salvation, how could those who have never heard the Gospel, or, later and now gone wild post-Vat II, men of "good faith" who were raised in other religions, not have a chance at salvation in their cultural "reality"?
But the old and quite Traditional Catholic doctrine of Predestination and election was succinctly set forth by Father Garrigou-Lagrange in his book Predestination thus:
From all these passages of Scripture, St. Augustine formu-
lated this classical definition: "Predestination is the fore-
knowledge and preparedness on God's part to bestow the fa-
vors by which all those are saved who are to be saved." St.
Augustine is still more explicit on this point when he writes:
"God already knew, when He predestined, what He must do to bring
his elect to eternal life."
God determines whom He will save, and then provides them the means (or what is necessary) by which He has decided to save them. This is the classical Catholic, Augustinian (and as Father GL shows in his book, Thomistic) doctrine.
You see then with this understanding how it all falls into place: a) if God had determined to save by baptism (John 3:5), then the elect will be baptized; b) if God has determined that the Church be the portal on earth through which men enter heaven, they will be baptized and Catholic; c) if God has determined that the faith which saves men is the Catholic faith, the elect will have the Catholic faith - you could formulate thus regarding all the means established by God for salvation.
As should be apparent, all of the "problems" of the salvation of the non-baptized and the non-Catholic evaporate under the Traditional Catholic and Augustinian doctrine.
Of course, post-Vatican II in the NO Church things have deteriorated so badly that the traditional, Catholic doctrine is not only gone but considered heretical (again, historically fueled by the reaction I mentioned, since its being held by many Protestants, which is ironic since they're now "brethren"). Related to this is the doctrine of predilection, which, again, is Augustinian and Thomistic - read Father GL's book. Simply stated, this means that God loves some more than others, and wills the salvation of some more than others. I mentioned this one time to a zealous NO Catholic, and was promptly labelled a heretic for saying such.
This is where we are, and the loss of the Traditional, Catholic (Augustinian and Thomistic) doctrine of Predestination and election underlies the manifestation in its symptoms in implied BOD, implicit faith and the current, effective denial of EENS.
There is an interesting preface to an article located here:
SSPX Asia
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/Part_II/1988-05-13.htm
Archbishop LEFEBVRE and the VATICAN
That Archbishop May considers that these Hindus with their vague search for God will avoid hell, while they are still ignorant of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the only Savior, is tantamount to a practical denial of the Catholic Faith. “But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and is a reminder to them that seek Him” (Heb. 11:6). St. Augustine explains very well that, though ignorance excuses from an additional sin against Faith, it is incapable of cleansing the original sin and other sins with which one’s soul is burdened. Baptism of desire only applies to those who, by a special grace of the Holy Ghost, have received the virtues of the Catholic Faith, Hope and Charity. (See St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, IIIa, Q.66, A.11.) How Archbishop May can apply this doctrine to Hindus “in search of God” is a mystery of iniquity (II Thess. 2:7).
A TALK HEARD ROUND THE WORLD
Angelus, April 2006
http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2497 (http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2497)
Bishop Bernard Fellay
Quote
Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.
But these things are so invisible, so subjective, that the Church has hardly spoken about it. We know the principle, but the Church has never made a practical application of it because it is too sensitive and delicate. Who can know who is in the state of grace or not? The Council of Trent teaches that no one can know it except through a special revelation or illumination from God.
Deuteronomy 5:8-9
[8] Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any things, that are in heaven above, or that are in the earth beneath, or that abide in the waters under the earth. [9] Thou shalt not adore them, and thou shalt not serve them.
Should I be as sharp to Bishop Fellay as the article preface was to Archbishop May?
How Bishop Fellay can conceive of the possibility of a idol worshiping Hindu living according to "the laws which God has put into his heart" is a mystery of iniquity (II Thess. 2:7).