The Case for Baptism of Desire
The Case for Baptism of Desire
The reasons why Catholics must believe in baptism of desire and blood are simple and clear: (1) it was taught by the Council of Trent; (2) it is the universal teaching of Catholic pastors and theologians. This is easy to demonstrate. If you’re struggling with baptism of desire and blood, focus on the evidence presented here, and allow it to motivate your assent to the truth. You don’t need to know the answer to every objection before assenting to the truth; that would misdirect your effort into a never-ending task.
Arguments
1. The Council of Trent taught baptism of desire.
2. The Church universally teaches baptism of desire and blood.
Sources: Council of Trent, Catechism of Trent, 1917 Code of Canon Law, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Robert Bellarmine, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, Bp. George Hay, Fr. Michael Müller
Large collection of sources (pdf)
----------------------------------
1. The Council of Trent taught baptism of desire.
The Council of Trent, sess. vi, chap. 4: “[first justification], since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof…”
This means that before receiving the sacrament of baptism, one may be justified as the result of supernatural faith and charity, not as an alternative to the sacrament, but as an anticipation of its chief effect which is justification. The desire for baptism may be explicit, or it may be implicit in the desire to do all that God commands.
It is certain that this is the true meaning of the Council of Trent because the teaching Church explains it that way. For example, both St. Alphonsus Liguori and St. Robert Bellarmine – saints, bishops, and doctors of the Church – cite this passage in support of baptism of desire. Also, the Catechism of Trent, which was commissioned by the Council and approved by the pope, is a reliable guide to the Council’s teaching, and it teaches baptism of desire.
2. The Church universally teaches baptism of desire and blood.
Baptism of desire and blood have been the universal teaching of Catholic pastors and theologians at least since the time of St. Thomas Aquinas (13th century), perhaps much longer. During that time, no dissenting opinion has been held even by a minority of theologians. According to Doronzo (De Baptismo, 1947), the last two Catholic writers to oppose baptism of desire were Abelard (12th century) and Baius (16th century), and the Church condemned several propositions of Baius that led to his denial. Doronzo says that a handful of post-Trent theologians hold a stricter view of the conditions in which baptism of desire occurs, implying that the doctrine itself is affirmed by all.
The Church’s doctrine was embodied in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which affirms baptism of desire explicitly in canon 737 and implicitly in canon 1239. The universal law of the Church cannot contain anything offensive to Catholic faith or morals.
The best sources in favor of baptism of desire are quoted below. Here is a larger collection of quotations (pdf).
Bishop George Hay, Fr. Michael Müller, and Orestes Brownson are quoted here because they defended a strict opinion on the minimum requirements for salvation, yet they plainly affirmed baptism of desire. One can see that they did not affirm it because they were forced to do so, but rather because they believed it and liked it. This shows that baptism of desire does not conflict with the dogma “outside the Church there is no salvation,” and it implies that one will never find a post-Trent Catholic author who denies baptism of desire.
Council of Trent, sess. VI, chaps. 3-4, 1547 A.D.
CHAPTER III. Who are justified through Christ.
But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated. For as in truth men, if they were not born propagated of the seed of Adam, would not be born unjust, – seeing that, by that propagation, they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own, – so, if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just. For this benefit the apostle exhorts us, evermore to give thanks to the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light, and hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the Kingdom of the Son of his love, in whom we have redemption, and remission of sins.
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 Savior. 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.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, 1566 A.D. (Donovan) (McHugh/Callan)
The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted, to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn baptism: infants, unless baptized, cannot enter heaven, and hence we may well conceive how deep the enormity of their guilt, who, through negligence, suffer them to remain without the grace of the sacrament, longer than necessity may require; particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death. With regard to adults who enjoy the perfect use of reason, persons, for instance, born of infidel parents, the practice of the primitive Church points out a different manner of proceeding: to them the Christian faith is to be proposed; and they are earnestly to be exhorted, allured, and invited to embrace it. If converted to the Lord God, they are then to be admonished, not to defer baptism beyond the time prescribed by the Church: it is written, “delay not to be converted to the Lord, and defer it not from day to day;” and they are to be taught, that in their regard perfect conversion consists in regeneration by baptism. Besides, the longer they defer baptism, the longer are they deprived of the use and graces of the other Sacraments, which fortify in the practice of the Christian religion, and which are accessible through baptism only. They are also deprived of the inestimable graces of baptism, the salutary waters of which not only wash away all the stains of past sins, but also enrich the soul with divine grace, which enables the Christian to avoid sin for the future, and preserve the invaluable treasures of righteousness and innocence: effects which, confessedly, constitute a perfect epitome of a Christian life.
On this class of persons, however, the Church does not confer this Sacrament hastily: she will have it deferred for a certain time; nor is the delay attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned: and should any unforeseen accident deprive adults of baptism, their intention of receiving it, and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness. Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. — The Church must take particular care, that none approach this Sacrament, whose hearts are vitiated by hypocrisy and dissimulation; and, by the intervention of some delay, the intentions of such as solicit baptism, are better ascertained. In this wise precaution originated a decree, passed by the ancient councils, the purport of which was, that Jewish converts, before admission to baptism, should spend some months in the ranks of the Catechumens. The candidate for baptism is, also, thus better instructed in the faith which he is to profess, and in the morality which he is to practice; and the Sacrament, when administered with solemn ceremonies, on the appointed days of Easter and Pentecost only, is treated with more religious respect.
Sometimes, however, when there exists a just cause to exclude delay, as in the case of imminent danger of death, its administration is not to be deferred; particularly, if the person to be baptized is well instructed in the mysteries of faith. This we find to have been done by Philip, and by the prince of the Apostles, when, without the intervention of any delay, the one baptized the Eunuch of queen Candace, the other, Cornelius, as soon as they professed a willingness to embrace the faith of Christ. The faithful are, also, to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for baptism, that, in the first place, they must desire and purpose to receive it; for, as in baptism we die to sin and engage to live a new life, it is fit that it be administered to those, only, who receive it of their own free will and accord, and is to be forced upon none. Hence, we learn from holy tradition, that it has been the invariable practice of the Church, to administer baptism to no individual, without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. This disposition even infants are presumed not to want — the will of the Church, when answering for them, is declared in the most explicit terms.
1917 Code of Canon Law
1. Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, actually or at least in desire is necessary for all for salvation and is not validly conferred except by washing with true and natural water along with the prescribed formula of words.
1. Those who die without baptism are not to be accorded ecclesiastical burial.
2. Catechumens who through no fault of their own die without baptism are to be reckoned as baptized.
3. All baptized are to be given ecclesiastical burial unless they are expressly deprived of same by law.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, circa 1270 A.D.
Whether three kinds of Baptism are fittingly described — viz., Baptism of water, of blood, and of the spirit? (III. q. 66. a. 11)
Objection 1. It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e., of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Eph. iv. 5): One Faith, one Baptism. Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.
Obj. 2. Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above (Q. LXV., A. I). Now none but Baptism of Water is a sacrament. Therefore we should not reckon two other Baptisms.
Obj. 3. Further, Damascene (De Fide Orthod. iv.) distinguishes several other kinds of Baptism. Therefore we should admit more than three Baptisms.
On the contrary, On Heb. vi. 2, Of the doctrine of Baptisms the gloss says: He uses the plural, because there is Baptism of Water, of Repentance, and of Blood.
I answer that, As stated above (Q. LXII., A. 5), Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ’s Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, 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. vii. 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 (Isa. iv. 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 shalt thou 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.
Reply Obj. 1. The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ’s Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.
Reply Obj. 2. As stated above (Q. LX., A. 1), a sacrament is a kind of sign. The other two, however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not sacraments.
Reply Obj. 3. Damascene enumerates certain figurative Baptisms. For instance, the Deluge was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of the salvation of the faithful in the Church; since then a few … souls were saved in the ark (Vulg., by water), according to 1 Pet. iii. 20. He also mentions the crossing of the Red Sea: which was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of our delivery from the bondage of sin; hence the Apostle says (1 Cor. x. 2) that all ... were baptized in the cloud and in the sea. — And again he mentions the various washings which were customary under the Old Law, which were figures of our Baptism, as to the cleansing from sins: also the Baptism of John, which prepared the way for our Baptism.
Whether the Baptism of blood is the most excellent of these three? (III. q. 66. a. 12)
Objection 1. It seems that the Baptism of Blood is not the most excellent of these three. For the Baptism of Water impresses a character; which the Baptism of Blood cannot do. Therefore the Baptism of Blood is not more excellent than the Baptism of Water.
Obj. 2. Further, the Baptism of Blood is of no avail without the Baptism of the Spirit, which is by charity; for it is written (1 Cor. xiii. 3): If I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. But the Baptism of the Spirit avails without the Baptism of Blood; for not only the martyrs are saved. Therefore the Baptism of Blood is not the most excellent.
Obj. 3. Further, just as the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy from Christ’s Passion, to which, as stated above (A. 11), the Baptism of Blood corresponds, so Christ’s Passion derives its efficacy from the Holy Ghost, according to Heb. ix. 14: The Blood of Christ, Who by the Holy Ghost offered Himself unspotted unto God, shall cleanse our conscience from dead works, etc. Therefore the Baptism of the Spirit is more excellent than the Baptism of Blood. Therefore the Baptism of Blood is not the most excellent.
On the contrary. Augustine (Ad Fortunatum) speaking of the comparison between Baptisms says: The newly baptized confesses his faith in the presence of the priest: the martyr in the presence of the persecutor. The former is sprinkled with water, after he has confessed; the latter with his blood. The former receives the Holy Ghost by the imposition of the bishop’s hands; the latter is made the temple of the Holy Ghost.
I answer that, As stated above (A. 11), the shedding of blood for Christ’s sake, and the inward operation of the Holy Ghost, are called baptisms, in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water. Now the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy from Christ’s Passion and from the Holy Ghost, as already stated (ibid.). These two causes act in each of these three Baptisms; most excellently, however, in the Baptism of Blood. For Christ’s Passion acts in the Baptism of Water by way of a figurative representation; in the Baptism of the Spirit or of Repentance, by way of desire; but in the Baptism of Blood, by way of imitating the (Divine) act. In like manner, too, the power of the Holy Ghost acts in the Baptism of Water through a certain hidden power; in the Baptism of Repentance by moving the heart; but in the Baptism of Blood by the highest degree of fervor of dilection and love, according to John xv. 13: Greater love than this no man hath that a man lay down his life for his friends.
Reply Obj. 1. A character is both reality and a sacrament. And we do not say that the Baptism of Blood is more excellent, considering the nature of a sacrament; but considering the sacramental effect.
Reply Obj. 2. The shedding of blood is not in the nature of a Baptism if it be without charity. Hence it is clear that the Baptism of Blood includes the Baptism of the Spirit, but not conversely. And from this it is proved to be more perfect.
Reply Obj. 3. The Baptism of Blood owes its pre-eminence not only to Christ’s Passion, but also to the Holy Ghost, as stated above.
Whether a man can be saved without Baptism? (III. q. 68 a. 2)
Objection 1. It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For Our Lord said (John iii. 5): Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. But those alone are saved who enter God’s kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.
Obj. 2. Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogmat. xli. it is written: We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism. But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have the faith that worketh by charity (Gal. v. 6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.
Obj. 3. Further, as stated above (A. 1; Q. LXV., A. 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary without which something cannot be (Metaph. v.). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv.) that 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.
I answer that, The sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
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. And 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 worketh 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.
Reply Obj. 1. As it is written (1 Kings xvi. 7), man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart. Now a man who desires to be born again of water and the Holy Ghost by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body; thus the Apostle says (Rom. ii. 29) that the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God.
Reply Obj. 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism — i.e., as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without faith that worketh by charity), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire, as is stated 1 Cor. iii. 15.
Reply Obj. 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; which, with God, counts for the deed (August., Enarr. in Ps. lvii.).
St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Theologia Moralis, Lib. vi., Tract. ii., 1785 A.D.
On Baptism
95. What does baptism mean?
Not treated here are the baptism of blood, that is, martyrdom; nor of wind, or spirit, that is, contrition, with vow or desire of baptism, which are not sacraments; but of the baptism of water, which is thus defined: A washing of the exterior body, done under the prescribed form of words.
Baptism therefore from the Greek word, which means washing, or immersion in water, is distinguished into baptism of water, of wind, and of blood.
96. Of the baptism of wind.
We speak below of the baptism of water, which most probably with St. Thomas, Salmanticenses, … was instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, at the time when Christ was baptized by John. But the baptism of wind is perfect conversion to God by contrition, or love of God above all, with an explicit or implicit desire of the true baptism of water, whose place it supplies (according to Council of Trent sess. 14 chap. 4) unto the remission of sins, but not unto the imposition of the [baptismal] character, nor unto the taking away of all punishment of sins. It is called of wind, because it occurs through the action of the Holy Spirit, Who is called a wind. Thus Viva, Salmanticenses with Vasquez, Val. Croix, and others. Now it is of faith (de fide) that men can also be saved by baptism of wind, from canon Apostolicam de presb. non bapt. and Council of Trent sess. 6 chap. 4. It says there that no one can be saved without the washing of regeneration, or its desire.
97. Of the baptism of blood.
The baptism of blood is the spilling of blood, or death suffered for the faith, or for another Christian virtue, as teach St. Thomas, Viva, Croix, Avers., Gob., etc. Now this baptism is compared to true baptism, because similarly to baptism, by the deed done (ex opere operato) it remits the guilt and the punishment. I say similarly, because martyrdom operates not strictly like a sacrament; but by a sort of privilege on account of the imitation of the passion of Christ, as say Bellarmine, Suarez, Sot., Cajetan, etc. … Therefore martyrdom avails even for infants, for the church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. Hence it is well taught by Suarez, with others according to Croix, that the opposing view is rash at least. But in adults the acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive, say Coninck, Cajetan, Suarez, Bon. and Croix against Viva, who does not require that it be accepted.
It is obvious that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because martyrdom is not an action instituted by Christ; and therefore the baptism of John was also not a sacrament, because it did not sanctify man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ.
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Sacramento Baptismi, Lib. I, chap. 6., 1596 A.D.
First proposition: Martyrdom is rightly called, and is a kind of Baptism. …
Second proposition: Perfect Conversion, and Penance is rightly called Baptism of wind, and it supplies for Baptism of water at least in cases of necessity. Note that not just any conversion is called Baptism of wind, but perfect conversion, which includes true contrition, and charity, and also desire, or will to receive Baptism.
Secondly, note that this proposition was not as certain with the ancients, as was the above. For as regards Martyrdom none of the ancients, as far as I know, denied that it could supply for Baptism of water: but as regards conversion and penance there were some who denied it. Indeed the book written on the dogmas of the Church, which is falsely attributed to Augustine, chap. 74 openly teaches that a Catechumen is not saved, although he should have lived in good works, unless he be purified by the baptism of water or of blood. Also it is clear from epistle 77 of St. Bernard, that some in his time believed the same.
But without doubt it is to be believed, that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water, when not through contempt but through necessity someone dies without Baptism of water. For this is expressly held by Ezech. 18: If the impious shall do penance for his sins, I will no more remember his iniquity. Ambrose openly teaches the same in his oration on the death of Valentinian the younger: “He whom I was to regenerate, I lost; but that grace, for which he hoped, he did not lose.” Likewise Augustine book 4 on Baptism, chap. 22. and Bernard epist. 77. and after them Innocent III. chap. Apostolicam, of an unbaptized priest. Thus also the Council of Trent, sess. 6. chap. 4. says that Baptism is necessary in reality or in desire. Finally, true conversion is associated with Martyrdom, and with Baptism of water, in the name of Baptism and in two effects; therefore it is credible that it also be associated in another effect, which is to forgive guilt, and to justify man, and in this way to supply for Baptism of water.
Pope Innocent II (Denzinger 388)
From the letter “Apostolicam Sedem” to the Bishop of Cremona, of uncertain time
To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of holy mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine’s “City of God” where among other things it is written, “Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.” Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned.
Pope Innocent III (Denzinger 413)
From the letter “Debitum pastoralis officii” to Berthold, the Bishop of Metz, August 28, 1206
You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water while saying: “I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.”
We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: “Go, baptize all nations in the name etc.,” (Matt. xxviii. 19.) the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another. … If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith.
Bishop George Hay, The Sincere Christian, vol. 2, 1822 and 1871 editions
Q. 27. But, suppose a person live in a false religion, and dies without being reunited to the communion of the Church of Christ, can it be said of such a one that he is certainly lost?
A. I must here put another question. Suppose a great sinner continues to live in his sins, and dies without any appearance of repentance, could you say of such a one that he is certainly lost? Certainly not; because no man knows, nor can know, what may have passed between God and his soul in his last moments; all that can be said is, that, if he has actually died without repentance, he is certainly lost; but if God, of his infinite goodness, has given him the grace of a perfect repentance, and he has corresponded on his part, with so great a favor, he will be saved. In the same manner, suppose a person living in a false religion dies without giving any appearance of embracing the true faith, or without being reconciled to the Church of Christ, we can never say for certain, of such a one, that he is lost; all that we can say must be under the same condition as in the other case, if he has actually died as he had lived, separated from the true Church of Christ, and without the true faith of Christ, he cannot be saved; but if God, in his great mercy, has given him, in his last moments, light and grace to see and embrace the true faith, and he has corresponded with so great a favor as God requires of him, he will be saved. Now, as no man knows, nor can know, what may have passed in the soul of either the one or the other at their last moments, so no man can pronounce of either that he is lost for certain.
Q. 28. But, in the case proposed, if a person, in his last moments, shall receive the light of faith from God, and embrace it with all his heart, would this be sufficient to make him a member of the true Church in the sight of God?
A. Most undoubtedly: the case is the same in this as in baptism. Though Jesus Christ expressly says, “Except a man be born again, of water and the holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” John iii., which establishes the absolute necessity of baptism for salvation; yet, suppose a Heathen, or Turk, or Jew, should be instructed in the faith of Christ, and embrace it with all his heart, but die suddenly without baptism, or be taken away by his infidel friends, or put in an absolute impossibility of receiving baptism, and die in the above dispositions, with a sincere repentance and desire of baptism, this person will undoubtedly receive all the fruits of baptism from God; and therefore, is said to be baptized in desire. In the same manner, suppose a person brought up in a false religion, embraces with all his heart, the light of the true faith, which God gives him in his last moments, as it is absolutely impossible for him, in that state, to join the external communion of the Church in the eyes of men, yet he will surely be considered as united to her in the sight of God, by means of the true faith which he embraces, and his desire of being united to the Church, if it were in his power.
Fr. Michael Müller, Grace and the Sacraments, 1882 A.D.
8. Can the baptism of water be ever supplied?
When a person cannot receive the baptism of water, it may be supplied by the baptism of desire, or by the baptism of blood.
Almighty God is goodness itself. Hence he wishes that all men should be saved. But, in order to be saved, it is necessary to pass, by means of baptism, from the state of sin to the state of grace. Infants, therefore, who die unbaptized, can never enter the kingdom of heaven. The case of grown persons is somewhat different; for, when grown persons cannot be actually baptized before death, then the baptism of water may be supplied by what is called the baptism of desire.
There is an infidel. He has become acquainted with the true faith. He most earnestly desires baptism. But he cannot have any one to baptize him before he dies. Now, is such a person lost because he dies without the baptism of water? No; in this case, the person is said to be baptized in desire.
9. What is the baptism of desire?
An earnest wish to receive baptism, or to do all that God requires of us for our salvation, together with a perfect contrition, or a perfect love of God.
An ardent desire of baptism, accompanied with faith in Jesus Christ and true repentance, is, with God, like the baptism of water. In this case, the words of the Blessed Virgin are verified: “The Lord has filled the hungry with good things.” (Luke i, 35.) He bestows the good things of heaven upon those who die with the desire of baptism. We read of a very interesting instance, in confirmation of this truth, in the Annals of the Propagation of the Faith. It is related by M. Odin, missionary apostolic, and, subsequently, Archbishop of New Orleans, Louisiana: “At some distance from our establishment at Barrens,” he says, “in Missouri, United States of America, there was a district inhabited by Protestants or infidels, with the exception of three or four Catholic families. In 1834 we had the consolation of baptizing several persons there: thus it was that the Lord was pleased to reward the kindness with which one of the most respectable inhabitants gave us hospitality every time we journeyed that way. This worthy man, who was not a Catholic, had three little children, who received with eagerness the instructions we never failed to give them. The tallest of the sons, only eight years old, especially showed such a particular relish for the word of God, that he learned by heart the entire catechism. Evening and morning he addressed his little prayer to the good God; and if ever his little sister missed that holy exercise, he reproached her very seriously. Things were at this point when the Cholera broke out in the neighborhood. Then this good little boy said simply to his mother: ‘Mamma, the cholera is coming here: oh! how glad I should be if the priests from the seminary came to baptize me! That cruel disease will attack me, I am sure it will, and I shall die without baptism; then you will be sorry.’ Alas! the poor child predicted truly: he was one of the first victims of the dreadful plague. During the short moments of his cruel sufferings he incessantly asked for baptism, and even with his last sigh he kept repeating: ‘Oh! if any one would baptize me! My God! must I die without being baptized? The mother, thinking that she could not herself administer that sacrament, although there was evident necessity, was in the greatest trouble; neither would the child consent to receive it from the hands of a Protestant minister. At last he died without having obtained his ardent wish. As soon as I heard of the cholera being in that part of the country, I hastened thither; but I only reached there some hours after the child’s funeral. The family was plunged in the greatest affliction. I consoled them as much as I could, and especially in relation to the eternal destiny of their poor little one, by explaining to them what the Church teaches us on the baptism of desire. This consoling doctrine much assuaged their grief; after giving the other necessary instructions, I baptized the mother and the two young children, and, some days after, the father failed not to follow the example of his family.” (“Catholic Anecdotes,” p. 547.)
Although it be true that the fathers of the Church have believed and taught that the baptism of desire may supply the baptism of water, yet this doctrine, as St. Augustine observes, should not make any one delay ordinary baptism when he is able to receive it; for, such a delay of baptism is always attended with great danger of salvation.
10. What is the baptism of blood?
Martyrdom for the sake of Christ.
There is still another case in which a person may be justified and saved without having actually received the sacrament of baptism, viz.: the case of a person suffering martyrdom for the faith before he has been able to receive baptism. Martyrdom for the true faith has always been held by the Church to supply the sacrament of baptism. Hence, in the case of martyrdom, a person has always been said to be baptized in his own blood. Our divine Savior assures us that “whosoever shall lose his life for his sake and the gospel, shall save it.” (Mark viii, 35.) He, therefore, who dies for Jesus Christ, and for the sake of his religion, obtains a full remission of all his sins, and is immediately after death admitted into heaven.
St. Emerentiana, while preparing to receive baptism, went to pray at the tomb of St. Agnes. While praying there, she was stoned to death by the heathens. Her parents were greatly afflicted, and almost inconsolable, when they learned that their daughter had died without having received baptism. To console her parents, God permitted Emerentiana to appear to them in her heavenly glory, and to tell them not to be any longer afflicted on account of her salvation, “for,” said she, “I am in heaven with Jesus, my dear Savior, whom I loved with my whole heart, when living on earth.” (Her Life, 23d Jan.)
St. Genesius of Arles is also honored as a saint, because, for refusing to subscribe to a persecuting edict of Maximilian, he was put to death, though, at that time, he had not been baptized.
Orestes Brownson, The Great Question, 1884 A.D.
We have, then, the right, nay, are bound by the force of the word itself, to understand by the church, out of which there is no salvation, the visible or external as well as the invisible or internal communion. Hence the Brothers Walenburch begin their Treatise on Unity and Schism by assuming, — “1. Ecclesiam vocatorum esse visibilem; 2. Extra communionem externam cum vera Jesu Christi Ecclesia, non esse salutem; Extare hoc tempore visibilem Ecclesiam Jesu Christi, cui se fideles debeant conjungere.”
What Bellarmine, Billuart, Perrone, and others say of persons pertaining to the soul and yet not to the body of the church makes nothing against this conclusion. They, indeed, teach that there is a class of persons that may be saved, who cannot be said to be actu et proprie in the church. Bellarmine and Billuart instance catechumens and excommunicated persons, in case they have faith, hope, and charity; Perrone, so far as we have seen, instances catechumens only; and it is evident from the whole scope of their reasoning that all they say on this point must be restricted to catechumens, and such as are substantially in the same category with them; for they instance no others, and we are bound to construe every exception to the rule strictly, so as to make it as little of an exception as possible. If, then, our conclusion holds true, notwithstanding the apparent exception in the case of catechumens and those substantially in the same category, nothing these authors say can prevent it from holding true universally.
Catechumens are persons who have not yet received the visible sacrament of baptism in re, and therefore are not actu et proprie in the church, since it is only by baptism that we are made members of Christ and incorporated into his body. With regard to these “there is a difficulty,” says Bellarmine, “because they are of the faithful, and if they die in that state may be saved; and yet no one can be saved out of the church, as no one was saved out of the ark, according to the decision of the fourth council of Lateran, C. 1: Una est fidelium universalis ecclesia, extra quam nullus omnino salvatur. Still, it is no less certain that catechumens are in the church, not actually and properly, but only potentially, as a man conceived, but not yet formed and born, is called man only potentially. For we read, Acts ii. 41, ‘They therefore that received his word were baptized; and there were added to them that day about three thousand souls.’ Thus the council of Florence, in its Instructions for the Armenians, teaches that men are made members of Christ and the body of the church when they are baptized; and so all the fathers teach. … Catechumens are not actually and properly in the church. How can you say they are saved, if they are out of the church?”
It is clear that this difficulty, which Bellarmine states, arises from understanding that to be in the church means to be in the visible church, and that when faith declares, out of the church no one can be saved, it means out of the visible communion. Otherwise it might be answered, since they are assumed to have faith, hope, and charity, they belong to the soul of the church, and that is all faith requires. But Bellarmine does not so answer, and since he does not, but proceeds to show that they do in a certain sense belong to the body, it is certain that he understands the article of faith as we do, and holds that men are not in the church unless they in some sense belong to its body.
But Bellarmine continues, “The author of the book De Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus replies, that they are not saved. But this appears too severe. Certain it is that St. Ambrose, in his oration on the death of Valentinian, expressly affirms that catechumens can be saved, of which number was Valentinian when he departed this life. Another solution is therefore to be sought. Melchior Cano says that catechumens may be saved, because, if not in the church properly called Christian, they are yet in the church which comprehends all the faithful from Abel to the consummation of the world. But this is not satisfactory; for, since the coming of Christ, there is no true church but that which is properly called Christian, and therefore, if catechumens are not members of this, they are members of none. I reply, therefore, that the assertion, out of the church no one can be saved, is to be understood of those who are of the church neither actually nor in desire, as theologians generally say when treating of baptism.”
“I have said,” says Billuart, “that catechumens are not actually and properly in the church, because, when they request admission into the church, and when they already have faith and charity, they may be said to be in the church proximately and in desire, as one may be said to be in the house because he is in the vestibule for the purpose of immediately entering. And in this sense must be taken what I have elsewhere said of their pertaining to the church, that is, that they pertain to her inchoately, as aspirants who voluntarily subject themselves to her laws; and they may be saved, notwithstanding there is no salvation out of the church; for this is to be understood of one who is in the church neither actually nor virtually, nec re, nec in voto. In the same sense St. Augustine, Tract. 4 in Joan. n. 13, is to be understood, when he says, “Futuri erant aliqui in Ecclesia excelsioris gratiae catechumeni,” – that is, in will and proximate disposition; – “in voto et proxima dispositione.“
It is evident, both from Bellarmine and Billuart, that no one can be saved unless he belongs to the visible communion of the church, either actually or virtually, and also that the salvation of catechumens can be asserted only because they do so belong; that is, because they are in the vestibule, for the purpose of entering, – have already entered in their will and proximate disposition. St. Thomas teaches with regard to these, in case they have faith working by love, that all they lack is the reception of the visible sacrament in re;but if they are prevented by death from receiving it in re before the church is ready to administer it, that God supplies the defect, accepts the will for the deed, and reputes them to be baptized. If the defect is supplied, and God reputes them to be baptized, they are so in effect, have in effect received the visible sacrament, are truly members of the external communion of the church, and therefore are saved in it, not out of it.
Bellarmine, Billuart, Perrone, etc., in speaking of persons as belonging to the soul and not to the body, mean, it is evident, not persons who in no sense belong to the body, but simply those who, though they in effect belong to it, do not belong to it in the full and strict sense of the word, because they have not received the visible sacrament in re. All they teach is simply that persons may be saved who have not received the visible sacrament in re; but they by no means teach that persons can be saved without having received the visible sacrament at all. There is no difference between their view and ours, for we have never contended for any thing more than this; only we think, that, in these times especially, when the tendency is to depreciate the external, it is more proper to speak of them as belonging in effect to the body, as they certainly do, than it is to speak of them simply as belonging to the soul; for the fact the most important to be insisted on is, not that it is possible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament in re, but that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament at least in voto et proxima dispositione.
The case of catechumens disposes of all who are substantially in the same category. The only persons, not catechumens, who can be in the same category, are persons who have been validly baptized, and who stand in the same relation to the sacrament of reconciliation that catechumens do to the sacrament of faith. Infants, validly baptized, by whomsoever baptized, are made members of the body of our Lord, and, if dying before coming to the age of reason, go immediately to heaven. But persons having come to the age of reason, baptized in an heretical society, or persons baptized in such society in infancy, and adhering to it after having come to years of understanding, — for there can be no difference between the two classes, — whether through ignorance or not, are, as we have seen, out of unity, and therefore out of charity, without which they are nothing. Their faith, if they have any, does not avail them; their sacraments are sacrilegious. The wound of sacrilege is mortal, and the only possible way of being healed is through the sacrament of reconciliation or penance. But for these to stand in the same relation to this sacrament that catechumens do to the sacrament of faith, they must cease to adhere to their heretical societies, must come out from among them, seek and find the church, recognize her as the church, believe what she teaches, voluntarily subject themselves to her laws, knock at the door, will to enter, stand waiting to enter as soon as she opens and says, Come in. If they do all this, they are substantially in the same category with catechumens; and if prevented by death from receiving the visible sacrament in re, they may be saved, yet not as simply joined to the soul of the church, but as in effect joined or restored to her external communion. By their voluntary renunciation of their heretical or schismatic society, by their explicit recognition of the church, by their actual return to her door, by their disposition and will to enter, they are effectually, if not in form, members of the body as well as of the soul. Persons excommunicated stand on the same footing as these. They are excluded from the church, unless they repent. If they repent and receive the visible sacrament of reconciliation vel re, vel voto, they may be saved, because the church in excommunicating them has willed their amendment, not their exclusion from the people of God; but we have no authority to affirm their salvation on any other conditions.
The apparent exception alleged turns out, therefore, to be no real exception at all; for the persons excepted are still members of the body of the church in effect, as the authorities referred to labor to prove. They are persons who have renounced their infidel and heretical societies, and have found and explicitly recognized the church. Their approach to the church is explicit, not constructive, to be inferred only from a certain vague and indefinite longing for truth and unity in general, predicable in fact, we should suppose, of nearly all men; for no man ever clings to falsehood and division, believing them to be such. Their desire for truth and unity is explicit. Their faith is the Catholic faith; the unity they will is Catholic unity; the church at whose door they knock is the Catholic Church; the sacrament they solicit, they solicit from the hands of her legitimate priest. They are in effect Catholics, and though not re et proprie in the church, nobody ever dreams of so understanding the article, out of the church no one can be saved, as to exclude them from salvation. These being in effect members of the external communion, the distinction between the soul and the body of the church does not at all affect the assumption of the Brothers Walenburch, “out of external communion with the true church of Jesus Christ there is no salvation.”