Council of Trent on desire for Baptism

A reader recently left a comment on my previous post concerning The council of Trent and St. Thomas on whether or not the council of Trent admits the possibility of Baptism by desire. I decided to make a particular post on this, both because it seems to be something that is misunderstood by some people, even intelligent ones, (I had a Theology professor once who held a similar position) and because blogger would not allow me to post my response in the comment box because it was too long. :)

Here is the comment left by an "anonymous" reader:

You can't get around the FACT that baptism of desire is NEVER once mentioned at Trent when discussing Baptism, which is where any logical person would expect it( just like a perfect act of contrition is clearly explained in the section on Penance). The Holy Ghost has never put His seal on your theory. You can argue ceaselessly, but the FACT remains that baptism of desire has no dogmatic infallible status, while the need for water baptism does (at Trent).

For one to believe your "take" on Trent, one would have to believe that from before the beginning of the world, that he was going to save people by baptism of desire (people who God's grace could not penetrate, or who God put out of His reach), and save some by baptism of water in his Church, and save others by no desire whatsoever (implicit faith), and save others by bringing them back from the dead. In your disbelief in EENS you have created for yourself one bumbling God.

In response to this, I would like to point out that the council of Trent quite clearly mentions baptism of desire; the comment by our reader seems to imply that he is aware of this as well, since he says, "Baptism of desire is never once mentioned at Trent when discussing Baptism, which is where any logical person would expect it."(emphasis added)

Despite this fact, I will go over the places where baptism by desire is clearly referred to. There are several places. The first is from the decree on Justification:

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.

What possible reason could the council of Trent have for saying that justification cannot take place without "the laver of regeneration", i.e., baptism by water, or the desire thereof, if not to say that in fact in some cases the desire itself for baptism is sufficient for justification? There does not seem to be another reasonable interpretation.

This is how St. Alphonsus Liguori interprets this text. I quoted this text earlier in discussing his position:

Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means washing or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water, of spirit, and of blood. ... But Baptism of spirit 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 character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called 'of spirit' because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Spirit. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of spirit, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, 'de presbytero non baptizato' and of 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.

This text, however, is not the only place where the council of Trent speaks concerning the desire for baptism. In the decree on the sacraments, which is introduced as being necessary "to complete the saving doctrine on justification," the fourth general canon on the sacraments says the following:

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema."

The council of Trent is clearly saying two things: that the sacraments are necessary for salvation, and that the grace of justification is given only through the sacrament or the desire thereof. The clearest example of this given in the council is that of the sacrament of penance, where it is explicitly stated that one may receive the grace of justification before actually receiving the sacrament itself, through the desire for the sacrament.

Our "anonymous" commenter seems to want to make a distinction between the necessity for Baptism, and the necessity for Penance in the council of Trent, such that it is possible to be justified by a perfect act of contrition before receiving the sacrament of penance, but not possible to be justified before receiving baptism by water. This however must be denied. The council says in considering the differences between the sacrament of penance and baptism that:

For, by baptism putting on Christ, we are made therein entirely a new creature, obtaining a full and entire remission of all sins: unto which newness and entireness, however, we are no ways able to arrive by the sacrament of Penance, without many tears and great labours on our parts, the divine justice demanding this; so that penance has justly been called by holy Fathers a laborious kind of baptism. And this sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated.

The council of Trent says here that the sacrament of penance is necessary for the salvation of those who have fallen after baptism, as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated. However, as the commenter himself admitted, it is very clear that Trent admits that a man can receive the effect of the sacrament of penance by desire, before actually receiving the sacrament itself.

Thus, if one wishes to hold that baptism by water is necessary in such a way that the effect of baptism cannot be received before the sacrament itself, one must also hold that the same thing is true of penance, since otherwise it would not be true that the sacrament of penance is necessary after sinning just as the sacrament of baptism before being baptized.

However, this position is clearly contradictory to the decree on penance, which clearly asserts that one can receive the effect of the sacrament of penance, without actually receiving the sacrament itself. Hence we must conclude that Baptism and Penance are similar in that one can receive their effects through desire for the sacrament without actually receiving the sacrament itself.

It is further clear that this is the position of the council of Trent by examining the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which was published shortly after the conclusion of the council. St. Charles Borremeo, who had a profound influence on the Council of Trent, edited the text of the first publication of the Catechism, and would certainly have caught anything that was blatantly contradictory to the council's intention. Nor should it be supposed that the Church would have allowed a Catechism, ordered by the council and purporting to present the teaching of the Council, to foment error among the faithful.

In the Catechism of the Council of Trent, we read:

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. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit 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 . . . On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

This is all very clear, and needs no explanation. This confirms our interpretation of the council of Trent's teaching on Baptism.

One last point that might be mentioned as well is the fact that the teaching of St. Thomas had a very strong influence on the Council of Trent; the Summa was the only other work besides the Bible that was placed upon the altar at the Council of Trent. St. Thomas quite clearly holds that baptism of desire is sufficient to justify an adult; it is again reasonable to bear in mind the background of St. Thomas, and to interpret the council of Trent in the light of his teaching.

What is the Use of Believing?

Here is John Paul II's answer to the question that we raised in a earlier post. What is the use of believing; can't we all just be saved by living an upright life without having to bother with the rules and regulations of the Gospel? This is taken from Crossing the Threshold of Hope.

"Today, many who have been formed-or deformed-by a sort of pragmatism and a utilitarianism, seem to ask: “When all is said and done, what is the use of believing? Does faith offer something more? Isn’t it possible to live an honest upright life without bothering to take the Gospel seriously?”

To such a question one could respond very succinctly: The usefulness of faith is not comparable to any good, not even one of a moral nature. The Church, in fact, has never denied that even a nonbeliever could perform good and noble actions. Everyone can easily agree with this. The value of faith cannot be explained, even though efforts are often made to do so, by merely stressing its usefulness for human morality. Rather, one could say that the basic usefulness of faith lies precisely in the fact that a person believes and entrusts himself. By believing and entrusting ourselves, in fact, we respond to God’s word. His word does not fall into a void, but returns to Him, having borne fruit, as was said very effectively in the Book of Isaiah (cf. Is 55:11). Nevertheless, God absolutely does not want to force us to respond to His word.

In this regard, the Council’s teaching, and especially the Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, is particularly important. It would be worthwhile to quote and analyze the entire Declaration. Instead, perhaps quoting a few phrases will do: “And all human beings” we read, “are bound to search for the truth, especially with regard to God and His Church, and as they come to know it they are bound to adhere to the truth and pay homage to it” (Dignitatis Humanae 1).

What the Council emphasizes here, above all, is the dignity of man. The text continues: “Motivated by their dignity, all human beings, inasmuch as they are individuals endowed with reason and free will, and thus invested with personal responsibility, are bound by both their nature and by moral duty to search for the truth, above all religious truth. And once they come to know it they are bound to adhere to it and to arrange their entire lives according to the demands of such truth” (Dignitatis Humanae 2). “The way in which the truth is sought, however, must be in keeping with man’s dignity and his social nature-that is, by searching freely, with the help of instruction or education . . . through communication and dialogue” (Dignitatis Humanae 3).

As these passages show, the Council treats human freedom very seriously and appeals to the inner imperative of the conscience in order to demonstrate that the answer, given by man to God and to His word through faith, is closely connected with his personal dignity. Man cannot be forced to accept the truth. He can be drawn toward the truth only by his own nature, that is, by his own freedom, which commits him to search sincerely for truth and, when he finds it, to adhere to it both in his convictions and in his behavior.

This has always been the teaching of the Church. But even before that, it was the teaching that Christ Himself exemplified by His actions. It is from this perspective that the second part of the Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom should be reread. There, perhaps, you will find the answer to your question.

It is an answer that echoes the teaching of the Fathers and the theological tradition from Saint Thomas Aquinas to John Henry Newman. The Council merely reaffirms what has always been the Church’s conviction. The position of Saint Thomas is, in fact, well known: He is so consistent in his respect for conscience that he maintains that it is wrong for one to make an act of faith in Christ if in one’s conscience one is convinced, however absurdly, that it is wrong to carry out such an act (cf. Summa Theologiae 1-2. 19. 5). If man is admonished by his conscience-even if an erroneous conscience, but one whose voice appears to him as unquestionably true-he must always listen to it. What is not permissible is that he culpably indulge in error without trying to reach the truth. If Newman places conscience above authority, he is not proclaiming anything new with respect to the constant teaching of the Church. The conscience, as the Council teaches, “is man’s sanctuary and most secret core, where he finds himself alone with God, whose voice resounds within him. . . . In loyalty to conscience Christians unite with others in order to search for the truth and to resolve, according to this truth, the many moral problems which arise in the life of individuals as well as in the life of society. Therefore, the more a good conscience prevails the more people and social groups move away from blind willfulness and endeavor to conform to the objective norms of moral behavior.

Nonetheless, it often happens that conscience errs through invincible ignorance, without, for this reason, losing its dignity. But this cannot be said of the man who does very little to search for truth and good, or when through the habit of sin conscience itself becomes almost blind” (Gaudium et Spes 16).

It is difficult not to be struck by the profound internal consistency of the Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom. In the light of its teaching, we can say that the essential usefulness of faith consists in the fact that, through faith, man achieves the good of his rational nature. And he achieves it by giving his response to God, as is his duty-a duty not only to God, but also to himself.

Christ did everything in order to convince us of the importance of this response. Man is called upon to give this response with inner freedom so that it will radiate that veritatis splendor so essential to human dignity. Christ committed the Church to act in the same way. This is why its history is so full of protests against all those who attempted to force faith, “making conversions by the sword.”

In this regard, it must be remembered that the Spanish theologians in Salamanca took a clear stance in opposition to violence committed against the native peoples of America, the indios, under the pretext of converting them to Christianity. Even earlier, in the same spirit the Academy of Kraków issued at the Council of Constance in 1414 a condemnation of the violence perpetrated against the Baltic peoples under a similar pretext. . . . Christ certainly desires faith. He desires it of man and he desires it for man. To people seeking miracles from Him He would respond: “Your faith has saved you” (cf. Mk 10:52). The case of the Canaanite woman is particularly touching. At first it seems as if Jesus does not want to hear her request that He help her daughter, almost as if he wanted to provoke her moving profession of faith “For even the dogs eat the scraps that fall from the table of their masters” (Mt 15:27). He puts the foreign woman to the test in order to be able then to say: “Great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish” (Mt 15:28).

Christ wants to awaken faith in human hearts. He wants them to respond to the word of the Father, but He wants this in full respect for human dignity. In the very search for faith an implicit faith is already present, and therefore the necessary condition for salvation is already satisfied. From this point of view your question finds a rather complete response in the words of the Council’s Constitution on the Church. Therefore it deserves to be read once again: “In fact, those who through no fault of their own are not aware of the Gospel of Christ and of the Church, but who nonetheless search sincerely for God, and with the help of grace attempt to carry out His will, known through the dictates of their conscience-they too can attain eternal salvation. Nor will Divine Providence deny the help necessary for salvation to those who have not yet arrived at a clear knowledge and recognition of God, and who attempt, not without divine grace, to conduct a good life” (Lumen Gentium 16).

In your question you speak of “an honest, upright life even without the Gospel.” I would respond that if a life is truly upright it is because the Gospel, not known and therefore not rejected on a conscious level, is in reality already at work in the depths of the person who searches for the truth with honest effort and who willingly accepts it as soon as it becomes known to him. Such willingness is, in fact, a manifestation of grace at work in the soul. The Spirit blows where He wills and as He wills (cf. Jn 3:8). The freedom of the Spirit meets the freedom of man and fully confirms it.

This clarification was necessary in order to avoid any danger of a Pelagian interpretation. This danger already existed in the time of Saint Augustine, and seems to be surfacing again in our time. Pelagius asserted that even without divine grace, man could lead a good and happy life. Divine grace, therefore, was not necessary for him. But the truth is that man is actually called to salvation; that a good life is the condition of salvation; and that salvation cannot be attained without the help of grace.

Ultimately, only God can save man, but He expects man to cooperate. The fact that man can cooperate with God determines his authentic greatness. The truth according to which man is called to cooperate with God in all things, with a view toward the ultimate purpose of his life-his salvation and divinization-found expression in the Eastern tradition in the doctrine of synergism. With God, man “creates” the world; with God, man “creates” his personal salvation. The divinization of man comes from God. But here, too, man must cooperate with God."

Blog on Magisterial Interpretation

I have added a blog to the sidebar, which is devoted to laying out principles of Magisterial Interpretation. I think this is extremely relevant to the topic of EENS, because almost all misunderstandings of EENS go along with misunderstandings of how to interpret Magisterial texts.

I would like to invite my readers, to feel free to check out the blog, and post all and any comments, questions, concerns, doubts, etc.

No Salvation Outside the Church after Vatican II

It is after Vatican II that we get the most distinct statements of the Church's teaching on “No Salvation Outside the Church.” This is also the period of Church teaching that is most often ignored or brushed aside by those who attempt to force their own interpretation on the teaching of the Church.

“Now, two other big questions arise. How will the catechumens, or better still, all those who do not know the Gospel and the Church, be saved? This is the first question, and an enormous one. The other is this: Do sinners, who are not in God's grace, belong to the Church? We will not answer these questions here, for that would involve distinctions and details requiring long and careful consideration. We will simply say, with regard to the first, that a person can belong to the Church in reality, or in voto virtually, by desire (as the catechumens) or even by properly directing a life that may be deprived of any explicit knowledge of Christianity, but that is, because of the person's moral uprightness, open to a mysterious mercy of God. That mercy can link to mankind saved by Christ, and therefore to the Church, all the immense multitudes of human beings "who sit in the shadow of death," but who are themselves created and loved by the divine goodness.” (Paul VI, Voi Forse Sapete)

Paul VI raises two questions, which he says he is not going to answer here. Nevertheless, he offers us a thought concerning each one. The first question is this: How will catechumens, or those who are ignorant of the Church be saved? The second question is whether sinners, who do not have God's grace, belong to the Church.

As he says, he does not really answer the first question, because he does not tell us precisely HOW catechumens and those who do not know of the Church can be saved. Nevertheless, he gives us a general detail concerning their salvation. In regard to catechumens, they are joined to the Church by desire, and thus are able to saved even if they die still as catechumens. Likewise, those who do not know of the Gospel or the Church can be a member of the church by properly directing a life deprived of any explicit knowledge of Christianity, and thus can be saved even if they die still in this state.

Summarizing, Paul VI describes three ways in which one can belong to the Church: 1) in reality, i.e., having received baptism by water. 2) by desire, as catechumens. 3) By “properly directing” a life, even a life deprived of any explicit knowledge of Christianity. This is the same thing we saw in Lumen Gentium. Someone who properly directs his life insofar as is in him, even if he is deprived of a knowledge of the Church, is yet joined to the Church in some mysterious manner, and thus can be saved.

“The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.” (JPII, Redemptoris Missio)

Pope John Paul II explicitly states here that salvation is granted even to those who do not explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Rather, he makes the argument that since salvation is something universal, it must be offered to all. But not everyone is able to explicitly believe in Christ or enter the Church. Hence “salvation in Christ” is accessible to these people by a grace which does not make them formally part of the Church.

This quote is very important because it makes clear that the teaching of the Church is not that God gives everyone the possibility of entering the Church, and thus of being saved, but in fact there are those who do not even know about the church, who may yet be saved through Christ. For those who stubbornly deny this, I give another quotation from John Paul II:

“Normally, it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour.” (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1998/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_09091998_en.html)

Notice that he quite explicitly says that they receive salvation EVEN WHILE they do not recognize him as their saviour. Here is another quotation for those who are fond of opposing the early statements on “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” against the current Church interpretation:

“Since Christ brings about salvation through his Mystical Body, which is the Church, the way of salvation is connected essentially with the Church. The axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus"--"outside the Church there is no salvation"--stated by St. Cyprian (Epist. 73, 21; PL 1123 AB), belongs to the Christian tradition. It was included in the Fourth Lateran Council (DS 802), in the Bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII (DS 870) and the Council of Florence (Decretum pro Jacobitis, DS 1351). The axiom means that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the Church has been established as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, there is an obligation to enter the Church and remain in her in order to attain salvation (cf. LG 14). For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ's redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. RM 10). It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her. It is also mysterious in itself, because it is linked to the saving mystery of grace, which includes an essential reference to the Church the Savior founded.” (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19950531en.html)

No Salvation Outside the Church in Vatican Council II

Vatican Council II reaffirms the teaching that we saw in Pius XII. One of the most significant passages concerning the salvation of non-Christians actually references the letter of the Holy Office that we looked at in our last post. Let us first examine Lumen Gentium 16, which is a very debated passage in the discussion of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus.”

“But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. ” (LG 16)

The part that I placed in bold is stating that those who are ignorant of Christ and his Church can attain salvation, provided that 1) it is not through their own fault, and 2) that they sincerely seek God and try to do his will as it is known to them. It is clear from this that such people place God as their last end, and this implies that perfect submission of the mind to God that I spoke of in my last post. Hence such people love God, and are in the state of justification.

Those who argue against this sense of this passage generally claim that the council is saying that such people can attain eternal salvation because if they seek God sincerely, God will bring them to an explicit knowledge of Christ and His Church.

This can clearly be seen to be false by looking at the official footnote that is given in this text. Lumen Gentium references the letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston that we already looked at. Nevertheless, let me quote the sections it references, to see what the point being made is.

“In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the Sacrament of Regeneration and in reference to the Sacrament of Penance.

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.”

So, there is a group of people, who do not know of Christ or his Church. Lumen Gentium says that they can attain eternal salvation by sincerely seeking God and doing His will as it is known to them through their conscience. The explanation for this is given by citing that part of the letter of the Holy Office which says that someone involved in invincible ignorance can be joined to the Church by an implicit desire.

Hence, it follows that what Lumen Gentium is asserting is that these people who do not have a knowledge of Christ, already belong to the Church by their implicit desire for the Church, which “is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God,” i.e., in their sincerely seeking God, and doing is will insofar as they know it.

(Unitatis redintegratio) “Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.”

Here it is explicitly stated that the life of grace and Faith, Hope, and Charity can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Church. Thus, whoever has such is implicitly a Catholic, regardless of his state of knowledge.

A brief comment: some people respond to arguments like these by quoting many different passages from the council that very strongly emphasize the necessity of the Church for salvation. For example, see this document: http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/CenterReview/3_2005_Vatican2.pdf Such people have a fundamental misunderstanding of the very nature of what is being said. Nothing that I have said here goes against the truth that the Church is the means necessary for salvation, without which nobody can enter the kingdom of heaven. As is stated in the letter which LG 16 references, God allows a desire, even an implicit one, for these means to suffice in place of actually obtaining the means. Hence such a person is really part of the Church.

Trent and Thomas Aquinas on Baptism of Desire

One of my readers left a comment about whether what I am saying about implicit faith is the same thing as baptism of desire, so I would like to take this opportunity to talk about that; particularly as it sums up in a nutshell what I am saying concerning implicit faith.

When we speak of “baptism” of desire, we are speaking of baptism analogically, insofar as baptism of desire remits original sin, which is the effect of baptism properly speaking, baptism by water. Hence, baptism of desire is called baptism from its effect, insofar as it has the effect of baptism by water.

So, what is baptism of desire, and why does it remit sin? Let us look at what the Council of Trent says:

“Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ's sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this disposition it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him; and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee; and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin; and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord. This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.”

If we look at this carefully, we can see that what the council of Trent is laying out is really the material dispositions in man of Faith, Hope and Charity. The first thing mentioned is that they are moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed. The second thing is that they consider from the fear of divine justice and by considering the mercy of God, they are raised to hope in God. Finally, that they begin to love him as the fountain of all justice. The last condition mentioned is that they purpose to receive baptism, to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God.

From this material disposition necessarily follows the supernatural virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity, and thus of course the justification of the man, and his sanctification and renewal.

It should be noted that the fourth disposition for this justification, the purpose to receive baptism, to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God, is necessarily included in the third condition. This is because everyone who truly loves God wishes to keep his commandments, and to give up his offenses against God and to begin a new life. Likewise, anyone who truly loves God desires, at least implicitly, baptism by water, since this is the means that God has established for salvation.

There is a good text from St. Thomas which sums up this entire description:

“Therefore in all things it must be said that God is the first principle in justice and that whosoever gives to God the greatest thing that lies in him by submitting the mind to Him, such a one is fully just: ‘Whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God” (Rom 8:14). And hence he says, Abraham believed God, i.e., submitted his mind to God by faith: “Believe God, and he will recover thee: and direct thy way, and trust in him” (Sir 2:6); and further on (2:8): “ Ye that fear the Lord believe him,” and it was reputed to him unto justice, i.e., the act of faith and faith itself were for him, as for everyone else, the sufficient cause of justice. It is reputed to him unto justice by men exteriorly, but interiorly it is wrought by God, Who justifies them that have the faith. This he does by remitting their sins through charity working in them.” (Commentary on Galatians, Cap. 3, Lectio 3)

What the council of Trent describes as the preparation for justification, St. Thomas describes in a very compact form: The full submission of one's mind to God. Any man who does such an act is completely justified, since such an act is one of faith working through love. If we look at the description of the preparation for justification given by the council of Trent, we can see that St. Thomas's definition implies everything in it.

Because, one who fully submits his mind to God, necessarily accepts all that God has revealed to him, and is willing to accept everything else God will reveal. Furthermore, this implies hope and love, since one does not completely submit oneself to another without love of him, and hope and trust in him.

It is this kind of full submission of the mind to God which is commonly called baptism of desire; after baptism it is commonly called a perfect act of contrition. By such a submission man is justified, and made holy before God. If we apply this to the idea of salvation through implicit faith, we can summarize the entire argument for implicit faith in a nutshell.

Before the coming of Christ, the only way for men to be justified was through this perfect submission of the mind to God. At least those men who knew of God's existence, through the grace of God, were able to submit themselves fully to God and make an act of perfect love of Him. The only thing they needed for this was the knowledge of God's existence. They did not need a knowledge of Christ, or of God as Trinity, or the other truths of the faith.

Similarly, after the coming of Christ, those men who know of God's existence are able to make an act of perfect submission of their minds to God, and to love Him. This might be a faithful Jew who earnestly desires the coming of the Messiah, or it might be a Muslim who truly wishes to serve God. By this act they are justified and freed from sin, and thus belong to the church, no matter how implicitly.

It is obvious, of course, that since the catholic church is the true church founded by God, that as soon as such a person comes to the knowledge of the church, and that it is the church in which God wishes all men to be saved, he will immediately desire to enter it, and if he did not desire to enter it even knowing this, that would show that his mind was not fully submissive to God. This is why Lumen Gentium says,

“In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”(LG 14)

From this argument it follows that someone who affirms the necessity of explicit faith in Christ for justification is forced to say that God refuses those people who do not know explicitly of Christ the grace to make an act of love of Him. Since this was not the case for those before Christ, one would be forced to say that because of Christ's act of perfect love for mankind on the cross, God now refuses those who do not have explicit knowledge of him the grace to love him, regardless of the fact that he previously gave this grace to them.

Pius XII on salvation by implicit faith

We are getting a lot of clarification on the teaching "no salvation outside the church" from the "Pius" Popes. The teaching of the Church on “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” was definitively clarified under the reign of Pius XII. This came about primarily because of the case of Fr. Feeney, whose story is probably well known to most readers of this blog. For those who are unaware of the sequence of events regarding Fr. Feeney, this site has the historical events in order: http://alcazar.net/Feeney2.html

The Holy Office sent a letter to the archbishop of Boston regarding the Feeney case, in which the following is stated: “After having examined all the documents that are necessary or useful
in this matter . . . the same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from the fact that the axiom, "outside the Church there is no salvation," was not correctly understood and weighed . . . However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church . . . Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory. In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing . . . The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing. However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God . . . These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, . . . But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him”

It is abundantly clear here that the Holy Office is intending to interpret the dogma “outside the Church there is no salvation,” in the manner in which the Church understands it. So, what is stated here? Here are the main points in order:

1) The Saviour decreed that the Church be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.

2) At the same time, God has willed that the effects of the helps to salvation, which are necessary to be saved, can be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire or longing.

3) Statement number 2 applies to the Church, inasmuch as she is the general help to salvation.

4) Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated into the Church actually, but it is necessary to be united at least by desire and longing.

5) This desire need not be explicit; when a person has invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire, which is included in the disposition of soul by which someone wants his will to be conformed to God's will.

6) This desire must be animated by perfect charity, and the person must have supernatural faith.


Thus, the Holy Office states explicitly that it is not necessary to be actually united to the Church as a member to be saved, but one can be united through desire and longing, and this desire does not have to be explicit, but can be implicit.

Furthermore, its teaching on “no salvation outside the church” is very helpful for understanding where many have gone wrong on the teaching. It says that the Church is necessary for salvation by divine institution, and therefore it is up to God to decide whether a desire, even an implicit one, for the church should suffice for salvation. This explains what is meant when people talk about something, say baptism, being a necessity of means for salvation. Necessity of means is opposed to the necessity of precept. There is a necessity of precept when God or the Church commands something to be done in a particular way, which might be done in some other way. For example, it is necessary to give honor to God. But this can be done in various ways. It is a necessity of precept that we attend Mass on Sundays. There is a necessity of means when there is no other way for a man to accomplish something. Thus, for example, the Church is necessary by a necessity of means. But this simply means that there is no other means available to man. It doesn't mean that no other means is available to God.

The point being, that necessity of means is said with respect to men. To make this clearer, let's look at number 1257 from the CCC: "The Lord himself affirms that BAPTISM IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. THE CHURCH DOES NOT KNOW OF ANY MEANS OTHER THAN BAPTISM that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." GOD HAS BOUND salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but HE HIMSELF IS NOT BOUND BY HIS SACRAMENTS."

Thus, even if someone were to say that explicit faith in Christ is necessary for salvation by a necessity of means, that can be true while at the same time there existing the possibility of someone being saved by an implicit faith, which is what is asserted here in the letter.

This fact allows us to refute the claim that some people make: that it is still necessary to have an explicit faith in Christ. These people say that the letter does not make any claims about the precise nature of this supernatural faith; i.e., does it have to be an explicit faith in Christ, or would an implicit faith suffice. It merely says that the desire for the Church can be implicit. Against this, several things should be noted. First, as was stated in the paragraph above, even if explicit faith in Christ is a necessity of means, this is by divine institution, and was stated in the letter, God is not bound to the things he institutes in such a way that he cannot allow an implicit faith to suffice where normally an explicit faith is required.

Second, the letter itself references Pius XII's encyclical Mystici Corporis, and says that this same teaching is taught in it. If we look at the passages of the encyclical that are referred to in the letter, we can see what kind of people fall under this possibility of salvation:

“Likewise, We must earnestly desire that this united prayer may embrace in the same ardent charity both those who, not yet enlightened by the truth of the Gospel, are still outside the fold of the Church, and those who, on account of regrettable schism, are separated from Us, who though unworthy, represent the person of Jesus Christ on earth . . . we have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly. ”

It is very clear that Pius XII is excluding nobody here, but is referring to all those who are outside the visible Church, including those who have not been enlightened by the truth of the Gospel. While it is true that the phrase “not yet enlightened by the truth of the Gospel,” includes also those who know of the Gospel but have not accepted it, nevertheless it also includes those who do not know of the Gospel and have not accepted it. Hence, since he goes on to commit all those who do not belong to the visible Church to the protection of heaven, it is clear that he is referring to everyone who does not belong to the Church, regardless of whether or not he knows of Christ.

Note: The full text of the letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston can be found here: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/cdffeeney.txt

Pius IX and Pius X on salvation by implicit faith

Over the course of the last 150 years, the magisterium has made it very clear how the teaching “there is no salvation outside the Church” is to be understood. I will present the major explanations over the next few posts.

(Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, Pius IX) “Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.”

Pius IX clearly says that all those who are invincibly ignorant, and yet live upright lives ready to obey God, will be saved. God does not allow anyone who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishment.

Some people are of the opinion that this text is only saying that God gives all such people the grace to convert to Catholicism before they die. The point that should be made about this, is that there is a clear contrast in the text between those who are “living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity,” and those who observe “the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God.” Thus, the statement made about the first group does not apply to the second. This is manifest even in the text, since Pius IX states that the first group cannot attain salvation whereas the second group can.

I would also note that the aforementioned position is forced to hold the position that these people who are “ observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God,” and live “honest lives,” nevertheless are unable to love God. This is a very strange position, since these people are ready to obey God.

From our next pope, Pius X, we have this same teaching clearly asserted in his Catechism. Cardinal Ratzinger made this comment about this Catechism: "The faith, as such, is always the same. Therefore, St. Pius X's catechism always retains its value . . . it should not be forgotten that that the Catechism stemmed from a text that was prepared by the Pope himself [Pius X] when he was bishop of Mantua. The text was the fruit of the personal catechetical experience of Giuseppe Sarto, whose characteristics were simplicity of exposition and depth of content."

Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved? (A.9 Q.29)

A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.

Now, what does he mean for a man to be united to the soul of the Church? He explains this in another article:

Q: In what does the Soul of the Church consist?(A.9 Q.22)

A: The Soul of the Church consists in her internal and spiritual endowments, that is, faith, hope, charity, the gifts of grace and of the Holy Ghost, together with all the heavenly treasures which are hers through the merits of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, and of the Saints.

According to St. Pius X, then, someone who is outside the Church through no fault of his own, whether he belongs to some other sect of Christianity, or even if has only an implicit desire for baptism, can possess the grace of faith, hope, and charity, and thus be in the state of justification. This faith would have to be an implicit faith in Christ in the case of those who do not know of Him and His church.