Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada

[Vetus Ordo]

I always thought God would furnish His elect with actual baptism.

It doesn't make much sense He wouldn't do so.

[INPEFESS]

I always thought God would furnish His elect with actual baptism.

It doesn't make much sense He wouldn't do so.

That God proves His goodness by executing excellence in the sacraments (according to St. Thomas) is just one more way by which He manifests His glory. It is a means by which He proves His omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence.

I answer that, Christ produces the inward sacramental effect, both as God and as man, but not in the same way. For, as God, He works in the sacraments by authority: but, as man, His operation conduces to the inward sacramental effects meritoriously and efficiently, but instrumentally. For it has been stated (48, 1,6; 49, 1) that Christ's Passion which belongs to Him in respect of His human nature, is the cause of justification, both meritoriously and efficiently, not as the principal cause thereof, or by His own authority, but as an instrument, in so far as His humanity is the instrument of His Godhead, as stated above (13, 2,3; 19, 1).

Nevertheless, since it is an instrument united to the Godhead in unity of Person, it has a certain headship and efficiency in regard to extrinsic instruments, which are the ministers of the Church and the sacraments themselves, as has been explained above (Article 1). Consequently, just as Christ, as God, has power of "authority" over the sacraments, so, as man, He has the power of ministry in chief, or power of "excellence." And this consists in four things. First in this, that the merit and power of His Passion operates in the sacraments, as stated above (Question 62, Article 5). And because the power of the Passion is communicated to us by faith, according to Romans 3:25: "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith in His blood," which faith we proclaim by calling on the name of Christ: therefore, secondly, Christ's power of excellence over the sacraments consists in this, that they are sanctified by the invocation of His name. And because the sacraments derive their power from their institution, hence, thirdly, the excellence of Christ's power consists in this, that He, Who gave them their power, could institute the sacraments. And since cause does not depend on effect, but rather conversely, it belongs to the excellence of Christ's power, that He could bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the exterior sacrament. Thus it is clear how to solve the objections; for the arguments on either side are true to a certain extent, as explained above.

St. Ambrose actually recorded a case of baptism of desire pertaining to one of his catechumens. I don't have the book with me at the moment, but I can find the passage when I am home later tonight.

[Vetus Ordo]

St. Ambrose actually recorded a case of baptism of desire pertaining to one of his catechumens.

Yes, I'm acquainted with that story. However, I wonder if St. Ambrose had some sort of divine revelation concerning the eternal fate of his catechumen or was just expression his opinion.

Other saints, however, like St. Augustine, adopted the more rigid view that only with sacramental baptism could one enter heaven.

[Old Salt]

Again, the Church teaches that Baptism of Desire can take away original sin and is efficacious for salvation as BOD supplys the principle effect of baptism, namely "the grace which remits sins":

"17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire." Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments - Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized
"The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood" 1917 Catholic

[SouthpawLink]

If there's a contradiction between the necessity of baptism and the possibility of desiring it, then should we not also conclude that there's a contradiction between the necessity of penance and the possibility of desiring it?  Consider:

913 Can. 3. If anyone says that those words of the Lord Savior: "Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins ye shall retain, they are retained" [John 20:22 f.], are not to be understood of the power of remitting and retaining sins in the sacrament of penance, as the Catholic Church has always understood from the beginning, but, contrary to the institution of this sacrament, distorts them to an authority for preaching the Gospel: let him be anathema [cf.n. 894 ].

916 Can. 6. If anyone denies that sacramental confession was either instituted by divine law or is necessary for salvation; or says that the manner of secretly confessing to a priest alone, which the Catholic Church has always observed from the beginning and still observes, is alien to the institution and the mandate of Christ, and is a human invention: let him be anathema [cf.n. 899 f.].

According to Our Lord, in order for sins committed after Baptism to be forgiven, they must be confessed (John 20:23), and Trent is clear in stating that this is a divine law and is necessary for salvation.  We should also look at canon 4 from Session VII (Denz. 847), which teaches that the sacraments are necessary for salvation and are not superfluous.

So, who could argue that it's possible to have sins forgiven by perfect contrition and desire for Penance before the actual reception of the sacrament?  Trent does:

"The Council teaches, furthermore, that though it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man to God, before this sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation nevertheless must not be ascribed to the contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament which is included in it" (Sess. XIV, ch.4: Denz. 898.).

Similarly, Trent teaches that, "this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration [can. 5 de bapt.], or a desire for it" (Sess. VI, ch. 4: Denz. 796).

If it's going to be argued that a desire for baptism contradicts the canons of Trent and John 3:5, then it should also be argued that Sess. XIV, chapter 4 goes against the words of Our Lord ("whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them" - John 20:23) and other statements of that same council, which mention the necessity of Penance for sins committed after baptism.

Having sins forgiven through perfect contrition and desire for Penance makes the sacrament superfluous, no?

[Parmandur]

St. Ambrose actually recorded a case of baptism of desire pertaining to one of his catechumens.

Yes, I'm acquainted with that story. However, I wonder if St. Ambrose had some sort of divine revelation concerning the eternal fate of his catechumen or was just expression his opinion.

Other saints, however, like St. Augustine, adopted the more rigid view that only with sacramental baptism could one enter heaven.

Here's what St. Augustine said on the topic:

"For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of Baptism. For He Who said, 'Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,' made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, 'Whosever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven'; and in another place, 'Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it.'" (City of God, Book 8, Chapter 7)

"The same blessed Cyprian sees no small proof that suffering can sometimes take the place of Baptism, from the [case of] the thief to whom, though he was not baptized, it was over and over I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply what was lacking of Baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if it happens that because of circumstances of time, recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the mystery of Baptism." (De Baptismo)

[Vetus Ordo]

St. Ambrose actually recorded a case of baptism of desire pertaining to one of his catechumens.

Yes, I'm acquainted with that story. However, I wonder if St. Ambrose had some sort of divine revelation concerning the eternal fate of his catechumen or was just expression his opinion.

Other saints, however, like St. Augustine, adopted the more rigid view that only with sacramental baptism could one enter heaven.

Here's what St. Augustine said on the topic:

"For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of Baptism. For He Who said, 'Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,' made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, 'Whosever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven'; and in another place, 'Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it.'" (City of God, Book 8, Chapter 7)

"The same blessed Cyprian sees no small proof that suffering can sometimes take the place of Baptism, from the [case of] the thief to whom, though he was not baptized, it was over and over I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply what was lacking of Baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if it happens that because of circumstances of time, recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the mystery of Baptism." (De Baptismo)

He later changed his mind on the subject:

It's curious to notice that, after admitting for the possibility of baptism of desire and blood in his early writings, St. Augustine's final position on baptism was that sacramental baptism by water is absolutely necessary for salvation.

St. Augustine: “How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized, and are thus lost forever!...When we shall have come into the sight of God, we shall behold the equity of His justice. At that time, no one will say: Why did He help this one and not that one? Why was this man led by God's direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster and not baptized? Look for rewards, and you will find nothing but punishments!….For of what use would repentance be, even before Baptism, if Baptism did not follow?...No matter what progress a catechumen may make, he still carries the burden of iniquity, and it is not taken away until he has been baptized.” (The Faith of Our Fathers, Fr. Jurgens, bk. 3, 1496; On the Gospel of St. John, Chapter 13, Tract 7.)

St. Augustine: “Note that I speak now both to the faithful and to catechumens. What did I mention in connection with the spittle and the clay? This: the Word became flesh. The catechumens can hear this; but just listening to it does not accomplish that for which they were anointed. Let them hasten to the font if they seek the Light.” (The Divine Office, bk., p. 1620, from Fourth Week in Lent, Treatise 44 on John.)

St. Augustine: “What is the Baptism of Christ? A washing in the word. Take away the water, and there is no Baptism. It is, then, by water, the visible and outward sign of grace, and by the Spirit, Who produces the inward gift of grace, which cancels the bond of sin and restores God’s gift to human nature, that the man who was born solely of Adam in the first place is afterwards re-born solely in Christ.” (“On John,” 15:4, Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Latina, Fr. J. P. Migne, Paris, 1855, vol. 35.)

St. Augustine: “Or how can they fail to be saved by water…the same unity of the ark saved them, in which no one has been saved except by water. For Cyprian himself says, ‘The Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being in all simplicity admitted to the Church, have fallen asleep within her pale.’ If not by water, how in the ark? If not in the ark, how in the Church? But if in the Church, certainly in the ark; and if in the ark, certainly by water. …nor can they be said to have been otherwise saved in the ark except by water.” (On Baptism (De Baptismo), 5:28.)

St. Augustine, On the Soul and its Origin 3, 12: “As for the thief, although in God’s judgment he might be reckoned among those who are purified [ie., as in, a second time, that is, after baptism and his fall] by the confession of martyrdom, yet you cannot tell whether he was not baptized. For, to say nothing of the opinion that he might have been sprinkled with the water which gushed at the same time with the blood out of the Lord's side, as he hung on the cross next to Him, and thus have been washed with a baptism of the most sacred kind, what if he had been baptized in prison, as in after times some under persecution were enabled privately to obtain? or what if he had been baptized previous to his imprisonment? If, indeed, he had been, the remission of his sins which he would have received in that case from God would not have protected him from the sentence of public law, so far as appertained to the death of the body. What if, being already baptized, he had committed the crime and incurred the punishment of robbery and lawlessness, but yet received, by virtue of repentance added to his baptism, forgiveness of the sins which, though baptized, he had committed? For beyond doubt his faith and piety appeared to the Lord clearly in his heart, as they do to us in his words. If, indeed, we were to conclude that all those who have quitted life without a record of their baptism died unbaptized, we should calumniate the very apostles themselves; for we are ignorant when they were, any of them, baptized, except the Apostle Paul. If, however, we could regard as an evidence that they were really baptized the circumstance of the Lord’s saying to St. Peter, “He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet,” what are we to think of the others, of whom we do not read even so much as this,--Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, Silas, Philemon, the very evangelists Mark and Luke, and innumerable others, about whose baptism we should never entertain any doubt, although we read no record of it?”

And, indeed, as I had pointed out earlier, it stands to reason that God makes sure His elect obtain all that is necessary for salvation, including baptism. St. Augustine agrees:

St. Augustine: “Not one of the elect and predestined perishes, regardless of his age at death. Never be it said that a man predestined to life would be permitted to end his life without the sacrament of the Mediator.  Because, of these men, Our Lord says: ‘This is the will of the Father, that I should lose nothing of what he has given me.’” (Against Julian 5, 4)

[Old Salt]

But Trent still teaches on the efficacy of BoD.

[columb]

You ask me to, "STOP CLAIMING THERE IS A CONTRADICTION;"[/i] when it is the actual "contradictions" (in the plural) that are not being addressed, never mind resolved.

[...]

If it has already been stated by a supreme Pontiff that there is but  "one God, one faith, one baptism," beyond which it is not lawful to speculate further, by what authority does one speculate  on or introduce another baptism which has the capability of overriding the necessity of the ONE Baptism which we profess in the credo?

Please pardon my interruption, but do you acknowledge the facts that the salvific efficacy of desire for baptism [1] is not a sacrament (therefore, there is still only one sacrament of baptism), [2] that it absolutely must be animated by perfect love for God in order to be efficacious, [3] that the latter automatically places the soul in the state of sanctifying grace, though there is no way for a soul to be certain if or when this has happened, [4] that all souls who die in the state of sanctifying grace are infallibly saved, and [5] that there are different types of necessity* as recognized by theologians long before Trent's canon concerning the sacrament (NOTE: meaning that the necessity of water for baptism does not apply to baptism of desire) of baptism?

These 5 facts and the logical conclusions that follow therefrom reconcile the various teachings of the Church on this matter without any contradiction.

---

* For example:

Again, in relation to the means necessary to salvation theologians divide necessity into necessity of means and necessity of precept. In the first case the means is so necessary to salvation that without it (absolute necessity) or its substitute (relative necessity), even if the omission is guiltless, the end cannot be reached. Thus faith and baptism of water are necessary by a necessity of means, the former absolutely, the latter relatively, for salvation. In the second case, necessity is based on a positive precept, commanding something the omission of which, unless culpable, does not absolutely prevent the reaching of the end.

I dispute that the desire for Baptism has a salvific efficacy if remaining unfulfilled by means of the actual reception of the sacrament itself. The desire for Baptism can arise from the correct employment of human faith and reason alone; it does not necessarily require supernatural faith in order to have the desire to receive sacramental Baptism.  I do indeed acknowledge in point [1] that the desire for Baptism is not a sacrament and therefore there remains only one sacrament of Baptism.

Point [2] is that which is commonly held to be the disposition necessary for BoD to be salvific. How one receives the pre-baptismal grace to have supernatural charity (perfect love of God) while still outside the Church has not been explained; (sacramental Baptism being the means by which a soul is incorporated into the Church outside of which no one at all can be saved.)

Point [3] seems to be putting the horse before the cart. Supernatural love of God places a soul in the state of sanctifying grace but one must first receive sanctifying grace in order to be capable of possessing supernatural charity. The unbaptized man is yet a natural man and requires the laver of regeneration in order to make him a supernatural man,; one (so to speak) who has died with Christ in Baptism and has put on the new man.

Point [4]. Total agreement..

Point [5].  I'm aware of the different types of necessity but it has not been shown that necessity of precept is the necessity proper to the sacrament of Baptism. On the contrary, It has been dogmatically defined that the necessity of means is that necessity which is proper to sacramental Baptism.
It's plain to see how the necessity of means does not apply to various other sacraments, e.g, the sacrament of penance which is applicable to those souls only who have already received the sacrament of Baptism and have since fallen into mortal sin.
Indeed, the necessity of water does not apply to BoD, this is why I say that it is not salvific, for the Church affirms that, "Unless a man be born again of water etc.." he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.
It's worth noting that many Doctors and Fathers equate "the kingdom of God" with the Roman Catholic Church.

I may in fact be alone on the issue of pre-baptismal justification but I don't find it being taught de fide anywhere. That is why I don't consider myself a true Feeneyite and can see the contradiction you mention in another post where some place between heaven and hell must be invented to house those who die justified but without Baptism.

[columb]

ooops.. Ignore: Messed up the quote thing.