Baptism of Desire Essayed in View of the Extraordinary Magisterium

IV. Does Justification Suffice For Salvation Without A Sacramental Reception Of The Sacrament Of Baptism According To The Infallible Teaching Of The Church?

- The Satisfaction Of The Divine Law

- All Who Die Justified Are Saved

- Conclusion

Introduction; What Is The Thesis?

We shall explain the baptism of desire thesis and see the extent to which it has a basis in the infallible teaching of the extraordinary, ex cathedra magisterium of the Church. We shall also show how the thesis is compatible with the canons on baptism of the Council of Trent, which some are wont to quote against it; we shall consider how the Thesis is compatible with the requirement of Church membership for salvation; and we shall consider whether the Church has infallibly taught that justification suffices for salvation without an actual water baptism.

We are not concerned here to evaluate claims regarding any basis or proof for the Thesis in the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church. The reader will find that we have drawn heavily upon the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, which we have at times found helpful in the interpretation of the Church’s extraordinary teaching; we will be referring again and again to Trent and it is remarkable that the Summa was placed on the altar there, along with the Bible, while the Council Fathers discussed the Faith; yet the Summa is venerable but not infallible; we are here ultimately concerned only with what has a basis ex cathedra.

We bear in mind that the Church has said that its definitions cannot be understood without a knowledge of scholastic terminology.

To begin, let us first state what the Baptism of Desire Thesis is. The Thesis is concerned with the possibility of salvation for those who died without water baptism. The Thesis contends:

- That the sacrament of baptism may be received in a non-sacramental manner, through a desire, at least implicit, to receive the sacrament sacramentally, whereby the “reality of the sacrament” (justification) is received, which we shall explain.

- That a man who has been justified in that manner may be saved if he fails to obtain a sacramental reception of the sacrament of baptism without grave neglect on his part, as such a reception is only of a necessity of precept, which we shall explain.

Thus, St. Thomas wrote that baptism might be wanting to someone in actuality whilst not wanting to them in desire and that can suffice for salvation.

<< The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. In one mode it may be wanting in reality and in desire, as it is to 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. THOSE TO WHOM BAPTISM IS WANTING THUS, CONSEQUENTLY 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 someone IN REALITY BUT NOT IN DESIRE as 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. (Summa Theologica III, 68:2) >>

Hence, the question concerning the Thesis, concisely put, is as to whether the sacrament of baptism, in its sacramental reality (justification), can be received unto salvation, in certain circumstances, non-sacramentally, through a desire, at least implicit, to receive the sacrament. Firstly, we shall discuss the concept of a non-sacramental reception of a sacrament and show its basis in the infallible teaching of the Church at the Council of Trent; then we shall discuss whether the contention that one can be saved without a sacramental reception of baptism is in harmony with the Church’s infallible teaching regarding the conditions for salvation and whether it can be proved from it.

I. Non-Sacramental Reception Of A Sacrament

Non-Sacramental Reception According To The Thesis

We have said that, according to the Baptism of Desire Thesis, the sacrament of baptism may be received in a non-sacramental manner, through a desire to receive the sacrament, at least implicit, whereby its sacramental reality is received; and we have shown that, accordingly, St. Thomas taught that the sacrament may be wanting to someone in actuality whilst not wanting to them in desire. According to St. Thomas, the effect of a sacrament is the “reality of the sacrament”, as regards its force and efficacy, which may sometimes exist without the external sign of the sacrament, through which the sacramental reality is ordinarily worked. Hence, with some sacraments, the “reality of the sacrament”, that is, its sacramental effect, may be received through a desire to receive the sacrament: and that is what it is to receive a sacrament non-sacramentally, even to receive its “reality”, through the desire to receive the sacrament.

St. Thomas:

<< Damascene sets down two things as pertaining to THE ULTIMATE REALITY OF THE SACRAMENT [of baptism], namely, “regeneration” which refers to the fact that man by being baptized begins the new life of righteousness; and “enlightenment,” which refers especially to faith, by which man receives spiritual life. (Summa Theologica 3, 66, 1) >>

We may liken it to obtaining the virtue of a plant by consuming a tincture or extract without encountering the external signs of the plant which bears the virtue. In the supernatural order, of which the sacraments exist, God is free to give the sacramental “reality” without any trace of the normal external sign being actually employed – and this He has chosen to do, when Catholic faith is pure, contrition is perfect through perfect love, and hope is sincere in its desire.

Implicit Desire According To The Thesis

According to the Thesis, the desire to receive the sacrament of baptism, through which justification is received, can be ‘implicit’, that is, ‘contained’ or implied in something else. And so St. Thomas:

<< Man receives the forgiveness of sins before baptism in so far as he has BAPTISM IN DESIRE, EXPLICITLY OR IMPLICITLY; and yet when he actually receives baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and THEIR DESIRE FOR BAPTISM, IMPLICIT OR EXPLICIT: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fullness of grace and virtues. (Summa Theologica 3, 69, 4) >>

<< Properly speaking, that is called implicit in which many things are CONTAINED AS IN ONE, and that is called explicit in which each of the things is considered in itself. (Of Truth 14, 11) >>

The desire to receive the sacrament sacramentally is said to be implicitly contained in contrition, that is, in a sorrow for one’s sins that is motivated by the love of God. Contrition includes the desire for reconciliation with God and to do what is just to accomplish the reconciliation. Reconciliation is effected through the sacrament, and so a desire for the sacrament is implicitly contained, in contrition, in the desire for reconciliation, as the effect implies the cause and a desire for the effect implies a desire for the cause.

Hence, the Thesis maintains that the sacrament of baptism may be received non-sacramentally through the desire to receive the sacrament sacramentally that is implicit in contrition.

What Are ‘The Three Baptisms’?

Let us now consider what the ‘three baptisms’ are, according to the Thesis, in the light of what we have just said. They are not separate baptisms, best put, but are three manners of receiving the one sacramental baptism, whereby its sacramental reality (justification) is received. The sacrament is sacramentally confected in water; and it is received non-sacramentally in the manners of ‘baptisms of desire and of blood.’ They are separate ‘baptisms’ only by analogy with ‘water baptism’ – where ‘water baptism’ is also spoken of as a separate sacrament rather than as a manner in which the sacrament may be received. Hence, St. Thomas writes that baptisms of desire and of blood are called “baptism” because they supply the sacramental effect of baptism.

<< 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. [...] 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. [...] Thus, therefore, EACH OF THESE OTHER BAPTISMS IS CALLED BAPTISM, FORASMUCH AS IT TAKES THE PLACE OF [a sacramental reception of] BAPTISM. [...] As stated above, 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. (Summa Theologica III, 66:11) >>

Further, baptism of blood is, properly speaking, a manner of baptism of desire; to be justified, one must be baptised sacramentally or there must be at least the desire thereof, as was defined at the Council of Trent; one also must have perfect contrition (perfect love of God) if one is to be justified without a sacramental reception, for which very special graces are needed, which are provided in martyrdom if they are not already present and hence the ‘baptism of blood’. Thus martyrdom reduces to a ‘baptism of desire’, enacted in a certain sort of setting. Trent:

<< And this translation [to the state of justification], since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be EFFECTED, WITHOUT THE LAVER OF REGENERATION, AT LEAST IN 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.” (Denz. 796) ^[*] >>

[* Note: I have given a private translation of “sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto”, usually translated as “without the laver of regeneration or at least its desire”; “aut” also means simply “at least” as well as “or”, and the ablative “eius voto” can mean “(in/ by) its desire”.]

We may note that the ‘three baptisms’ model is ‘Trinitarian’ rather than just “Incarnational” as Fr. Feeney would have had baptism to be. Three Persons and One Substance; three manners of receiving the sacrament of baptism and one sacramental reality had thereby, with only one of the manners being ‘Incarnational’ in having a material element conjoined. The unity of the three baptisms lies in the one ultimate sacramental reality of the sacrament of baptism, which is justification. Hence we may say that according to the Thesis, baptism has a sort of Trinitarian and Incarnational signature to it in so far as it is a threefold unity, with a material element conjoined in one manner of its presence.

Non-Sacramental Reception In The Infallible Teaching Of The Church; And Firstly Of The Eucharist

It behoves us to now see whether there is any basis in the infallible teaching of the Church for the contention that it is possible to receive the sacrament of baptism non-sacramentally. Are there any statements that say that any sacrament (if not all) may be received non-sacramentally through the desire to receive the sacrament, its sacramental reality being had thereby? And to what extent has the Church said this of baptism?

According to the Thesis, three sacraments may be received through a desire to receive the sacrament sacramentally, namely baptism, the Eucharist and penance. We shall begin with Trent’s discussion of the sacrament of the Eucharist, as it is very explicit on this matter of a sacrament being received non-sacramentally; afterwards we shall look at the other two sacraments. Trent:

<< Now as to the use of this holy SACRAMENT [of the Eucharist], the Fathers have rightly and wisely distinguished THREE WAYS OF RECEIVING IT. For they have taught that some receive it SACRAMENTALLY ONLY, to wit sinners; OTHERS SPIRITUALLY ONLY, those to wit who EATING IN DESIRE [voto] that heavenly bread which is set before them, are, by a lively faith which worketh by charity, made sensible of the fruit and usefulness thereof; whereas the third (class) receive it both SACRAMENTALLY AND SPIRITUALLY, and these are they who so prove and prepare themselves beforehand, as to approach to this divine table clothed with the wedding garment. (Denz. 881) >>

Hence, Trent says that the “sacrament” of the Eucharist may be received sacramentally but also non-sacramentally by “eating in desire”; thus we have the concept clearly stated of a sacrament being received non-sacramentally through the desire to receive the sacrament. Likewise St. Thomas:

<< In another way one may eat Christ spiritually, as He is under the sacramental species, inasmuch as a man believes in Christ, WHILE DESIRING TO RECEIVE THIS SACRAMENT; and this is NOT MERELY TO EAT CHRIST SPIRITUALLY, BUT LIKEWISE TO EAT THIS SACRAMENT. (Summa Theologica 3, 80, 2) >>

We shall now consider the non-sacramental reception of the sacrament of penance.

Non-Sacramental Reception Of The Sacrament Of Penance And Its Reality

The Church has also taught that the sacrament of penance may be received non-sacramentally through a desire to receive the sacrament sacramentally, as well as “actually”, that is, sacramentally, ‘in act’ as distinct from ‘in desire’. Trent:

<< The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this CONTRITION IS PERFECT through charity, and reconciles man with God BEFORE THIS SACRAMENT BE ACTUALLY RECEIVED, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of THE DESIRE OF THE SACRAMENT which is included therein. (Denz. 898) >>

Likewise the Summa:

<< Moreover, the SACRAMENTS of grace are ordained in order that man may receive the infusion of grace, and before HE RECEIVES THEM, EITHER ACTUALLY OR IN HIS DESIRE, he does not RECEIVE GRACE. This is evident in the case of Baptism, and applies to PENANCE likewise. (Summa Theologica, Supplement 6, 1) >>

Trent again; the sacrament of penance may be received in desire:

<< Whence it is to be taught, that the penitence of a Christian, after his fall, is very different from that at (his) baptism; and that therein are included not only a cessation from sins, and a detestation thereof, or, a contrite and humble heart, but also THE SACRAMENTAL CONFESSION OF THE SAID SINS, AT LEAST IN DESIRE [saltem in voto], and to be made in its season, and sacerdotal absolution and likewise satisfaction by fasts, alms, prayers, and the other pious exercises of a spiritual life; not indeed for THE ETERNAL PUNISHMENT,-which is, together with the guilt, REMITTED, EITHER BY THE SACRAMENT, OR BY THE DESIRE OF THE SACRAMENT,-but for the temporal punishment, which, as the sacred writings teach, is not always wholly remitted, as is done in baptism (Denz 807) >>

So, a “sacramental confession” may be made “at least in desire,” that is, non-sacramentally, when contrition is perfect, which is very rare, though all who have sinned mortally are gravely bound to make it actually.

Now, we have here a clear example of where a sacrament is received non-sacramentally in that its sacramental reality is received through the desire to receive the sacrament sacramentally. We have seen Trent say that reconciliation with God may be had through a non-sacramental reception of the sacrament of penance: “although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and RECONCILES MAN WITH GOD BEFORE THIS SACRAMENT BE ACTUALLY RECEIVED” (Denz. 898); and yet reconciliation with God is the “reality of this sacrament”. Trent:

<< The REALITY and effectus of this sacrament, however, so far as concerns its force and efficacy, is RECONCILIATION WITH GOD. (Denz. 896) >>

One should note Trent’s use of the Thomist phrase “reality of the sacrament”, which denotes the effect that is worked by the sacrament and is its “reality so far as concerns its force and efficacy”. As we have said, the sacramental “reality” may exist without the external sign through which it is ordinarily worked: and this is what it is to receive a sacrament non-sacramentally, even to receive its “reality” through the desire to receive the sacrament sacramentally.

And Finally Baptism: The Non-Sacramental Reception Of The Sacrament Of Baptism And Its Ultimate Reality

So, we have seen the non-sacramental reception of a sacrament, in “its reality”, through the desire to receive the sacrament sacramentally, with regard to the Eucharist and penance. Thus it is clear that there is nothing contradictory in the concept of a non-sacramental reception of a sacrament; it is thus intrinsically possible. A non-sacramental reception of a sacrament is both non-sacramental and sacramental, but under different aspects, that is, in different regards. It is non-sacramental in the manner of reception, as the sacramental sign is not employed in the usual way; and it is sacramental in that the sacramental reality is received. So, the concept is sound. Hence, it is intrinsically possible for the sacrament of baptism to be received non-sacramentally: God could have determined that that sacrament may be received in that manner. Further we have seen precedents, even God’s willingness that it should be possible to receive at least some sacraments non-sacramentally. We must now consider whether God has chosen to determine that the sacramental economy should be such that the sacrament of baptism may be received, in its reality, non-sacramentally. Let us see whether the Church has infallibly said anything regarding whether this is so.

We have already seen that justification – which is the forgiveness of sins and the influx of sanctifying grace – may be received through the desire to receive the sacrament of baptism sacramentally; Trent:

[* Note: I have again used a private translation of “sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto”, usually translated as “without the laver of regeneration or at least its desire”; “aut” also means simply “at least” as well as “or”, and the ablative “eius voto” can mean “(in/ by) its desire”.]

Now, justification is said to be the “reality only” of this sacrament, as distinct from the baptismal character imprinted on the soul by a sacramental reception of baptism, which character is said to be “reality and sign” in that it is a reality worked by the sacrament, which reality is itself an intermediate sign of the “ultimate reality” in this sacrament, that is, of justification:

<< In the sacrament of Baptism, three things may be considered: namely, that which is “sacrament only”; that which is “reality and sacrament”; and that which is “reality only.” That which is sacrament only, is something visible and outward; the sign, namely, of the inward effect: for such is the very nature of a sacrament. And this outward something that can be perceived by the sense is both the water itself and its use, which is the washing. [...] The Baptismal character is both reality and sacrament: because it is something real signified by the outward washing; and a sacramental sign of THE INWARD JUSTIFICATION: AND THIS LAST IS THE REALITY ONLY, IN THIS SACRAMENT, NAMELY, THE REALITY SIGNIFIED AND NOT SIGNIFYING. (Summa Theologica 3, 66, 1) >>

So, we have said that to receive a sacrament non-sacramentally is to receive the reality of the sacrament through a desire to receive the sacrament sacramentally; and we have seen that the “reality only”, or “ultimate reality”, of the sacrament of baptism, that is, justification, may be received through such a desire. Thus we may say that the sacrament of baptism may be received non-sacramentally in that its “reality only”, or “ultimate reality”, may be received thus; the intermediate “reality and sign”, that is, the sacramental character, is not thus had. Likewise the Summa, as we have seen:

<< Moreover, the SACRAMENTS of grace are ordained in order that man may receive the infusion of grace, and before HE RECEIVES THEM, EITHER ACTUALLY OR IN HIS INTENTION, he does not receive grace. THIS IS EVIDENT IN THE CASE OF BAPTISM, and applies to Penance likewise. (Summa Theologica, Supplement 6, 1) >>

It is required, for the reception of the ultimate reality of the sacrament of baptism (justification), that a man have Catholic Faith; and, if that reality were to be received non-sacramentally, perfect contrition would also be required, which would require a special grace from God. Moreover, anyone who received the sacrament of baptism non-sacramentally would still be gravely bound to an actual reception.

Implicit Desire In The Infallible Teaching Of The Church

It now behoves us to consider what basis there is in the infallible teaching of the Church for the contention of the Baptism Of Desire Thesis that the reality of the sacrament of baptism (justification) – and thereby a non-sacramental reception of the sacrament of baptism – can be had through the desire to receive the sacrament sacramentally that is implicitly contained in contrition.

It would seem that the Church has never infallibly taught that justification can be received through an implicit desire for baptism. Trent taught, as we have seen, that justification cannot be had without at least the desire of that sacrament (Denz. 796) but made no mention of that this desire could be implicit. On the other hand, it did not say that the desire had to be explicitly present. The distinction between implicit and explicit desire for baptism was present in the writings of St. Thomas and had thus been circulating in theological literature for centuries but Trent did not address that issue either way and simply spoke of desire without making distinctions. As such, Trent’s statement that justification cannot be had without the desire for baptism does not explicitly include the possibility that the desire can be implicit but neither does it exclude it.

St. Thomas:

Further, it is also to be noted that Trent did not explicitly say that the desire must be had by the person who is to be justified. It might seem obvious that it must, but let us consider that St. Thomas had earlier used virtually the exact phrase that Trent used, “desire thereof”, when saying that for children, the desire of the Eucharist could be vicariously had in the desire of the Church. Trent used the phrase “eius voto” and St. Thomas used “voto ipsius”, while “eius” and “ipsius” both mean “thereof”. St. Thomas:

<< This sacrament [of the Eucharist] has, of itself, the power of bestowing grace; nor does anyone possess grace before receiving this sacrament except from some DESIRE THEREOF [ipsius voto]; from his own desire, as in the case of the adult, OR FROM THE CHURCH'S DESIRE IN THE CASE OF CHILDREN. (Summa Theologica III, 79, 1) >>

Trent:

<< And this translation [to the state of justification], since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, at least in the DESIRE THEREOF [eius voto].” (Denz. 796) ^[*]>>

Now, we do not mean to argue that this proves that the desire for baptism can be vicariously had, either for adults or for children, as that in no way follows. Rather we intend to point out that Trent did not specify that the desire has to be had personally by the recipient of grace, which is remarkable, and that it used a phrase and concept which St. Thomas had already used with the distinction of personal and vicarious desire. As Trent did not specify in any way that the desire has to be personal, if we are going strictly by what has been defined, its definition of the need for the “desire thereof” for justification does not exclude the possibility of vicarious desire, for adults or for children. Trent merely said that there must be the desire of baptism and not in whom or in what that desire must reside.

So, ultimately neither Trent nor any other council of the Church has ever said anything regarding whether someone must have a personal desire for baptism in order to be justified, let alone whether that desire must be explicit or can be implicit. As such, a theory that says that someone can be justified without an explicit desire – or even without a personal desire for baptism – is within the bounds of orthodoxy, if that is delimited by what has been infallibly taught.

A basis may possibly be found for the contention that the desire for baptism can be implicit in contrition only by making an analogy with the sacrament of penance. Trent taught that that sacrament might be received through perfect contrition by way of the desire for the sacrament that is included in the contrition.

Some would read that to mean that a desire for the sacrament is implicit in contrition. And indeed Trent’s discussion is reminiscent of the concept of implicit desire as discussed by St. Thomas:

<< Properly speaking, that is called IMPLICIT in which many things are CONTAINED AS IN ONE, and that is called explicit in which each of the things is considered in itself. (Of Truth 14, 11) >>

Justification is ascribed by Trent not to the contrition and the desire of the sacrament as separate things, which would have been to “consider each thing in itself” as “explicit”, to use St. Thomas’ language: rather justification is ascribed to contrition as including desire, which is to consider desire in terms of “many things contained in one”, namely, in contrition, as “implicit”, as St. Thomas would have said. Thus Trent’s discussion of the contrition and desire for the sacrament that suffices for justification matches St. Thomas’ concept of implicit desire.

Now, if desire can be implicit and the sacrament of penance may be received non-sacramentally through the implicit desire to receive the sacrament sacramentally that is contained in contrition, then perhaps a desire to receive the sacrament of baptism sacramentally can be implicit in contrition and that sacrament may also be received non-sacramentally through implicit desire. Certainly nothing has been said to the contrary but the matter remains unsettled.

What we would say is this: We may still hope for the salvation of everyone, whether the desire for baptism must be explicit or can be implicit. If God desires the salvation of all, then we may hope that He will give each person the chance of salvation. We do not know what passes between God and a soul in its last moments before death, and even if a desire had to be explicit, it is possible that He will give the soul the ability, the illumination and the inspiration to make an act of faith, hope, charity and contrition and to desire the sacrament. So, however someone appears to die, we cannot pass judgement on their final condition; that is not our prerogative. But the possibility that God will give each such an opportunity does not absolve the Church of its mission to proclaim the Gospel to all people.

Let us now consider how the Thesis is in harmony with the statements of the Church that there is one baptism.

The Unity Of Baptism In The Infallible Teaching Of The Church

We have said that the ‘three baptisms’ are not separate baptisms, best put, but are three manners of receiving the one sacramental baptism, whereby its ultimate sacramental reality (justification) may be received. We shall briefly show how this explanation of the unity of baptism is consistent with the following definition from the Council of Vienne.

<< ONE BAPTISM, which regenerates all who are baptised in Christ, must be confessed by all the Faithful, JUST AS ONE GOD and One Faith; which celebrated in water, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, we believe to be a perfect remedy for salvation, commonly for adults as for children. (Denz. 482) ^[*] >>

[* Note: this is an accurate translation; some ‘Feeneyites’ (Malone, Catholic Treasures, 1994, p. 106) are wont to use a mistranslation which includes the word “necessary”, which is not found in the Latin original.]

Vienne did not say that baptism can be received only in water, that is, sacramentally; rather it merely stated that there is “one baptism”, which is what the Thesis maintains, namely, that there is one baptism, even the sacrament thereof, which may be received, in its ultimate reality, in three ways. And so it is also in the Nicene Creed: “I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.” Indeed, the unity of baptism that must be confessed is of a kind that is not dislikened from the unity of God – “just as one God” – which is quite in accordance with the Trinitarian and Incarnational aspect of Thesis explained above. Further, when Vienne says that baptism, when received in water, is a perfect remedy for salvation, commonly for adults and for infants, that in no way excludes that it may also be received non-sacramentally; it is merely saying that both adults and infants may benefit from it in water unto salvation.

Now, according to the Thesis, one may be saved who has non-sacramentally received the ultimate reality of the sacrament of baptism (justification), should he fail to receive a sacramental confection without grave neglect on his part. Let us now see how the Thesis is compatible with Trent’s canons regarding a necessity of baptism for salvation and a necessity of water for baptism.

II. Sacramental Necessity

The Sacramental Necessity Of Baptism According To The Thesis

According to the Baptism of Desire Thesis, the sacrament of baptism has a twofold necessity unto salvation.

Firstly, the ultimate reality of the sacrament of baptism, that is, the grace of justification, is so necessary for every individual, that without it, no man can be saved. But, as we have seen (Denz. 796), the ultimate reality of baptism may be received when the sacrament is received non-sacramentally, through a desire to receive the sacrament sacramentally. Hence no one can be saved unless they receive the sacrament of baptism, either sacramentally or at least non-sacramentally in its ultimate reality. In this sense the sacrament of baptism may be said to be necessary unto salvation with a “necessity of means”, in so far as the end provided by the sacrament, that is, salvation, cannot be obtained without the reception of the sacrament, that is, “at least in desire”. Now, properly speaking there are no substitutes for the sacrament of baptism toward the end of salvation: it must be received either sacramentally or at least non-sacramentally, “in desire”. But as we have seen, a non-sacramental manner of receiving the sacrament is often termed “baptism of desire” or “baptism of blood”, as if they are separate baptisms, which they are only analogously: and accordingly they are often spoken of as substitutes for the sacrament of baptism, which they are, again, only analogously. We may say that literally speaking they are rather substitute manners of receiving the sacrament. The sacrament must be received, “at least in desire”: and we say in this first sense, with regard to the necessity of means, “that baptism is necessary for salvation”.

Secondly, all are bound by divine precept (law) to receive the sacrament of baptism not merely in desire, but in act, that is, sacramentally. It would be a grave sin to deliberately and knowingly neglect to fulfil the divine precept; but if one is absolutely unable to fulfil the precept, then one has not sinned in that. In that sense, baptism is said to be also of a “necessity of precept”. A sacramental reception of baptism ever remains binding upon all who have not yet received it in that manner, and in that sense there is no substitute manner; yet the precept may be satisfied without being fulfilled, when one fails to sacramentally receive without grave fault. In this second sense, with regard to the necessity of precept, we say also, “that baptism is necessary for salvation”.

<< Christ’s Passion, without whose power, neither original nor actual sin is remitted, produces its effect in us through the reception of the sacraments which derive their efficacy from it. Wherefore for the remission of both actual and original sin, A SACRAMENT OF THE CHURCH IS NECESSARY, RECEIVED EITHER ACTUALLY, OR AT LEAST IN DESIRE, WHEN A MAN FAILS TO RECEIVE THE SACRAMENT ACTUALLY, THROUGH AN UNAVOIDABLE OBSTACLE, AND NOT THROUGH CONTEMPT. Consequently those sacraments which are ordained as remedies for sin which is incompatible with salvation, ARE NECESSARY FOR SALVATION: AND SO JUST AS BAPTISM, WHEREBY ORIGINAL SIN IS BLOTTED OUT, IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION, SO ALSO IS THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. (Summa Theologica, Supplement 6, 1) >>

Again:

<< Objection: the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary “without which something cannot be” (Aristotle’s Metaphysics V). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism. Reply: THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM IS SAID TO BE NECESSARY FOR SALVATION IN SO FAR AS THERE CAN BE NO SALVATION FOR MAN UNLESS HE AT LEAST HAVE IT IN WILL WHICH, WITH GOD, COUNTS FOR THE DEED. (Summa Theologica 3, 68, 2) >>

The sense of “necessity of precept” may be traced to the sense of the “necessary” that we just saw St. Thomas quote from the Metaphysics: “Now that is necessary ‘without which something cannot be’”. St. Thomas was referring to the second of Aristotle’s senses: “that without which the good for man cannot be, and that without which one cannot get rid of or remain free of some evil” (1015a22), which is the basis of both of the types of sacramental necessity with which we are here concerned. The satisfaction of laws has the necessity of a necessary condition. We may say that according to the preceptive necessity of such a sacrament, “one is absolutely bound to avoid gravely neglecting to sacramentally receive the sacrament”: he who does not thus satisfy the precept in its aspect of necessity cannot attain the good of man and avoid evil. The direct subject of the necessity of such a precept – the avoidance of gravely neglecting the precept – is thus a conditio sine qua non, that is, a necessary condition, without the satisfaction of which the end cannot be attained. (Of course, neglect can be repented.) The attachment of gravity to the avoidance of deliberately and knowingly neglecting the precept gives the precept of a sacramental reception of the sacrament a necessity unto salvation of precept. A condition is said to be necessary with a relative necessity, that is, with a necessity that is in regard to an external cause, even a final cause, that is, a purpose or end, here even salvation. The relative necessity of a condition may be traced to the ultimate sense of “necessity” given by Aristotle, which is “that anything that cannot be otherwise is necessarily so” (1015a33). Thus, it cannot but be that a man be without the guilt of gravely neglecting the precept to sacramentally receive the sacrament of baptism, if he is to attain to the end of salvation. Hence, the necessity of precept is a true necessity, even the relative necessity of a necessary condition. The condition of which we speak, is necessary also with a hypothetical necessity: that is, as God has chosen to decree the condition, it is consequently so and is thus necessarily so.

The Necessity Of Water For Baptism

According to the Baptism of Desire Thesis, the matter of the sacrament of baptism, that is, “true and natural water”, is necessary for the sacrament to be confected in act, that is, in an actual sacramental reception of the sacrament. Yet the sacrament may be received non-sacramentally, that is, without its actual sacramental confection, through desire, without water being used in a sacramental confection. Thus, it is said that “true and natural water is necessary for baptism” in the sense that the sacrament cannot be received sacramentally without the use of water in a sacramental confection, yet the sacrament may be received non-sacramentally, in its ultimate reality, through the desire to receive the sacrament sacramentally.

Let us now consider that the Thesis is in harmony with Trent’s canons on baptism, which some (cf. Br. Robert Mary MICM Tert, SBC NH, 1995, p. 116) are wont to quote against it.

The Necessity Of Baptism In Trent

Trent teaches that baptism is “necessary for salvation”: “If any one saith that baptism is OPTIONAL, THAT IS, NOT NECESSARY FOR SALVATION; let him be anathema.” (Denz. 861) This statement is in harmony with the Thesis because Trent did not say that baptism is necessary unto salvation with a necessity of means such as that no one can be saved without receiving the sacrament sacramentally. Indeed, Trent opposed the necessity of which it was speaking to the Protestant assertion that baptism is “optional”, according to which error, no one is bound to receive the sacrament by any precept and it is just a matter of choice: “optional, that is, not necessary for salvation”. Trent condemned only that Protestant error, that no one is bound to a sacramental reception of the sacrament of baptism, that is, that such a reception is not necessary for salvation with a necessity of precept. But, as we have seen, according to the Baptism of Desire Thesis, all are bound by precept to a sacramental reception of baptism, as necessary for salvation, in that one who gravely neglects to fulfil the precept, that is, knowingly and deliberately, thereby sins mortally. Hence, the Trentine canon in question was not intended to address the Thesis and it in no way bears negatively upon it.

The Sacrament Of Penance Is Also Necessary For Salvation

We may further see that that Trentine canon does not bear negatively upon the Thesis by considering that Trent taught that the sacrament of penance is also “necessary for salvation”:

<< And this SACRAMENT OF PENANCE is, for those who have fallen after baptism, NECESSARY FOR SALVATION, AS BAPTISM ITSELF IS for those who have not as yet been regenerated. (Denz. 895) >>

So, the sacrament of penance is “necessary for salvation”: and yet, as we have seen, its salvific reality may be received non-sacramentally, through a desire to sacramentally receive the sacrament:

Hence we have a clear example of where Trent defined a sacrament to be “necessary for salvation”, with the understanding that it is necessary for salvation only in the senses:

- That one cannot be saved without receiving its salvific reality, at least through a non-sacramental reception of the sacrament – in which sense the sacrament may be said ^[*]to be “necessary for salvation”, “at least in desire”, with a necessity of means, without which the end (salvation) cannot be attained;

- That one cannot be saved who gravely neglects to actually receive the sacrament, that is, sacramentally, in which sense the sacrament may be said to be necessary for salvation also with a necessity of precept – that is, the end (salvation) cannot be attained unless one satisfies the condition of not gravely despising the precept by which one is bound to a sacramental reception.

[* Note: Different authors apply the phrase “necessity of means” with different meanings. To assess whether the authors agree or disagree in what they are actually saying, one must look beyond the phrase to the definition given. The ‘Feeneyites’ use it to mean that the end cannot be attained unless the sacrament is received sacramentally, particularly when they speak of baptism. Thus St Thomas and I differ substantially from them with regard to baptism, as we say that it is possible for it to be received unto salvation non-sacramentally. ‘Feeneyites’ say that the sacrament of penance is not of a “necessity of means”, but we all agree substantially regarding that sacrament, that one can be saved without receiving it sacramentally.]

According to the Baptism of Desire Thesis, just as the salvific reality of the sacrament of penance (reconciliation with God), which sacrament is necessary for the salvation of those who have fallen after a sacramental reception of baptism, may be received unto salvation by one who receives it through a non-sacramental reception of the sacrament of penance, through the desire to sacramentally receive that sacrament, should he then be unable to fulfil the precept by which he is bound to actually receive the sacrament: even so, the salvific reality of the sacrament of baptism (justification), which sacrament is necessary for the salvation of one who has not as yet received the sacrament of baptism sacramentally, may be received unto salvation by one who receives it through a non-sacramental reception of the sacrament of baptism, through the desire to sacramentally receive that sacrament, should he then be unable to fulfil the precept by which he is bound to actually receive the sacrament. Trent has said nothing to the contrary of this; the canon on the necessity of baptism for salvation is in harmony with the Thesis.

Indeed the “Feeneyite” idea, that any sacrament (baptism) is necessary for salvation in the sense that no one can be saved who has not received it sacramentally, has no basis whatsoever in Trent; no such concept is found in Trent – or in any other council – with regard to any sacrament. The phrase “necessary for salvation” does not imply such an idea.

Now, some may be surprised that Trent may have used the term “necessary”, with regard to baptism, in a technical, theological sense different from the more common use, yet the context, namely Trent’s use of “necessary” in its discussion of the sacrament of penance, establishes that. Furthermore, we have already seen that preceptive necessity is a true necessity, even that of a conditio sine qua non. And anyway, the English language actually does use the term with meanings approximate to the theological sense of ‘necessity of precept’. We shall reproduce from among the various meanings of the term and its cognates, “necessity” and “necessitate”, those given by the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary On Historical Principles (1962) that approximate to that sense. For “necessity”, we have “an UNAVOIDABLE compulsion or OBLIGATION of doing something”, which is close to the sort of ‘necessity of precept’ that is used theologically. Thus, the “obligation” of being sacramentally baptised is “unavoidable”, that is, absolutely binding, yet only with preceptive necessity, that is, precisely as an obligation. For “necessary”, we have “enforced by another; compulsory”, which in English certainly has connotations of authority and commands. For “necessitate”, we have “to compel, OBLIGE, or force”, which clearly includes preceptive as well as physical necessity.

We shall now consider how the Thesis is in harmony with the canon of Trent on the necessity of water for baptism.

The Necessity Of Water For Baptism In Trent

As we have said, according to the Baptism of Desire Thesis, the matter of the sacrament of baptism, that is, “true and natural water”, is necessary for the sacrament to be confected in act, that is, in an actual sacramental reception of the sacrament. Yet the sacrament may be received non-sacramentally, that is, without its actual sacramental confection, through desire, without water being used in a sacramental confection. Thus, it is said that “true and natural water is necessary for baptism” in the sense that the sacrament cannot be received sacramentally without the use of water in a sacramental confection, yet the sacrament may be received non-sacramentally, in its ultimate reality, through the desire to receive the sacrament sacramentally.

The Thesis is in harmony with the following canon of Trent on the necessity of water for baptism: “If any one saith, that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost’; let him be anathema.” (Denz. 858) The canon merely says that water is “necessary for baptism”, which is an incomplete proposition. It is not specified that “water is necessary for baptism to be sacramentally confected in act” or whether “water is necessary for baptism to be in any manner received”. It is wrong to assume, as a few do, that Trent was saying that the sacrament cannot be received at all, even non-sacramentally, without water being actually used: for Trent did not say that.

In the canon on water, Trent was condemning the Protestant error (cf. Denz. 843a) that denied that Our Lord intended to institute a sacrament of baptism for the sacramental confection of which a material element is necessary. According to that error, the baptism that Christ instituted is only a ‘spiritual baptism’, according to which the “water” of which Our Lord spoke was only a metaphor for the spiritual cleansing accompanying the reception of the Holy Spirit. They were wont to misuse the following verse: “I indeed baptize you in the water unto penance, but he that shall come after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire” (St. Matthew 3:11), as if it were said that Christ would not baptised with water. Such a Protestant error is in no way maintained or implied by the Thesis. According to the Thesis, Our Lord’s words do refer to real water, which is the matter of the sacrament of baptism, which He instituted, and which water is necessary for the sacrament to be confected as it is in a sacramental reception. The Thesis does not have water to be a metaphor, but has the sacramental reality of the sacrament to be received also through desire, that is, non-sacramentally, and without the sacramental confection in water.

We may see the same taught in the Summa Theologica. St Thomas explained, “that pure plain water is necessary for Baptism” (III, 66, 4), yet we are given to understand, “that three kinds of Baptism are fittingly described, viz. Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit” (III, 66, 11). The solution to our problem is given in the latter article in answer to objection 2, even that a non-sacramental reception does not provide the outward sign but the ultimate sacramental reality: “The other two, however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect”.

The Necessity Of Confession For Penance

We may again illustrate Trent's meaning by drawing a parallel with the sacrament of penance. Every sacrament has its necessary matter, such as the entire confession of mortal sins is necessary matter of penance; Trent:

<< From the institution of the sacrament of Penance as already explained, the universal Church has always understood, that THE ENTIRE CONFESSION OF SINS WAS ALSO INSTITUTED BY THE LORD, AND IS OF DIVINE LAW NECESSARY for all who have fallen after baptism; because that our Lord Jesus Christ, when about to ascend from earth to heaven, left priests His own vicars, as presidents and judges, unto whom all the mortal crimes, into which the faithful of Christ may have fallen, should be carried, in order that, in accordance with the power of the keys, they may pronounce the sentence of forgiveness or retention of sins. For it is manifest, that PRIESTS COULD NOT HAVE EXERCISED THIS JUDGMENT without knowledge of the cause; neither indeed could they have observed equity in enjoining punishments, if the said faithful should have declared their sins in general only, and not rather SPECIFICALLY, AND ONE BY ONE. Whence it is gathered that ALL MORTAL SINS, of which, after a diligent examination of themselves, they are conscious, MUST be by penitents enumerated in confession. [...] But, whereas all mortal sins, even those of thought, render men children of wrath, and enemies of God, it is NECESSARY TO SEEK ALSO FOR THE PARDON OF THEM ALL from God, with an open and humble confession. Wherefore, while the faithful of Christ are careful to confess all the sins which occur to their memory, they without doubt lay them all bare before the mercy of God to be pardoned. (Denz. 899) >>

And yet the sacrament of penance may be received non-sacramentally, as we have seen (Denz. 898), not in its sacramental confection, for which the matter is necessary, that is, the actual confession of sins, but through the desire to receive the sacrament in its confection, when the sacramental reality is thereby received. Thus the necessity of the matter of a sacrament does not exclude the possibility that a sacrament may be received non-sacramentally without that matter being actually present. Hence a “necessity” of water for baptism does not exclude the possibility of a non-sacramental reception of that sacrament without water.

Moreover, the canon on water would, in any case, in no way have borne negatively upon the central contention of the Thesis, which is that one may be saved without a sacramental reception of the sacrament of baptism even as one may be saved without a sacramental reception of the sacrament of penance. Even if Trent had said that which it did not in any way say or imply – namely, that the sacrament of baptism cannot be received in any manner without water – that would in no way support the idea that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation with a necessity of means such as that no one can be saved without receiving the sacrament in a sacramental manner. For it would be one thing for a matter to be in every sense necessary to the integrity of a means and quite another for that means to be the only means to an end. For instance, one may absolutely need a coin to make a phone call, but that does not mean that the use of a phone call is the only means of making contact: it may be that one could drive over instead. It is a fact that justification may be had through a desire for the sacrament of baptism and all that is ultimately in question is whether that suffices for salvation should sacramental baptism prove impossible. So, even if one did not call the translation to justification through desire a “non-sacramental reception of the sacrament”, we would yet be left with the question of whether a sacramental reception of baptism is only of a necessity of precept for salvation, as is that of penance, or also of means. The canon does not touch upon that. Indeed, as Trent was discussing only a condition for a sacramental reception of baptism in that canon, not the conditions for salvation, it left off the end of the passage it was quoting (St. John 3:5). Hence, the canon of Trent on water would in any case have been irrelevant to the heart of the Thesis.

We shall now consider how the Thesis is in harmony with the truth that “no one at all is saved outside of the Church”.

III. Incorporation Into The Church Through A Non-Sacramental Reception Of The Sacrament Of Baptism

Incorporation Into The Church Through Desire According To The Thesis

Now, as no one at all is saved outside of the Church, the Baptism of Desire Thesis could accord with the Church’s teaching only if one may have membership of the Church without having received the sacrament of baptism sacramentally. According to the Thesis, one who has been justified through a non-sacramental reception of the sacrament of baptism has been incorporated into the Mystical Body of Christ, non-sacramentally, but actually ^[*] and with perfection by the grace that he has received through his desire to receive the sacrament of baptism sacramentally. For, one is united with Christ and incorporated into His Mystical Body through grace alone; and so St. Thomas:

<< We must needs say that in some way [that is, instrumentally,] the sacraments of the New Law cause grace. For it is evident that through the sacraments of the New Law man is incorporated with Christ: thus the Apostle says of Baptism (Gal. 3:27): “As many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ.” And MAN IS MADE A MEMBER OF CHRIST THROUGH GRACE ALONE. (Summa Theologica 3, 62, 1) >>

[* Note: “Actually” is used as distinct from “potentially” with regard to membership of the Mystical Body, whereas it is used as distinct from “in desire” with regard to the reception of the sacraments. Hence one may be an “actual member” of the Mystical Body without an “actual reception” of the sacrament of baptism.]

A man is united perfectly with Christ, and becomes a living member of His Mystical Body, when he receives the habitual graces of faith, hope and charity in justification. If a man were to lose his justification through sin, and yet retain the virtue of faith, he would remain imperfectly united with Christ as a ‘dead’ member in the order of grace. And so St. Thomas:

<< Nevertheless, there are some, viz. mortal, sins from which they are free who are MEMBERS OF CHRIST BY THE ACTUAL UNION OF CHARITY; but such as are tainted with these sins are not members of Christ actually, but potentially; except, perhaps, IMPERFECTLY, BY FORMLESS FAITH [i.e. without hope and charity added to it,] WHICH UNITES TO GOD, RELATIVELY BUT NOT SIMPLY, viz. so that man partake of the life of grace. For, as is written (James 2:20): “Faith without works is dead.” Yet such as these receive from Christ a certain vital act, i.e. to believe, as if a lifeless limb were moved by a man to some extent. (Summa Theologica 3, 8, 3) >>

It now behoves us to see whether the infallible teaching of the Church supports this contention of the Thesis.

Incorporation Into The Church Through Desire In The Infallible Teaching Of The Church

Are there any infallible statements that support the contention that one may enter the Mystical Body of Christ through a non-sacramental reception of the sacrament of baptism, through grace alone? We find that there are.

The Council of Florence taught that a man is incorporated with Christ and is united with His members through grace. Florence:

<< The effect of this sacrament [of the Eucharist] which He operates in the soul of him who takes it worthily is the union of man with Christ. And since THROUGH GRACE MAN IS INCORPORATED WITH CHRIST AND IS UNITED WITH HIS MEMBERS, it follows that through this sacrament grace is increased among those who receive it worthily [and thus one’s union with Christ is intensified]. (Denz. 698) >>

Further, we have seen that Trent taught that one may be translated to the state of justification through a sacramental reception of baptism or through a desire to receive the sacrament of baptism sacramentally (Denz. 796): yet Trent also taught that the sanctifying grace received “in the said justification” – that is, the grace of the indwelling theological virtues of faith, hope and charity – itself “unites a man perfectly with Christ” and “makes him a living member of His Body”, that is, regardless of whether justification has been received through a sacramental or non-sacramental reception of baptism. Trent:

<< Whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, IN THE SAID JUSTIFICATION, together with the remission of sins, all these gifts infused at once, faith, hope, and charity. For FAITH, UNLESS HOPE AND CHARITY BE ADDED THERETO, NEITHER UNITES A MAN PERFECTLY WITH CHRIST, NOR MAKES HIM A LIVING MEMBER OF HIS BODY. (Denz. 800) >>

Hence, one is incorporated into the Mystical Body of Christ, as a living member thereof, in justification, through the grace of infused faith, hope and charity, regardless of whether one has been translated to the state thereof through a sacramental or a non-sacramental reception of the sacrament of baptism.

Again, Trent told us that Christ is, to the justified, without distinction, the “head” to the “members” and the “vine” to the “branches”, which clearly indicates that the justified are members of the Mystical Body:

<< For, whereas Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into THE JUSTIFIED, AS THE HEAD INTO THE MEMBERS, AND THE VINE INTO THE BRANCHES, and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works […] (Denz. 809) >>

Again, Trent spoke of the justified, without distinction, as “members” of Christ:

<< If any one saith, that the good works of ONE THAT IS JUSTIFIED are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of the same justified; or, that THE SAME JUSTIFIED, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, WHOSE LIVING MEMBER HE IS, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema. (Denz. 842) >>

Yet the Church is identified with the Mystical Body of Christ: and so it appears that one may enter the Church through a desire for the sacrament of baptism by reception of its ultimate reality, even the grace of justification. Florence said of baptism that one is made a member of Christ and enters the Church through it, just before it spoke of the union being effected by grace: so let us now consider the two together.

<< Through baptism we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church [...] And since THROUGH GRACE MAN IS INCORPORATED WITH CHRIST AND IS UNITED WITH HIS MEMBERS [...] (Denz. 696, 698) >>

The effect of baptism that incorporates into Christ, and presumably thereby into the Church, is the bestowal of the state of grace, justification, which ultimate reality of the sacrament is had also when the sacrament is received non-sacramentally through the desire for it. Moreover, note that Florence did not say that only baptism makes one a member of the Church, but only that baptism does. Hence even if one did not explicitly apply the “non-sacramental reception of the sacrament” concept to Florence, one would still see the possibility left of entering the Church without an actual reception of baptism. Yet the basis of the concept is somewhat found therein, since the grace given by the sacrament of baptism incorporates one into Christ, and may be received, as Trent tells us, through the desire for the sacrament. Florence did not say that only a sacramental reception of baptism incorporates one into the Church.

Salvation Afforded By An Incorporation Into The Church Through Desire According To The Thesis

It would seem that we must distinguish the union with Christ and the membership in His Church, which are effected by the grace of baptism, from the juridical citizenship in the Church, which is effected by the sacramental reception of the sacrament of baptism. According to the Thesis, it is a conditio sine qua non for salvation to be a member in the Church through the actual and perfect union with the Mystical Body that is effected through faith, hope and charity: no one may be saved without such a union. And it is of a necessity of precept for salvation to partake of the juridical citizenship of the Church, which is effected by the sacramental reception of baptism; it is possible to be saved without such citizenship. All are gravely bound to be sacramentally baptised, yet should that prove impossible, a non-sacramental reception of the sacrament, which unites one perfectly with Christ and His Mystical Body, suffices for salvation. We must also distinguish the actual and perfect union accomplished through grace from the actual participation in the other sacraments that is afforded by a sacramental reception of the sacrament of baptism: it is possible to be saved without such participation.

Thus we find that the requirement of Church membership for salvation would appear to be no obstacle to the Thesis, according to which, an actual and perfect union with Christ and His Mystical Body may be accomplished unto salvation through a non-sacramental reception of the sacrament of baptism in its ultimate reality. St. Thomas practically stated this while discussing the effect of the Eucharist, which is to increase justifying grace, which intensifies one’s union with Christ and His Mystical Body:

<< Two things have to be considered in this sacrament [of the Eucharist], namely, the sacrament itself, and what is contained in it. Now it was stated above that THE REALITY OF THE SACRAMENT IS THE UNITY OF THE MYSTICAL BODY, WITHOUT WHICH THERE CAN BE NO SALVATION; FOR THERE IS NO ENTERING INTO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, just as in the time of the deluge there was none outside the Ark, which denotes the Church. And it has been said above, that before [sacramentally] receiving a sacrament, THE REALITY OF THE SACRAMENT CAN BE HAD THROUGH THE VERY DESIRE OF RECEIVING THE SACRAMENT. Accordingly, BEFORE ACTUAL RECEPTION OF THIS SACRAMENT, a man can obtain salvation through the desire of receiving it, JUST AS HE CAN BEFORE BAPTISM THROUGH THE DESIRE OF BAPTISM. (Summa Theologica 3, 73, 3) >>

As one is justified by the sacrament of baptism, and one is united with Christ and the Mystical Body through grace, we may say that such unity is also of the salvific effect of that sacrament, even if it is not symbolised by the external sign of the sacrament in the way it is in the Eucharist, where the external species symbolise the True Body of Christ, and in turn, the Mystical Body of the Church.

We have shown how the Thesis is compatible with various infallible statements of the Church; let us now consider whether the Church has infallible taught that justification suffices for salvation without a sacramental reception of the sacrament of baptism.

IV. Does Justification Suffice For Salvation Without A Sacramental Reception Of The Sacrament Of Baptism According To The Infallible Teaching Of The Church?

The Satisfaction Of The Divine Law

As we have already indicated, according to the Baptism of Desire Thesis, it is sufficient for salvation to die justified, even if one has not sacramentally received the sacrament of baptism. Thus the sacraments are said to be necessary for salvation in that one receives grace by receiving them, that is, “at least in desire”.

However, we do not find that the Church has said anything positively bearing upon this matter. We shall explain why a certain text that has been cited in this connection (Fr. Laisney SSPX, Angelus Press, 2001, p. 100) is irrelevant.

Trent taught as follows:

<< For, since Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified, like the head into the members, and like the vine into the branches, which virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, and without which nothing could in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God: we must believe that NOTHING FURTHER IS WANTING TO THE JUSTIFIED, TO PREVENT THEM FROM BEING CONSIDERED TO HAVE, by those very works which have been done in God, FULLY SATISFIED THE DIVINE LAW according to the state of this life, and to have TRULY MERITED ETERNAL LIFE, TO BE OBTAINED IN ITS DUE TIME, IF SO BE, HOWEVER, THAT THEY DEPART IN GRACE. (Denz. 809) ^[*] >>

[* Note: this is an accurate translation of the original Latin; that given by Fr. Laisney is not accurate and looks very self-serving.]

So, the justified will have “fully satisfied the divine law” and will obtain “eternal life … if they depart in grace”; whoever dies justified is saved. However, it cannot be inferred from this that it is possible to be saved without a sacramental reception of the sacrament of baptism.

Firstly, what did Trent mean and imply when it said that those who die in grace have “fully satisfied the divine law”? Trent was concerned to argue against and condemn such Protestant errors as that the just sin mortally even in any good work, that the commandments are impossible to the just, and that God merely does not ‘impute’ the sins of the just (Denz. 804, 821, 835). According to such errors, the justified never “satisfy the divine law”, really avoiding mortal sins and meriting through good works, and God ‘imputes’ the righteousness of Christ to them rather than their guilt. We may see this line of rhetoric in the heretic Calvin’s so-called Institutes of the Christian Religion, where he denied that anyone can “satisfy the law” in being without a condemnation, or in having merit, with regard to it. “Undoubtedly there is not one man who is not covered with infinite pollutions. […] He first infers that faith is made void if the promise of righteousness has respect to the merit of our works, or depends on the observance of the law. Never could any one rest securely in it, for never could he feel fully assured that he had fully satisfied the law; and IT IS CERTAIN THAT NO MAN EVER FULLY SATISFIED IT by works.” (III, 13) And we may see the same, in his supposed Commentary on I Corinthians, where he maintained that salvation is given simply for the imputed satisfaction of Christ: “When, therefore, he says, that victory has been given to us, you are to understand by this in the first place, that it is inasmuch as Christ has in his own person abolished sin, HAS SATISFIED THE LAW, has endured the curse, has appeased the anger of God, and has procured life.” (Ad loc. 15:58) And again, in his heretical response to the Council of Trent’s Decree on Justification, he stated: “Under the twelfth head they renew the old anathema: Let none say that the Commandments of God are impossible to be observed by a justified man. It serves no purpose to dispute about the term impossible. It is enough for me, and should be enough for all who are pious, and not at all contentious, that NO MAN EVER LIVED WHO SATISFIED THE LAW OF GOD, and that none ever can be found.” The Church’s teaching is that the justified can progress onward in grace by doing good and avoiding mortal sin by using the grace they have received (Denz. 804) and they can rise again through confession should they fall. Hence, when Trent said that those who die in grace have “fully satisfied the divine law”, it meant that they have avoided mortal sin, or repented it, they have merited by their good works, and that God has not ‘imputed’ the righteousness of Christ to them rather than their guilt – otherwise they would not have been justified, properly understood.

As we have already said, if the fulfilment of a law is necessary unto salvation, it is so, as a law, with a necessity of precept, that is, with a conditio sine qua non attached to the avoidance of gravely neglecting to fulfil it. A law to do something or not do something is “satisfied” as long as one does not gravely neglect to fulfil it: it can be satisfied without being fulfilled. For instance, all who have fallen after baptism are gravely bound by divine law to make a sacramental confession; Trent:

<< The Church did not, through the Council of Lateran, ordain that the faithful of Christ should confess - a thing which it knew to be NECESSARY, and to be INSTITUTED BY DIVINE LAW - but that the precept of confession should be complied with, at least once a year. (Denz. 901) >>

Yet, as we have seen, if one has been justified again through a desire to receive the sacrament of penance sacramentally, then one can be saved if one fails to receive the sacrament sacramentally without grave neglect on one’s part (Denz. 807). Hence, to say that those who die in grace have “fully satisfied the divine law” (and that, regardless of whether they have been justified through desire or in act) means that the body of divine law, including the law to be baptised, has been “satisfied” in that the justified have not gravely neglected to fulfil a divine law to do something or not do something or they have repented of it if they have.

But does this relate to our question of whether it is possible to be saved without a sacramental reception of baptism? No one disputes – be they a “Feeneyite” or otherwise – that the divine law to be baptised is “fully satisfied” in its (preceptive) necessity as long as one does not gravely neglect to fulfil it; nor do they dispute that those who die in grace have “fully satisfied the divine law”: all are agreed that is so. Rather the question is as to whether the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation with a necessity of means such as that it is impossible for anyone to be saved without receiving it sacramentally, regardless of their desire, and regardless of whether they are guilty of grave neglect of the law. ^[*]That those who die in grace have “fully satisfied the divine law” – which concerns the necessity of precept – is impertinent to our question, which is with regard to the necessity that is of means and to possible substitute manners of receiving the means unto salvation and not just unto justification. Trent simply did not touch upon our question there, nor did it intend to.

[* Note: As we have already indicated, different authors apply the phrase “necessity of means” with different meanings. The ‘Feeneyites’ use the phrase to mean that the end cannot be attained unless the sacrament is received sacramentally, particularly when they speak of baptism. I use it to indicate that the end cannot be attained unless the sacrament is received at least non-sacramentally, that is, “at least in desire.”]

Likewise, the good works of the just may be the meritorious cause of their salvation, but it is one thing to merit and another to have the means of obtaining. God is certainly the First Cause of the beatification of the elect, like He is the First Cause of everything, but the question is as to what secondary causes he employs as means in the salvific economy.

All Who Die Justified Are Saved

Nor can it be inferred that it is possible to be saved without a sacramental reception of the sacrament of baptism from that all who die justified are saved. Neither do the “Feeneyites” dispute that all who die justified are saved. Rather they are wont to argue that it is impossible for anyone to be saved without a sacramental reception of the sacrament of baptism and that it pertains to God’s infallible providence that He provide anyone with such a reception if He foresees that they are going to die justified by cooperating with His grace: according to which, no one dies justified who does not also die with a sacramental reception. As no one is wont to dispute, God provides His elect with all of the essential means of salvation.

It would be a sufficient sign (if we could apprehend it), that someone had died justified, in order to know that they are saved: but a sufficient sign is not to be confused with a sufficient cause, the principle of knowledge with the principle of production. Causes are divided into causes in becoming, which contribute to bringing the effect into existence, and into causes in being, which keep an effect in existence as such a thing as it is. When a cause in becoming (e.g., justification at death) is a sufficient sign of the becoming of an effect (e.g., salvation), it implies that if anything else is necessary as a cause in becoming to bring the effect into existence, then it is also present; it does not imply that nothing else is required as a cause in becoming. A sufficient cause in becoming of an effect implies that nothing else is required as a cause in becoming, although the cause itself may have required causes in being for its own maintenance. The sacraments are admitted by all to be causes in becoming and in being of justification, “at least in desire”. They are remote causes of salvation in so far as they commence and maintain justification, which is proximate cause of salvation. But none of this implies that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation only as productive of justification, or that justification is a sufficient cause in becoming of salvation.

Further, it would be one thing to say that nothing else is required as a means of salvation or for the satisfaction of an associated precept and quite another to say that nothing else is required as a condition. Let us remember that the salvation of the elect is an intermediate end in God’s providential scheme: the ultimate end for which He acts is to His greater glory. The wise agent, which God is eminently, acts in view of the ultimate end. And what is a condition for the accomplishment of the ultimate end is, in a participative way, a condition for the satisfactory accomplishment of the intermediate end, in so far as it must be accomplished in a manner that is not obstructive of one’s designs toward the ultimate end. This is especially so when the agent has committed himself to a design such as that it is not possible to fall back on another. Now, one could envisage a scenario in which God had said that none of the New Testament elect will enter the beatified state “unless” they have first obtained a sacramental confection of baptism in water, ^[*] so that the fulfilment of this saying is a most glorious demonstration of the veracity of His word and of the omnipotence of His providence, neither of which divine attributes are disputable. “For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and recompense shall be made him? For of him, and by him, and in him, are all things: to him be glory for ever. Amen.” (Romans 11:34-6) Now, that is hypothetically necessary, which must be, given certain conditions: and that is hypothetically necessary with a participative divine necessity, which has a hypothetical necessity that is due to the nature of God Himself. If God had undertaken such a scheme, a sacramental confection for the New Testament elect would be a necessary condition so that salvation be obtained in a satisfactory manner toward the accomplishment of the ultimate end: and, as it would have to be, with a participative divine necessity, that salvation be obtained in satisfactory manner, a sacramental confection would be a condition, having participative divine necessity, that salvation be obtained at all. A sacramental confection would be hypothetically necessary with a participative divine necessity: because God had (i) unconditionally undertaken that design and (ii) foretold its fulfilment and, as necessarily committed (a) to the fulfilment of His unconditional designs and (b) to the veracity of His word, would not be able to fall back on another design; and (iii) to the ultimate end, which is the greater glory, for it would detract from that glory were God’s unconditional scheme to fail, which could not be; and (iv) simply because omnipotent God had chosen and unconditionally decreed that it should be and therefore it indeed would be. A sacramental confection for the elect would thus be hypothetically necessary due to the infinite glory, veracity and omnipotence of God. Hence, even if a sacramental confection were not an essential means of salvation considered in itself, it would, according to the hypothesis which we have just outlined, yet be a necessary condition, with participative divine necessity, that salvation come to pass, considered in its aspect as an intermediate end. My point is not that we can presently know with certainty that God has designed thus but rather that we cannot absolutely exclude the possibility and, therefore, even if a sacramental confection were not an essential means of salvation, it would yet be rash to assume that it is not a necessary condition for salvation to come to pass. And indeed God could have undertaken such a design, to the demonstration of His omnipotence, even if He had not said so, which would still give divine necessity to a sacramental confection as indicated above.

[* Note: cf. St. John 3:5. However, the Bible has an holy obscurity and sometimes a manifold signification, and its interpretation is subject to the infallible explanation of the Church. Accordingly the Faithful could not themselves conclude from the Bible that God had undertaken to provide all of the New Testament elect with a sacramental reception of baptism, but perhaps a pope, infallibly defining, could.]

Besides, not only means and precepts are necessary conditions, but also that a thing be done fittingly, and especially so where God is concerned (Cf. Summa Theologica 3, 1; 3, 46). Perhaps God would not consider it fitting that, in his providence, a member of the New Testament elect be saved without having the sacrament in the normal manner before his death. But who are we, wayfarers limited in vision, to dictate with absolute certainty what is or is not fitting for God, unless something has been infallibly taught to be revealed? Thus again, it would be rash to assume, simply from that a sacramental confection were not an essential means of salvation itself, that it is not a necessary condition for salvation to come to pass.

Anyway, it is clear that the passage that has been cited, that those who die in grace have “fully satisfied the law” and are saved, is irrelevant to the matter of whether anyone can be saved without a sacramental reception of the sacrament of baptism. There is nothing in the infallible teaching of the Church to say that it cannot be so, or is not so, that someone dies justified and is saved without a sacramental reception, but the point is that is not here established, which is what we are here concerned with. It has been established neither that the sacrament of baptism is not of a necessity of means such as that no one can be saved without receiving it sacramentally, nor that it is not otherwise a necessary condition for salvation to come to pass.

We shall now draw our conclusion.

Conclusion

We have explained the Baptism of Desire Thesis as follows. The Thesis contends that the sacrament of baptism may be received in a non-sacramental manner, through a desire to receive the sacrament sacramentally, whereby the ultimate reality of the sacrament (justification) is received. That desire may be implicitly contained in contrition. Further, a man who has been justified through a non-sacramental reception may be saved if he fails to receive the sacrament sacramentally without grave neglect on his part, as justification suffices for salvation. The sacrament of baptism has a twofold necessity unto salvation. It is necessary with a necessity of means, in that no one can be saved without receiving its ultimate reality, at least in a non-sacramental reception of the sacrament through a desire to receive the sacrament sacramentally. And the sacrament of baptism is necessary also with a necessity of precept, that is, with a further conditio sine qua non attached, in that all are bound to receive it in act and one who gravely neglects to do so sins mortally. Both necessities are true necessities. Further, water is necessary for the sacrament of baptism to be confected sacramentally but the sacrament may be received non-sacramentally, its ultimate reality being received, without it being sacramentally confected with water. Finally, one may enter the Mystical Body of Christ, and presumably thus also the Church, through a non-sacramental reception of baptism.

We have found that there is some basis for the Thesis in the infallible teaching of the Church. We have seen Trent explicitly say that the sacraments of the Eucharist and penance may be received in desire; we have seen Trent say that the “reality of the sacrament” of penance may be had in desire: and we have seen Trent say that justification may be received through a desire for baptism, which is the “reality only of that sacrament”, or its “ultimate reality”, in Thomist theology; hence it would seem correct to say that the ultimate reality of the sacrament of baptism may be received non-sacramentally although the baptismal character, which is an intermediate “reality and sign”, is not thus received. We have found that the contention that the desire for baptism may be implicit is neither explicitly included nor excluded by Trent. We have found that the Thesis is compatible with the canons of Trent on baptism; we have seen Trent say that the sacrament of penance is also “necessary for salvation” while its salvific reality may be had through desire; we have considered that the canon on water would in any case have been impertinent to the central contention of the Thesis, that one may be saved without a sacramental reception of the sacrament of baptism. We have seen that the requirement of Church membership for salvation would appear to be no obstacle to the Thesis, as one is incorporated with Christ and united with His Mystical Body in justification through the grace of faith, hope and charity. We have also considered that the unity of baptism is no obstacle to the contention of the possibility of a non-sacramental reception of the sacrament of baptism. And we have considered that a passage from Trent that has been cited in connection with the question of whether justification suffices for salvation without a sacramental reception of the sacrament of baptism is impertinent to that matter.

I conclude that the Church has infallibly defined nothing at odds with the Thesis in its contention of that salvation is possible without a sacramental reception of the sacrament of baptism, though that contention cannot be verified according to the infallible teaching of the Church. It has some basis therein but is not proved. One might say that it is orthodox, but not de fide from the extraordinary magisterium. We have not been concerned here with any claims regarding a basis or proof of the Thesis in the ordinary and universal magisterium.