Salvation of Unbaptized

[Genesis315]

I would say no. The Baltimore Catechism says “Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive baptism” my emphasis added. So it would only apply to those who wish to be baptized in the valid form of baptism such as a convert entering the church. This is what I understand it meaning.

That’s an explicit desire. Implicit assumes the person has no knowledge of Baptism and therefore has no explicit desire for it. Since God can be known from natural reason, and according to the same St. Alphonsus (in The Great Means of Salvation and Perfection) God offers all men sufficient grace for salvation, their implicit desire would be perfect contrition for sin and a firm desire to seek Truth and follow its demands–such a person has an implicit desire because they would gladly desire it if it was known to them.

 

[LilyM]

I would say no. The Baltimore Catechism says “Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive baptism” my emphasis added. So it would only apply to those who wish to be baptized in the valid form of baptism such as a convert entering the church. This is what I understand it meaning.

Baptism of desire is actual baptism, like baptism by blood is actual baptism. It covers, for example, someone who dies suddenly while in the process of receiving instruction in the faith prior to baptism, or a child whose parents plan to have it baptised who dies suddenly.

St Pius X’s catechism, however, doesn’t state that this sort of baptism of desire, or any other form of *** actual*** baptism, is needed for salvation, but merely implicit desire for baptism.

im·plic·it(m-plst)
adj.

1. Implied or understood though not directly expressed: an implicit agreement not to raise the touchy subject.
2. Contained in the nature of something though not readily apparent: “Frustration is implicit in any attempt to express the deepest self” Patricia Hampl.

It is in the nature of someone who wishes to perfectly follow God’s will that if they understood that will to include baptism they would be baptised, is it not?

 

[Pug]

I mean someone who dies without being cleansed of original sin…But does that mean all of those who belong to religions who do not practice baptism or do not have a valid baptism are condemned to hell?

Okay, I am not a traditionalist, so you know, in case that matters to you. If someone dies without being cleansed by God of original sin, then they cannot go to heaven. What does this mean for people who never hear the gospel? I am concerned that for too many of them, it is bad news. Here is a modern answer to your question about them from CCCC 262:

Catechumens and all those who, even without knowing Christ and the Church, still (under the impulse of grace) sincerely seek God and strive to do his will can also be saved without Baptism (Baptism of desire).

I think having the truth can make you a more sincere person. It sure did me. So I think having heard the gospel is an advantage in the salvation department. The person from another religion would need to sincerely be willing to follow God and do whatever he requires us to do for salvation, even some unknown requirement like baptism, which the person has never heard of. Check the Baltimore Catechism. It also mentions this desire to do whatever is required, if I recall. The stumble for you is that it mentions baptism specifically as well, I think? Perhaps the CCCC above helps.

 

[mattheus09]

Thank you for the correction.

 

[rescath]

“Implicit” desire due to some natural good will is nothing short of Pelagianism. Whenever the doctors asked the question about desire, it was always an explicit desire and intention (votum in Latin is much stronger than “desire”, deriving from the word for “will”). No theologians ever asked the question of whether Protestants or other no-Catholics could be saved. Only question was whether “catechumens” could be saved, those with the faith and an intention / will to be baptized and become part of the Church. They were said to be “in vestibulo Ecclesiae”. Similarly with baptism of blood.

Invincible ignorance does not wipe out original sin – but can only excuse from actual guilt for the sin. Also, there’s a presumption from advocates of “implicit” desire that it would be somehow unjust for God to deny the beatific vision from those in original sin – which is completely wrong. Nor would there be anything wanting from a human being in his natural state for not having received this free supernatural gift, a gift beyond nature and not required for natural beatitude.

 

[LilyM]

Also, there’s a presumption from advocates of “implicit” desire that it would be somehow unjust for God to deny the beatific vision from those in original sin – which is completely wrong. Nor would there be anything wanting from a human being in his natural state for not having received this free supernatural gift, a gift beyond nature and not required for natural beatitude.

The topic of this thread is purely about salvation for the unbaptised.

It seems clear enough from the Catechism of Pius X that an implicit rather than explicit desire is sufficient - as to what precisely constitutes implicit desire, that can be debatable. But it seems morally certain that salvation is possible for the unbaptised.

 

[Pug]

“Implicit” desire due to some natural good will is nothing short of Pelagianism.

No one said that they desire whatever it is of their natural self. They don’t. It would be that God moved them by grace to desire it. See my CCCC clip above and note the parenthetical remark in it.

Also, there’s a presumption from advocates of “implicit” desire that it would be somehow unjust for God to deny the beatific vision from those in original sin

This does not speak for me. I am one of the people who accepts the idea of implicit desire, but I do *not *believe it is unjust for those in original sin to not go to heaven.

 

[Jim_ov_Cov]

Why take a chance with your eternal salvation? We don’t know with certainty that ANY non-Catholic was saved, baptised or not. We should rather be asking, “How do we reach those outside the Church?”
Original sin has terrible consequences. If it did not, why did Our Lord not just leave us as we were? Baptism is the only necessary sacrament, and we should therefore presume that the unbaptised are eternally lost. It’s a terrible thought, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

 

[rescath]

When there’s discussion of “implicit” desire in Catholics sources, it’s a desire of baptism “implicit” in the desire to join the Church. One must have the Catholic faith and a desire to join the Church, but the concrete “intention” of being baptized may not be explicit in one’s mind.

First of all, I reject the translation of the Latin votum as desire. It means WILL or INTENTION.

If you’re a catechumen and you are intending to become Catholic, you may or may not actually have a specific intention (e.g. schedule a date) to get baptized.

It’s similar to a priest offering Mass. He may forget to make the explicit intention of offering the Mass, but it would still be valid because he has an implicit intention to do so.

What’s Pelagian nonsense is this idea that some Protestant or Buddhist or animist with no intention or desire to join the Church can have some implicit intention to be Catholic by doing what he thinks is right, implicit IN the explicit desire to become a Catholic.

You can’t have an implicit will to be Catholic, only an implicit INTENTION (not some amorphous desire) to receive baptism.

 

[rescath]

All of the theologians before the 18th century or so, whenever the discuss the question of “baptism of desire” (whether explicit or implicit) ALWAYS do so in considering the concrete case of a catechumen who has died before receiving baptism, i.e. in the case of someone who has the explicit intention to become a Catholic.

In Thomistic fashion, the question asked is: “Can a catechumen who dies before baptism be saved?”

And questions like “Can a Protestant be saved?” or “Can an animist in invincible ignorance be saved?” are never entertained because the contrary has been dogmatically defined.

 

[Dan-Man916]

The Council of Florence states: "The souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in Original Sin only, descend immediately into Hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”

Yes, I know that. And what the Council states is an infallible dogma.
However, the Council of Florence did not say that infants who die before being baptized had absolutely no way of being sanctified.
They may be or may not be. We do not know with absolute certainty of faith.

 

[a_priori]

The thief on the cross was never baptized. Christ said “today you will be with Me in Paradise”.

 

[parvenu74]

The thief on the cross was never baptized. Christ said “today you will be with Me in Paradise”.

Regarding the Good Thief, I’ve seen this one of two ways:

St. Dismas, the Good Thief, was justified by the Old Law because he died previous to Christ’s death. Dismas went to the Bosom of Abraham, aka Limbo of the Fathers. Christ descended thereto and released the just of the Old Law.

Or:

By explicitly appealing to Christ – in person! – he’s making manifest his desire to do what’s necessary to gain salvation. In the very least, that’s an outwardly manifest expression of desire for Baptism, whether he knew what baptism was or not.

 

[LilyM]

By explicitly appealing to Christ – in person! – he’s making manifest his desire to do what’s necessary to gain salvation. In the very least, that’s an outwardly manifest expression of desire for Baptism, whether he knew what baptism was or not.

And don’t you think the devout Hindu or Amazon tribesman also may appeal explicitly to God (albeit not in the person of Christ, who isn’t handily present in the flesh for everyone) for salvation and cannot this also outwardly manifest their desire to do whatsoever might be necessary for salvation?

 

[marybee]

Why is there a feast day for the “Holy Innocents”?

The Catechism says that an unbatized person can enter Heaven. If you do not believe that, you are a dissenter.

Also, was there any mention of the Virgin or St. Joseph being baptized in the bible?

Here is another good question. Does God expect from a person of what is impossible? How could God expect a child who died in the womb to be baptized when there is not a way to do so? So God expects what is impossible for that child? No, that is not a merciful God, that is an evil spiteful God.

 

[parvenu74]

And don’t you think the devout Hindu or Amazon tribesman also may appeal explicitly to God (albeit not in the person of Christ, who isn’t handily present in the flesh for everyone) for salvation and cannot this also outwardly manifest their desire to do whatsoever might be necessary for salvation?

That only works if you can prove that Shiva or Kali (or the Amazonian equivalent) is actually the Triune God, but they are not (Psalm 95:5 “all the gods of the Gentiles are devils”). Appealing to a devil for salvation is clearly not the same as appealing to the One, True God, much less God made Man on the Cross.

 

[parvenu74]

marybee:

Why is there a feast day for the “Holy Innocents”?

They, along with all of the other martyrs, are examples of baptism of blood.

marybee:

Also, was there any mention of the Virgin or St. Joseph being baptized in the bible?

There’s no mention in the bible that Saint Joseph even had the use of speech, though it’s logical to assume he did. Moreover, Saint Joseph, having died before Christ’s death, would have been justified under the old law and not the new. As for the Blessed Mother, she had no need of Baptism; to suggest otherwise is material heresy by virtue of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Dan-Man916]

The thief on the cross was never baptized. Christ said “today you will be with Me in Paradise”.

What is Baptism? In Romans 6:3-11, we read that in Baptism we die with Christ and are reborn with him to new life. That is what Baptism is, and that is what baptism signifies.
We don’t literally die with Christ on the cross, but we die with him sacramentally. How wonderful that is, that we don’t have to go through that pain and suffering, yet we still die with him, and are raised to new life.

The good thief on the cross literally died with Jesus. He was baptized, not in a sacramental way, but literally, right next to him.

That is why the good thief didn’t need to be “baptized”. He partook of the paschal mystery in a real way, not sacramental.

 

[marybee]

They, along with all of the other martyrs, are examples of baptism of blood.

There’s no mention in the bible that Saint Joseph even had the use of speech, though it’s logical to assume he did. Moreover, Saint Joseph, having died before Christ’s death, would have been justified under the old law and not the new. As for the Blessed Mother, she had no need of Baptism; to suggest otherwise is material heresy by virtue of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Martyrs are people who die for their faith. These children much like aborted babies, miscarried babies, etc. did not have a knowledge of God. By your definition anyone who dies before baptism can go to heaven via “baptism of blood” which is fine. I believe that God is not bound to the means we understand.

I was just watching Fr. Corapi’s Catechism of the CC. He stated that if you seek to know truth and live a good life and have never had the opportunity of baptism you may still enter the kingdom.

 

[parvenu74]

What is Baptism? In Romans 6:3-11, we read that in Baptism we die with Christ and are reborn with him to new life. That is what Baptism is, and that is what baptism signifies.
We don’t literally die with Christ on the cross, but we die with him sacramentally. How wonderful that is, that we don’t have to go through that pain and suffering, yet we still die with him, and are raised to new life.

The good thief on the cross literally died with Jesus. He was baptized, not in a sacramental way, but literally, right next to him.

That is why the good thief didn’t need to be “baptized”. He partook of the paschal mystery in a real way, not sacramental.

The old law ends with the death of Christ. The legs of the Thieves were broken so they would die more quickly, but Christ’s legs were not broken because he was already dead. So the Good Thief dies after the end of the old law. But Christ – who is God and cannot deceive or be deceived – told him: “Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise. (Luke 23:43)”

This is a pretty interesting question the more I think about it, but ultimately you have the word of God Himself telling Saint Dismas – and all of us – that the Good Thief was justified and would be saved… He just didn’t tell us under which covenant or if this was a case of baptism of desire.