Baptism of desire

St. Cyprian of Carthage writes in a letter of AD 256 regarding the question of whether a catechumen seized and killed in confession of the name "would lose the hope of salvation and the reward of confession, because he had not previously been born again of water" that "they certainly are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism who are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood."[1]

St. Cyril of Jerusalem states in his Catechetical Lectures deliver in Lent of AD 348 that "if any man receive not Baptism, he hath not salvation; except only Martyrs, who even without the water receive the kingdom."[2]

St. Fulgentius of Ruspe writes around AD 525 in his book De fide ad Petrum that "apart from the sacrament of baptism, except for those who shed their blood for Christ in the Catholic Church without baptism, nobody can receive the kingdom of heaven, nor eternal life."

The Venerable Bede's 731 Ecclesiastical History of the English People states of Saint Alban, who substituted himself and was martyred as a new convert, that though he was not washed with the water of baptism, he was cleansed by the washing with his blood.

St. Ambrose of Milan and St. Augustine of Hippo are the most notable witnesses to the doctrine of baptism of desire apart from martyrdom in the patristic period.

The Catholic Church teaches that "baptism is necessary for salvation." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, ss. 1257).[3] It moreover teaches that baptism confers the forgiveness of sins by virtue of the enactment of the sacrament itself: "(b)y Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin." (ss. 1263). For Catholics, baptism is a unique, unrepeatable act; no one who has been baptized validly can receive the full pardon conferred by the sacrament a second time. (ss. 1272) Given these doctrines, it is a matter of serious concern for the Catholic Church if a believing Christian does not receive a valid baptism.

The doctrine of baptism of desire holds that those who, as adults, come to faith in Christ and become catechumens but who die before receiving baptism nevertheless are admitted to Justification even though the Church teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation.

Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin points to one of several canons in the Council of Trent that define baptism of desire:[4]

If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema.[5]

The Catholic 1582 Rheims New Testament, the first published tome of the Douay-Rheims Bible, specifically notes in its annotations to John 3:5 both the necessity of Baptism and the availability of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. The Catholic Church had been expelled from England at the time of the production of the Bible and many annotations were designed to assist lay Catholics to keep to their faith in the absence of clergy.

Pius IX's Singulari Quadam condemns extremist positions which deny the reality of invincible ignorance(see also Canon 5 from the Council of Trent). Fr. Leonard Feeney was condemned in the 1940s for holding similar extreme positions against Baptism of Desire, being excommunicated for disobedience as a result.[6]

Leonard Feeney was a U.S. Jesuit priest who defended the strict interpretation of the Roman Catholic doctrine, extra Ecclesiam nulla salus ("outside The Church there is no salvation"), arguing that baptism of blood and baptism of desire are unavailing and that therefore no non-Catholics will be saved. Feeney held to a strict reading of John 3:5, that being "born again" of water baptism is necessary for salvation. Also, Feeney's position was that the love and providence of God would not permit a soul to die in such a state. He held with Catholic tradition that the Apostles literally followed Christ's commands to preach to all nations, and he pointed to archaeological evidence that he said suggests the presence of Christians in the Americas in the first millennium, a view not supported by the archeological profession. He argued, and gave examples from his own ministry to support it, that any non believer who was sincerely interested in Catholicism would be provided with a priest when the moment of death came.

Speaking directly about Baptism of desire, Fr. Feeney wrote in his book Bread of Life:

But imagine priests in the Holy Roman Catholic Church, ordained by the successors to the Apostles — dedicated to the Name and purpose and Blood and robes of Jesus — sitting at Harvard College week after week and listening to religion being lectured about in invisible terms. And imagine their going back, then, to their people and talking about the "soul of the Church," of "salvation outside the Church through sincerity" — apart from the teachings and Sacraments of Jesus Christ; and calling this arrangement "Baptism of Desire" and expecting men to be members of the Catholic Church without even knowing they are members. What kind of teaching is that? That is Christmas without any manger; Good Friday without any God bleeding; Easter Sunday without any Flesh and Blood coming out of the tomb. That is the Christian Faith without any Pope, — the most visible religious leader in the world![7][8]

Father Feeney was excommunicated "on account of grave disobedience to Church Authority, being unmoved by repeated warnings"; however this excommunication was annulled in 1972 without significant recantation. The doctrines associated with Feeney's position, known as Feeneyism, were officially condemned by the Catholic Church.

Some traditional Catholics, including Most Holy Family Monastery, oppose baptism of desire or consider it a heresy because it contradicts strict interpretations of the Catholic dogma referred to as "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus."[9]

Among Eastern Orthodox Christians, the basic doctrine of baptism of desire is accepted, although it is not so rigorously defined.

Both the Augsburg Confession of Lutheranism and the Book of Common Prayer of Anglicanism affirm that "Baptism is normally necessary for salvation" in accordance with Sacred Scripture: Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:16, John 3:5, and Acts 2:38.[10] Citing the teaching of the early Church Fathers, Lutherans and Anglicans acknowledge a baptism of desire "where opportunity does not present itself" and a baptism of blood (martyrdom) in "the circumstances of persecution".[10][11]

The question of baptism of desire often does not arise among Baptists, because their underlying theology of baptism is different. For them, baptism is an ordinance undertaken in obedience to the teaching of Jesus and to follow the example he set. The rite of baptism, however, in their view does not confer forgiveness of sins by its performance, nor is it thought to be necessary to salvation, which comes from faith alone and is not contingent upon any ritual or form of words. They point to passages such as Acts 10:44–48, in which various Gentiles who heard Peter preaching were converted and received the Holy Spirit prior to baptism; if baptism were necessary for salvation, these people would not have believed and received the Holy Spirit, it is argued. Lutherans, Orthodox and Roman Catholics would respond that in verses 47-48, baptism was in fact necessary, even though they had received the Holy Spirit, as Peter said, "'Can any man forbid water, that these would not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?' And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord."