On Matters of Implicit Faith and Baptism of Desire

Edition March 31, 2024

Old Edition February 9, 2024

The degree to which the faith must be held explicitly, and in what circumstances, is a matter of significant discussion among approved theological authorities. The matter may appear simple at first glance, but is subject to significant intricateness when examined in depth. One must exercise great care not to fall into an error on the issue, and by the error falsely consider non-Catholics to be inside the Catholic Church and Faith. The Athanasian Creed, which defines that the Catholic Faith must be held, does not itself indicate whether and to what extent this faith must be held implicitly or explicitly. Therefore, the theologians have had divergent opinions on the issue. This document discusses the limits permitted in this theological discussion, according to reason and the defined Catholic Faith. The Catholic Church teaches that there are mysteries of faith that must be known and believed by a necessity of precept, in order to be numbered among the elect (Acerbo Nimis, Pius X). However, there are exceptions to this general precept according to many theologians. What is clear, is that to be saved, the Catholic Faith must always be held, at least implicitly along with whatever specific mystery or mysteries must be held explicitly by necessity of means. The precise mystery or mysteries that must be so held explicitly by necessity of means and the extent is subject to discussion among theologians. Further, note that there are two kinds of necessity: necessity of precept and necessity of means. Something may be required by precept or the law, but not always required by means.

Regarding the extent to which one's Catholic Faith must be explicit, we refer one to Alphonsus Liguori's survey of the Doctors on this matter:

Alphonsus de Liguori, Theologia Moralis, Tome 2, Book 3, Chapter 1, Question 2:

“2. Is it required by a necessity of means or of precept to believe explicitly in the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation after the promulgation of the gospel? The first opinion and more common and held as more probable teaches belief is by necessity of means; Sanch. in Dec. lib. 2. c. 2. n. 8., Valent.2. 2. d. 1. qu. 2. p. 4., Molina 1. part. qu. 1. a. 1 d. 2., Cont. Tourn. de praeceptis Decal. cap. 1. art. 1. §. 2. concl. 1. Juven.t. 6. diss. 4. a. 3. Antoinede virt. theol. cap. 1. qu. 2. Wigandttr. 7. ex. 2. de fide n. 22. Concinat. 1. diss. 1. de fide cap. 8. n. 7. with Ledesma, Serra, Prado, etc. Also Salm. tr. 21. c. 2. punct. 2. n. 15. Cuniliat. tr. 4. de 1. Dec. praec.c. 1. §. 2. and Ronc. tr. 6. c. 2. But the last three say that in rare cases it may happen that one can be justified by implicit faith only...But the second opinion that is also sufficiently probable says by necessity of precept all must explicitly believe in the mysteries. However, for necessity of means it is sufficient to implicitly believe in the mysteries. So Dominicus Soto(in 4. sentent. t. 1. d. 5. qu. un. art. 2. concl. 2.) where he says: Even though the precept of explicit faith (in the Trinity and Incarnation) absolutely obliges the whole world, yet there also are many who are invincibly ignorant [of the mysteries] from which the obligation excuses.

So Dominicus Soto (in 4. sentent. t. 1. d. 5. qu. un. art. 2. concl. 2.) where he says: Even though the precept of explicit faith (in the Trinity and Incarnation) absolutely obliges the whole world, yet there also are many who are invincibly ignorant [of the mysteries] from which the obligation excuses.

Franciscus Sylvius(t. 3. in 2. 2. qu. 2. art. 7. and 8. concl. 6.) writes: After the promulgation of the gospel explicit faith in the Incarnation is necessary for all for salvation by a necessity of precept, and also (that it is probable) a necessity of means...

Card. Gotti (Theol. t. 2. tr. 9. qu. 2. d. 4. §. 1. n. 2.)says: In my judgment the opinion which denies that explicit faith in Christ and in the Trinity is so necessary that no one can be justified without it is very probable. And he adds that Scotus holds this opinion...

Elbel.(t. 1. conferent. 1. n. 17.) writes today that this opinion is held by notables. DD. Castropal. part. 2. tr. 4. d. 1. p. 9. Viva in Prop. 64 damn. ab Innocent. XI. n. 10, Sporer. tr. 11. cap. 11. sect. 11. §. 4. n. 9. Laym. lib. 2. tr. 1. cap. 8. n. 5. who teach this is not less probable than the first, with Richard. Medin. Vega, Sa, and Turriano. Card. de Lugo, de fide d. 12. n. 91. calls the first speculatively probable, but defends this second view at length and in absolute terms as more probable, with Javell, Zumel, and Suarez d. 12. sect. 4. n. 10. the writings of Lugo likewise seem to be the opinion of St. Thomas 3. part. qu. 69. a. 4. ad 2. where the Doctor says: Before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit. Wherefore, argues Lugo, just as Cornelius freely obtained grace by implicit faith, so even one can obtain the same in a place where the gospel is not perfectly promulgated. He will be able in such a place to obtain the same who is invincibly ignorant of the mysteries in a place where the gospel has not been sufficiently promulgated. They say it is repugnant to the divine goodness and providence to damn invincibly ignorant adults who live uprightly in accordance with the light of nature whereas Acts 10:35 says, ‘But in every nation he that feareth him and worketh justice is acceptable to him.’ They respond that even though all the Scriptures and Holy Fathers’ testimonies oppose this opinion, their opinion is more easily explained by necessity of precept, or because ordinarily almost none are saved without explicit faith in the mysteries, because after the promulgation of the gospel almost no one labors out of invincible ignorance. Or that, says Lugo, they can be explained by implicit faith or explained by desire...”

Having clarified the basic understanding of what mysteries may need to be believed explicitly, We now explicate on what it means to hold the Catholic Faith according to various cases. To hold the Catholic Faith, at least implicitly, includes intending and desiring to follow the Catholic Church and God and not some other church, faith and god (even if the false church also claims to be Catholic, such as the Vatican II sect in our time). By the principles of logic and non-contradiction, it is impossible that one who holds a false religion explicitly, also holds the true religion or the true God implicitly, since the true religion and true God contradict his false religion. Further, if one holds a false religion might be true, it is impossible he is holding that the the true religion is true, and is doubting the true God and all He has revealed. If the gospel and Church has not yet been proclaimed in a region, and one believes in God the Rewarder of those who seek Him, one may possibly have supernatural faith in this circumstance, until the full gospel has been proclaimed, if he does not hold to anything or believe something is possible that is contrary to the faith. It is impossible that one desire to be part of a false sect and its false faith explicitly, yet also desire the true God and His Catholic Church implicitly. For if this man has set his will on a particular false creed and sect, to hold it in his heart as true without question, to believe it to be true without doubt, to consider it so as his truth, to yearn to follow that false creed, then it is impossible that implicitly he should consider the Catholic Faith be true. Further, if this person has decided in his heart that such a false idea may be true, he is no longer holding to the true God and true position. This holds true whether the heretic is sincere in his false sect and beliefs, or understands he is in a false sect but persists in it anyway. Heretics and pagans who persist in the doctrine of false sects as truth, after becoming aware of the Church's teaching are blinded by God due to other sins, and therefore will not be saved upon death if they persist in their false sect in this manner. This is true even if the heretic believes they are on the right path. Thus even a Protestant who adheres to the Anglican sect and denies the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and other dogmas of the faith definitively and ultimately, cannot also desire the Catholic Church, the Catholic Faith, and the Catholic God implicitly. Therefore, the claim of the apostate Vatican II Council in Nostra Aetate taught by Antipope Paul VI in 1965, for example, that Buddhists who avidly pursue their false teachings are actually secret Catholics who can obtain the "Supreme Illumination", or that Hindus who pursue their myths can "fly to God with love and trust", is of course condemned by all competent authorities, councils, and Pontiffs. If the men had been responding to God's grace, which always prompts men who encounter the faith to investigate it, they would have entered the Church. Similarly, a young child that was baptized in a heretical sect, loses his supernatural faith the moment he hears of a Catholic dogma for the first time and resolves not to submit to it or to doubt it. It is impossible to be both an explicit Buddhist, Hindu, or Protestant, holding and ultimately desiring their false teachings, and an implicit Catholic who rejects those teachings at the same time.

Further, a Catholic cannot doubt the faith at all in an ultimate sense. If a man encounters the true dogma of the faith after hearing preaching, and thinks there is any possibility it is not true, he has doubted the dogma and has fallen out of supernatural faith, at least for that period of time he doubts it. He has doubted the teaching of the Church. Faith can admit of no doubting or obfuscating.

"The word believe does not here mean to think, to suppose, lo be of opinion; but, as the Sacred Scriptures teach, it expresses the deepest conviction, by which the mind gives a firm and unhesitating assent to God revealing His mysterious truths. As far, therefore, as regards use of the word here, he who firmly and without hesitation is convinced of anything is said to believe...From what has been said it follows that he who is gifted with this heavenly knowledge of faith is free from an inquisitive curiosity. For when God commands us to believe He does not propose to us to search into His divine judgments, or inquire into their reason and cause, but demands an unchangeable faith, by which the mind rests content in the knowledge of eternal truth. And indeed, since we have the testimony of the Apostle that God is true; and every man a liar, and since it would argue arrogance and presumption to disbelieve the word of a grave and sensible man affirming anything as true, and to demand that he prove his statements by arguments or witnesses, how rash and foolish are those, who, hearing the words of God Himself, demand reasons for His heavenly and saving doctrines? Faith, therefore, must exclude not only all doubt, but all desire for demonstration." Catechism of Trent, Pt I, A I

The next matter for consideration is the issue of "baptism of desire" or "desire for baptism", and its relationship to implicit faith. What is clear, is that to attain to baptism of desire in those very rare circumstances where it could be applied, one must hold explicitly to the essential Catholic doctrine that must be believed explicitly, and also implicitly hold the entire Catholic Faith according to the creed of Athanasius and Cantate Domino (the Council of Florence, 1442 A.D.), and as discussed by Doctor Alphonsus above. Indeed, the protocol letter to Father Leonard Feeney issued by Our Predecessor Pius XII via the Holy Office, also teaches that without supernatural faith there can be no salvation by any desire for baptism:

"However, it should not be thought that any sort of desire to enter the Church is sufficient for salvation. The desire whereby a person adheres to the Church must be animated by perfect charity. Nor can such an implicit desire produce its effect if it is not animated by supernatural faith, for anyone who comes to God must believe that He exists and rewards those who seek Him. (Heb XI, 6). The Council of Trent declares (session VI. ch. VIII): Faith is the principle of man's salvation, the foundation and the root of all justification. Without it, it is impossible to please God and to be counted among his children."" (Denz., 801)

Therefore, as already discussed, one who holds definitely and ultimately to a pagan or heretical sect, and thus its false teachings, could never obtain to baptism of desire, since the pagan or heretical sect would deny the Trinity and/or other dogmas. Rather, the person would have to at the very least, even according to the most liberal allowed opinion, "believe that God [the true God] exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him", and also could not adhere to any sect that contradicts God and any Catholic article of faith. Even so, he is still on the path to hell and does not have supernatural charity, unless he is diligently investigating the Catholic Church, not being slothful, and has rejected the worship of the perversions of the demons and idols and false doctrines he hears.

Therefore, as already shown, there are many cases and examples of cases that present different circumstances regarding membership in the Catholic Church and faith. It is important to apply the correct principles to the circumstances at issue, so that one does not fall into the error of believing a particular pagan or other false sect member could be saved.

Finally, there is the issue of submission to the Roman Pontiff. If one is in what is called pure schism, then he holds the Catholic faith and has chosen to disobey the Roman Pontiff. One in formal pure schism understands the doctrine of papal supremacy, denies the right of the Pontiff to rule the Church, and knows he is refusing submission when he should not. He cannot obey God in charity and disobey the Roman Pontiff at the same time. He has refused submission to the Supreme Pontiff and is cut off from the Church. One who is in what is called mixed schism adheres to heresies along with his schism.