no Salvation outside the Church

[tornpage]

Gabriel, Rita,

You’re not the only ones sympathetic to the “Feeneyite” view.  We’ve had some good discussion about this before, and with Mr. McMaster, among others:

http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=2034733

http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=2086874

For my part, your logic, based on the Infallible Magisterium alone, is airtight, and your view – formerly mine (I explain below) – is entitled to respect, if not in the majority.

My view on the issue of BOD is now, I don’t have one. Those outside the sheepfold are in the hands of God’s justice. I’ll follow Pius IX, and desist wandering into this realm of  of speculations, saying there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, which is definitely entered by sacramental baptism. Say no more is my credo.  Or at least, don't assert definitively there's no BOD. I will jump into a good fight to address those who are so sure there is.

Pius IX, From the Allocution, "Singulari quadem," Dec. 9, 1854

[Denzinger1647] For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains "we shall see God as He is" [ 1 John 3:2], we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" [ Eph. 4:5 ]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.

God Bless you,

tornpage

[Gabriel]

Thanks for posting, Camnius and tornpage.

It is a frightening thought indeed if Our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ has commanded us to let our Yes be Yes and our No be No; anything more than that being from the Evil One; while he himself permits his Yes to be sometimes Yes and sometimes No - and that with regard to how one becomes a partaker of his salvation!

Here's an interesting observation from a friend who gave me permission to share his thoughts, but I'm leaving out his name:

Gabriel:
 
I do not think you will make further progress with McMaster.  He is
convinced that St. Thomas is the final word on this matter.  I agree
with McMaster's assertion that St. Thomas has been given to us as the
model for theological thought, but that does not mean that St. Thomas
can not be wrong.  It just means that the burden of proof is on those
who disagree with St. Thomas.  However, if one closes his mind to the
contrary opinions, then no amount of proof will suffice.
 
This idea of precept is all wrong.  Instead of applying the idea to
being born again, we could apply it to being born the first time.  We
could say that the reproductive act is not absolutely required for the
generation of a man but only by God's precept.  As proof, we could point
out the examples of Adam, Eve, and Our Lord.  Now, while this all may be
fit into a nice, neat, logical argument, let us ask McMaster how he
would plan to instruct the ignorant on the correct way to bring a man
into this world, or better yet, what this man should plan to do on his
wedding night.  The fact is that it the reproductive act is not just a
"precept", it is our God given way to cause a new life, with the
exceptions being so few, they only prove the rule.  The act is not
optional; it is the real cause of human life.  No sane man would claim
he never had a mother.  No sane married couple would look to any other
way to make their babies.  Promoting the expectation of any other
possibility would be to lead people astray.  The same is true of being
born again.  Perhaps God has made two or three exceptions in all of
human history, for very important and unique reasons, as was the case
for the natural lives mentioned above.  Nevertheless, baptism is the way
we come into the Church.  It is not just the "precept", it is the actual
cause.  Promoting any other expectation, while it may prove some
pedantic technical point, leads to heresy and perdition, while serving
no practical purpose.
 

[McMaster]

My view on the issue of BOD [baptism of desire] is now, I don't have one.

Nothing wrong with that. Nobody really needs to have one. Everybody really needs to refrain from making false accusations of heresy, arising from legitimate differences of opinion on baptism of desire and related matters.

Those outside the sheepfold are in the hands of God's justice. I'll follow Pius IX[...]

In hoping to understand, at last, "by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united"? Great idea. In preparation for this, you might want to read the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas on the justice and mercy of God [S.T. I, Q. 21], especially Article 4 on how there is never any conflict between God's justice and His mercy.

[...] and desist wandering into this realm of speculations, saying there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, which is definitely entered by sacramental baptism. Say no more is my credo. Or at least, don't assert definitively there's no BOD. I will jump into a good fight to address those who are so sure there is.

If they're so sure about it that they accuse people who don't agree with them of heresy, you would do well to explain the matter as follows. The possibility of baptism of desire is, at least, a common theological opinion that appears to have been recognized as legitimate by the Council of Trent, following the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas. However, the Council did not say or imply anything like this: "If anyone says there is no baptism of desire, let him be anathema." The possibility of baptism of desire is not a truth which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith; it is therefore not heresy to hold the personal opinion that there is no baptism of desire. (This, if I recall correctly, was actually the basis upon which Father Feeney was publicly reconciled to the Church before his death; he was not required to repudiate his own opinion that there is no baptism of desire.)

Short of this, you would probably do better to recognize that Catholics can legitimately differ not only in what opinion they hold (or don't hold) about baptism of desire, but in how strongly they hold it (or decline to hold it)--and then turn your attention to more necessary matters.

Blessings,

Don McMaster

[tornpage]

McMaster,

I prepare for the "justice" of God by penance and the grace of the sacraments - and work as good as I can, always trying to "work" better. That is all the preparing necessary.  I will never "understand" the justice of God, and His justice is beyond my comprehension.

And I meant (though I don't think you need to be told this, my clever "friend") - but hey, I'll play along - I'll readily jump into a fight with those who insist there is BOD.  Glad you don't remember that propensity of mine. But since you said it, I would tell anyone (now) who insists that there is no BOD that some good and holy, wise Catholics (like St. Thomas), even apparently some very holy Holy Fathers, believed there was . . . and their opinion in this matter must likewise be respected.

There is room for both positions, and the Church has not authoritatively exercised its magisterium to elevate BOD to a de fide status. Actually, it is remarkable that not a single Holy Father (to my knowledge) has ever referenced it in a single one of the abundance of encyclicals over the centuries.

As someone who would formerly be accurately described as a "Feeneyite" (as it is used)- though I reject that term - I am by no means hostile to that view.

Short of this, you would probably do better to recognize that Catholics can legitimately differ not only in what opinion they hold (or don't hold) about baptism of desire, but in how strongly they hold it (or decline to hold it)--and then turn your attention to more necessary matters.

I thought that was essentially what I said. Not as clearly as you, perhaps.

Again, I would readily jump into a fight with those who insisted there was BOD.

Blessings back to you,

tornpage

[McMaster]

It is a frightening thought indeed if Our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ has commanded us to let our Yes be Yes and our No be No; anything more than that being from the Evil One; while he himself permits his Yes to be sometimes Yes and sometimes No - and that with regard to how one becomes a partaker of his salvation!

It would be a frightening thought indeed, if He did permit his "Yes" to be, even sometimes, "No"--as if He were to give the beneficial effects of baptism only to some, but not to all, who receive the sacrament without interposing an obstacle to its effects. It would be an absurd and repellent thought if He were to tell some of His hearers "No," they cannot be saved unless they are baptized, while telling others "Yes," they can be saved (unlike the others) even if they refuse baptism.

But is it a frightening, absurd, or repellent thought that He might say "Yes" again, in a different way, to those unable to hear or respond adequately to His original "Yes"? No, it's a consoling, reassuring, and eminently rational thought. More importantly, it's true, according to Blessed Pius IX and many others.

Here's an interesting observation from a friend who gave me permission to share his thoughts, but I'm leaving out his name: [...] This idea of precept is all wrong. Instead of applying the idea to being born again, we could apply it to being born the first time. We could say that the reproductive act is not absolutely required for the generation of a man but only by God's precept. As proof, we could point out the examples of Adam, Eve, and Our Lord. Now, while this all may be fit into a nice, neat, logical argument, let us ask McMaster how he would plan to instruct the ignorant on the correct way to bring a man into this world, or better yet, what this man should plan to do on his wedding night. The fact is that it the reproductive act is not just a "precept", it is our God given way to cause a new life, with the exceptions being so few, they only prove the rule. The act is not optional; it is the real cause of human life.

The fact is that this argument only proves the truth of what I (and others much more authoritative than I, especially Blessed Pius IX) have been saying. God can produce human beings without the natural act of generation, but He has hardly ever done so; there was hardly ever any need. He can give supernatural life without the sacrament of baptism, too, and we do not know how often He has done so. In the present life, there is seldom any need for us to know that any particular person has been saved without the sacrament of baptism, and there is always a need to eschew unlawful and unfruitful inquiries into the unknowable. The sacrament of baptism is not optional; it is the real cause of supernatural life, according to the words of Our Lord Himself. No one should be instructed that it is optional, any more than anyone should be instructed that the matrimonial act (to speak properly) is only one of several optional ways to produce human offspring. The expression "just a 'precept'" appears to reflect a lack of understanding of what is meant by a necessity of precept--as if one were to say, "Oh, that's nothing but a mere commandment of God"!

No sane man would claim he never had a mother. No sane married couple would look to any other way to make their babies. Promoting the expectation of any other possibility would be to lead people astray.

Your friend should seriously reconsider the implications of this style of argument. Does God Himself, the only Creator of human life, lead people astray by often, and obviously, creating new human life outside the divinely ordained unity of matrimony? Does He wrongfully promote the view that marriage is optional, and that people might as well have babies while remaining unmarried? Does an honest and accurate acknowledgment that people can have babies outside of marriage have any tendency to mislead the Catholic faithful into disregarding the necessity of matrimony--which is unquestionably a necessity of precept when it comes to having babies, not an absolute necessity of means? If the answer to all of these questions is "No"--as I trust that you and your friend would agree, lest God be blasphemed as misleading people into sin--then how could an honest and accurate acknowledgment that God can save people without the sacrament of baptism have any tendency to mislead the faithful into disregarding the necessity of baptism?

The same is true of being born again. Perhaps God has made two or three exceptions in all of human history, for very important and unique reasons, as was the case for the natural lives mentioned above.

Or perhaps He has made a great many more than two or three exceptions, all for very important and unique reasons having to do with the importance and uniqueness of each human soul made in His own image and likeness. You and your friend don't know, nor do I. Who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of what God may have done, and how often, for the salvation of those who could not receive the sacrament of baptism? Who would even dare to try to mark such narrow limits as, say, two or three times in all of human history?

Nevertheless, baptism is the way we come into the Church. It is not just the "precept", it is the actual cause. Promoting any other expectation, while it may prove some pedantic technical point, leads to heresy and perdition, while serving no practical purpose.

Take it up with St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Blessed Pius IX, and many other outstanding Catholics who have seen some beneficial purpose for maintaining that God can and does save some people without the sacrament of baptism--and who are accused, in this argument, of thereby leading people to heresy and perdition! :angry:

Blessings,

Don McMaster

[McMaster]

What happens to babies who die without baptism?

They don't suffer the "pain of sense" which would be due for actual sins, since they haven't committed any. Beyond that, who knows?

This is an example of agnosticism covered over by a thin layer of piety.

Wow, good thing it's nothing like the agnosticism condemned by the First Vatican Council and St. Pius X:

Modernists place the foundation of religious philosophy in that doctrine which is usually called Agnosticism. According to this teaching human reason is confined entirely within the field of phenomena, that is to say, to things that are perceptible to the senses, and in the manner in which they are perceptible; it has no right and no power to transgress these limits. Hence it is incapable of lifting itself up to God, and of recognising His existence, even by means of visible things. From this it is inferred that God can never be the direct object of science, and that, as regards history, He must not be considered as an historical subject. Given these premises, all will readily perceive what becomes of Natural Theology, of the motives of credibility, of external revelation. The Modernists simply make away with them altogether; they include them in Intellectualism, which they call a ridiculous and long  ago defunct system. Nor does the fact that the Church has formally condemned these portentous errors exercise the slightest restraint upon them. Yet the [First] Vatican Council has defined, "If anyone says that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason by means of the things that are made, let him be anathema" (De Revel., can. I); and also: "If anyone says that it is not possible or not expedient that man be taught, through the medium of divine revelation, about God and the worship to be paid Him, let him be anathema" (Ibid., can. 2); and finally, "If anyone says that divine revelation cannot be made credible by external signs, and that therefore men should be drawn to the faith only by their personal internal experience or by private inspiration, let him be anathema" (De Fide, can. 3) [St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 6].

The limited-purpose "agnosticism" (so to speak) that I've expressed here, in contrast, has to do only with what happens to the souls of babies who die without receiving the sacrament of baptism.

It is certain catholic doctrine that all those who die with the stain of original sin alone are deprived of the supernatural reward of the beatific vision.

True (as taught by the Second General Council of Lyons, the Council of Florence, and Pope Innocent III). The unresolved question is about the means by which the stain of original sin may be removed before death.

Illustration: Parents fully intend to have their baby baptized, but the baby suddenly dies without being baptized. Had the baby been baptized, the baby would have received the saving grace of the sacrament (as taught by the Council of Trent), even though the baby was unable to make a personal act of faith or consent to the baptism. Had the baby been capable of any personal desire for baptism, the baby could have been saved through "baptism of desire" (at least in the common view of theologians including St. Thomas Aquinas, which the Council of Trent appears to have accepted without actually condemning the contrary view). Might the faith and consent of others be accepted by God, in substitution for the nonexistent personal faith and consent of the infant, not only in the sacrament of baptism but also in baptism of desire? St. Thomas thought not, but he didn't explain why the faith and consent of others were supposed to be no good for a "vicarious baptism of desire" when they were perfectly good for the sacramental baptism of an infant. At the very least, there certainly is no defined doctrine that a "vicarious baptism of desire" is impossible [see Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 114, listing Cajetan's theory of "vicarious baptism of desire" among the "emergency means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism" that "are indeed possible," although "their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation"].

All else is baseless conjecture.

Well, it's not baseless conjecture to say that unbaptized babies don't suffer the "pain of sense" which would be due only for actual sins, none of which they have committed. On this point, St. Thomas does give a very good explanation [S.T. Suppl., Appendix 1, Q. 1, Art. 1], wholly consistent with the teaching of Pope Innocent III that "the punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell (gehennae perpetuae cruciatus)" [Denzinger 410].

Any definite position as to whether "vicarious baptism of desire" does or does not occur would be conjectural. It appears that Catholics are free to hold, reject, or ignore any view as to whether "vicarious baptism of desire" is possible or impossible, within the ascertainable limits of faith and reason.

The true interpretation taught by the Council of Trent, as I've already noted, is that "this translation [to the state of grace], since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or 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 [Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter 4] (emphasis added). Absolute necessity is not affected by the promulgation of any message (for any dependence on promulgation would render the necessity conditional rather than absolute). The force of a precept, however, is dependent on its promulgation. The logical inference is that the necessity of the sacrament of baptism is a necessity of precept and not an absolute necessity of means.

This is an example of a fallacious inference.  The reasoning goes something like this: since any precept must be promulgated in order to be binding, anything that is promulgated must by that fact be nothing more than a precept.

Now, that inference would be really stupid, wouldn't it--if I had actually drawn it? Along the lines of "all men are asses, therefore all asses are men"? But let me see if I can make the real reasoning even clearer than it already is.

1. The necessity of the sacrament of baptism for salvation has existed only since the promulgation of the Gospel. The holy men and women of the Old Testament and the Holy Innocents, at least, were saved although they died without receiving the sacrament of baptism--which, I trust, you don't dispute. When Our Lord told Nicodemus, "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5), he was not speaking of an absolute necessity that had always existed.

2. When the necessity of the sacrament of baptism did arise, was it independent of, or rather dependent upon, the promulgation of the Gospel? Well, baptism is a requirement of the New Law as distinct from the Old Law [see S.T. I-II, Q. 108, Art. 2]. The New Law is the same as the Law of the Gospel [Q. 106, Art. 2], and "consists chiefly in the grace of the Holy Ghost, which is shown forth by faith that worketh through love" [Q. 108, Art. 1]. The purpose of the sacramental acts which are instituted in the New Law, including baptism, is to serve as means by which this grace is given to us [ibid.]. The goodness and necessity of means, as such, is dependent upon their suitability to lead to the end [see Q. 8, Art. 2]. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to avoid the conclusion that the necessity of baptism is dependent upon the promulgation of the Gospel, which alone makes that necessity knowable to men.

3. Any necessity that is dependent upon promulgation is a necessity of precept rather than an absolute necessity of means. Of course statements about absolute necessity can be promulgated, but they don't become true or false by being promulgated or not. Only the force of a precept, not the truth of a statement about absolute necessity, is dependent upon promulgation, as can be seen from St. Thomas's reasoning about why promulgation is essential to a law--reasoning that could not be applied to a statement about absolute necessity.

As stated above (A. 1), a law is imposed on others by way of a rule and measure. Now a rule or measure is imposed by being applied to those who are to be ruled and measured by it. Wherefore, in order that a law obtain the binding force which is proper to a law, it must needs be applied to the men who have to be ruled by it. Such application is made by its being notified to them by promulgation. Wherefore promulgation is necessary for the law to obtain its force. [...] Those who are not present when a law is promulgated, are bound to observe the law, in so far as it is notified or can be notified to them by others, after it has been promulgated [S.T. I-II, Q. 90, Art. 4 & reply obj. 2].

Having said this, though, I'll readily agree that the expression "necessity of precept" may not be a very helpful one, and indeed may serve to distract readers from the main point. Unfortunately I'll need to get some sleep before I say anything more about the main point, but I shall return.

Blessings,

Don McMaster

[McMaster]

McMaster is wont to play off his opinions as somehow authoritative. Notice how he expects his interlocutor to simply take his word for it without supporting the assertion by citing authority.

Well, except for the authority of the Council of Trent, Blessed Pius IX, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, etc....

All men are bound by the Law of Baptism, either in re or in desire, whether they realize it or not. The entire Gospel was promulgated but it would be absolutely false to infer that the truth contained therein were binding upon only those who actually hear the truth. No, all men are bound to believe with divine faith in order to attain to salvation -- for he that believeth [and] is baptized, shall be saved.

As we've seen, St. Thomas notes that "those who are not present when a law is promulgated, are bound to observe the law, in so far as it is notified or can be notified to them by others, after it has been promulgated" [S.T. I-II, Q. 90, Art. 4, reply obj. 2 (emphasis added)]. The Law of the Gospel is binding upon those who actually hear or can hear the truth. Thus it is impossible for those who refuse (or even culpably neglect) to hear the Gospel to be saved, but it is possible for those who cannot hear the Gospel to be saved:

Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior." The words of Christ are clear enough: "If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;" "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;" "He who does not believe will be condemned;" "He who does not believe is already condemned;" "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters." The Apostle Paul says that such persons are "perverted and self-condemned;" the Prince of the Apostles calls them "false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction" [Blessed Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, 7-8].

In reality, Tanquerey says that, "The Calvinists and Wycliffites maintained that Baptism is necessary by the necessity of precept, but not of means." Manual of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, pg. 225.  "Christ said; 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'  Understood in the traditional sense, these words do not report only a precept but declare that Baptism is necessary as a means to an end: for just as birth is the means through which each one begins to live a natural life, so spiritual regeneration through Baptism is sufficiently clearly shown as the means necessary for supernatural life." Ibid. In attempting to combat one error, that of those who say that the desire of the sacrament of Baptism can sometimes produce the same effect as actually receiving it, [...]

How's that again? That's not an error, it's the highly authoritative teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, as noted above.

[...]he has fallen into the protestant error of asserting that Baptism is necessary for salvation by divine precept alone.

Er ... in this context, I guess we're supposed to pass over the otherwise significant point that conception, not birth, is the means through which each one begins to live a natural life. Leaving that aside, I would not readily conclude that Tanquerey intended to contradict Pius IX and claim that the invincibly ignorant, who do not know of the law of baptism through no fault of their own, cannot be saved. (If he did, of course, Catholics would have to accept the teaching of Blessed Pius IX----which was reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council in Lumen Gentium, 16--rather than that of Tanquerey.)

The question at issue here is whether the sacrament of baptism, a means of salvation required by a precept of the Law of the Gospel, is absolutely necessary even for those who, through no fault of their own, cannot hear or obey that precept. I, following the teaching of Blessed Pius IX, St. Thomas Aquinas, and others, say it isn't. Only in this sense, as I've already explained, do I say the necessity of baptism is a "necessity of precept" rather than an "absolute necessity of means."

The Calvinists and Wycliffites, as you should know quite well, held that the necessity of baptism was a "necessity of precept" in quite a different sense. They claimed that baptism had no real spiritual effects and was not a means of salvation in any sense, even for those who can and do hear and obey the precept of baptism; rather, it was necessary solely because God prescribed it. They were wrong because the sacrament of baptism does have profound spiritual effects and is an ordinarily indispensable means of salvation for all those who are bound by the precepts of the Gospel. Sorry, twister, but you've flunked yet again in trying to portray me (falsely) as a heretic.

Blessings,

Don McMaster

[Caminus]

Wow, good thing it's nothing like the agnosticism condemned by the First Vatican Council and St. Pius X

Wow, you're right!

The limited-purpose "agnosticism" (so to speak) that I've expressed here, in contrast, has to do only with what happens to the souls of babies who die without receiving the sacrament of baptism.

This "limited agnosticism" ignores the certain doctrine that a soul which dies in the state of original sin is deprived of heaven in order to make way for baseless conjecture.  It implies an equality between baseless conjecture and certain catholic doctrine. 

It is certain catholic doctrine that all those who die with the stain of original sin alone are deprived of the supernatural reward of the beatific vision.

True (as taught by the Second General Council of Lyons, the Council of Florence, and Pope Innocent III). The unresolved question is about the means by which the stain of original sin may be removed before death.

It is unresolved if by that you mean impossible to resolve.  Nothing contained implicitly or explicitly would allow us to go beyond this certain catholic doctrine.  How God may deal with the soul of a person bereft of the use of reason, excepting what we know of His expressed will with regard to the absolute necessity of baptism, is quite beyond the sound knowledge that any man possesses of divine revelation, hence it would be presumptuous and impious to transcend these bounds.  But this mental attitude is certainly the cause of your "limited agnosticism."  If per chance, such a soul is cleansed upon death and admitted into heaven, this unknowable fact does not mitigate against the certain knowledge of our doctrine, nor does that theoretical possibility allow us to reduce the clarity and certainty of said doctrine.     

Well, it's not baseless conjecture to say that unbaptized babies don't suffer the "pain of sense" which would be due only for actual sins, none of which they have committed.

Yes, that is right!

 

Any definite position as to whether "vicarious baptism of desire" does or does not occur would be conjectural. It appears that Catholics are free to hold, reject, or ignore any view as to whether "vicarious baptism of desire" is possible or impossible, within the ascertainable limits of faith and reason.

When Ott says this opinion is impossible to prove from revelation, he means to say that it is really baseless conjecture.  For any theological science must be based upon the principles of revelation.  If said principles are altogether lacking or undetectable, then it must follow that said conjecture is baseless.  Catholics may be free to hold a private desire, but it would be false to infer an equality of opinion with that of certain catholic doctrine.  Any tendency of thought which would mitigate against the certainty of doctrine is intrinsically evil.     

This is an example of a fallacious inference. The reasoning goes something like this: since any precept must be promulgated in order to be binding, anything that is promulgated must by that fact be nothing more than a precept.

Now, that inference would be really stupid, wouldn't it--if I had actually drawn it? Along the lines of "all men are asses, therefore all asses are men"? But let me see if I can make the real reasoning even clearer than it already is.

Well. yes it would be really stupid whether or not you did draw it, but in fact you did draw it, therefore it was a fallacious inference you made in order to prove that the proposition "Baptism is necessary by a necessity of precept" was true.  Your argument was plain for all to read, it went like this:

1.  Any law that is promulgated must have preceptive force alone.
2.  But the Law of Baptism was promulgated along with the Gospel.
3.  Therefore, the Law of Baptism must have preceptive force alone. 

The necessity of the sacrament of baptism for salvation has existed only since the promulgation of the Gospel.  The holy men and women of the Old Testament and the Holy Innocents, at least, were saved although they died without receiving the sacrament of baptism--which, I trust, you don't dispute.

I do in fact dispute.  They were not actually saved, but awaited salvation in Hades.  But minus this quibble, I say that your observation only begs the question for it is obviously not true that any law which is promulgated possesses a only preceptive force.  A man cannot be saved without baptism even it be omitted innocently.  The necessity does not become binding upon him at the moment he hears of this obligation, the necessity of baptism obtains universally prior to his consciously receiving this law.  The rest of your argument begs the question and only serves to reinforce the false proposition that "Baptism is necessary by precept alone."  I do not have the time to sort through your proof-texting of the Summa.   

Having said this, though, I'll readily agree that the expression "necessity of precept" may not be a very helpful one, and indeed may serve to distract readers from the main point.

If by unhelpful, you mean false, then yes, the expression was most unhelpful. 

[Caminus]

Well, except for the authority of the Council of Trent, Blessed Pius IX, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, etc....

Please quote these authorities stating that baptism obtains a preceptive force alone.
 

All men are bound by the Law of Baptism, either in re or in desire, whether they realize it or not. The entire Gospel was promulgated but it would be absolutely false to infer that the truth contained therein were binding upon only those who actually hear the truth. No, all men are bound to believe with divine faith in order to attain to salvation -- for he that believeth [and] is baptized, shall be saved.

As we've seen, St. Thomas notes that "those who are not present when a law is promulgated, are bound to observe the law, in so far as it is notified or can be notified to them by others, after it has been promulgated" [S.T. I-II, Q. 90, Art. 4, reply obj. 2 (emphasis added)].

And tell me again how the comparison between civil law and the divine law does not fail insofar as the former pertains to arbitrary obligations and the latter pertains to the revelation of a means to an end essentially and absolutely transcendant?

The Law of the Gospel is binding upon those who actually hear or can hear the truth. Thus it is impossible for those who refuse (or even culpably neglect) to hear the Gospel to be saved, but it is possible for those who cannot hear the Gospel to be saved:

It is not possible without some supernatural faith, charity and being concomitantly supernaturally regenerate.  Invincible ignorance only describes a privation that is faultless, it does not describe the means by which a man is actually saved.  The "well known doctrine" of the Church is simply that a man will not be punished for a sin that he did not commit.

In reality, Tanquerey says that, "The Calvinists and Wycliffites maintained that Baptism is necessary by the necessity of precept, but not of means." Manual of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, pg. 225. "Christ said; 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' Understood in the traditional sense, these words do not report only a precept but declare that Baptism is necessary as a means to an end: for just as birth is the means through which each one begins to live a natural life, so spiritual regeneration through Baptism is sufficiently clearly shown as the means necessary for supernatural life." Ibid. In attempting to combat one error, that of those who say that the desire of the sacrament of Baptism can sometimes produce the same effect as actually receiving it, [...]

How's that again? That's not an error, it's the highly authoritative teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, as noted above.

That should have read, "that of those who deny that...".  Of course an even remotely charitable man would have understood what I intended to say.   

[...]he has fallen into the protestant error of asserting that Baptism is necessary for salvation by divine precept alone.

The Calvinists and Wycliffites, as you should know quite well, held that the necessity of baptism was a "necessity of precept" in quite a different sense.

Their proposition and yours is formally the same, though the material reasons are different for coming to the conclusion.  One says baptism does not produce grace the other says that it is a promulgated law, but both say that therefore, baptism is necessary by precept alone, an equally false statement no matter what reason induced one to say it.  Why can't you admit that you should not have said such a thing or simply that you cannot understand how baptism can be absolutely necessary for salvation? 

[McMaster]

A man cannot be saved without baptism even [if] it be omitted innocently. The necessity does not become binding upon him at the moment he hears of this obligation, the necessity of baptism obtains universally prior to his consciously receiving this law.

Take it up with Blessed Pius IX. Affirm or deny that "those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion," "sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God," "are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace" (see post # 47 above). Affirm or deny that those who are "struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion," as such, do not and cannot know of the necessity of baptism (if they did or could, they would have ceased to be invincibly ignorant). Affirm or deny the logical conclusion that those who do not and cannot know of the necessity of baptism can nevertheless be saved under the conditions, and by the means, specified by Blessed Pius IX.

Why can't you admit that you should not have said such a thing or simply that you cannot understand how baptism can be absolutely necessary for salvation?

The sacrament of baptism is not absolutely necessary for the salvation of all, in that it is possible for some (though not for all) to be saved without it. This is the teaching of Blessed Pius IX, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Augustine, among many other great Catholic teachers. Why not just admit it?

Your argument was plain for all to read, it went like this:

1. Any law that is promulgated must have preceptive force alone.
2. But the Law of Baptism was promulgated along with the Gospel.
3. Therefore, the Law of Baptism must have preceptive force alone.

If I have ever put forth an idiotic argument like that in my life, I repudiate it at once in sackcloth and ashes. Here again, in yet another form, is the real argument, following the teaching of St. Thomas in S.T. I-II, Q. 90, Art. 4:

1. A law is promulgated when, and only when, the governed are enabled to know of it (i.e., when it "is notified, or can be notified, to them").

2. Every law must be promulgated to the governed in order to be binding upon them, for it cannot serve as a rational rule and measure of their actions if they cannot know of it.

3. No law is binding upon those to whom it has not been promulgated, i.e., those who cannot know of it.

I do not have the time to sort through your proof-texting of the Summa.

But surely you'll agree that it would be a better use of your time to read and understand the Summa than to keep producing commentaries on the works of McMaster. :smile:

Blessings,

Don McMaster