Baptism of Desire: Avoiding the Red Herrings on a Nearby Thread
(01-17-2012, 10:01 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it is not rational.  It is dangerous to place yourself above the Doctors and Fathers of the Church, in your pride.  Read this, which precedes and underlies the Tridentine doctrine.  There is no contradiction, save in the heads of the misguided.

That is true, just because I don't understand something doesn't mean it is not rational.  However, to present a contradiction is not the same thing as presenting that which is not understandable.  The opposing legs can be understood independent of one another as propositions, and the propositions together can be understood as being a contradiction.  Otherwise no one could discern or point out a contradiction.  To say that something is necessary in one breath and then oppose it in the next breath by saying that same something is not necessary is a contradiction.

A logical example would be: A equals B in all cases and at the same time A does not equal B in all cases.

The example you keep bringing up is: Baptism is necessary in all cases and at the same time Baptism is not necessary in all cases.

No doubt it is a dangerous place to be in to say that one can see more than the Doctors and the Fathers of the Church, but I do not claim that.

Also, I have read your quotation from the Summa Theologica...and have read it many times in the past.  It is easy to see why people are confused over this "doctrine" regarding these "baptisms" as St. Thomas exposes them.  Firstly, one must always understand that he is not to discern the works of the Magisterium by works of lower authorities, but rather discern the works of lower authorities by the works of the Magisterium (one's Bishop when teaching authoritatively, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, and the solemn judgments of the Roman Pontiffs).  This is elementary use of the rule of faith.  Catholics are never asked validly to give the assent of faith to that which lies outside the boundaries of what the First Vatican Council defines.

Secondly, this exerpt from the Summa does not in any way contradict what I have been saying.  There is only one Sacrament of Baptism, I agree with St. Thomas.  St. Thomas expounds further that there is a doctrine of three "baptisms," only one being Sacramental, I agree.  St. Thomas allows that a man, not having received the sacrament, still can receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him, I agree.  However, St. Thomas does not say that this sacramental effect is salutary.  He also does not qualify to what degree a person can be conformed to Christ by suffering for Him before the Sacrament is received, either.  This information, however, is supplied in the Council of Trent's sixth session On Justification in the section "on the manner of preparation."  In regard to what St. Thomas defines as baptisms of blood and repentance, he never once states that these are salutary outside of the Sacrament, nor that they can be placed on equal terms with the Sacrament.  He states merely that they can be called baptisms because to some degree and in some areas they show an equivalency to the effect of the Sacrament, but obviously not an equality to the Sacrament itself.

It is no doubt that the suffering of the thief could have taken the place of the Sacrament for him, as his suffering and death occurred before the promulgation of the Gospels.  He would be among those who actually died before Christ, but rose with him when he freed the souls of the just from hell, which action the Sacrament of Baptism symbolizes and effects in us spiritually if we receive the Sacrament with no impediments.  This is really elementary doctrine here.

Furthermore, suffering for the name of Christ can supply for what was lacking in Baptism.  This is basic.  If there were some impediments to the graces of one's Baptism, then this act of suffering for the name of Christ could infuse one with the theological virtues he should have received at his Baptism, but didn't...and obviously conversion of heart and faith which is conceived by hearing could remove the impediments to the grace of Baptism and allow the infusion of the Baptismal virtues.

It is no doubt that the other two "baptisms" are included in the Sacrament, as the manner of preparation shows in the sixth session of the Council of Trent.

Really, there is nothing to argue with here.  St. Thomas and the Council of Trent were teaching the same doctrine.

-- Nicole

Messages In This Thread
Re: Baptism of Desire: Avoiding the Red Herrings on a Nearby Thread - by yablabo - 01-17-2012, 11:41 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)