Baptism of Desire: Avoiding the Red Herrings on a Nearby Thread
(01-30-2012, 06:47 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(01-30-2012, 03:26 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: Do those who deny the theological possibility of the salvific efficacy of a desire for baptism animated by perfect charity understand that this "baptism of desire" is not equal to the sacrament of baptism--that it doesn't imprint an indelible mark on the soul? It confers the sacramental effects of justification outside of the sacramental sign proper to the sacrament, as St. Thomas teaches.

Theologically, everything is possible because with God, nothing is impossible, however, the Church teaches as de fide that: Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception, for salvation. (De fide.)

Where does BOD fit in with the above de fide teaching?

This has been explained. "Necessary," in this theological context, is a theological term pertaining to moral theology which must be understood in the moral theological sense. It is unpacked into various different types. One of these types is a "relative necessity of precept," as theologians have distinguished for centuries. The Catholic Encyclopedia sums up the matter and uses baptism itself to illustrate the very meaning of this important distinction:
Necessity Wrote:Again, in relation to the means necessary to salvation theologians divide necessity into necessity of means and necessity of precept. In the first case the means is so necessary to salvation that without it (absolute necessity) or its substitute (relative necessity), even if the omission is guiltless, the end cannot be reached. Thus faith and baptism of water are necessary by a necessity of means, the former absolutely, the latter relatively, for salvation. In the second case, necessity is based on a positive precept, commanding something the omission of which, unless culpable, does not absolutely prevent the reaching of the end.

Sauvage, George. "Necessity." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. (emphasis added)

I think that instead of simply rejecting this off-the-cuff, you should try to understand it to see how it fits together. It is possible that you may still reject it, but when we last spoke you stated that your rejection of it was based upon its contradiction of Church teaching. I can only presume, then, that if there is shown to be no contradiction, you will accept it in good will. Understanding the theological nature of "necessity," which teaching preceded the decrees of the Council of Trent by centuries, is the first step to understanding what baptism of desire is and why God would choose to work outside of the visible sign of the sacrament at all.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Baptism of Desire: Avoiding the Red Herrings on a Nearby Thread - by INPEFESS - 01-31-2012, 01:56 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)