It seems that there are several who have died and gone to Limbo without baptism, sometimes to be raised to life to get baptized.  St. Ambrose raised the girl to life; she had been dead in the monastery for six months, while the monks prayed for her.  What about the martyrs who were imprisoned in the cave during the Maccabees' persecution circa 160 B.C., only to be resurrected at the time of Christ.  Some of those guys went on to become bishops.  They were dead in a cave for over a hundred years, where were their souls during all that time? 

Vin Lewis gave a talk many years ago - and I know Vin had questionable views on the Mass issue - but he said that people could possibly get baptized on the Last Day, or even the last week of the world.  I suppose that it is possible that people steeped in sin would even reject baptism too.

 

And what would stop God from conferring Baptism on such souls after the General Resurrection?  There are stories where saints raised individuals back to life in order to baptize them.  What would stop God from doing the same, whether now or toward the end of time?  Nothing that I can see.  Also, what would stop God from having an angel confer the Sacrament on someone who has the desire, either by miraculous means or by sending an angel to administer the Sacrament?

But does not a sacrament demand some form of human agency?  I understand that an angel can do things which seem to us "supernatural," like diverting a bullet, pulling a man from a burning vehicle, etc., but administer sacraments?  I know some of the fathers and theologians have talked about angels in this way, but I have had my doubts.  To be more precise, does not the efficient cause of a sacrament require human agency?

thanks

Please correct me on anything.



Is it possible that a person who dies without baptism but desiring it will go to limbo? That his sins are washed out but cannot enter heaven due to the lack of sacramental character? And also if it's possible for someone to get baptised during the general resurrection?

We've all contemplated such things, but in reality, it is with faith that we know God would never take one from this world who sincerely desires the sacrament without first providing them with the sacrament.

He created all of us for heaven. No human would create something that in and of itself is of more value to them than the entire universe only to let it be destroyed, so why do we even think God would?

An angel however pure and holy is still not a priest and couldn't offer mass or hear confessions or bless holy water.  But I don't see why they couldn't confer baptism, which does not require the minister to be holy, or in the state of grace, or even believe in God.  But allowing "invisible ministers" of sacraments kinda "waters down" (pun intended) the idea of a visible church.  And that's a problem.

Well, there's essential visibility and actual visibility.  Let's say that I'm on a plane that's going down and I baptized someone on the way down, and we both die.  Nobody besides me and that person would know that this individual was received into the Church.  By the corporeal nature of the Sacrament itself makes the membership in the Church essentially visible, even if it's not known by anyone that this individual became incorporated into the Church.  Or you could have an infant who was baptized by someone, perhaps surreptitiously, but then raised by parents who are outside the Church.  They're still part of the visible Church, at least until they reach the age of reason, because they're incorporated into the Church by the Sacrament and therefore belong to the Body of the Church.  What's more contrary to the Church's visibility is this notion of a soul of the Church that is not co-extensive with the body, i.e. V2 ecclesiology.

Well, there's essential visibility and actual visibility...By the corporeal nature of the Sacrament itself makes the membership in the Church essentially visible, even if it's not known by anyone that this individual became incorporated into the Church. 

Good point.

Of course He can, but He has worked outside the normal in some cases, such as when saints have raised individuals back to life to baptize them, for various reasons of His, most likely to reinforce the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism.  St. Thomas wrote that God might send a preacher miraculously to someone in the jungle who did not place any obstacles to receiving the faith, and we have stories about Mary of Agreda bilocating to the New World to evangelize the Native Americans.  So who's to know how or why God chooses to take one or another path at any given time?

Yes, this was my poorly-explained point.  I agree.  I was trying to say that God gave us the Church and He will stick within its rules, even when He works miracles.  He won't work miracles which require a change or the creation of new rules, because that would

a) undermine the original rules, which means they were flawed in some way, which is impossible, because God is perfect.
b) admit God needs to change, even when He's unchanging, and this is impossible, because God is eternal and knows all things.
c) admit God could not foresee the current circuмstances, or plan for it, so He's not omnipotent.

Example:
There are many saint stories where food was scarce and villiages/families were starving.  The saints did not pray that God would miraculously "suspend the need for food" (this would be praying for a change in the rules/necessity of human nature).  No, the saints simply prayed for actual food (this miracle corresponds with the existing rules of nature that God already created...i.e. that humans need food to survive).

Example 2:
Raising someone from the dead to be baptized temporarily suspends the natural order of life/dying, but God used this to keep 100% intact the spiritual order of the sacrament of baptism, which requires water.  He did not change/alter the requirement for water (this would've been a change to Church rules).  He worked a natural miracle (He suspended the laws of nature) to keep the supernatural laws pure and unchanging.  Supernatural order > natural order.

Example 3:
Same thing with the bi-location of the nun to teach the Indians.  Why didn't God just give each Indian a vision and teach them the Faith Himself?  He could've infused knowledge into their souls and miraculously baptized them in an instant.  *boom*.  He reads hearts and knows if they wanted baptism.  Why didn't He do this?  Because He already established the rules of His Church, in His eternal and wise providence.  And He established that humans typically learn from humans because we are visible creatures with a finite intelligence.  And the Church is visible and sacraments require VISIBLE signs.

If God just went around "enlightening" everyone, then what need is there for His Church?  Why would God be in competition with Himself?  He wouldn't.

Well, Trent says right there in the OP quote that justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration. As if to condemn a BOD, Trent goes on to immediately say "or the desire thereof," concluding with the literal meaning ("as it is written") of John 3:5. If justification cannot be effected without the sacrament, then it cannot be effected at all. Seems plain enough to me.

Well, that's at the very root of the debate, isn't it?  Some read this passage in Trent as saying without the laver or (at least) the desire thereof, others that both are required.  I find a dozen reasons that the latter is true, but then you did have St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine taking it the other way.