Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica,

Quote

Article 2. Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?

Objection 1. It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But those alone are saved who enter God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.

Objection 2. Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: "We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism." But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have the "faith that worketh by charity" (Galatians 5:6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.

Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.

I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.

Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."

Reply to Objection 1. As it is written (1 Samuel 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Romans 2:29) that "the circuмcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."

Reply to Objection 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Corinthians 3:15.

Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).

Do you somehow disagree?

289 years after St. Thomas died, The Council of Trent disagreed and decreed infallibly that the sacraments are a necessity unto salvation (although not all sacraments are necessary for every individual) and that whoever says that the sacrament of baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, is anathema.

Now 451 years later, you disagree with the council of Trent.

Try to always remember that there is One Lord, One Faith and One Baptism, not three.

True, the Angelic Doctor does not represent de fide Catholic teaching. As said before, simply because St. Thomas taught a certain point does not mean that it is Church dogma. Think for example of his erroneous teaching about the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady, when he said Our Blessed Mother has been conceived in original sin. The Angelic doctor, the same as St. Alphonsus or other saints and even fathers of the Church, are not infallible and are not the binding teaching authority of Christ Our Lord and His Church.

Another thing to notice is by the time st. Thomas wrote this, the infallible dogma of the necessity of water baptism for salvation had not been defined yet, which happened later on at Florence (1439) and Trent (1547). St Thomas died in 1274.

So where did denials of BOB and BOD get their start? In the opening couple centuries of the Church this question seems to have never come up. And in the next several centuries several ancient Church Fathers mentioned both BOB and BOD, though there were some few who listed only the martyrs (BOB) as being any exception to the requirement to be baptized in water. And yet, through selective quotation many of them are made to seem as if they entertained a variety of different opinions about BOB and BOD among themselves. However, no useful quotes have been found (even out of context) to suggest that any of the most ancient Fathers were in any way aware of any such difference of opinion among themselves

This actually might be a start to a more rational dicussion.  I think that you have the question backwards.  It isn't a question of where the DENIALS of BoB and BoD got their start, but rather where BoB and BoD THEMSELVES got their start, for the default position is the universal acceptance by the Church Fathers regarding the absolute necessity of Baptism for salvation.  That is what they all believed dogmatically.  It is within THAT context that we must view whatever discussion they made of BoD.  It sounds like you're ready to honestly characterize the Patristic evidence or lack thereof.  Of the hundreds upon hundreds of Church Fathers, only about 10 of them make any mention of there being exceptions to the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation.  That alone should tell you something about their mindset.  Of these 10, only a single one, St. Augustine, can be quoted as proposing Baptism of Desire; St. Augustine later retracted this and can be quoted as making the strongest anti-BoD statements in existence.  SEVERAL of the BoB Church Fathers, as you finally acknowledge, rejected BoD.  I believe it was Tertullian who spoke of the TWO Baptisms.

Dare I hope that this might be the beginning of some refreshing honesty?

One salient point that necessarily has to emerge from these facts is that there is little evidence that many of the ancients ever gave these questions much thought.

Correct.  What we see is that the early Christians believed absolutely in the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility.  But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.

It's why the Christians wept so bitterly at the passing away of Valentinian.  People SIMPLY believed in the necessity of Baptism for salvation and didn't immediately begin a twenty-minute equivocation about exceptions.

There's no evidence that BoB/BoD considerations were revealed by Our Lord and were taught universally by the Church Fathers.

One can easily imagine the climate in which BoB speculation arose.  Perhaps some unbaptized catechumens were martyred, whereas you had some people living sinful lives right up to the end and then receiving Baptism on their deathbeds.  St. Augustine explicitly mentions this reasoning, but then in the end rejects it.  In other words, this kind of thinking originated in a questioning of what would be fair or right of God to do, but St. Augustine dismissed this pseudo-theological "reasoning" as leading to a vortex of confusion.

At no point was there ANY evidence that BoB or BoD could EVER be applied to anyone other than a catechumen, whom the early Christians formally received with a liturgical ceremony as "Christians" though not "fideles".

This idea that non-Catholics can be saved by some BoD-like mechanism NEVER EVER ENTERED THE WILDEST THOUGHTS OF ANY OF THE CHURCH FATHERS.  And THIS is my chief problem.

If such official teachings as those cited in the previous installment were meant to be applicable to these particular cases, this kind of discussion would not have been permissible. One finds no further discussions on the question of BOB or BOD until the late 1120's when Peter Abélard, who had just recently put forth (but then had already withdrawn) some rather irregular ideas regarding the Holy Trinity, first began to deny that those ancient Church Fathers and Doctors, such as Augustine and Ambrose, could have been right about allowing for BOD.

These quotes are all form Griff Ruby's article BTW.  I cannot take credit for the honest discussion but merely by posting his quotes.  

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Water baptism is a mechanism, instituted by Christ albeit.  But a mechanism none-the-less.  Something being a mechanism does not deny the fact.

Yes, yes.  It's the instrumental cause (to use actual theological terms instead of your babble), but that does not speak to whether it's absolutely necessary.   You think that by proclaiming it a "mechanism" that somehow makes it optional.

I don't like the term mechanism myself.  I just used it to illustrate a point which I see you have grasped.  The babble was yours.  I just repeated your term so you could relate.  It is not optional for those who are aware of its necessity.  It also is not optional for those not yet at the age of reason.  

Quote from: Lover of Truth

It is not optional for those who are aware of its necessity.

So you're saying that it IS "optional" for those who aren't aware of its necessity.  Methinks you have directly anathematized yourself by word-for-word contradicting a Canon of Trent.

In any case, you have just again reduced the necessity to one of precept.

I am not saying it is "optional" for those who aren't aware of its necessity.  Those not aware of its necessity do not chose BOD over sacramental Baptism.  The neither chose the one or reject the other.  Here again the ability to make distinctions is helpful.  But even if one should lack this ability, the acceptance of the infallible teaching of the ordinary universal magisterium coupled with the ability to correctly understand what Trent taught as de fide would help.  

Lo?,

Quote

but that does not speak to whether it's absolutely necessary.

"He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved"  

 That sounds absolutely necessary to me, when you consider Who said it.

That is not an opinion, it is a statement of absolute fact.

How did Bernard, Ambrose, Aquinas, Bellarmine, Trent, Alphonsus, Pius IX and Pius XII miss this?

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica,

Quote

Article 2. Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?

Objection 1. It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But those alone are saved who enter God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.

Objection 2. Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: "We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism." But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have the "faith that worketh by charity" (Galatians 5:6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.

Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.

I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.

Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."

Reply to Objection 1. As it is written (1 Samuel 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Romans 2:29) that "the circuмcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."

Reply to Objection 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Corinthians 3:15.

Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).

Do you somehow disagree?

289 years after St. Thomas died, The Council of Trent disagreed...

The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas is in perfect agreement with the Council's decrees:

Canons on the Sacraments in General: - (Canon 4):
   "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."

Decree on Justification - (Session 6, Chapter 4):
   "In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the 'adoption of the Sons' (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).

At the Council of Trent, the Summa Theologica was placed on the altar next to the Holy Bible.