Author Topic: The Necessity of the Sacraments (Read 20237 times)

DecemRationis · « **on:** February 18, 2024, 06:41:43 AM »

I'd like to have a discussion of the necessity of the sacraments for salvation in this thread. Since the discussion involves the necessity of the one sacrament required for all, baptism, and relates to the Feeneyite controversy, I'm posting it here. Let's start with Magisterial statements about that necessity.

I'm aware of the most prominent expressions from the Council of Trent. I think the most important come from Session VII of the Council, which deals with the sacraments in general and baptism.
Here are the ones that come to mind for me. The numbers are from Denzinger (1957). The sources (English and Latin) for all the quotes are linked after the first entry.

Quote

Council of Trent, Session VII (March 3, 1547)

Canons on the Sacraments in General

847 Can. 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 through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema.

Denzinger - English translation, older numbering (patristica.net)

847 Can. 4. Si quis dixerit, sacramenta novae Legis non esse ad salutem necessaria, sed superflua, et
sine eis aut eorum voto per solam fidem homines a Deo gratiam iustificationis adipisci, licet omnia
singulis necessaria non sint: an. s.

Full text of "Denzinger Schönmetzer - Enchiridion Symbolorum 1957" (archive.org)

Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism

858 Can. 2. If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (John 3:5), are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.

858 Can. 2. Si quis dixerit, aquam veram et naturalem non esse de necessitate baptismi, atque ideo
verba illa Domini nostri Iesu Christi: "Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto' (Jo 3, 5) ad
metaphoram aliquam detorserit: an. s.

861 Can. 5. If anyone shall say that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema [cf. n.796 ].

861 Can. 5. Si quis dixerit, baptismum liberum esse, hoc est non necessarium ad salutem : an. s. (cf.
DS 1524)

* The "cf." section -

796 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 [can. 5 de bapt.], or a desire for it, as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" [John 3:5].

1524 796 Cap. 4. Quibus verbis iustificationis impii descriptio insinuatur, ut sit translatio ab eo statu, in
quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae, in statum gratiae et 'adoptionis filiorum' (Rom 8,15) Dei, per
secundum Adam lesum Christum Salvatorem nostrum; quae quidem translatio post Evangelium
promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis (can. 5 de bapt.) aut eius voto fieri non potest, sicut scriptum est:
"Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei' (Jo 3,5).

Session XIV

Doctrine on the Sacrament of Penance

Chap. 2 - The Difference Between the Sacrament of Penance and that of Baptism

. . . This sacrament of penance, moreover, is necessary for the salvation of those who have fallen after baptism, as baptism itself is for those as yet not regenerated [can. 6].

. . . Est autem hoc sacramentum paenitentiae lapsis post baptismum ad salutem necessarium, ut nondum regeneratis ipse baptismus (can.6).

Canons on the Sacrament of Penance

916 Can. 6. If anyone denies that sacramental confession was either instituted by divine law or is necessary for salvation; or says that the manner of secretly confessing to a priest alone, which the Catholic Church has always observed from the beginning and still observes, is alien to the institution and the mandate of Christ, and is a human invention: let him be anathema [cf.n. 899 f.].

916 Can. 6. Si quis negaverit, confessionem sacramentalem vel institutam vel ad salutem necessariam esse iure divino; aut dixerit, modum secrete confitendi soli sacerdoti, quem Ecelesia
catholica ab initio semper observavit et observat, alienum esse ab institutione et mandato Christi, et inventum esse humanum: an. s. (cf. DS 1679ss).

*The note reference (which indicates "and following") -

899 From the institution of the sacrament of penance as already explained the universal Church has always understood that the complete confession of sins was also instituted by our Lord, [Jas. 5:16; John 1:9; (Luke 17:14)], and by divine law is necessary for all who have fallen after baptism [can. 7] . . .

917 Can. 7. If anyone says that in the sacrament of penance it is not necessary by divine law for the remission of sins to confess each and all mortal sins, of which one has remembrance after a due and diligent examination, even secret ones and those which are against the two last precepts of the decalogue, and the circuмstances which alter the nature of sin; but that this confession is useful only for the instruction and consolation of the penitent, and formerly was observed only for imposing a canonical satisfaction; or says, that they who desire to confess all their sins wish to leave nothing to be pardoned by divine mercy; or, finally, that it is not lawful to confess venial sins: let him be anathema [cf. n. 899-901 ]

1679 899 Ex institutione sacramenti paenitentiae iam explicata universa Ecclesia semper intellexit, institutam etiam esse a Domino integram peccatorum confessionem (cf. Iac 5, 16;1 Jo 1, 9 (Lc 17, 14)), et
omnibus post baptismum lapsis iure divino necessariam exsistere (can. 7) . . .

1707 917 Can. 7. Si quis dixerit, in sacramento paenitentiae ad remissionem peccatorum necessarium non esse iure divino confiteri omnia et singula peccata mortalia, quorum memoria cuм debita et diligenti
praemeditatione habeatur, etiam occulta, et quae sunt contra duo ultima decalogi praecepta, et circuмstantias, quae peccati speciem mutant; sed eam confessionem tantum esse utilem ad erudiendum et
consolandum paenitentem, et olim observatam fuisse tantum ad satisfactionem canonicam imponendam; aut dixerit, eos, qui omnia peccata confiteri student, nihil relinquere velle divinae misericordiae
ignoscendum; aut demum non licere confiteri peccata venialia : an. s. (cf. DS 1679ss).

I think it important to list the Magisterial texts on sacramental necessity if we're going to discuss the topic. Our opinions - sometimes we need this reminder, too often than not - are not authoritative in themselves, and only have "authority" to the extent that they are persuasive and reasonable as inferences or conclusions from the taken as given or necessary (from the authority) principles. But then their authority is intrinsic and are not in a sense verifiable.

The principles "necessary" to be followed and applied, however, are verifiable. Let us list them first.

From Magisterial statements we can look at interpretations or elaborations from teachers such as saints, doctors, theologians below the level of the Magisterium, which are subject to the same rules of persuasion as our own theories, though invested with more weight in the scales prior to the weighing.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #1 on:** February 18, 2024, 11:49:28 AM »

Necessity is one of the trickiest terms in Catholic theology, as several different types of necessity can be distinguished, e.g. of means vs. of precept, absolute vs. relative, etc.

It's my understanding that nearly all theologians hold that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary by necessity of means. Theologians hold that Holy Communion is necessary by necessity of precept and of moral necessity.

Question, in the context of BoD, is whether this necessity is satisfied in a BoD scenario, i.e. where the Sacrament of Baptism remains necessary even in BoD, i.e. where you could not have BoD WITHOUT the Sacrament of Baptism. St. Robert Bellarmine, understanding that the importance of retaining the necessity of the Sacrament, actually stated that they received the Sacrament of Baptism in voto.

This is where I disagree with the Dimond Brothers, where they hold that all BoD necessarily undermines the necessity of the Sacrament. You cannot have a Desire for Baptism without there being Baptism, so one could argue that it remains necessary for salvation even in a BoD scenario. Of course, as Father Feeney points out, the famous passage about votum refers to justification and not to salvation.

Now, BoD has become so expanded that there need not be any kind of explicit intention to receive Baptism to be saved by BoD ... according to many/most of its proponents. I'm not sure how one salvages the necessity of the Sacrament for Baptism when one claims that perfect contrition and charity along suffice, without any reference or thought of Baptism ... except for as some vague mystical "anonymous" instrumental causality, which I find to be borderline absurd.

In any case, we're not going to resolve this here ... until the Church's Magisterium intervenes.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #2 on:** February 18, 2024, 11:50:26 AM »

Trent says the SACRAMENT of baptism is necessary for salvation. This is doctrine. There’s no interpretation required. God's truths are simple; He speaks to us, through His Church, plainly and clearly. God cannot deceive nor be deceived and neither does doctrine, which is Divine Truth.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** February 18, 2024, 11:56:10 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 18, 2024, 11:50:26 AM

Trent says the SACRAMENT of baptism is necessary for salvation. This is doctrine. There’s no interpretation required. God's truths are simple; He speaks to us, through His Church, plainly and clearly. God cannot deceive nor be deceived and neither does doctrine, which is Divine Truth.

Right, but those Doctors who held to BoD believed that the necessity was retained/salvaged because the Sacrament is still necessary in a BoD scenario, where somehow the Sacrament remains the instrumental cause of justification/salvation (as Trent teaches) by somehow operating through the votum to receive it. I think it's weak, but it does suffices to exonerate those who hold Baptism of Desire from a heretical denial of Trent's teaching.

Byzcat3000 here believe in BoD, but he also agrees that AT MOST Trent is saying that you have to AT LEAST say that the Sacrament is necessary by votum ... in order to avoid a heretical denial of the necessity of the Sacrament for salvation, but is not positively teaching Baptism of Desire, merely permitting it or leaving the question open. Trent was careful about making anything that is positively intended to teach de fide reflected in the Canons, and there's nowhere to be found anything remotely along the lines of, "If any sayeth that the votum to receive the Sacrament cannot suffice for salvation, let him be anathema."

I hold the position that BoD preserves the necessity of the Sacrament to be extremely weak and sketchy at best, but it suffices in theory to exonerate some of those who believe in it from heresy ... though very few in practice have a non-heretical view of BoD. Most proponents of BoD are at least semi- if not full Pelagians and deny the ex opere operato effect of the Sacrament of Baptism. I have difficulty seeing how BoD could possibly provide justification/salvation ex opere operato vs. ex opere operantis (when the individual formulates the proper votum).

hgodwinson · « **Reply #4 on:** February 18, 2024, 02:31:57 PM »

While due to a lack of formation and knowledge, I don't have much to add on this topic. Reading the OP have me a bit of a "lightbulb moment". Many people who have rebutted the Dimonds have pointed out that they take John 3:5 literally but, apply some interpretation to John 6:53, Fr. Jenkins even accusing them of acting like "quintessential modernists", it just struck me that by definition Baptism is more important for Salvation than the Eucharist because you need it first. You can't even have the opportunity to avoid the Eucharist if you aren't Baptised. In addition, no one who has a "Baptism of Desire" ever had the Eucharist (unless they were Eastern "Orthodox"). So, if one wants to advocate for BoD, they have to acknowledge that John 6:53 cannot be taken literally either.

Most people probably already know this but, I thought I would post it just because of how much it "clicked".

Stubborn · « **Reply #5 on:** February 18, 2024, 02:54:37 PM »

Quote from: hgodwinson on February 18, 2024, 02:31:57 PM

While due to a lack of formation and knowledge, I don't have much to add on this topic. Reading the OP have me a bit of a "lightbulb moment". Many people who have rebutted the Dimonds have pointed out that they take John 3:5 literally but, apply some interpretation to John 6:53, Fr. Jenkins even accusing them of acting like "quintessential modernists", it just struck me that by definition Baptism is more important for Salvation than the Eucharist because you need it first. You can't even have the opportunity to avoid the Eucharist if you aren't Baptised. In addition, no one who has a "Baptism of Desire" ever had the Eucharist (unless they were Eastern "Orthodox"). So, if one wants to advocate for BoD, they have to acknowledge that John 6:53 cannot be taken literally either.

Most people probably already know this but, I thought I would post it just because of how much it "clicked".

"I have said that a Baptism-of-Desire Catholic is not a member of the Church. He cannot be prayed for after death
as one of "the faithful departed." Were he to be revivified immediately after death – were he to come to life again
– he would not be allowed to receive Holy Eucharist or any of the other Sacraments until he was baptized by
water. Now, if he can get into the Church Triumphant without Baptism of Water, it is strange that he cannot get
into the Church Militant without it. It is an odd procedure for priests of the Church Militant to be shunting people
off to the Church Triumphant before these people have enrolled in the a Church Militant, which fights the good
fight and preserves the Faith." - Fr. Feeney, Bread of Life

JoeZ · « **Reply #6 on:** February 18, 2024, 03:56:16 PM »

Quote from: hgodwinson on February 18, 2024, 02:31:57 PM

While due to a lack of formation and knowledge, I don't have much to add on this topic. Reading the OP have me a bit of a "lightbulb moment". Many people who have rebutted the Dimonds have pointed out that they take John 3:5 literally but, apply some interpretation to John 6:53, Fr. Jenkins even accusing them of acting like "quintessential modernists", it just struck me that by definition Baptism is more important for Salvation than the Eucharist because you need it first. You can't even have the opportunity to avoid the Eucharist if you aren't Baptised. In addition, no one who has a "Baptism of Desire" ever had the Eucharist (unless they were Eastern "Orthodox"). So, if one wants to advocate for BoD, they have to acknowledge that John 6:53 cannot be taken literally either.

Most people probably already know this but, I thought I would post it just because of how much it "clicked".

In combating the deconstruction of dogma which has been condemned by Pius IX, the Vatican I Council, and St. Pius X, especially in Lamentabili "The dogmas of the faith are to be held only according to a practical sense, that is, as preceptive norms for action, but not as norms for believing." (Condemned), an example is in order and I will use an imagined support for baptism of desire as one. The Cushingite will claim that the scripture verse John 3:5 (“except a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven”) and John 6:53 (“Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you”) are similar and we know baptized children who have not reached the age of reason are excused from the necessity of the precept John 6:53 by their inability to commune, therefore, John 3:5 must not apply to those who cannot comply. This argument fails in its major premise; the two are solemn statements of Our Lord Jesus Christ concerning salvation but the similarity ends there. First, those who are subject to the proposition posited in John 3:5 are all men while in John 6:53 the precept binds only you, which is a different and smaller group. This is enough to break the argument as a presumptive fallacy but if you look deeper the difference is much more substantial. John 3:5 (which Trent tells us to take literally) is a proposition concerning the truth-falsity of a certain quality or condition of any given man, is he baptized in water and the Holy Ghost or not? John 6:53 is a law commanding a behavior, you (we) must commune, you must believe in the Real Presence. Now reread the St Pius X quote above and you see that he condemned this linguistic deconstruction of a dogmatic truth (John 3:5). Its status as a true-false proposition has been eliminated in favor of an authority-obedience law or precept, which can be mitigated by circuмstance. "The dogmas of the faith are to be held only according to a practical sense, that is, as preceptive norms for action, but not as norms for believing." (Condemned). The Holy Ghost knows exactly what we need to combat Modernism and He delivers. Sounds Like Fr Jenkins fits the modernist label according to pope St Pius X.

Soubirous · « **Reply #7 on:** February 18, 2024, 03:57:25 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on February 18, 2024, 02:54:37 PM

"Now, if he can get into the Church Triumphant without Baptism of Water, it is strange that he cannot get
into the Church Militant without it. It is an odd procedure for priests of the Church Militant to be shunting people
off to the Church Triumphant before these people have enrolled in the a Church Militant, which fights the good
fight and preserves the Faith." - Fr. Feeney, Bread of Life

As much as I've read all of these threads carefully, none of the anti-Feeneyite arguments address this paradox bluntly and clearly, leading me to wonder how much of it is a post-1949 worldly edifice of human ideas constructed upon the fulcrum of some bygone urge to demolish Fr. Feeney himself, for reasons already detailed exhaustingly as to nearly century-old goings-on around Boston particularly and, more importantly, as a worldwide foreshadowing of Nostra Aetate (the latter especially by process of elimination since Trinitarian water baptism makes all these arguments moot as to EOs and most adult Protestants). The whole thing has an uncanny whiff of Mormon baptism for the dead, as if true and faithful Catholics can presume to do anything more than speculate for the sake of argument. To insist that actual identifiable souls have attained salvation (other than in legitimate pre V2 canonizations, of course) seems to be tiptoeing a little too close to presumption-by-proxy. "Ah, but it's a theological principle." Perhaps that serves for healthy debate, but then don't let it get out to the plebes. Careful, people might get the wrong idea about the real requirements for salvation, their own and that of others.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #8 on:** February 18, 2024, 04:09:07 PM »

Is anyone aware of any Magisterial texts beyond those I posted which discuss the necessity of the sacraments?

Thanks.

Angelus · « **Reply #9 on:** February 18, 2024, 04:13:48 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on February 18, 2024, 02:54:37 PM

"I have said that a Baptism-of-Desire Catholic is not a member of the Church. He cannot be prayed for after death
as one of "the faithful departed." Were he to be revivified immediately after death – were he to come to life again
– he would not be allowed to receive Holy Eucharist or any of the other Sacraments until he was baptized by
water. Now, if he can get into the Church Triumphant without Baptism of Water, it is strange that he cannot get
into the Church Militant without it. It is an odd procedure for priests of the Church Militant to be shunting people
off to the Church Triumphant before these people have enrolled in the a Church Militant, which fights the good
fight and preserves the Faith." - Fr. Feeney, Bread of Life

Here is my take on it. FWIW.

Baptism-of-Desire alone does not get one into either the Church Triumphant (i.e., the true meaning of "salvation") nor the Church Militant here on earth. It gets one a ticket to a kind of Limbo or Purgatory (assuming that the person dies without committing a mortal sin after their BoD "justification" occurs).

When the BoD-only (aka "justified-only") person dies, he goes to Purgatory (if he had temporal punishment to pay) or to the equivalent of Limbo (if he died without committing any "actual sin" before death). He waits in that state for a Miracle from Heaven (see Matthew 27:52) to deliver him.

BoD is not a means to "salvation" as the Sacrament of Baptism is. BoD is a means to "justification-only." BoD's effects are, for the non-sacramentally-baptized, very similar to the effects of the Sacrament of Penance for baptized Catholics.

Justification is the state that one is in when, for example, a Catholic is validly absolved in the Sacrament of Penance but still has temporal punishment due. If that person dies immediately, he will not go straight to Heaven. He is not "saved" without qualification at that point.

Salvation is the state that one is in when, for example, a Catholic is absolved in the Sacrament of Penance and the same person, properly disposed, performs the work needed for a plenary indulgence. That person will go straight to Heaven. That person is "saved" without any qualification.

Similarly, when the person receives the Sacrament of Baptism and dies immediately after its reception, he is "saved" without qualification.

BoD is not equivalent to the Sacrament of Baptism just as "justification" is not equivalent to "salvation."

JoeZ · « **Reply #10 on:** February 18, 2024, 06:04:56 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on February 18, 2024, 04:09:07 PM

Is anyone aware of any Magisterial texts beyond those I posted which discuss the necessity of the sacraments?

Thanks.

Pope St. Siricius, Decree to Himerius, A.D. 385:

http://www.historyandapologetics.com/2015/02/letter-of-pope-siricius-to-bishop.html

Pope St. Siricius, Decree to Himerius, A.D. 385:
LATIN: “Sicut sacram ergo paschalem reverentiam in nullo dicimus esse minuendam, ita infantibus qui necdum loqui poterunt per aetatem vel his, quibus in qualibet necessitate opus fuerit sacra unda baptismatis, omni volumus celeritate succurri, ne ad nostrarum perniciem tendat animarum, si negato desiderantibus fonte salutari exiens unusquisque de saeculo et regnum perdat et vitam.

“Therefore just as we say that the holy paschal observance is in no way to be diminished, we also say that to infants who will not yet be able to speak on account of their age or to those who in any necessity will need the holy stream of baptism, we wish succor to be brought with all celerity, lest it should tend to the perdition of our souls if the saving font be denied to those desiring it and every single one of them exiting this world lose both the Kingdom and life.”

Quicuмque etiam discrimen naufragii, hostilitatis incursum, obsidionis ambiguum vel cuiuslibet corporalis aegritudinis desperationem inciderint, et sibi unico credulitatis auxilio poposcerint subveniri, eodem quo poscunt momento temporis expetitae regenerationis praemia consequantur. Hactenus erratum in hac parte sufficiat; nunc praefatam regulam omnes teneant sacerdotes, qui nolunt ab apostolicae petrae, super quam Christus universalem construxit Ecclesiam, soliditate divelli.”

Whoever should fall into the peril of shipwreck, the incursion of an enemy, the uncertainty of a siege or the desperation of any bodily sickness, and should beg to be relieved by the unique help of faith, let them obtain the rewards of the much sought-after regeneration in the same moment of time in which they beg for it. Let the previous error in this matter be enough; [but] now let all priests maintain the aforesaid rule, who do not want to be torn from the solidity of the apostolic rock upon which Christ constructed His universal Church.

JoeZ · « **Reply #11 on:** February 18, 2024, 06:08:30 PM »

Pope St. Zosimus, The Council of Carthage, Canon on Sin and Grace, 417 A.D.- “It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: ‘In my Father’s house there are many mansions’ [John 14:2]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema.”

JoeZ · « **Reply #12 on:** February 18, 2024, 06:11:56 PM »

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

DecemRationis · « **Reply #13 on:** February 21, 2024, 07:43:36 AM »

Quote from: JoeZ on February 18, 2024, 06:04:56 PM

Pope St. Siricius, Decree to Himerius, A.D. 385:

http://www.historyandapologetics.com/2015/02/letter-of-pope-siricius-to-bishop.html

Pope St. Siricius, Decree to Himerius, A.D. 385:
LATIN: “Sicut sacram ergo paschalem reverentiam in nullo dicimus esse minuendam, ita infantibus qui necdum loqui poterunt per aetatem vel his, quibus in qualibet necessitate opus fuerit sacra unda baptismatis, omni volumus celeritate succurri, ne ad nostrarum perniciem tendat animarum, si negato desiderantibus fonte salutari exiens unusquisque de saeculo et regnum perdat et vitam.

“Therefore just as we say that the holy paschal observance is in no way to be diminished, we also say that to infants who will not yet be able to speak on account of their age or to those who in any necessity will need the holy stream of baptism, we wish succor to be brought with all celerity, lest it should tend to the perdition of our souls if the saving font be denied to those desiring it and every single one of them exiting this world lose both the Kingdom and life.”

Quicuмque etiam discrimen naufragii, hostilitatis incursum, obsidionis ambiguum vel cuiuslibet corporalis aegritudinis desperationem inciderint, et sibi unico credulitatis auxilio poposcerint subveniri, eodem quo poscunt momento temporis expetitae regenerationis praemia consequantur. Hactenus erratum in hac parte sufficiat; nunc praefatam regulam omnes teneant sacerdotes, qui nolunt ab apostolicae petrae, super quam Christus universalem construxit Ecclesiam, soliditate divelli.”

Whoever should fall into the peril of shipwreck, the incursion of an enemy, the uncertainty of a siege or the desperation of any bodily sickness, and should beg to be relieved by the unique help of faith, let them obtain the rewards of the much sought-after regeneration in the same moment of time in which they beg for it. Let the previous error in this matter be enough; [but] now let all priests maintain the aforesaid rule, who do not want to be torn from the solidity of the apostolic rock upon which Christ constructed His universal Church.

JoeZ,

Thank you for the quote. There is no doubt that among those who die during instruction before receiving baptism there would be - indeed, I would say the vast majority - those who do not have the faith and heigh level of contrition (probably would need to be "perfect" contrition) to be justified by their vow or desire for the sacrament. To those indeed the sacrament would be necessary, as the sacrament of penance is necessary for those who have, say imperfect contrition for sins committed - the imperfect contrition is enough for the justification of the sacrament of penance, but not for the justification before receipt of the sacrament that comes by way of perfect contrition. Think about it: obviously someone who is justified in the sacrament of penance via an imperfect contrition didn't have perfect contrition before the sacrament.

I would say it is the same regarding baptism. There are those who come to the fount like those who come to the sacrament of penance with imperfect contrition: they would not justified without the sacrament. For them, the receipt of the sacrament is a necessity.

Pope Siricius speaks of infants, and the aforementioned are like infants in that the receipt of the sacrament is absolutely necessary for them, just as it is for infants. They are therefore spoken of collectively by the pope, and for both alike the sacraments are necessary. Remember the language in the Catechism of Trent:

Quote

Baptism Of Infants Should Not Be Delayed

The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.

Baptism Of Adults

With regard to those of adult age who enjoy the perfect use of reason, persons, namely, born of infidel parents, the practice of the primitive Church points out that a different manner of proceeding should be followed. To them the Christian faith is to be proposed; and they are earnestly to be exhorted, persuaded and invited to embrace it.

They Should Not Delay Their Baptism Unduly

If converted to the Lord God, they are then to be admonished not to defer the Sacrament of Baptism beyond the time prescribed by the Church. For since it is written, delay not to be converted to the Lord, and defer it not from day to day, they are to be taught that in their regard perfect conversion consists in regeneration by Baptism. Besides, the longer they defer Baptism, the longer are they deprived of the use and graces of the other Sacraments, by which the Christian religion is practised, since the other Sacraments are accessible through Baptism only.

They are also deprived of the abundant fruits of Baptism, the waters of which not only wash away all the stains and defilements of past sins, but also enrich us with divine grace which enables us to avoid sin for the future and preserve righteousness and innocence, which constitute the sum of a Christian life, as all can easily understand.

Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once

On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation, the intentions of such as seek Baptism, are better examined and ascertained. Hence it is that we read in the decrees of ancient Councils that Jєωιѕн converts to the Catholic faith, before admission to Baptism, should spend some months in the ranks of the catechumens.

Furthermore, the candidate for Baptism is thus better instructed in the doctrine of the faith which he is to profess, and in the practices of the Christian life. Finally, when Baptism is administered to adults with solemn ceremonies on the appointed days of Easter and Pentecost only greater religious reverence is shown to the Sacrament.

In Case Of Necessity Adults May Be: Baptised At Once

Sometimes, however, when there exists a just and necessary cause, as in the case of imminent danger of death, Baptism is not to be deferred, particularly if the person to be baptised is well instructed in the mysteries of faith. This we find to have been done by Philip, and by the Prince of the Apostles, when without any delay, the one baptised the eunuch of Queen Candace; the other, Cornelius, as soon as they expressed a wish to embrace the faith.

This is consistent with what I am saying. If death is imminent for an adult, mercy says give the sacrament - they may be those who, as I have argued, lack the level of contrition or faith that would "avail them to grace and righteousness," and they would be in the same boat as the infant.

I see an argument against my position by saying that the Catechism implies that a BoD would apply to all catechumen in such circuмstances. But I don't think it can be read that way, and think my analogy to the sacrament of penance applies. As quoted in the op, the Council says that "This sacrament of penance, moreover, is necessary for the salvation of those who have fallen after baptism, as baptism itself is for those as yet not regenerated." The same necessity for justification: the actual receipt of the sacrament is necessary for those with imperfect contrition, and I would say the same for some catechumen who do have an imperfect contrition for their past sins. There are some catechumen, I would say, whose "intention and determination" is not perfect and requires the sacrament of baptism.

In sum, I do not think the quotes from Pope Siricius address general sacramental necessity, like Trent does, but a sacramental necessity for those in a certain situation, a dire circuмstance. You don't play "Russian Roulette" and hope those people have "perfect contrition," like you don't delay with infants.

A good quote and very helpful for thinking about this, but I don't see it as having the generality of Trent, or addressing generally the necessity of the sacraments. Pope Siricius is addressing a specific circuмstance in which baptism should not be delayed for adults, which is acknowledged and addressed also in the Catechism of Trent, which talks about BoD or justification by votum with contrition as well.

DR

Ladislaus · « **Reply #14 on:** February 21, 2024, 07:46:23 AM »

Quote from: hgodwinson on February 18, 2024, 02:31:57 PM

Many people who have rebutted the Dimonds have pointed out that they take John 3:5 literally but, apply some interpretation to John 6:53 ...

That's hogwash. Catholic theologians have always held the Sacrament of Baptism to be necessary by necessity of means and the Holy Communion to be necessary by necessity of precept and by moral necessity. You can find that treated succinctly in the Catholic Encyclopedia and anywhere else. This isn't "the Dimonds".

Author Topic: The Necessity of the Sacraments (Read 20237 times)

DecemRationis

The Necessity of the Sacraments

Ladislaus

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments

Pax Vobis

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments

Ladislaus

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments

hgodwinson

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments

Stubborn

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments

JoeZ

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments

Soubirous

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments

DecemRationis

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments

Angelus

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments

JoeZ

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments

JoeZ

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments

JoeZ

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments

DecemRationis

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments

Ladislaus

Re: The Necessity of the Sacraments