lol, so you are saying that St. Thomas was just too stupid to notice that implicit baptism by desire is an oxymoron?
Sorry, I know Iām not addressing all of your points, I just thought this was funny.
St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, A. 11, ad 1: Objectionā āIt is possible that someone may be brought up in the forest, or among wolves; such a man cannot explicitly know anything about the faith. St. Thomas repliesā It is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvationā¦ provided on his part there is no hindrance. In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to himā¦ā
St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. II, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4: āIf a man born among barbarian nations, does what he can, God Himself will show him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or sending a teacher to him.ā
St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: āIf a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.ā
St. Thomas, Summa Theologica: āAfter grace had been revealed, both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above.ā
Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica: āAnd consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity.ā
Looks like he saw the logic of it after all as St. Thomas rejected any notion of implicit faith and is used mostly to refute the invincible ignorance thesis. Perhaps you meant explicit desire of baptism? In that case, he did support such a thing but his only source for a foundational argument was St. Augustine & St. Ambrose. One has to wonder if he did so out of favoritism since a number of other early Fathers said the exact opposite (such as St. Justin, St. Hermas, St. Gregory Nazianz, etcā¦)? Or did he lack the texts at his own time that demonstrate the very same two Fathers contradict what they said, as we read,
St. Ambrose (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2: 1324):
āāUnless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.ā
No one is excepted: not the infant,
not the one prevented by some necessity.ā
St. Ambrose, De mysteriis:
āYou have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for āunless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.ā [John 3:5]
Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed;
but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.ā
St Augustine ( Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 1536):
āā¦ God does not forgive sins except to the baptized.ā
Iāll give the good Angelic Doctor the benefit of the doubt that he lacked these writings since these two Fathers were inconsistent with their own theological opinions.
As for your observation on aut and vel, I believe aut is being used correctly since being baptized and desiring it are mutually exclusive. I would think your case would be solid if vel was used, since this lexicon reads:
A Copious and Critical English-Latin Lexicon dixit:
OR, aut; vel; ve (enclitic): sive (or seu; rare in Cicero; common in poets and later prose writers). NB Aut stands in disjunctive sentences when one clause is entirely apposed to the other; vel when the opposition is only partial; ve is usually connected with single words, not with clauses, denoting reciprocal exclusion; sive, seu, or si, with vel, implies a difference merely in name or in the form of expression; e.g., audendum est aliquid universsi, aut omnia singulia patienda; de nostris rebus satis, vel etiam nimium multa; non sentiunt viri fortes in acie vulnera; vel, si sentiunt, se mori malunt; esse dico ea quae cerni tangive possunt; Minerva sive Tritonia. We may say that aut distinguishes, vel co-ordinates, sive denotes synonyms, ve is a milder vel. Aut distinguishes things and expressions which are diametrically opposed to each other, or, at least, are considered as widely different;
vel implied that it is indifferent which of several things takes place, or which of several propositions is affirmed; it matters not whether they be different or alike; vel, for the most part, distinguishes only single words, more rarely whole clauses; and when it does so, it implied only a slight or nominal distinction: sive is used, (1) when, with reference to one and the same subject, a choice is given between several names and predicates; or, (2) when a speaker or writer, himself in doubt or suspense, leaves the choise with the hearer or reader ā¦ā¦ Either - or, aut - aut; vel - vel; sive - sive; or seu - seu NB sive - sive usually with the indicative unless the sense requires a subjunctive.
If the desire for it had the same of effect as being baptized then there would be a slight ānominal distinction.ā But since they are mutually exclusive, they are both necessary as Canon 4 stated.
