That’s not quite true. In the Summa Theologiae III q. 66 a.11 he says, “I answer that, As stated above Baptism of water has its efficacy from Christ’s passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ’s Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for him. Hence it is written(Apoc. vii. 14): These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb. In like manner a man receives the effect of baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without the Baptism of Water, but also without the Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called the Baptism of Repentence.”
Then why did you ask the question if you already knew the answer? You take a person’s opinion over what the Church has taught all but infallibly since the time of Our Lord, not to mention what St. Thomas Aquinas stated? To take a person’s opinion over that of St. Thomas’ incredible intellect is theological suicide and has no basis. Yes, if she was validly baptised she is in Heaven. If she was not, then AT BEST she is in Limbo. Our Lord Himself stated we need to be born of water to be saved.
If that is in context, it is enough to say: I take what the Church says over St. Thomas but St. Thomas over any mere person. The Church states otherwise, that is, if that is in context.
I think you should take the words of the council of trent to be the definitve word on this.
Is there anything unloving with an innocent child being happy on a natural level. No one has the right to the beatific vision. There is nothing unjust about not rewarding an innocent baby with something infinitely supassing anything it merited.
Not true. Pope Bl. Pius IX said “It is known to us and to you that those who labor under invincible ignorance concerning our most holy religion and who, diligently observing the natural law and its precepts that are engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey Him, lead an honest and upright life, can, through the operative power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life(Denz. no. 1677).”
Just to clarify terms:
Pope Pius IX’s opinion is not infallible. The Council of Florence is:
St. Thomas would say no. First of all, St. Thomas says, “nihil volitum, nisi praecognitum” “nothing is desired unless it is known.” So, we could only have a natural desire for the beatific vision, if we have a natural knowledge of its possibility. But we don’t. We can only know of the possibility of the beatific vision through faith. Secondly, St. Thomas holds the principle that every natural desire is accompanied by the natural capability to attain the object that is desired. So, if we had a natural desire for the beatific vision we would have the natural ability to attain it. Thirdly, St. Thomas explicity denies the natural desire of the beatific vision in De Veritate q. 14 a. 2 when he said “The other end(beatific vision) is a good exceeding proportion to human nature, because natural powers do not suffice in obtaining them, nor to understanding or desiring it.” If he said the opposite, that would lead to Baianism.
Dear Trad,
I don’t want to be fussy, but I don’t think that’s exactly true. Otherwise, the holy innocents would not be listed among those who were baptized by blood by St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas et al.
I hesitate to continue this discussion here, since this thread has gone so far afield, but Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience. He had already been ejected from the Society of Jesus in 1949. Here’s a quote and a link on Father Feeney’s excommunication:
Feeney link