My query for your consideration regards the doctrine of grace.
Given that sanctifying grace, as taught by the Angelic Doctor (i.e. ST, Ia IIae, Q. 110, 111, 114; ST, IIIa, Q. 72), can be bestowed upon an individual prior to baptism, and that this grace is the grace of deification (divine sonship), and furthermore given that this grace may be lost by subsequent mortal sin, does this imply that the state of divine sonship is a transitory state which in and of itself imparts no permanent character on the soul? If this is the case then do we have a problem regarding multiple moments of regeneration, re-birth and justification?
Is there a way out? Three possibilities present themselves to me:
1. Sanctifying grace once received does indeed change the soul forever, so much so that even when it is lost through mortal sin the recipient remains a child of God (although a prodigal one)
2. Sanctifying grace is only bestowed prior to baptism upon those souls whom God in his omniscience knows will not receive the ordinary bath of deification in baptism
3. Sanctifying grace is only bestowed prior to baptism upon those souls whom God in his omniscience knows will reach the permanent seal of baptism without the guilt of mortal sin
A further question presents itself: If sanctifying grace can be gained prior to baptism (and as we know this would be a grace that justifies us) then in what way can the indelible seal imparted at baptism be salvific (rather than an optional extra endowment)? This was the conundrum that Feeney could not answer in the 1950s (he arrived to the absurd position of accepting that deified children of God possessing sanctifying grace and loving God with perfect supernatural charity could still be damned for lacking the seal of water baptism). Can we do better than this?
6 comments:
I think one might draw a distinction between adoption and regeneration. One is adopted by the conferring of sanctifying grace and charity: this ‘perficit rationem adoptionis’ (3a q.23, a.3). It is conceivable that this could happen more than once before baptism.
On the other hand, tradition seems to reserve the term ‘regeneration’ for what happens in baptism, and we don’t talk about people being re-re-generated or born again again. One could perhaps justify this distinction of terms theologically by saying that sonship implies a greater likeness to the Parent than adoption, and the sacrament of baptism confers a greater likeness than mere baptism of desire. The sacramental character configures us to Christ: ‘illi qui deputantur ad cultum christianum, cuius auctor est Christus, characterem accipiunt, quo Christus configurantur; unde proprie est character Christi’ (3a q. 63. a 3 ad 2).
Does this mean that anyone who dies unbaptised in a state of grace has not been regenerated and yet is saved? I think one might be able to say this; he was on the way to regeneration, but the process was not completed on earth. In heaven he could still be called a son of God, since the light of glory and the beatific vision would confer on him an overwhelming likeness to God; though he would still lack something that the other blessed would possess, namely the character (of course he wouldn’t mind this.)
The character does not per se direct us to salvation, so it is not impossible that someone should enter heaven without it. ‘Deputatur quisque fidelis ad recipiendum vel tradendum aliis ea quae pertinent ad cultum Dei; et ad hoc proprie deputatur character sacramentalis’ (ibid., corpus).
In (partial) defence of Fr Feeney, I believe that his teaching was not that those who die unbaptised in a state of grace are lost, but rather that God’s providence will prevent anyone in a state of grace from dying unbaptised. This seems to me unfounded, but is not against the faith. I understand that his modern followers appealed to Rome against their local bishop, and were told that they could hold this position, though they mustn’t say that those who didn’t hold it were erring in the faith.
Surely baptism is necessary to salvation by necessity of precept? That is, if you deliberately omit to seek baptism you will sin mortally. Also, it is necessary for salvation as a necessity of means for anyone under the age of reason. For, as the Council of Florence defines, it is "the only remedy available to them". I wonder, would an adult who was justified by supernatural faith before baptism also receive the remission of temporal punishment that baptism confers or is this reserved to the sacrament itself? Does St Thomas say anything about this?
I'm not sure if he discusses this, but by analogy with what he says of justification by perfect contrition before receiving the sacrament of penance, some of the temporal punishment would be remitted by the act of charity involved in baptism of desire, but not necessarily all.
In answer to Alan's question, I would concur with Fr Thomas that, in a state of grace, temporal punishment may be remitted by acts of charity (a perfect act of contrition would be completely remit any temporal punishment). Nevertheless, it may be argued that such a perfect state of charity is hard to attain and that therefore without the benefit of the sacraments (which remit temporal punishment often without perfect acts of contrition and charity) the unbaptised soul is in detrimental position (in regard to tempral punishment).
In response to Alan's comment a question still remains: What does baptism actually add to a soul already in sanctifying grace that makes it so indispensable for our salvation? One would answer 'the seal'. But what is the salvific nature of the seal as distinct from the initial gift of sanctifying grace and the remission of sins?
As indicated above in the reference to 3a 63,3, corpus, the seal does not order us directly to salvation, but directly to the reception of the sacraments. We can't receive any other sacrament until we have been baptised (the Eucharist is a special case; we could receive Christ's body, but we would not receive any sacramental grace therefrom if we were unbaptised). So the seal directs us indirectly or mediately to salvation through the sacraments.
The seal is not absolutely indispensable for salvation, or otherwise Fr Feeney would be right. Only sanctifying grace is absolutely indispensable.
As well as being a new power in the soul (in addition to intellect and will), the seal also increases the beauty of the soul and therefore glorifies God.
Post a Comment