May 2, 2010

  • Question 239 - Is there a distinction between Justification and Salvation re Baptism?

    Robert,

    One can make a valid distinction between justification and salvation because such a distinction exists, as St. Paul suggests in Rom. 8: 28-30:

    "We know that to them that love God all things work together unto good: to such as according to His purpose are called to be saints. For whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn amongst many brethren. And whom He predestinated, them He also called. And whom He called, them He also justified. And whom He justified, them He also glorified."

     

     As someone I know (who supports BOD) wrote:

     “There are two elements to consider here -- justification, and salvation. Both are necessary. Between the two, some time intervenes. During that time, many things are possible. One (at least) is necessary for salvation: the grace of final perseverance. Fr. Feeney probably considered that one way to scotch the liberal attempt to admit, not only heretics and schismatics ("in good faith") into Heaven, but also all the unbaptized, was to insist on the absolute necessity of sacramental baptism for salvation. He did not invent the situation, it is given in Catholic theology (i.e. Tradition). There is, as in other areas of dogma, a certain apparent inconsistency between the doctrines of the necessity of Baptism, and that of Baptism of desire. What Fr. Feeney did was to resolve this problem by holding that, along with the grace of final perseverance, God would provide, in case of any of the Elect not already baptized, actual sacramental baptism. Thus, all those entering Heaven after the promulgation of the Gospel (a group which does not include Dismas) would, in fact, have been baptized. Thus, Baptism of desire would suffice for justification, but not for salvation (wholly in the dispositions of God's free providence, as revealed).” 

     I would say that Fr. Feeney and the SBC also saw an inconsistency with the doctrine of St. Thomas who insisted that an explicit faith was an intrinsic necessity of means (a supernatural faith God provides for each of His elect without fail), while viewing the sacrament of baptism as an extrinsic necessity of means (though St. Thomas calls water baptism an “absolute” necessity).  

     I see no such contradiction (not any more), since without faith no one can please God; though, as I suggested, St. Thomas’ clear and concise definition of absolute necessity with respect to the sacrament of baptism (in the same manner that food is an absolute necessity of end) is difficult to reconcile if it is not really absolutely necessary. If the Church teaches that God does not bind Himself in each and every case to the sacrament of baptism in order to confer grace and the merit of His Passion (and to unite a soul to His Body through the bonds of faith and charity), I am in no position to argue with her.

     But, to your question, you presume that justification and salvation are the same; and we can agree, if it is understood that we are speaking of someone who dies in a state of sanctifying grace and the grace of final perseverance (always presumed, since without it, one could not remain in the state of grace). Drawing on this distinction, Fr. Feeney never said that such a sanctified un-baptized soul can be damned (which would be ludicrous); though he insisted that God would still provide the sacrament in this life … or the next (as He did innumerable times by raising un-baptized souls from the “dead” for the express purpose of water baptism).

     So yes, Robert, the distinction between justification and salvation, though valid, is somewhat forced in the context under discussion: that of a catechumen who, we presume, may die united to the Church in the bonds of faith and charity (in a state of grace) without benefit of the sacrament. While we are allowed to hold that God will still provide the sacrament (not because He “must”, but because He wishes to “perfect” the justified soul with the full benefit of the gifts only the sacrament can bestow), we are not allowed to accuse the Church of error or to deny the obvious sense and meaning of both the Catechism of Trent and the CCC (and other magisterial documents).

     That was a rather winding explanation as to why the SBC can properly hold the exclusive sense of “or”, while drawing a distinction between justification and salvation.  I agree with you that the difference is somewhat forced and misleading when it suggests that a state of grace is not sufficient for salvation; but, is it an error to hold that a state of glorification is not complete without the sacramental seal of salvation?  I believe one may hold this position by suggesting that God will still provide the sacrament (at His convenience and on His schedule), but not at the expense of denying the Church’s authority in confirming the common teaching that God does not necessarily bind Himself to the sacrament to affect His desired end.

     Mike

     Robert,

     Forgive me for dragging this out, but, with the preliminaries out of the way (I hope), let me be more direct in answering your specific question, the way I understand it, and the way I understand Fr. Feeney’s position.  

     Yes, it was Fr. Feeney’s position that water was absolutely necessary, and that “or’ was used as an exclusive disjunction, as it has always been understood. But this did not force him to make a distinction between justification and salvation since the subject of Session of 6. Ch. 4 is not salvation per se, but A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace, and not necessarily the additional conditions necessary for entrance into the kingdom, such as the grace of final perseverance. Fr. Feeney simply insisted that while one may be justified by the bonds of faith and charity, the fulfillment of God’s precept remains incomplete until, like the gift of final perseverance, the sacramental laver of regeneration is received. God will provide, but Fr. Feeney was at a loss to explain what happens to a justified soul who dies without the sacrament; or he simply felt he was in no position to answer such a hypothetical (which is why he said, when asked, “I don’t know, and neither do you”).  

     It’s interesting to note that Fr. Laisney teaches that the gift of justification is not just some “emergency” substitute for baptism for a soul who is at the point of death and who does not have access to the sacrament, but is often conferred well before the sacrament is actually received. He taught that for such a sanctified soul, the sacrament remained a necessity of simple precept since the conditions for justification and salvation were already met (though we of course would never know if such a condition exists … which only begs more questions).

     But what assurance do we have that the hypothetical soul sanctified by faith, charity and desire will remain in such a state until the sacrament is received? What assurance can the soul have, in other words, that he will receive the gift of final perseverance?  

     Perhaps that helps place Fr. Feeney’s doctrine into some perspective, but for me; it is quite simple: The Church teaches that one may be sanctified through the bonds of faith and charity, and if someone dies in that same state when the sacrament is impossible to receive, his salvation, as the Catechism of Trent and the CCC teach, is assured, and that’s all we need to know. Whether our Lord chooses to confer the sacrament on this soul at the time of His choosing is open to speculation; though it is not at all foolish to suggest that He will, as even Trent seems to suggest when she declared:

     Wherefore, when receiving true and Christian justice, they are bidden, immediately on being born again, to preserve it pure and spotless, as the first robe given them through Jesus Christ in lieu of that which Adam, by his disobedience, lost for himself and for us, that so they may bear it before the judgment-seat of our Lord Jesus Christ, and may have life everlasting. (Sess 6, Ch 7)

     Mike

    R. Sungenis: Mike, forgive the delay in responding.

     

    Regarding the issue of a difference between Justification and Salvation, my position is that this so-called difference is at best a victim of semantics in theological jargon, and at worst, an subtlety that is exploited by Fr. Feeney that ends up distorting the theological and scriptural truth of the matter.

     

    Granted, Romans 8:29-30 makes a difference between Justification and Glorification, but there is no difference stated specifically between Justification and Salvation. "Salvation" is a general term applied to any stage of the Justification process, as well as to Glorification.

     

    I also grant that Fr. Feeney had a legitimate position that held that merely because one is Justified now does not mean that one will make it to heaven in the future (hence the timely distinction between Justification and Glorification in Romans 8:30). One can lose his Justification but he can't lose his Glorification.

     

    The problem comes in, however, when Fr. Feeney arbitrarily applies the distinction between Justification and Glorification to Chapter 4 of Trent's dogmas on Justification. Chapter 4 has no concern whatsoever whether the person will eventually make it to heaven. Chapter 4's only concern is what, precisely, makes the person Justified (and thus "saved") at the present time. Chapter 4's concern is: what is it that allows a man under the bondage of Adam to be translated into the kingdom of Jesus Christ? The answer to that question is Baptism. That's it. There is no discussion about what that man will eventually do with his Baptismal graces. That kind of discussion is reserved for other parts of Trent's dissertation.

     

    Hence, for Fr. Feeney to apply a distinction between Justification and Glorification to Chapter 4's discussion on the water or the desire of water to procure Justification, is simply taking Chapter 4 totally out of context. The fact of whether the man will make it to heaven or not is totally foreign to what Chapter 4 is trying to teach. And because Fr. Feeney imposed this foreign element on Chapter 4, he believed he was then justified in using it as a criterion to interpret Chapter 4, which was his second mistake.

     

    That second mistake forces him to the position that, if the desire for the water is not eventually fulfilled in actually receiving the water, then he cannot be saved, and if he cannot be saved, then Fr. Feeney reason that there is a distinction between Justification and Salvation. No, this is distorting the purpose of Chapter 4.

     

    Granted, if the desire for water is not eventually fulfilled by the penitent actually receiving the water, we could say that the person is deliberately going against the commands of God to have actual water applied to him. But that is a matter for the Church to decide in another venue, not Chapter 4 of Trent's dogma on Baptism.

     

    Chapter 4's only concern is: if, at that specific time (perhaps an emergency situation), there is no water available and the person desires to be Baptized, can he receive Baptism by desire and still be Justified, and thus permitted to enter heaven if he should die immediately thereafter? The answer is yes, he can receive the Baptism by the desire for the water.

     

    Once the emergency is over and this person returns to normal life is not the concern of Chapter 4, for that is a totally different discussion. Chapter 4 is only concerned with the state of the person, at that particular time, in receiving baptism by desire.