something quite informative i juz dug out
Theologians distinguish a twofold necessity, which they call a
necessity of means (medii) and a necessity of precept (præcepti),
The first (medii) indicates a thing to be so necessary that, if
lacking (though inculpably), salvation can not be attained, The
second (præcepti) is had when a thing is indeed so necessary that
it may not be omitted voluntarily without sin; yet, ignorance of
the precept or inability to fulfill it, excuses one from its
observance. Baptism is held to be necessary both necessitate medii
and præcepti. This doctrine is rounded on the words of Christ. In
John, iii, He declares: "Unless a man be born again of water and
the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." Christ
makes no exception to this law and it is therefore general in its
application, embracing both adults and infants. It is consequently
not merely a necessity of precept but also a necessity of means.
This is the sense in which it has always been understood by the
Church, and the Council of Trent (Sess, IV, cap, vi) teaches that
justification can not be obtained, since the promulgation of the
Gospel, without the washing of regeneration or the desire thereof
(in voto), In the seventh session, it declares (can. v) anathema
upon anyone who says that baptism is not necessary for salvation.
We have rendered votum by "desire" for want of a better word. The
council does not mean by votum a simple desire of receiving baptism
or even a resolution to do so. It means by votum an act of perfect
charity or contrition, including, at least implicitly, the will to
do all things necessary for salvation and thus especially to
receive baptism, The absolute necessity of this sacrament is often
insisted on by the Fathers of the Church, especially when they
speak of infant baptism. Thus St. Irenæus (II, xxii): "Christ came
to save all who are reborn through Him to God,infants, children,
and youths" (infantes et parvulos et pueros). St. Augustine (III De
Anima) says "If you wish to be a Catholic, do not believe, nor say,
nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the
remission of original sin." A still stronger passage from the same
doctor (Ep, xxviii, Ad Hieron.) reads:"Whoever says that even
infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without
the participation of His Sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the
Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole Church which hastens to
baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise
they can not possibly be vivified in Christ," St. Ambrose (II De
Abraham., c. xi) speaking of the necessity of baptism, says:" No
one is excepted, not the infant, not the one hindered by any
necessity." In the Pelagian controversy we find similarly strong
pronouncements on the part of the Councils of Carthage and Milevis,
and of Pope Innocent I. It is owing to the Church's belief in this
necessity of baptism as a means to salvation that, as was already
noted by St. Augustine, she committed the power of baptism in
certain contingencies even to laymen and women. When it is said
that baptism is also necessary, by the necessity of precept
(praecepti), it is of course understood that this applies only to
such as are capable of receiving a precept, viz. adults.
The necessity in this case is shown by the command of Christ to His
Apostles (Matthew 2
: "Go and
teach all nations, baptizing them", etc. Since the Apostles are
commanded to baptize, the nations are commanded to receive baptism.
The necessity of baptism has been called in question by some of the
Reformers or their immediate forerunners. It was denied by Wyclif,
Bucer, and Zwingli. According to Calvin it is necessary for adults
as a precept but not as a means. Hence he contends that the infants
of believing parents are sanctified in the womb and thus freed from
original sin without baptism. The Socinians teach that baptism is
merely an external profession of the Christian faith and a rite
which each one is free to receive or neglect. An argument against
the absolute necessity of baptism has been sought in the text of
Scripture: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink
his blood, you shall not have life in you" (John 6). Here, they
say, is a parallel to the text: "Unless a man be born again of
water". Yet everyone admits that the Eucharist is not necessary as
a means but only as a precept. The reply to this is obvious. In the
first instance, Christ addresses His words in the second person to
adults; in the second, He speaks in the third person and without
any distinction whatever. Another favorite text is that of St. Paul
(1 Corinthians 7): "The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the
believing wife; and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the
believing husband; otherwise your children should be unclean; but
now they are holy." Unfortunately for the strength of this
argument, the context shows that the Apostle in this passage is not
treating of regenerating or sanctifying grace at all, but answering
certain questions proposed to him by the Corinthians concerning the
validity of marriages between heathens and believers. The validity
of such marriages is proved from the fact that children born of
them are legitimate, not spurious. As far as the term "sanctified"
is concerned, it can, at most, mean that the believing husband or
wife may convert the unbelieving party and thus become an occasion
of their sanctification. A certain statement in the funeral oration
of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought
forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers
for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of
such a custom to be found anywhere. St. Ambrose may have done so
for the soul of the catechumen Valentinian, but this would be a
solitary instance, and it was done apparently because he believed
that the emperor had had the baptism of desire. The practice of the
Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second
Council of Braga: "Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice
[oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be
employed for catechumens who have died without the redemption of
baptism." The arguments for a contrary usage sought in the Second
Council of Arles (c. xii) and the Fourth Council of Carthage (c.
Ixxix) are not to the point, for these councils speak, not of
catechumens, but of penitents who had died suddenly before their
expiation was completed. It is true that some Catholic writers (as
Cajetan, Durandus, Biel, Gerson, Toletus, Klee) have held that
infants may be saved by an act of desire on the part of their
parents, which is applied to them by some external sign, such as
prayer or the invocation of the Holy Trinity; but Pius V, by
expunging this opinion, as expressed by Cajetan, from that author's
commentary on St. Thomas, manifested his judgment that such a
theory was not agreeable to the Church's belief.
sorry for the long read
