ME AND MY WATCH

On a Catholic forum I wrote that the Baptism of Desire is implicit and it can never be explicit. Here is how the conversation could go if I use my wrist watch as an analogy.


Lionel: This wristwatch is physically on my wrist. It is there de facto.


XYZ: Yes, this watch helps you know the time, time is important, even though it is relative and …


Lionel: All I’m, saying is this watch is explicitly there on my wrist. It is not a subjective understanding.


XYZ: The watch measures an hour in 60 seconds, this is constant throughout he world, it is a subjective understanding of time, based on a world agreement…


Lionel: Yes, but I am not referring to the functions of the watch. I am not even talking about time.


All I am saying is this wristwatch is real on my hand, it is de facto, it is physical, you can see it, you can feel it.

In the same way the Baptism of desire is subjective, not explicit, it cannot be personally known to us. It is known only to God.


Yet Catholics will tell me all about the Baptism of Desire when all I want to say is that it can never be explicit as my wristwatch.


So when the Jewish Left media, Wikipedia etc say that Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong about everybody needing to be a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation, since the Baptism of Desire contradicts Fr.Feeney - then one could ask how could he be wrong, since the Baptism of desire is never explicit, as the  wrist watch on my hand.