The writers admits in personal correspondence that we personally do not know any case of the baptism of desire but will not make the change in his writings.
Griff Ruby in The Art of Scholastic Dishonesty Part Four, The Treatise is in Contempt of Context
writes the following.
Finally, quite a bit of space is spent on the category of the more recent saints, most notably Saint Francis Xavier and St. Isaac Jogues, who knocked themselves out bringing the Gospel to pagans, sacrificing much to bring them into the Kingdom of God. A similar claim is made in the opening pages of Gate of Heaven by Catherine Goddard Clarke to the effect that all the great saints of old similarly knocked themselves out sacrificing much to spread the Gospel or die for it, all supposedly out of some denial of BOB and BOD. The claim is made that they did what they did because they did not believe in BOB and BOD, or else because they didn't believe that anyone ignorant might possibly be saved. Obviously they understood that ignorance of itself is no salvation, and may only provide the rarest of excuses.
Lionel: Catherine Goddard Clarke was correct that no one us knows of an explicit case of the baptism of desire. Neither does Griff Ruby and he admits it in personal correspondence with me.
So the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known for centuries is not in conflict with implicit baptism of desire or other implicit forms of salvation.
Lengthy quotes are given of the difficult travails they each went through for souls, the tortures they endured, the heroic lengths they went to in order to baptize. But look carefully at the quotes given from the details of their lives as given in the Treatise (given their length I will not repeat them here. The Treatise is the book written by the Dimond brothers on outside the Church no salvation). In all of them there is no clear statement from either that they deny BOB or BOD, only that since water baptism was in their power to provide, they were therefore obliged to provide it, especially for the infants, who often died shortly thereafter.
Lionel: One cannot administer the baptism of desire like the baptism of water. It is a gift of God given under certain conditions and circumstances.
But what the heroic sacrifices of these two men show is not some frenetic and panicked need to baptize everyone, but the clear obligation to proceed forward, slowly, carefully, methodically, with the advance of the Gospel, and most importantly, at the direction of the Church. For it is in the coordination provided by the leadership of the Church that makes it possible for the whole world to be evangelized, not some frantic and desperate belief that absolutely all are necessarily damned in all cases.
Going back to the Catherine Clarke book (but I see the same implication more subtly hinted as a kind of subtext in the Treatise) one gets the idea that belief in BOB and BOD are merely some localized phenomena, perhaps merely in modern, comfortable America, or at most, something cooked up in the late nineteenth century at the earliest.
Lionel: It was the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Cushing who suggested that there could be cases of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance i.e implicit salvation could be explicitly known to us, and so it contradicted Fr.Leonard Feeney and the dogma on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The Boston newspapers wrote that the Catholic Church has changed its teaching on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The Archbishop never issued a clarification.
In the past Church Councils,popes and saints knew that that there exists implicit salvation (baptism of desire etc) and it was only known to God so it was not opposed to the dogmantic teaching that everyone with no exception needed Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.
Griff Ruby like the Dimond Brothers assumes that the baptism of desire is explicit and known to us in the present times.
But as evidences continue to pile up and show (and will continue throughout this series) BOB and BOD go way back, at least to the age of the Fathers, to say nothing of the hints of them contained in Sacred Scripture. But if denying BOB and BOD were the basis for such zealous missionary efforts, how is it that those who deny these things today make no such sacrifices?
Lionel: We do not deny the baptism of desire or blood we accept them as a possibility known only to God, which God only can judge. Griff Ruby admits we do not know any case in particular.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment