Thursday, July 9, 2015

The Council of Trent does not mention the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood as being explicit or as being explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Fr.Anthony Cekada says on the website
 Trent, Definitions, “Official” Pronouncements. Baptism of desire and baptism of blood are defined in essentially the same way in the works I cited.
The Council of Trent does not mention BOD (baptism of desire)  and BOB (baptism of blood) as being explicit or as being explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
A. Desire. St. Alphonsus Liguori defines baptism of desire (flaminis) as: “Perfect conversion to God through contrition or love of God above all things, with the explicit or implicit desire [voto] for true Baptism of water, in whose place it may supply, according to the Council of Trent.” He cites Session 14, on Penance, ch. 4.
      St. Alphonsus further states: “It is de fide that men may be also be saved through baptism of desire — from the chapter Apostolicamde presb. non bapt. and from the Council of Trent, where it is said that no one can be saved ‘without the washing of regeneration or the desire for it’.” (Theologia Moralis, ed. nova. [Rome: Vatican 1909] 3:96-7.)
St.Alphonsus Liguori has elsewhere affirmed the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The baptism of water is the ordinary means of salvation.
If someone is saved hypothetically without the baptism of water, personally he would not know of any such case.No one could have known of any exception.
So he is only mentioning a hypothetical case. He is not saying that his hypothetical case is defacto known and so is an exception to traditional EENS.
He does not make this inference. He mentions two separate things BOD and EENS.It is Fr.Anthony Cekada  who makes the connection.
      The first citation is to an Epistle of Pope Innocent II (1130–43), who stated that a priest who “had died without the water of baptism, because he had persevered in the faith of Holy Mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland.” (Dz 388)[2]
Hypothetical. Since this pope does not say he went to Heaven or met this person who died.He did not verify that this person is in Heaven without the baptism of water.
      Other theologians also cite Trent and Innocent II for these definitions.      They also cite Pope Innocent III’s decree in 1206 concerning a Jew who desired baptism but was not able to be validly baptized: “If, however, such a man had died immediately, he would have flown to his heavenly home at once, because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith.” (Dz 413)[3]
'If'...another statement made with goodwill. Personally there was no known case in particular.Since it would not be possible to verify it.
      Some add Pope St. Pius V’s condemnation of the following proposition of Baius: “Perfect and sincere charity… can exist both in catechumens and in penitents without the remission of sins.” This is cited because: “The contradictory of this proposition is true. Therefore, charity cannot exist in unbaptized catechumens without the remission of their sins.” (McAuliffe, Sacramental Theology, 84.)
Again he is referring to a hypothetical case and something which has meaning for him. It is not a known exception, it is not an objective case. So it is not related to the dogma.A hypothetical case cannot be a defacto exception in the present times, for us human beings.
B. Blood. St. Alphonsus defines baptism of blood as: “The shedding of blood, or death tolerated, for the faith or for another Christian virtue.” As sources, he cites, among others, St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, Suarez and Cajetan. (ibid.)
      As Solà noted (see above), opposition to this doctrine was virtually non-existent. The Magisterium does not usually intervene to issue a solemn definition for a common teaching unless it is widely attacked by heretics.
He is referring to the baptism of blood ( martyrdon) which is acceptable and understood. However Fr. Cekada infers that this case is known, explicit, objective and so is relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as an exception, when the text does not mention it.  -Lionel Andrades

No comments: