Non Nobis
- Why are you fearful?
- Mary Garden
- Feldwebel
- Posts: 4428
- Thanked: 3070 times
- Religion: Roman Catholic
Gerard, Kreuzritter, (This post is in response to one of Kreuzritter's from long ago, but it is pertinent to both of you)
I simply cannot understand how the Council of Trent is not talking precisely about Baptism of Desire in the texts I consider below. I hope you will address my thinking below even though I have not kept in sync with this thread.
Quote from: FOR FUTURE REFERENCE - Key Points in My Understanding of Baptism of Desire
(This is ONLY here you so you know "where I am coming from". Please DON'T argue yet)
As I understand it, St. Thomas and theologians hold the following:
* They acknowledge: Baptism of Desire IS NOT THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM. Nobody (St. Thomas or theologians) is claiming it is.* They acknowledge that Baptism of Desire does not impart the Sacramental character. (If a man lives, he must still receive the Sacrament)* They say: Baptism of Desire is called Baptism because there is a certain unity between it and the Sacrament: both effect justification, and derive their efficacy from Christ's Passion.* They assert as De Fide: Justification is sufficient for salvation if it is persevered in (or always returned to) until death.* They (post-Trent) note as obvious: The Council of Trent does not use the words "Baptism of Desire". They (and St. Thomas) think the phrase fitting because of the noted unity.* They believe the desire is the desire of the SACRAMENT, not a desire to be nice, as modern Catholics and the world think. The desire and the time when it is acceptable (e.g. during martyrdom) is judged by God, not man. Baptism of Desire is not an option for man to choose, but God's prerogative to justify a man without the Sacrament.* They believe that Baptism of Desire supplies the lack of the Sacrament, doing all that is needed for justification, when God has chosen to take this prerogative. It is a substitute that Christ Himself supplies.* They have read Christ's words "unless a man be born again of water ..." many times, but have not found that they disprove Baptism of Desire.
Please save these points for later discussion. This post has a narrower scope.
They also acknowledge,over the centuries, that the baptism of desire refers to hypothetical cases only for us human beings. They can only be theoretical and speculative.Hypothetical and theoretical cases in 1965-2019 cannot be practical and objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
This fact is not understood by most of those taking part in this discussion.
The baptism of desire is always hypothetical. This was known in the Church for centuries.However since the pontificate of Pope Pius XII the baptism of desire has been interpreted as an exception to EENS. In other words they refer to personally known people known saved outside the Church. They are not just hypothetical.
Sadly this was also the understanding of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops.
So they follow this Tradition of the Church from some 50 years back. They interpret the baptism of desire as being personally known people saved outside the Church. This is the understanding expressed in the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
THEY THEN GO BACK OVER HISTORY, OVER THE CENTURIES AND RE-INTERPRET REFERENCES TO THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE, AS BEING PERSONALLY KNOWN PEOPLE. SO OVER HISTORY THEY INTERPRET THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE AS NOT BEING HYPOTHETICAL.
Then they criticize Fr. Leonard Feeney who said there are no literal cases of the baptism of desire.
Then the traditionalists like the liberal theologians interpret Vatican Council II also by assuming hypothetical and theoretical cases are practical and personally known in the present times . So there is this confusion in the Church today.-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment