Friday, July 1, 2011

SEDEVACANTISTS REJECT COUNCIL OF TRENT BAPTISM OF DESIRE AND ASSUME IT IS NOT HYPOTHETICAL

First they wrote off the baptism of desire of Trent,  then they assume it is real and not hypothetical for us, and then, anyone who affirms the baptism of desire is called a heretic.

For centuries the Church knew that the baptism of desire was not known to us in particular cases it was accepted in principle only. It could only be accepted in principle; it was not repeatable like the baptism of water. We could not administer the baptism of desire and so it did not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. (Cantate Domino, Council of Trent 1441).

The Most Holy Family Monastery, New York sedevacantists for whom a defacto-known- to- us- in- the- present- times- baptism of desire is central to their media apostolate, accuse Catholics of being in heresy since they affirm the baptism of desire. The  sedevacantists conclude this must contradict the dogma Cantate Domino.

It is true to reject an ex cathedra dogma is a mortal sin and there are Catholics who have rejected the dogma Cantate Domino, extra ecclesiam nulla salus either through ignorance or misinformation or fear of persecution. So the Dimond brothers are correct on this aspect of the truth.

However when one affirms the baptism of desire, it is not a rejection of Cantate Domino, since the baptism of desire is always a concept for us. It is hypothetical. It can only be de facto for God. We do not know a single case in the present times or in the past. No one says there were four baptism of desire cases in Rome last month, or three in New York last year.

Since we do not know of a single case how can it contradict the dogma which says everyone must be an explicit member of the Catholic Church for salvation?

The baptism of desire and invincible ignorance cases are implicit and so we do not know any such person saved implicitly.

The Council of Trent mentions the baptism of desire but does not claim that it is defacto, explicitly known to us as the MHFM would imply, infer and then assume. http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/06/council-of-trent-does-not-say-if.html#links

So Peter and Michael Dimond reject the Council of Trent on the baptism of desire while all over their website they are emphasizing Catholic Tradition. They then assume the baptism of desire is explicitly known to us and then conclude that there are so many Catholics who are in heresy.

1) The MHFM do not make the explicit-implicit, defacto-dejure, distinction.

2) They assume Vatican Council II on the issue of extra ecclesiam nulla salus contradicts Cantate Domino since for them invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16) is de facto and not in the de jure category.

This was the error made by Cardinal Richard Cushing, Archbishop of Boston along with the Jesuits there. It was picked up by the secular media and supported by dissenters. The sedevacantists have also, perhaps, unknowingly, made the same false assumption. They are using the  false propaganda.

The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has not been  retracted by the Vatican. There is no Church document which makes this claim.
Since the baptism of desire is not de facto known to us there is no text in Vatican Council II which contradicts Cantate Domino.
Fr.Leonard Feeney held the same position as Cantate Domino so how could be excommunicated for heresy as the secular propaganda continues.
Since there is no baptism of desire that we know of Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct in saying there is no baptism of desire (that we know of).

However the problem still exists of Catholics denying Cantate Domino by claiming that Vatican Council II or the Fr.Leonard Feeney Case has changed this teaching.When done intentionally this is a sin.
There are others who interpret the Catechism as a break from Tradition and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. When done intentionally it is a rejection of the dogma and heresy.
A Catholic who has been informed many times and still rejects Cantate Domino on his website or on a public forum is in public mortal sin. A person in public mortal sin is not to receive the Eucharist until he has received absolution at the Confessional and removed the public scandal.

One cannot for example promote abortion or have an abortion because of financial or other worldly interests. One cannot commit a mortal sin, e.g deny an ex cathedra dogma, to protect ones life style, job, reputation or other worldly interests.

According to Veritatis Splendor a mortal sin is a mortal sin and the external act indicates the internal intention. This is very different from some of the misinterpretations of mortal sin based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
According to Canon Law a priest in mortal sin is not to offer Mass in that condition. Similarly a lay man in public mortal sin should not commit a sacrilege.