Comments from the blog The Epoynmous Flower
Baptism of Desire can either be explicit or an implicit desire.
Lionel:
How can it be explicit for us ?
__________________
It is explicit in the case of a catechumin who dies before receiving the sacrament.
Lionel:
How could it be explicit? It can only be explicit for God.
______________________
St. Ambrose said that a catechumen he knew was martyred without water Baptism, yet he was saved by Baptism of Desire.
Lionel:
How could he know this? This could only be known to God.
He could speculate and hope with good will.
_____________________
I can give other examples. And modernists have a false understanding of this doctrine so don't compare them with the sspx. Again, I have never seen a quote from any Saint say that Baptism of Desire is a false doctrine.
Lionel:
It only becomes a false doctrine if it assumed that the baptism of desire is not hypothetical for us but is explicit.
If it confused as being objective, then it is false.
This is exactly what the liberal theologians did. They re interpreted the hypothetical case of the catechumen as being explicit for us human beings.Then they speculated that this case was an explicit exception to EENS.
This was the mistake made by the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and it was accepted by Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops. Even Bishop Sanborn, the sedevacantist bishop has also accepted it.This error is being taught by Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada at the sedevacantist Most Holy Trinity seminary in Florida, USA.Ps 1917 code of Canon law says unbaptized/martyred catechumens can get a Catholic berial.
Lionel:
How would they know of a case of an unbaptised/martyred catechumen?
-Lionel Andrades
p.s I agree with Tancred.
Lionel:
How can it be explicit for us ?
__________________
It is explicit in the case of a catechumin who dies before receiving the sacrament.
Lionel:
How could it be explicit? It can only be explicit for God.
______________________
St. Ambrose said that a catechumen he knew was martyred without water Baptism, yet he was saved by Baptism of Desire.
Lionel:
How could he know this? This could only be known to God.
He could speculate and hope with good will.
_____________________
I can give other examples. And modernists have a false understanding of this doctrine so don't compare them with the sspx. Again, I have never seen a quote from any Saint say that Baptism of Desire is a false doctrine.
Lionel:
It only becomes a false doctrine if it assumed that the baptism of desire is not hypothetical for us but is explicit.
If it confused as being objective, then it is false.
This is exactly what the liberal theologians did. They re interpreted the hypothetical case of the catechumen as being explicit for us human beings.Then they speculated that this case was an explicit exception to EENS.
This was the mistake made by the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and it was accepted by Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops. Even Bishop Sanborn, the sedevacantist bishop has also accepted it.This error is being taught by Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada at the sedevacantist Most Holy Trinity seminary in Florida, USA.Ps 1917 code of Canon law says unbaptized/martyred catechumens can get a Catholic berial.
Lionel:
How would they know of a case of an unbaptised/martyred catechumen?
-Lionel Andrades
p.s I agree with Tancred.
Without this irrationality the sedevacantists have no reason to reject Vatican Council II and go into sedevacantism.
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.it/2016/05/true-or-false-pope-part-i-john-salza.html#comment-form
Posts
