Poll: Do you agree with the following:
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
6
0%
0 0%
21
0%
0 0%
5
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

EENS
#51
(03-29-2010, 04:47 PM)PeterII Wrote:
(03-29-2010, 03:41 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(03-28-2010, 05:34 PM)James02 Wrote: Now I am sincere in this debate, and I can respect the opinion that explicit desire can save you.  It is a very small number of people in any case.  But I have no respect for this notion of an implicit desire.  That is heretical.

The Church disagrees.  Implicit desire can be found in the theology for a long time.  The Church does not define it as dogma, but it doesn't condemn it either.  It's an open question, not an heresy.

Its not an open question either though because doctrinal decrees from the Holy Office are not subject to debate:

Holy Office, 8 August 1949 Wrote:Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given:

....However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.).

Yes, thank you for posting it. I kept referencing to the necessity of invincible ignorance as a qualifier of "good will", but it is always necessary to substantiate claims with the teachings of the Church. I do this often enough that I should know better by now.
Reply
#52
(03-28-2010, 05:34 PM)James02 Wrote: "Implicit Baptism of Desire".  That phrase would make Orwell proud, which is why I obviously voted "No".

"Implicit Baptism of Desire" is up there with "Punitive Damages".  It tries to keep from saying the Truth.  "Implicit Baptism of Desire" is another way of saying "the heresy of Pelagius".  I note you talk about "men of good will" being saved.  THAT in a nutshell is the heresy that the Church has put down over and over again.

Muslims absolutely do not desire baptism.  Period.  Jews "of good will" would rather be burned in boiling oil than be baptized.

In fact, even salvation through an "explicit" desire for baptism is doubtful.   The only thing going for it are two nebulous lines in Trent, which Council also says that water baptism is necessary for salvation.

Now I am sincere in this debate, and I can respect the opinion that explicit desire can save you.  It is a very small number of people in any case.  But I have no respect for this notion of an implicit desire.  That is heretical.

Abp. Lefebvre's a heretic?
Reply
#53
The document which was cited by PeterII is also where I got my info about the necessity of supernatural faith and perfect charity:

"But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Hebrew 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap 8): Faith is the beginning of a man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children" (Denzinger, n. 80l)."

Reply
#54
(03-29-2010, 04:55 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(03-29-2010, 04:47 PM)PeterII Wrote:
(03-29-2010, 03:41 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(03-28-2010, 05:34 PM)James02 Wrote: Now I am sincere in this debate, and I can respect the opinion that explicit desire can save you.  It is a very small number of people in any case.  But I have no respect for this notion of an implicit desire.  That is heretical.

The Church disagrees.  Implicit desire can be found in the theology for a long time.  The Church does not define it as dogma, but it doesn't condemn it either.  It's an open question, not an heresy.

Its not an open question either though because doctrinal decrees from the Holy Office are not subject to debate:

Holy Office, 8 August 1949 Wrote:Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given:

....However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.).

Yes, thank you for posting it. I kept referencing to the necessity of invincible ignorance as a qualifier of "good will", but it is always necessary to substantiate claims with the teachings of the Church. I do this often enough that I should know better by now.

It doesn't limit it to invincible ignorance though.  It is only talking about in the case of invincible ignorance it is possible if they wish their will to conform to God's. 

To this and also to what Peter quoted....

The questions and implications of implicit desire goes past this.

There is also the question of implicit desire in the case of unbaptized infants - if the godparents, who answer for them by proxy, implicitly desire for the child to be baptized, would this suffice in the case of the infant that dies before baptism since they do in fact speak for him at the Sacramental baptism?  Some theologians have said yes, and it has not been condemned, but it is not accepted as fact either.
Reply
#55
Quote:There is also the question of implicit desire in the case of unbaptized infants - if the godparents, who answer for them by proxy, implicitly desire for the child to be baptized, would this suffice in the case of the infant that dies before baptism since they do in fact speak for him at the Sacramental baptism?  Some theologians have said yes, and it has not been condemned, but it is not accepted as fact either.

That's the theory of vicarious baptism of desire brought up by Cajetan which was implicitly condemned by St. Pius V when he ordered it removed from his commentary on St. Thomas.  Babies do not have the free will necessary to accept grace ex opere operantis.  They can only receive it ex opere operato like with the sacrament of Baptism. 

I am always amused by such theories, because people only consider the positive aspect, never the negative.  If we can will babies to go to Heaven without the sacrament of Baptism, then we should also be able to will them into Hell. 
Reply
#56
(03-29-2010, 09:33 PM)PeterII Wrote:
Quote:There is also the question of implicit desire in the case of unbaptized infants - if the godparents, who answer for them by proxy, implicitly desire for the child to be baptized, would this suffice in the case of the infant that dies before baptism since they do in fact speak for him at the Sacramental baptism?  Some theologians have said yes, and it has not been condemned, but it is not accepted as fact either.

That's the theory of vicarious baptism of desire brought up by Cajetan which was implicitly condemned by St. Pius V when he ordered it removed from his commentary on St. Thomas.  Babies do not have the free will necessary to accept grace ex opere operantis.  They can only receive it ex opere operato like with the sacrament of Baptism. 

It was not implicitly condemned.  It was removed with other comments because it wasn't relevant to the Summa.  Pope Leo restored many of Cajetan's commentaries that were removed by Pope Pius.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03145c.htm

Quote:The important relation between Cajetan and the Angelic Doctor was emphasized by Leo XIII, when by his Pontifical Letters of 15 October, 1879, he ordered the former's commentaries and those of Ferrariensis to be incorporated with the text of the "Summa" in the official Leonine edition of the complete works of St. Thomas, the first volume of which appeared at Rome in 1882. This edition has restored a number of passages which St. Pius V desired to have expunged from the texts, the publication of which he ordered in 1570. The suppressed parts, now for the most part inoffensive, were largely in the nature of personal views and had no direct bearing on Thomistic doctrine as a system.

Cajetan wasn't the only one.  Ott refers to serveral uncondemned theses along these lines:

Quote:"Other emergency means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and the desire of the parents or the Church (vicarious baptism of desire - Cajetan), or the attainment of the use of reason in the moment of death, so that the dying child can decide for or against God (baptism of desire - H. Klee), or suffering and death of the child as quasi-Sacrament (baptism of suffering - H. Schell), are indeed possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation. Cf. Denzinger 712." Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Book 2, Section 2, § 25

Quote:I am always amused by such theories, because people only consider the positive aspect, never the negative.  If we can will babies to go to Heaven without the sacrament of Baptism, then we should also be able to will them into Hell. 

You're mischaracterizing it.  We aren't willing babies to go to heaven any more than a curse wills them to go to hell.  There is no willing involved except God's Will.  Namely, His Will that as many should be saved as possible.  The question is if there is a mechanism by which an unbaptized baby would get to heaven, what would it be?  There are several theories. But the theory some make it to heaven is just that - a theory - anyhow.  Limbo, too, is a theory, but the difference is it received a much greater acceptance than any others.
Reply
#57
Quote:It was not implicitly condemned.  It was removed with other comments because it wasn't relevant to the Summa.  Pope Leo restored many of Cajetan's commentaries that were removed by Pope Pius.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03145c.htm

From the Catholic Encyclopedia on Baptism:

Quote:“It is true that some Catholic writers (as Cajetan, Durandus, Biel, Gerson, Toletus, Klee) have held that infants may be saved by an act of desire on the part of their parents, which is applied to them by some external sign, such as prayer or the invocation of the Holy Trinity; but Pius V, by expunging this opinion, as expressed by Cajetan, from that author's commentary on St. Thomas, manifested his judgment that such a theory was not agreeable to the Church’s belief.

Note that the other theologians didn't reiterate Cajetan's exact idea, but had different theoretical spins.  And I believe the Holy Office issued a warning against such speculation in the 50's, but I'll have to find the reference. 

Quote:You're mischaracterizing it.  We aren't willing babies to go to heaven any more than a curse wills them to go to hell.  There is no willing involved except God's Will.  Namely, His Will that as many should be saved as possible.  The question is if there is a mechanism by which an unbaptized baby would get to heaven, what would it be?  There are several theories. But the theory some make it to heaven is just that - a theory - anyhow.  Limbo, too, is a theory, but the difference is it received a much greater acceptance than any others.

Limbo is a logical conclusion derived from revelation, not merely a theory.  The mechanism's theorized above are innovative speculations. 
Reply
#58
(03-29-2010, 08:31 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(03-29-2010, 04:55 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(03-29-2010, 04:47 PM)PeterII Wrote:
(03-29-2010, 03:41 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(03-28-2010, 05:34 PM)James02 Wrote: Now I am sincere in this debate, and I can respect the opinion that explicit desire can save you.  It is a very small number of people in any case.  But I have no respect for this notion of an implicit desire.  That is heretical.

The Church disagrees.  Implicit desire can be found in the theology for a long time.  The Church does not define it as dogma, but it doesn't condemn it either.  It's an open question, not an heresy.

Its not an open question either though because doctrinal decrees from the Holy Office are not subject to debate:

Holy Office, 8 August 1949 Wrote:Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given:

....However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.).

Yes, thank you for posting it. I kept referencing to the necessity of invincible ignorance as a qualifier of "good will", but it is always necessary to substantiate claims with the teachings of the Church. I do this often enough that I should know better by now.

It doesn't limit it to invincible ignorance though.  It is only talking about in the case of invincible ignorance it is possible if they wish their will to conform to God's. 

To this and also to what Peter quoted....

The questions and implications of implicit desire goes past this.

There is also the question of implicit desire in the case of unbaptized infants - if the godparents, who answer for them by proxy, implicitly desire for the child to be baptized, would this suffice in the case of the infant that dies before baptism since they do in fact speak for him at the Sacramental baptism?  Some theologians have said yes, and it has not been condemned, but it is not accepted as fact either.

Yes, I understand. That's why I said "a qualifer of good will." I also acknowledge those referenced by SaintSebastian.
Reply
#59
I don't believe in baptism "of desire." There are numerous instances in Scripture, especially in Acts of the Apostles, when an apostle responds to an expression of faith by immediately baptizing the one who uttered it. He doesn't tell them to study the Faith first and then he will get back to them; he baptizes immediately. I could mention the three thousand baptized on the first Pentecost, the Ethiopian eunuch baptized by Phillip, and the Roman centurion, Cornelius, baptized by Paul, or the multitudes baptized by him in Corinth in Acts 18. It seems to me to question the power of God to say that He could not send a missionary to a pagan, Jew, or Muslim who sincerely desired baptism.

I believe there is one passage, however, that adresses this issue even more directly, John 4:1,2:

1 When Jesus therefore understood that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus maketh more disciples, and baptizeth more than John, 2 (Though Jesus himself did not baptize, but his disciples,).  http://drbo.org/chapter/50004.htm

Why the emphasis here that "Jesus himself" did not baptize? I believe the text is trying to tell us that God (Jesus) does not baptize; people do, and they do it with water, every time, as Jesus Himself asserts earlier in John 3:5 

5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. http://drbo.org/chapter/50003.htm

Reply
#60
(03-30-2010, 02:21 AM)il_lebbroso Wrote: I don't believe in baptism "of desire." There are numerous instances in Scripture, especially in Acts of the Apostles, when an apostle responds to an expression of faith by immediately baptizing the one who uttered it. He doesn't tell them to study the Faith first and then he will get back to them; he baptizes immediately. I could mention the three thousand baptized on the first Pentecost, the Ethiopian eunuch baptized by Phillip, and the Roman centurion, Cornelius, baptized by Paul, or the multitudes baptized by him in Corinth in Acts 18. It seems to me to question the power of God to say that He could not send a missionary to a pagan, Jew, or Muslim who sincerely desired baptism.

I believe there is one passage, however, that adresses this issue even more directly, John 4:1,2:

1 When Jesus therefore understood that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus maketh more disciples, and baptizeth more than John, 2 (Though Jesus himself did not baptize, but his disciples,).  http://drbo.org/chapter/50004.htm

Why the emphasis here that "Jesus himself" did not baptize? I believe the text is trying to tell us that God (Jesus) does not baptize; people do, and they do it with water, every time, as Jesus Himself asserts earlier in John 3:5 

5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. http://drbo.org/chapter/50003.htm

Do you accept the Council of Trent?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)