Is there confirmation by desire?
#11
(02-05-2012, 11:13 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(02-05-2012, 01:08 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: I don't know why we can't extend the principle of baptism of desire to other sacraments. It could be a theological development.

Confirmation of Desire would be a non-sacramental reception of the effects of the sacrament without being another sacrament per se.

Since Confirmation is not necessary for salvation, the applicability of the principle (which concerns a "relative necessity of means") wouldn't apply. This would be the same with Matrimony, Holy Orders, etc.

Also, doesn't Baptism of Desire only apply at the moment of death, ie, there is no time when Baptism could be refused because one is "already" baptised by desire?

Matrimony though is, in a way, done by mutual desire and consent of two people able to contract the sacrament?
Reply
#12
(02-05-2012, 11:18 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: I understand. But that is just the present status quo.

If we have safely established that the sacrament absolutely necessary for salvation (baptism) can be received in a non-sacramental manner, then it doesn't take too much to imagine how other sacraments that, although not strictly necessary for salvation, confer grace and help the sanctification of the believer might be received by desire as well.

In fact, it is well known that one can make a spiritual communion which is, conceptually speaking, already very similar to an "Eucharist of desire," isn't it?

But it is not the sacrament. That is the key.

Confirmation of Desire (as an idea) if it existed could not be done if one held the sacrament in contempt. One cannot die having refused the sacrament and think one will have the indelible mark. That is what the sacrament does. If one claims to have it, and does not, perhaps it will be like the person without the wedding garment.

Matthew 22:11-13 Wrote:And the king went in to see the guests: and he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment. And he saith to him: Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? But he was silent. Then the king said to the waiters: Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth
That man "desired" the garment, but he did not have it, even though he could have obtained it like everyone else.
Reply
#13
(02-05-2012, 05:50 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: Since confirmation is not necessary for salvation, and only sinful if culpably neglected, I don't think so.

This!

(02-05-2012, 01:37 PM)Parmandur Wrote: It sounds like your so-called "desire" for Confirmation is not that strong, if you let anything get in your way.  Man up, already.

And this!
Reply
#14
(02-05-2012, 11:22 PM)su Wrote:
(02-05-2012, 11:13 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(02-05-2012, 01:08 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: I don't know why we can't extend the principle of baptism of desire to other sacraments. It could be a theological development.

Confirmation of Desire would be a non-sacramental reception of the effects of the sacrament without being another sacrament per se.

Since Confirmation is not necessary for salvation, the applicability of the principle (which concerns a "relative necessity of means") wouldn't apply. This would be the same with Matrimony, Holy Orders, etc.

Also, doesn't Baptism of Desire only apply at the moment of death, ie, there is no time when Baptism could be refused because one is "already" baptised by desire?

To my knowledge, yes. Remember, the Church divides the sacraments into two types: the sacraments of the living and the sacraments of the dead.
Quote:Matrimony though is, in a way, done by mutual desire and consent of two people able to contract the sacrament?

Again, though, since it is not necessary for salvation, there would be no manifest purpose in God conferring the sacrament outside of the sacramental signs proper to the sacrament. No-one would know, there would be no point in knowing, there would be no way to prove it, and no way to legally handle it. The only reason the sacraments of the dead (perfect acts of contrition, spiritual communions, and baptism of desire) are possible outside of their visible signs is because these are necessary for salvation, and God shows His goodness by His ability to provide these instruments of salvation outside of the sacramental signs, as St. Thomas teaches. The other sacraments, which are sacraments of the living, being not necessary for this end, would not show God's goodness in the same way because it wouldn't necessarily matter for us to speculate about whether someone had received them or not. Acknowledging the possibility that someone can be saved by such-and-such means is important not only for the one receiving the sacramental effects but also for those whose minds and hearts it turns towards God. Whether someone could receive the sacraments of the living outside of their sacramental signs would be nothing more than idle speculation.
Reply
#15
(02-05-2012, 11:43 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: The only reason the sacraments of the dead (perfect acts of contrition, spiritual communions, and baptism of desire) are possible outside of their visible signs is because these are necessary for salvation, and God shows His goodness by His ability to provide these instruments of salvation outside of the sacramental signs, as St. Thomas teaches.

Although I'm forced to accept it in principle, I cannot help to think that the non-sacramental reception of the sacrament is but a subtle way to dismiss the sacrament itself. Surely, God is not bound by the sacraments but certainly he chose to institute them and to make them necessary for salvation. He did so, not we. I don't see why God wouldn't provide his elect with the sacraments he himself instituted by his own will as necessary for salvation.

I accept it, by virtue of what appears to me to be the common consent of the Church's teaching, but I'm not convinced.
Reply
#16
(02-05-2012, 11:53 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: I accept it, by virtue of what appears to me to be the common consent of the Church's teaching, but I'm not convinced.

I think, for confirmation, that a person who by their works shows their faith and intention dies without receiving the sacrament receives some grace for it. It would not be the sacrament, but perhaps a special place for being so faithful even without the sacraments.

Like the example given in the Secret of the Rosary of the graces given to a king who encouraged others to pray the rosary even though he himself did not. He did not receive, properly, the graces that come with praying the rosary as he did not pray it, but his acts were fruitful nonetheless.
Reply
#17
(02-05-2012, 11:53 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(02-05-2012, 11:43 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: The only reason the sacraments of the dead (perfect acts of contrition, spiritual communions, and baptism of desire) are possible outside of their visible signs is because these are necessary for salvation, and God shows His goodness by His ability to provide these instruments of salvation outside of the sacramental signs, as St. Thomas teaches.

Although I'm forced to accept it in principle, I cannot help to think that the non-sacramental reception of the sacrament is but a subtle way to dismiss the sacrament itself. Surely, God is not bound by the sacraments but certainly he chose to institute them and to make them necessary for salvation. He did so, not we. I don't see why God wouldn't provide his elect with the sacraments he himself instituted by his own will as necessary for salvation.

I accept it, by virtue of what appears to me to be the common consent of the Church's teaching, but I'm not convinced.

If it was good enough for St. Thomas, it's good enough for me.  Smile
Reply
#18
I don't want to minimize the sacraments. My sponsor actually apologized for his indifference to me when I complained to the church. Next, I tried again in a different area, but same thing, except I didn't get as far. Shouldn't they be concerned about this? The first time, I was made to say, along with all the other Catholic initiates, that "yes, there is salvation outside of the church." I remember privately thinking "then what are we doing here?" Then I met a Russian colleague of mine at the University I attended and he stopped attending church because he became convinced under the Soviet system that it was pointless. That got me to thinking about if a time came of total apostasy, as in the USSR, could you desire confirmation?  I'm not sure about the conclusion I've reached yet, whether to try at an SSPX type church or call an F.S.S.P. church or even a Bishop. I might try the bishop route.




Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)