Latest topics
Orestes Brownson Nails it on Baptism of Desire
2 posters
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Forum (No Salvation Outside the Church Forum) :: EENS Topics :: No Salvation Outside the Church
Page 1 of 1
Orestes Brownson Nails it on Baptism of Desire
When I argue with "Feeneyites" about baptism of desire, I refer to it as being having or being a "core principle" that is indeed Magisterial, and I think of the faith. The Church has never elaborated on, or further delineated, what exactly baptism of desire is beyond the "core principle."
I have not found a better expression of that "core principle" than that by Orestes Brownson:
It is evident, both from Bellarmine and Billuart, that no one can be saved unless he belongs to the visible communion of the Church, either actually or virtually, and also that the salvation of catechumens can be asserted only because they do so belong; that is, because they are in the vestibule, for the purpose of entering, – have already entered in their will and proximate disposition. St. Thomas teaches with regard to these, in case they have faith working by love, that all they lack is the reception of the visible sacrament in re; but if they are prevented by death from receiving it in re before the Church is ready to administer it, that God supplies the defect, accepts the will for the deed, and reputes them to be baptized. If the defect is supplied, and God reputes them to be baptized, they are so in effect, have in effect received the visible sacrament, are truly members of the external communion of the Church, and therefore are saved in it, not out of it (Summa, 3, Q.68, a.2, corp. ad 2. Et ad 3.)… …Bellarmine, Billuart, Perrone, etc., in speaking of persons as belonging to the soul and not to the body, mean, it is evident, not persons who in no sense belong to the body, but simply those who, though they in effect belong to it, do not belong to it in the full and strict sense of the word, because they have not received the visible sacrament in re. All they teach is simply that persons may be saved who have not received the visible sacrament in re; but they by no means teach that persons can be saved without having received the visible sacrament at all. There is no difference between their view and ours, for we have never contended for anything more than this; only we think, that, in these times especially, when the tendency is to depreciate the external, it is more proper to speak of them simply as belonging to the soul, for the fact the most important to be insisted on is, not that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament in re, but that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament at least in voto et proxima dispositione.
Brownson, Orestes. “The Great Question.” Brownson’s Quarterly Review. Oct. 1847. Found in: Brownson, Henry F. The Works of Orestes A. Brownson: Collected and Arranged. Vol.V. (pp.562-563). Detroit: Thorndike Nourse, Publisher, 1884.
tornpage- Posts : 954
Reputation : 1035
Join date : 2010-12-31
Re: Orestes Brownson Nails it on Baptism of Desire
Excellent, Orestes does indeed "nail it". Necessity of means, right there.tornpage wrote:
When I argue with "Feeneyites" about baptism of desire, I refer to it as being having or being a "core principle" that is indeed Magisterial, and I think of the faith. The Church has never elaborated on, or further delineated, what exactly baptism of desire is beyond the "core principle."
I have not found a better expression of that "core principle" than that by Orestes Brownson:
"…Bellarmine, Billuart, Perrone, etc., ... All they teach is simply that persons may be saved who have not received the visible sacrament in re; but they by no means teach that persons can be saved without having received the visible sacrament at all. There is no difference between their view and ours,..."
MRyan- Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18
Re: Orestes Brownson Nails it on Baptism of Desire
MRyan wrote:Excellent, Orestes does indeed "nail it". Necessity of means, right there.tornpage wrote:
When I argue with "Feeneyites" about baptism of desire, I refer to it as being having or being a "core principle" that is indeed Magisterial, and I think of the faith. The Church has never elaborated on, or further delineated, what exactly baptism of desire is beyond the "core principle."
I have not found a better expression of that "core principle" than that by Orestes Brownson:
"…Bellarmine, Billuart, Perrone, etc., ... All they teach is simply that persons may be saved who have not received the visible sacrament in re; but they by no means teach that persons can be saved without having received the visible sacrament at all. There is no difference between their view and ours,..."
Yes, the sacrament is a necessity of means for the catechumen who desires the "visible" sacrament for his justification and union with Christ.
That is not what our argument about the sacrament being a necessity of means is about.
An "implicit desire" for the sacrament does not require the one with the desire to be aware of the sacrament, actually want to receive the sacrament as a distinct means necessary for salvation, sine qua non.
If such an "implicit desire for the sacrament" maintains the necessity of the sacrament, then an "implicit faith" in Christ may likewise save. They are birds of the same feather. I can't believe you don't see this.
One can have an "implicit faith" in Christ simply by desiring to please the Father in all things - without any knowledge of Christ, the Incarnation, the Passion, His Resurrection, etc. A "desire for Christ" is not necessary. All one needs is a faith in God, the Father. This leads to otherwise faithful priests like Fr. Fahey believing a Jew could be saved with the requisite "faith in Christ" while denying Christ, His Incarnation, etc. at the same time.
That's what we call a contradiction. And that's where this "implicit" nonsense leads: contradictions. Like saying the sacrament maintains its necessity for someone who is oblivious of it.
It's easy to see how we get Catholics justifying Francis when they justify contradictions like the above. It's no wonder.
If you accept an "implicit desire" as sufficient to maintain the necessity of the sacramen for salvation, you might as well accept an "implicit faith" in Christ to satisfy the necessity of faith in Christ for salvation.
Do you? If not, why not? What is the difference?
Brownson only speaks of a "catechumen" and a desire for the "visible" sacrament as supplying the necessity for the sacrament. And that's fine, since it does. There is no contradiction there.
Anyway, my reason for saying Brownson "nailed it" was because he identified the "core concept" that the Magisterium has taught: it is not necessary to actually receive the sacrament to be justified/regenerated. Rather, this is the "core concept" that I think a Catholic must accept as being taught by Trent:
t
he fact the most important to be insisted on is, not that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament in re, but that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament at least in voto et proxima dispositione.
tornpage- Posts : 954
Reputation : 1035
Join date : 2010-12-31
Re: Orestes Brownson Nails it on Baptism of Desire
JPII, General Audience, September 9, 1998
And away we go!!!!!
"Normally, it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Savior.”
And away we go!!!!!
tornpage- Posts : 954
Reputation : 1035
Join date : 2010-12-31
Re: Orestes Brownson Nails it on Baptism of Desire
Imagine that, and even if they reject Him as their Savior! Invincible ignorance on steroids, and the so-called primacy of conscience over truth!tornpage wrote:JPII, General Audience, September 9, 1998"Normally, it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Savior.”
And away we go!!!!!
MRyan- Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18
Similar topics
» From "Baptism and Baptism of Desire," by Raymond Taouk
» Baptism or baptism of desire. What are the fruits?
» Reconsideration of Baptism of Desire.
» Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?
» Co-Redemptrix and baptism of desire
» Baptism or baptism of desire. What are the fruits?
» Reconsideration of Baptism of Desire.
» Holy Office Letter of 1949: What position did it "condemn"?
» Co-Redemptrix and baptism of desire
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Forum (No Salvation Outside the Church Forum) :: EENS Topics :: No Salvation Outside the Church
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Thu Apr 04, 2024 8:46 am by tornpage
» Defilement of the Temple
Tue Feb 06, 2024 7:44 am by tornpage
» Forum update
Sat Feb 03, 2024 8:24 am by tornpage
» Bishop Williamson's Recent Comments
Thu Feb 01, 2024 12:42 pm by MRyan
» The Mysterious 45 days of Daniel 12:11-12
Fri Jan 26, 2024 11:04 am by tornpage
» St. Bonaventure on the Necessity of Baptism
Tue Jan 23, 2024 7:06 pm by tornpage
» Isaiah 22:20-25
Fri Jan 19, 2024 10:44 am by tornpage
» Translation of Bellarmine's De Amissione Gratiae, Bk. VI
Fri Jan 19, 2024 10:04 am by tornpage
» Orestes Brownson Nails it on Baptism of Desire
Thu Jan 18, 2024 3:06 pm by MRyan
» Do Feeneyites still exist?
Wed Jan 17, 2024 8:02 am by Jehanne
» Sedevacantism and the Church's Indefectibility
Sat Jan 13, 2024 5:22 pm by tornpage
» Inallible safety?
Thu Jan 11, 2024 1:47 pm by MRyan
» Usury - Has the Church Erred?
Tue Jan 09, 2024 11:05 pm by tornpage
» Rethink "Feeneyism"?
Tue Jan 09, 2024 8:40 pm by MRyan
» SSPX cannot accept Vatican Council II because of the restrictions placed by the Jewish Left
Fri Jan 05, 2024 8:57 am by Jehanne
» Anyone still around?
Mon Jan 01, 2024 11:04 pm by Jehanne
» Angelqueen.org???
Tue Oct 16, 2018 8:38 am by Paul
» Vatican (CDF/Ecclesia Dei) has no objection if the SSPX and all religious communities affirm Vatican Council II (without the premise)
Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:29 am by Lionel L. Andrades
» Piazza Spagna - mission
Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:06 am by Lionel L. Andrades
» Fund,Catholic organisation needed to help Catholic priests in Italy like Fr. Alessandro Minutella
Sun Dec 10, 2017 7:52 am by Lionel L. Andrades