St. Thomas Aquinas on implicit desire for Baptism

And, I can accept all of what Saint Thomas taught above, with the following caveat:

Bread of Life, page 56 wrote:There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water..

It is possible, isn't it? So, I ask myself, "What are we arguing about here?" Yes, I accept Baptism of Desire & Blood as being theological truths. I just do not think that they necessarily happen. Perhaps they have never happened, given the above quote, or if they do happen, they are rare. That is always been the mind of the Church, at least until recently.

If you want to quote Saint Thomas, great, just be sure to quote all of what he had to say.

Jehanne,

If you want to quote Saint Thomas, great, just be sure to quote all of what he had to say.

I would think setting forth his position on baptism of desire would be sufficient regarding a discussion of baptism of desire. You want me to copy and paste the whole Summa? Rasha might not like that, and it would be irrelevant to the discussion anyway.

There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water..

Yeah, and so what? We're discussing what the Church's position on justification by desire is, and implicated is the issue of one's subjection to the Magisterium, peeled back beyond the mere "yeah, I believe the pope is the pope, the church is still the Church," without proper scrutiny and consideration of the significance of the qualifier, "but the modern popes, and the Church and its catechisms, etc. are wrong about baptism of desire." The Church has made many prudential judgments that weren't worth a [use your imagination here], but the Magisterium has never been wrong about how one is justified and saved.

Doesn't that giant beam in your eye, the one tattooed with "arrogance" on one side and "contradiction" on the other, bother you? It sure plays havoc with your vision.

Let me qualify that. The vision of many here. Apparently, Jehanne, you accept the teaching on baptism of desire, but just don't think it happens in fact. That's a position that I think you can maintain, but it's a hard balance to continually maintain, like walking on top of a fence. But, yeah, it's "possible."

tornpage

tornpage wrote:Jehanne,

If you want to quote Saint Thomas, great, just be sure to quote all of what he had to say.

I would think setting forth his position on baptism of desire would be sufficient regarding a discussion of baptism of desire. You want me to copy and paste the whole Summa? Rasha might not like that, and it would be irrelevant to the discussion anyway.

No, not at all, because there are plenty of people who are applying Baptism of Desire to Jews, Muslims, etc., individuals who, by their own words, deny the Divinity of Christ. You cannot have your (theological) cake and eat it, too. If you are going to accept the fact that Saint Thomas taught implicit desire for Baptism could suffice, you must also accept the fact that he taught that explicit faith in Jesus Christ was, first and foremost, absolutely necessary for salvation.

tornpage wrote:Yeah, and so what? We're discussing what the Church's position on justification by desire is, and implicated is the issue of one's subjection to the Magisterium, peeled back beyond the mere "yeah, I believe the pope is the pope, the church is still the Church," without proper scrutiny and consideration of the significance of the qualifier, "but the modern popes, and the Church and its catechisms, etc. are wrong about baptism of desire." The Church has made many prudential judgments that weren't worth a [use your imagination here], but the Magisterium has never been wrong about how one is justified and saved.

Doesn't that giant beam in your eye, the one tattooed with "arrogance" on one side and "contradiction" on the other, bother you? It sure plays havoc with your vision.

Well, that's your opinion. And, once again, we are back to "Feeneyites" being in full communion with Rome. In your eyes, they (we/me) are heretics, but Rome does not feel that way, do they? But, such does not matter to you, because you know the mind of the Magisterium better than does the Pope.

If you are going to accept the fact that Saint Thomas taught implicit desire for Baptism could suffice, you must also accept the fact that he taught that explicit faith in Jesus Christ was, first and foremost, absolutely necessary for salvation.

I do, and I believe that too. Are you engaged in a debate with a phantom in your mind, or me?

And, once again, we are back to "Feeneyites" being in full communion with Rome. In your eyes, they (we/me) are heretics, but Rome does not feel that way, do they? But, such does not matter to you, because you know the mind of the Magisterium better than does the Pope.

There are as many views among "Feeneyites" as there are "Feeneyites." You tell me, no, show me, where Rome put a stamp of approval on a particular Feeneyite position.
You can't. All you have is a particular group which identifies itself with Father Feeney being regularized and embraced as in full communion. So what? The man they identify with died in full communion too, after all. As MRyan pointed out, Father Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience, not his beliefs.

So, show me the regularized group or group in full communion, and then show me what they believe regarding baptism of desire. Even then, your argument would not mean much, since there are probably many groups in full communion, nay, bishops and even Cardinals, in full communion, that take positions that are contrary to the Magisterium.

tornpage wrote:

If you are going to accept the fact that Saint Thomas taught implicit desire for Baptism could suffice, you must also accept the fact that he taught that explicit faith in Jesus Christ was, first and foremost, absolutely necessary for salvation.

I do, and I believe that too. Are you engaged in a debate with a phantom in your mind, or me?

I do not know. I do know that the St. Benedict Center claimed that a SSPX priest told a Jewish woman that she did not need convert to Catholicism even though she wanted to because she would be saved via "baptism of desire" if she remained a Jew. As for you, you are a stranger, so I do not know what you believe, but thanks for clarifying your position.

tornpage wrote:

And, once again, we are back to "Feeneyites" being in full communion with Rome. In your eyes, they (we/me) are heretics, but Rome does not feel that way, do they? But, such does not matter to you, because you know the mind of the Magisterium better than does the Pope.

There are as many views among "Feeneyites" as there are "Feeneyites." You tell me, no, show me, where Rome put a stamp of approval on a particular Feeneyite position.
You can't.

Not true:

http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/laisneyism.html

tornpage wrote:All you have is a particular group which identifies itself with Father Feeney being regularized and embraced as in full communion. So what? The man they identify with died in full communion too, after all. As MRyan pointed out, Father Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience, not his beliefs.

So, show me the regularized group or group in full communion, and then show me what they believe regarding baptism of desire. Even then, your argument would not mean much, since there are probably many groups in full communion, nay, bishops and even Cardinals, in full communion, that take positions that are contrary to the Magisterium.

That's for the Magisterium to determine. Again, in Rome's eyes, there is such a thing as "theological opinion."