Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO
2 Members and 10 Guests are viewing this topic.
So, no argument? Odd how you never condemn your buddy TommyBoy for his rudeness.
Right after that paragraph, this is what the saint says:"The first rule for interpreting an author's texts is not to interpret them in such a way as to make him contradict himself."⁃ Fr. Garrigou Lagrange, O.P, "Our Saviour and His Love for Us", p. 44, 1951God accepts the will for the deed when the deed is impossible. This is one of the most basic principles of the spiritual life. It applies to both sin and virtue.Remember that baptism is not an article of belief like the divinity of Christ is. It is a law, and the water may be dispensed with in case of necessity. As I have said before, baptism of desire is a participation in the sacrament, which is the teaching of St. Thomas and the only way to reconcile what the Council of Trent taught, what it's own Catechism taught, and what everyone post-Trent taught.
Right. The heretics St. Alphonsus is describing are aware of the sacraments, since "they hold . . . that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith." To be aware of the sacraments and say they are not necessary nonetheless is what is heretical, not to say that there may be exceptions where the sacraments are unknown to the individual. While I disagree with "implicit faith" myself, based upon a reading of the wording of Trent (which I take as requiring explicit desire for baptism), I recognize the argument regarding implicit faith being made as not denying sacramental necessity, and that the argument is not heretical.I'll cite the language I am referring to from Trent later God willing - regarding not violating the canon by acknowledging explicit faith, though I think (which is just opinion, not Church teaching), that the language of Session VI, Chapter 4 requires (logically) at least explicit faith in the sacrament.