CathInfo.com

I knew I had seen your name somewhere before, you were on Pascendi's forum, right?  You loaded all the threads with what felt like cut-and-pasted material from your archives.  That site is melting down so I guess the refugees are arriving here on drier shores.

The desire for baptism in such cases is always implicit. The caes are unknown to us.

 

If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that perhaps this person doesn't really want to be baptized, and even if he's a catechumen we can't know for sure.  Maybe he is having mental reservations or whatnot.  Therefore a desire for baptism is always implicit.  

You don't need to make this more complicated than it already is.  When theologians say "explicit baptism of desire" they are describing those who are catechumens or have expressed a wish to join the Church and who, based on the external evidence, have an explicit desire for baptism.  

Belloc,

LionelAndrades said:
There is no explicit baptism of desire. Baptism of desire is always implicit.

statement-I belevie and wish to be baptized.

'I believe and I wish to be baptized', here we have a case of explicit baptism. The baptism of water will be given to you after you have learnt the Catholic Faith and it is explicilty checked by your teacher.

So this is not the implicit baptism of desire.
__________________________________________________

Webster's 1828 dictionary:

explicit
EXPLIC'IT, a. [L. explicitus, part of explico, to unfold.]

1. Literally, unfolded. Hence, plain in language; open to the understanding; clear, not obscure or ambiguous; express, not merely implied. An explicit proposition or declaration is that in which the words, in their common acceptation, express the true meaning of the person who utters them, and in which there is no ambiguity or disguise.
2. Plain; open; clear; unreserved; having no disguised meaning or reservation; applied to persons. He was explicit in his terms.

implicit
IMPLIC'IT, a. [L. implicitus, from implico, supra.]


2. Implied; tacitly comprised; fairly to be understood, though not expressed in words; as an implicit contract or agreement.

3. Resting on another; trusting to the word or authority of another, without doubting or reserve, or without examining into the truth of the thing itself. Thus we give implicit credit or confidence to the declarations of a person of known veracity. We receive with implicit faith whatever God has clearly revealed

Conclusion-is explicit not better and clearer to those around the fewllo above that states

There is ONLY explicit baptism that we can conduct and know. This is the ordinary way of salvation in the Catholic Church.

1, He beleives
2. wishes to be baptized

The above refers to explicit baptism.He wishes to be baptized and so will receive the baptism of water.
If he dies before this happens only God can judge his case. You and I do not know if he had a genuine baptism of desire.

Implict may work with God, who knows the  hearts and minds,

Correct.
but for those of us here, explicit is more assured
True. It is the only baptism we know. We do not know any cases of implicit baptism of desire.

understanding of what the fellow thinks
 

Unclear.
In Christ
Lionel
 

Vatican reopen the Boston case. Justice delayed is justice denied. The ex cathedra dogma says everyone needs to be a visible member of the Church. So does Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.  

Okay, this will be my last message to you, my confused friend, until you stop cut-and-pasting and acknowledge the posts to you.  You shouldn't be lecturing or hectoring anyone until you get your facts straight.

1)  Vatican II does not teach Feeneyism.  Not even close.  

Here is Vatican Council II Ad Gentes 7.

‘…the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved…’-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II (Emphasis added)

‘…Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."…’-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II (Emphasis added)


Catechism of the Catholic Church : To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.-Catechism of the Catholic Church n.845

2) Ladislaus and I have already explained to you that the 1949 Holy Office letter does not teach what you are saying, but the exact opposite -- it teaches that implicit faith suffices for salvation.  

Pope Pius XII called this dogma the 'infallible' teaching in the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr.Leonard Feeney (1949).

Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.- (Letter of the Holy Office 1949). Emphasis added.

Here is the ex cathedra dogma.

1. “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215). Ex Cathedra


2. “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.) Ex Cathedra


3.“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441)  Ex Cathedra  – from the website Catholicism.org and “No Salvation outside the Church”: Link List, the Three Dogmatic Statements Regarding EENS http://nosalvationoutsideofthecatholicchurch.blogspot.com/

[/b]

3) The Holy Office letter of 1949 was WRITTEN by Abp. Cushing, who you rightly say was a proponent of implicit faith.  

He was a proponent of explicit-implicit faith. Here is the problem The heresy still continues.

You remind me of John Gregory who used to be on this site and who would use the Allocution of Midwives to say that Pius XII was against NFP!  I don't know what is going on in some brains out there.  This is the kind of confusion people can apparently succuмb to when they only see what they want to see and not what is really there.

There is a lot of calculated confusion being put out on the Boston Case over the last 50 years or more. So I can understand your problem. I hope over time you will see through this confusion.
In Christ
Lionel