Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: SSPX Priest, "Believing that unbaptized infants can go to heaven not an error"  (Read 1712 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SkidRowCatholic

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 601
  • Reputation: +61/-25
  • Gender: Male
I paraphrase, but see for yourself.

Starts around the 28:00 mm



What do you think?

Is what he said about holding that a "vicarious desire of the parents for an unbaptized child may suffice for salvation" NOT an error,

Or,

Is it an error?



Notice this last bit ^ here :facepalm:

Offline WorldsAway

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1386
  • Reputation: +903/-129
  • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence:

    Quote
    With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay...


    I suppose the only BOD theory left to be proposed is "implicit vicarious baptism of desire" :laugh2:
    John 15:19  If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48200
    • Reputation: +28469/-5325
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sadly, Cajetan began to dabble with crap about how the vicarious desire of parents could suffice to effect a Baptism of Desire in unbaptized infants.  St. Pius V ordered that opinion explunged from his works, but he should have gone farther, told Cajetan to retract his opinions, stripped him of his red hat, and sent him off to a monastery, removed from any teaching post.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48200
    • Reputation: +28469/-5325
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here's some more about the great Cajetan ... bad news all around
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cajetan
    Quote
    Though as a theologian Cajetan was a scholastic of the older Thomist type, his general position was that of the moderate reformers of the school to which Reginald Pole, later archbishop of Canterbury, also belonged; i.e.,  he desired to retain the best elements of the humanist revival in harmony with Catholic orthodoxy illumined by a revived appreciation of the Augustinian doctrine of justification. In the field of Thomistic philosophy, he showed striking independence of judgment, expressing liberal views on marriage and divorce, denying the existence of a material Hell and advocating the celebration of public prayers in the vernacular.
    ...
    Bruce Metzger wrote that Cajetan's biblical commentaries were surprisingly "modern", anticipating biblical textual criticism. Notably, Cajetan revived earlier Christian doubts as to the apostolic authorship of the Epistles of James, Jude, 2 John, and 3 John, as well as opposing Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

    Quite possibly one of the earliest Modernists.