Ok. Let us see what the Catechism of the Council of Trent says: "On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness." - Baptism:pg 179.
Yes, they will be availed to grace and righteousness. Now what does that have to do with "Baptism of desire", or attaining salvation without water baptism?
Following Our Lord's Words, "Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.", and the Council of Trent's teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation and that true and natural water is necessary for baptism, what the Catechism of Trent teaches me is that those adults, by their intention and determination to receive Baptism and repentance of their sins, will be afforded the opportunity to receive Baptism
This theological 'opinion' as you label it is a traditional belief of the Church supported by St. Thomas Aquinas. It may not have been formally defined, but never-the-less, it is a traditional teaching of the Catholic Church based on logical scriptural conclusions, and to reject it, for one's own opposing belief system, is to set oneself against the Church. Everything must be understood as the Church understands it. And Baptism of Desire for catechumens is part of the Ordinary and universal magisterium.
No, it is not a traditional teaching of the Catholic Church. There is no Magisterial teaching regarding BOD. Do not fabricate Church teaching.
As for the the bolded part you highlighted, yes, I agree with it. But don't you as a Sede find the follow on even more interesting? :"...and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church.[4] Thus, there can be no greater crime, no more hideous stain than to stand up against Christ, than to divide the Church engendered and purchased by His blood, than to forget evangelical love and to combat with the furor of hostile discord the harmony of the people of God" - Pius IX Encyclical Letter 3/17/1856
Considering the topic at hand, no. I do not find that more interesting.
Evangelical baptisms are considered valid baptisms using the name of the Blessed Trinity. This means that Kirk's baptism made him a member of the Mystical Body with God as his Father. Kirk, however chose to embrace/continue with the Protestant sect and thus cut himself off from that body via heresy. The one thing that could have made the Church his mother, is the renouncing of the protestant heresies. He would not have needed to be baptized again.
Yes, the baptism may have been valid. No, Kirk's baptism, if valid, did not make him a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, because he was baptized in a heretical sect with the intention of being baptized into that sect, not into the Church.
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” 17 As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. 18 And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered — so the Lord commands — as a heathen and a publican. 19 It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
Pius XII, Mystici Corporis
Kirk, denying numerous Dogmas of Faith, did not profess the true Faith before, during, or after his baptism. He did not cut himself off from the Mystical Body of Christ because he was never a member to begin with. It was a sacrilegious baptism and a grave sin, with no remission of sins and no sanctifying grace
Topic: Charlie James Kirk Etymology→ Free man, supplanter, of the church. (Read 28424 times)