PS: Since you are too scared to Google it, you can buy it here: http://ca-rc.com/a-catechetical-refutation

Sean,

Please confirm if you really believe this statement, because what's being expressed here is some sort of magic. Not the Sacrament of Baptism.

If you, Bp. Williamson and any other resistance trad honestly buy this, then there's no need for you to be resisting Bp. Fellay, the neo-SSPX or Francis.


"The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire.  This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church."

St. Thomas never taught this ^^^^

1. Neither Ottaviani nor Bacci wrote the Brief Critical Study.  They only signed it. The study itself was written by Gérard des Lauriers, and the head of the committee overseeing the whole project was...Archbishop Lefebvre.

Mons. Guerard des Lauriers was not very pleased with the approach that Archbishop Lefebvre had taken respect the New Mass and his persistent ambivalence towards new Rome, as it is evident from the letter he wrote to His Excellency which can be read here, in which the good Archbishop is even compared to Pontius Pilate.

Your Excellency, in order to save the Mass that is the Mass, you put it on par with the “new mass,” in the name of the Religion that you profess. How can you imagine that, instructed by your example, those unstable and weak people who follow you rather than the Truth could restore the sense of the true Religion in a Church occupied by the “high priests” of the god of the Universe? One cannot sit at the same table with Satan. It is Hell that is paved with these good intentions that justify the means by their end, perpetrating a manifest evil under the illusion of doing a good.

Mons. Guerard des Lauriers was not very pleased with the approach that Archbishop Lefebvre had taken respect the New Mass and his persistent ambivalence towards new Rome, as it is evident from the letter he wrote to His Excellency which can be read here, in which the good Archbishop is even compared to Pontius Pilate.

Yeah, I saw that old slander over at the TIA website.

In fact, I was the one who submitted Jean Madiran's clear rebuttal to des Lauriers from Itinerraires, and the force of Madiran's proof that des Laurier was full of hot air was so overwhelming, that TIA had no choice but to publish his rebuttal.

Their delay in doing so is why TIA says that I was coming to the conclusion that they were not interested in the truth.

But like I said, at last they did publish the truth.

See here: https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B999_Lauriers.html

.
I had a disturbing discussion about this topic with an acquaintance just a few days ago, when he told me that implicit BoD is found in Scripture when St. Paul told the pagan Greeks they had been recognizing the One True God when they worshiped at the shrine to "The Unknown God." He said that St. Paul told them they received actual grace by recognizing this "unknown god." I replied saying that a man in the state of mortal sin receives actual grace by standing in line for Confession, which he denied, saying, "No he doesn't."
.
I replied that Scripture does not say, nor are we to presume, that St. Paul believed or taught that Holy Baptism of water was therefore not necessary for those Greeks to attain salvation. He disagreed. He claimed that those Greeks who worshiped at that pagan shrine therefore received the saving grace of BoD because of their (false but ignorant) worship, because they were living virtuously (which BTW St. Paul does not mention). After a back-and-forth it came down to his claim that actual grace is sufficient for salvation, that there is no distinction between sanctifying grace and actual grace, that the reception of actual grace requires one to already be living a virtuous life even if ignorant of the Church or her doctrine, and that no one in the state of mortal sin is able to receive actual grace.
.
So he did a good job of explaining the root cause of all his misunderstanding, but like Sean Johnson, the pompous twit who refuses to take any manner of correction even when he's obviously in the wrong, my acquaintance went away mad. Again. (He's done that in the past.)
.
So beware, Pax Vobis and JPaul:  SJ (the full-of-himself pompous twit), when he's had quite enough of this questioning and fraternal correction stuff, just might pick up his Tonka toys and go home. Nothing new. Par for the course. Check his posting history.
.

Oh yeah, almost forgot:

Saint Thomas taught the implicit baptism of desire in Summa Theologica III, Q. 68, A. 4.

Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Moral Theology, Book 6, Section II (About Baptism and Confirmation), Chapter 1 (On Baptism), page 310, no. 96:

St. Alphonsus does not say what this "implicit - ness" requires in that quote, the writer SJ does, it is just his personal opinion, not St. Thomas's of St. Alphonsus's. Vatican II and Rahner do the same.

Since the writer SJ defends the dogmatically defined at Vatican II teaching that anyone can be saved by their belief in a god (Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans .....) that rewards, I ask, if he would please remind me again why he objects to Vatican II?

What a pathetic display!

-Archbishop Lefebvre is a liberal
-Fr. Feeney was right, and the whole rest of the Church was wrong
-It matters not that St. Thomas, Alphonsus, and various catechisms teach implicit baptism of desire
-It matters not that Ott and all the rest teach it is de fide
-Neal made a valuable contribution to the restoration on quotation marks (and Neal Jr. found a missing "S").
-Trent only allowed explicit desire; anything more is anonymous Christianity
-Lefebvre was not traditional

Pygmie minds cannot distinguish between implicit baptism of desire and anonymous Christianity (and that ABL opposed anonymous Christianity and Lumen Gentium -which to a healthy mind would have given pause to consider they must be misunderstanding something- doesn't slow them down).

I posted this, and none could make a single response (plenty of thumb-downs, but not a single attempted response):



Here is how implicit baptism of desire is distinguished from Rahner’s “anonymous Christianity:”

In describing his theory of "anonymous Christianity," Rahner stated that non-Catholics could have "in [their] basic orientation and fundamental decision, accepted the salvific grace of God, through Christ, although [they] may never have heard of the Christian revelation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_Christian#cite_ref-FOOTNOTERahner1986207_6-0

This means that such "anonymous Christians" were ignorant not merely of the obligation to receive the sacrament of baptism, but of the entire Christian revelation.

Consequently, an explicit act of supernatural faith in any particular part of it is not possible...yet salvation is allegedly attained anyway.

The necessary conclusion of Rahner's theory is that a merely natural knowledge and/or act of faith in God (e.g., such as that which is attainable by mere reason alone) suffices to unite one to the Church, and save.

Contrast this with implicit baptism of desire, which requires an explicit act of supernatural faith in someaspect of the true religion:

"Thus, there is need of explicit faith in some article of faith. In the implicit desire of baptism, the act of Faith and hope must be explicit, while it suffices for the desire of baptism itself to be implicit, since he who desires the whole desires necessarily every part of that whole...In any case, there is no Baptism of desire without the supernatural virtue of faith and a certain explicit knowledge of the essential points of faith. Since the nature of faith means that is impossible, that it be completely implicit, since faith is a supernatural light to the intelligence."
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bapdesire.htm

We can see, therefore, that the difference between Rahner's "anonymous Christianity" and implicit baptism of desire is huge:

Rahner posited one could be saved by a faith completelyimplicit, with no explicit act of supernatural faith in even one single aspect of the true religion.

That position is fatal to the missionary apostolate of the Church, and therefore a rejection of Scripture ("Go forth into all nations..."), whereas the Church's teaching of implicit baptism of desire, insofar as it requires theexplicit act of supernatural faith in at least one aspect of the true religion, consequently implies the necessity of the missionary apostolate to make such doctrines known (at least in part).

I believe if Feeneyites understood this, they would not (or at least, should not) oppose the doctrine of implicit baptism of desire, which they routinely confuse with "anonymous Christianity," despite the very large difference between the two.