sterling wrote:

"If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands, let him be anathema."  Vatican I, Session 3, Canon 4, Section 3 [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner, Vol. 2, p. 811]

This sure seems relevant to the discussion.

Sure it is. And thus far nobody has violated this rule. What people are insisting on is that doctrine and dogma together form an organic whole and unity and are understood in light of each other.

One has to assume that when the Church made these determinations she at the same time was cancelling or denying other Catholic doctrines and beliefs. She did not say so. Investigation into, e.g., the nature of baptism of desire was not suspended after 1215 - otherwise Saint Thomas would not have said what he did, as for instance what was shared by Johannes earlier, which was written after the Lateran Council of 1215.

I would add that from my understanding baptism of desire could not even be said to be a substitute for baptism. That may be part of the confusion. Baptism proper has a character attached to it that is much more permanent and certain than baptism of desire is thought to have. I would therefore argue that they are not understood to be strictly or entirely equivalent.

Further, the sacrament of baptism would also appear to have added or unique graces associated with it and again attached to the character that it really imprints on the soul that is associated with divine protection. The character of baptism seems to afford graces "through thick and thin"; whereas, the baptism of desire would seem much more precariously tied to the human will. That, I think, is more the sense the Church understands it and, indeed, how catechumens are even inclined to perceive baptism. It is something eminently desirable and something yet more than their present state or condition and not merely a kind of formal acknowledgement and formalization of membership in the Church.
 

Last edited by Timocrates (7/11/2015 11:06 am)

Timocrates brushed off my earlier inquiry about the "perfect charity" required by the 1949 EENS letter. 

The point here is that, according to this letter, perfect charity is an essential requirement of the baptism of desire case.  Contrary to Timocrates' assertion, perfect charity is not just an absence of malvolent intent.  It is the intent to do every single thing necessary for eternal salvation.  

The proponents of  baptism of desire neglect to consider how rare perfect charity would be.  If that be true, then why is this such a major issue?

 

sterling wrote:

Timocrates brushed off my earlier inquiry about the "perfect charity" required by the 1949 EENS letter.

As Scott said, no I did not.

sterling wrote:

...Contrary to Timocrates' assertion, perfect charity is not just an absence of malvolent intent.

So which is it? Did I "brush off" your "earlier enquiry" or did I respond to it and, consequently, you need now assert something "contrary" to what I (apparrently didn't) argue? 

And regardless, nothing you said actually changes what I said. It is not I but you are failing to read your own proof text and trying to make it say more than it actually does. The text you provided clearly specified it was talking about the desire for membership in the Church - that's it. That desire, the text says, cannot just be any desire but must be animated by "perfect charity." Anything more is just you going beyond the text and asserting your own private opinion, which consequently would require other authorities than the text provided to give it merit.

sterling wrote:

The proponents of  baptism of desire neglect to consider how rare perfect charity would be.

This is just you begging the question AGAIN.
 

Last edited by Timocrates (7/11/2015 2:04 pm)

Alexander wrote:

Timocrates wrote:

Furthermore,

I would argue that the term "perfect charity" should be interpreted (especially given the date of the letter and its authors) according to Scholastic usage. A perfection in Scholastic usage is not necessarily something eminently ideal like a Platonic Form might be. When proper to something's nature, having a body can be said to be a perfection of that thing, with a body just being a capacity for extension in all directions (I believe that is more or less Saint Thomas's definition of body). Anything that meets that definition is thus perfect as a body; and has a bodily perfection. Similarly, perfect charity need not be thought of as, e.g., heroic charity.

Sympathetic as I am to your side of the argument, I don't find this point in particular convincing - if only because it seems to make the term "perfect charity" redundant. Charity is perfect in itself, if you interpret "perfect" according to Scholastic usage. That said, I don't think "heroic charity" is a likely interpretation either. Perhaps "pure charity" or "charity not significantly mixed with lower motivations" would be a possible interpretation?

Besides, I'm not sure the debate over meaning is necessary. Even if we allow sterling's understanding - "the intent to do every single thing necessary for eternal salvation" - there is no reason to suppose this is very rare. The intent to do everything necessary for salvation is, I believe, present implicitly in anyone who desires salvation at all, except in cases where the desire is sufficiently vague or weak as to be practically absent. So we can run an argument even allowing sterling's interpretation (which is not to say that his interpretation is correct).

I would say that I think perfect charity could be interpeted or understood as charity in no wise vitiated. We could rephrase the question to be "what renders charity imperfect"?

I believe this from Saint Thomas might be relevant:

"I answer that, According to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 2,3) not every love has the character of friendship, but that love which is together with benevolence, when, to wit, we love someone so as to wish good to him. If, however, we do not wish good to what we love, but wish its good for ourselves, (thus we are said to love wine, or a horse, or the like), it is love not of friendship, but of a kind of concupiscence. For it would be absurd to speak of having friendship for wine or for a horse.Yet neither does well-wishing suffice for friendship, for a certain mutual love is requisite, since friendship is between friend and friend: and this well-wishing is founded on some kind of communication.Accordingly, since there is a communication between man and God, inasmuch as He communicates His happiness to us, some kind of friendship must needs be based on this same communication, of which it is written (1 Corinthians 1:9): "God is faithful: by Whom you are called unto the fellowship of His Son." The love which is based on this communication, is charity: wherefore it is evident that charity is the friendship of man for God."
- http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3023.htm (Article 1).

This text would seem to vindicate my assertion that perfect charity would rule out such things as malevolent intent. But to be sure, it also requires something more than merely an absence of ill-will or even just a generic good-will, such as well-wishing another.

I think then that perfect charity would be authentic friendship with God and His Church. We could therefore see more practically that whatever lacks this lacks the necessary charity. Frendship desires not only the goodness of the other both also association and communication with that other. Thus, a desire to be a member of the Church without the desire to associate and communicate with the Church would likely render the desire insufficient. So it is not merely even "well-wishing" the Church that would suffice as this fails to suffice even for friendship; but it requires good-will towards God and His Church with a positive desire for, as I have said, associating and communicating with the Church. The desire, e.g., to participate at Mass would be pretty good proof, in my mind, that this desire has been satisfied; and especially the desire to receive Communion.

Last edited by Timocrates (7/11/2015 3:03 pm)