Posted on 05/04/2004 4:49:25 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
I'm sure there was, and Pope Pius XI complained later than he had been badly misinformed in certain respects. It is unfortunate that the Royalists hitched their star to Maurras, with all his problems, and his penchant for airing his opinions contrary to the Church in his paper. Still, the fact that the Vatican stuck up for a man like DeGrelle against his Bishop shows that it was hardly an animus towards rightist minded Catholics.
I never said anything about previous Popes. I just wonder whether the Seat is currently vacant. It doesn't really matter all that much because in this era of collegiality he might as well be Pope emereitus John Paul II.
No, absolutely not. In english, the common terms are Baptism of Desire or Baptism of the Holy Spirit. What was being described was clearly what is commonly terms Baptism of Desire using the term Baptism of Fire, and Drolesky is up in arms about what is being described thusly by an Italian.
A novel thing called "baptism of fire" is what actually converted Israel Zolli. The "baptism of water" was merely "an act of formal adherence." Huh? There is no such thing as baptism of fire. There is no such thing as an act of formal adherence. The Sacrament of Baptism is a sacramental act by which the very inner life of the Blessed Trinity is flooded into a soul by means of sanctifying grace as Original Sin is flooded out of that soul. To speak in such terms is to deny, almost heretically, the significance of the Sacrament of Baptism. The alleged scholar interviewed by ZENIT is pretty much saying that in Zolli's case the "baptism of water" is a symbolic act that merely ratifies an earlier baptism of fire.
Drolesky explicitly says that to say anything but the Sacrament of Baptism remits original sin or converts a person is heresy. He denies that Rabbi Zolli could have had any prior conversion which would make subsequent Baptism a formality, which is exactly what Baptism of Desire, here being called very literally Baptism of Fire, woudl do. This is the denial of Baptism of Desire, and is formally heretical. I've little doubt that Drolesky is what would be termed a "Feeneyite".
And if you intend to stand by your absurd mis-translation and calumnious accusations of heresy, the least you can do is to provide one published source which uses the term "baptism of fire" instead of "baptism of spirit."
Okay.
"Two questions arise here. First, if no one enters the kingdom of God unless he is born again of water, and if the fathers of old were not born again of water (because they were not baptized), then they have not entered the kingdom of God. Secondly, since baptism is of three kinds, that is, of water, of deire and of blood, and many have been baptized in the latter two ways (who we say have entered the kingdom of God immediately, even though they were not born again of water), it does not seem to be true to say that unless one is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. The answer to the first is that rebirth or regeneration from water and the holy spirit takes place in two ways: in truth and in symbol. Now the fathers of old, although they were not reborn with a true rebirth, were nevertheless reborn with a symbolic rebirth, because they always had a sense perceptible sign in which true rebirth was prefigured. So according to this, thus reborn, they did enter the kingdom of God, after the rasom was paid. The answer to the second is that those who are reborn by a baptism of blood and fire, although they do not have regeneration in deed, they do have it in desire. Otherwise neither would the baptism of blood mean anything nor could there be a baptism of the Spirit. Consequently, in order than man may enter the kingdom of heaven, it is necessary that there baptism of water in deed, as is the case of all baptized persons, or in desire, as in the case of the martyrs and catechumens, who are prevented by death from fulfilling their desire, or in symbol as in the case of the fathers of old."
- St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, section 444, quoted in "Is Baptism of Desire and Blood a Catholic Teaching?" by Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy (a traditionalist)
"There are three distinct forms of Baptism, namely that of fire, that of water and that of blood. Baptism of fire is that provided by repentance and the grace of the Holy Spirit, and purifies from sin. In Baptism of water we are both puurified from sin and absolved of all temporal punishment due to sin. In Baptism of blood we are purified from all misery."
- St. Bonaventure, De Sacramentorum virtute, Book 6, quoted in "Is Baptism of Desire and Blood a Catholic Teaching?" by Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy
"I wished thee to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to thee open, so that tyou mightest see how much more I loved than I could show thee by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show thee the baptism of water which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood shed for Me which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. Thereis no baptism of desire without the Blood, because Blood is stteped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because through love was it shed. There is yet another way by which the soul receives the baptism of Blood, speaking, as it were, under a figure, and this wayh the Divine charity provided, knowing the infirmity and fragility of an, through which he offends, not that he is obliged, through his fragility and infirmity, to commit sin, unless he wish to do so; byt falling, as he will, into the guild of mortal sin, by which he loses the grace which hd drew from Holy Baptism in virtue of the Blood, it was necessary to leave a continual baptism of blood. This the Divine charity provided in the Sacrament of Holy Confession, the soul receiving the Baptism of blood, with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers, who hold the keys of the Blood, sprinkling It, in absolution, upon the face of the soul. But if the soul is unable to confess, contrition of heart is sufficient for this baptism, the hand of My clemency giving you the fruit of this precious Blood... Thou seest then that these Baptisms, which you should all receive until the last moment, are continual, and though My works, that is the pains of the Cross were finite, the fruit of them which you receive in Baptism, through Me, are infinite..."
- St. Catherine of Sienna, quoted in "Is Baptism of Desire and Blood a Catholic Teaching?" by Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy
"IS BAPTISM OF DESIRE AND BLOOD A CATHOLIC TEACHING?", by Dr. Rama P. Coomaraswamy
http://www.coomaraswamy-catholic-writings.com/Baptism%20of%20Desire.htm
You sometimes make yourself into such a sucker Max. You really should learn to quit while you are ahead, or at least before you get buried.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.