Uncharitable? For poking holes in the traditionalist preening and pretensions constantly on display around here? For not ignoring heresy?
Your accusation of heresy against him is based solely on your claim that "baptism of fire" is another term for "baptism of desire." First, it is clear that you have no basis for any accusation of heresy, since Drolesky makes no mention whatever of baptism of desire. [snip]
The worst that you could accuse Drolesky of is ignorance that the term "baptism of fire" could be used to refer to "baptism of desire." But is that in fact the case? Or is it just a case of your incorrect translation of the Latin? Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia translation of the same section of the Summa that you posted. Please note that they translate "flaminis" as "spirit," not "flame."
Max, time to break out a Latin Dictionary. Surely you own one?
Flaminis - flame, wind, fire. Spiritus - Spirit. Pretty different words, wouldn't you say?
"Baptismus flaminis sive Spiritus Sancti" is the full phrase used in the theological manuals - "Baptism in the flame of the Holy Spirit", commonly called "Baptism of Desire". It is also analogical to Trent's use of "votum Baptismi" - "the solemn vow to receive Baptism". There is no distinction to be made between the terms. The SSPX cogently explains this here:
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/three_baptisms.htm
You do listen to what they say, don't you?
If not, how about St. Alphonsus?
"Baptismus autem flaminis est perfecta conversio ad Deum per contritionem, vel amorem Dei super omnia, cum voto explicito, vel implicito veri baptismi fluminis, cujus vicem supplet (juxta Trid. sess. 14. c. 4) quoad culpae remissionem, non autem quoad characterem imprimendum, nec quoad tollendum omnem reatum poenae: dicitur flaminis, quia fit per impulsum Spiritûs sancti, qui flamen nuncupatur. De fide autem est per baptismum flaminis homines etiam salvari, ex c. Apostolicam, de presb. non bapt. et Trid. sess. 6. c. 4. Ubi dicitur neminem salvari posse sine lavacro regenerationis, aut ejus voto." - "However, Baptism of desire is a perfect conversion to God through contrition, or the love of God above all things, with an explicit or implicit wish of true Baptism of water, the change of which it supplies (according to Trent, sess. 14, c. 4) as far as the remission of guilt, but not as far as the impression of the character, neither as far as removing all pain of punishment: it is called of desire [lit. blowing], because it is by the impulse of the Holy Ghost, which is called a blowing. It is de fide that men are saved even by baptism of desire, taught in the canon 'Apostolicam' and Trent, where it is said that no one can be saved without the washing of regeneration, or the desire thereof."
http://www.ihm-church.org/baptism.htm
The literal translation of the root word "flamma" is "flame, fire". See here:
http://www.freedict.com/onldict/onldict.php
http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Latin/
One my bicker over translating it "flame" or "wind" or "blowing" or "fire", but it certainly does not mean "Spirit" except in terms of a previously known relation between the word "flamma" and the Holy Spirit and Baptism of Desire as we term it commonly in English. If Mr. Drolesky had the least bit of education in this matter, he would know what was being referred to concerning Rabbi Zolli, and wouldn't have made the error of formally denying the existence of Baptism of Desire, or the possibility of Rabbi Zolli receiving it.
Let's get this straight. 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.
This is an explicit denial of Baptism of Desire and its relation to Baptism in Water. When someone has Baptism of Desire, and later receives Baptism of Water, the Sacrament does not accomplish what the Desire has already done. Rather than remitting original sin and other sins (already done by Baptism of Desire), it formally incorporates a person into the Church (an act of formal adherence, in other words).
Nothing you can say here will save Drolesky from his blatant heresy. The question is, why are you defending it, when you should know better?
So unlike Hermann, the fathers of the English Dominican Province believe in a "baptism of spirit," not a "baptism of fire," by means of "literally translating" the words of St. Thomas Aquinas.
The Dominican Fathers used commonly used terms so as not to be misunderstood. The use Mr. Drolesky quotes is from an Italian, who obviously might feel differently about how to translate the Latin. What is not in dispute at all, except perhaps by you, is that what Mr. Drolesky denies the existence of and says is heresy is a precise description of what we call "Baptism of Desire" in English, applied to the case of Rabbi Zolli.
Somehow I knew you wouldn't admit that you were wrong. And I certainly didn't expect that you would admit that you were being dishonest by posting only the Latin version without the English translation in order to create a false impression. The origin of the Latin word "flamina" is irrelevant to the fact that in this usage it means "spirit" according to people who know what they are talking about and who were assigned to perform a literal translation of St. Thomas Aquinas, namely the English Dominican Fathers in 1920. Are you going to claim next that based on their translation, the Dominicans were also denying "baptism of fire"?
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." Failing to do that, your whole argument collapses utterly. If you were to find such a published source for the term "baptism of fire" in the Summa, you will have succeeded in demonstrating that the person denigrating the conversion of the Chief Rabbi of Rome had some basis for using that term.
Nothing you can say here will save Drolesky from his blatant heresy.
Ha, ha. So the Living Magisterium now exists in the person of Hermann, and he has pronounced his infallible decree. Hermann locuta est, causa finita. Sorry, but even the bare minimum of Christian charity indicates that you need a lot more evidence before you accuse someone of heresy. Evidence such as the person even mentioning or referring to the doctrine in question, since in this case Drolesky made no reference to Baptism of Desire and was not even mentioning, nonetheless denying, the doctrine in the least.