How so? How does anything posted by Hermann justify him calumniating Coulombe as a heretic for holding the doctrine EENS?
EENS and Baptism of Desire are both dogmas of the Church. Perhaps you missed Hermann's #232:
(St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 66, Art. 11)Footnote. *) The 1928 Latin edition published by order of the Holy See includes the following note:
De fide est baptismum flaminis supplere vicem baptismi aquae, ita ut, cum is haberi non potest, votum ac sincerum desiderium recipendi illum, sufficiat ad saltuem, ut patet ex concil. Trid. (session 6, chapter. 4).
It is _de fide_ that baptism in the flame of the spirit supplies the place of baptism of water, so that, when the one cannot be obtained, the solemn vow or sincere desire for its reception suffices for salvation, as is clear from the Council of Trent (session 6, chapter 4). ...
Nota Bene: Pope Pius VII wrote on May 18, 1803 in confirming the investigations of the Holy Office: "no proposition worthy of censure has been found in the writings of Alphonsus de Liguori."
Coulumbe denies that, but it's de fide - so how is it a calumny to say he's a heretic?
Dear murphE,
Mr. Couloumbe's own statements regarding EENS suggest that he doesn't accept de fide teaching of the Holy Catholic Church. I think it has been amply demonstrated here by Hermann, bornacatholic, gbcdoj, and others, that Baptism by Desire and Baptism by Blood are de fide teaching of the Holy Catholic Church.
For instance, catechumens who die prior to receiving the formal Sacrament of Baptism may nonetheless be saved, in that there are catechumens who are canonized saints, and the canonization of saints is an exercise of the infallible Magisterium of the Church.
Thus, bornacatholic's post isn't needed to support the view that Mr. Couloumbe's views thereon are not acceptable for a Catholic to hold.
However, that wasn't the only (or in my own mind, the worst) charge levelled against Mr. Couloumbe.
Hermann also said this:
"God save me from ever having the credentials of being a friend and defender of occultists and occultist schismatics, a writer for occult publications like Gnosis and Fate, and a creator of Catholicized magical superstition."
Someone who is a little mixed up regarding EENS and Baptism of Desire, and Baptism of Blood has a problem. However, if that person himself is baptized, that problem is, to some degree, more academic, and more muted than it otherwise might be.
However, folks who dabble in the occult, especially trying to reconcile occultism with Catholicism, especially those who are supposedly well-versed in Catholicism, and ought to know better, have a more serious and immediate problem. Thus, Hermann's assertions regarding this issue are for more troublesome (at least from my perspective) than are the issues related to EENS.
And these assertions are substantiated to a significant degree by bornacatholic's post.
As to Hermann's charges regarding Mr. Couloumbe's lifestyle, Mr. Couloumbe himself seems to confess to at least at one time to have imbibed imprudently, and his writings seem to indicate that he is still, even to the current day, a gourmand.
I am not entirely out of sympathy when I read this:
"would I find the Thai restaurants, Korean barbecues or Shabu-Shabu houses I crave? The theater, and opera? The huge libraries and architecture that feed my soul?"
I, too, love a variety of cuisines, and prefer them executed at the highest levels. I have dined at my share of five-star restaurants, drunk my share of bottles of wine costing more than they should, I have loved my share of theater, libraries, and grand architecture.
Nonetheless, I'm deeply troubled by, "...that I crave," and "...that feed my soul."
In my appreciation of all these things (and my appreciation of them is great - and Mr. Couloumbe has a point, many of these things are more likely found in blue places, like my own Washington, DC, rather than in red places), nonetheless, I try to guard against permitting them to be the nourishment for my soul. I permit them to nourish my intellect, my rational sense, my knowledge. However, although I may often fail in my attempt, I try avoid nourishing my soul altogether. I try to bring my empty soul, in a state of hunger, to Another Who may feed me and fill me with the daily bread for which I ask, that He gives me.
If I find myself craving these other things, that's a bad sign.
In all the good works of man, I rejoice, because properly viewed, they all give glory to God.
But I wasn't made for any of these things, and none of them can satisfy me, none can nourish me, none properly "feed my soul," nor truly fill the emptiness. None of these things is the thing for which my soul longs.
I would suggest that Mr. Couloumbe either is a glutton and a sensualist who glorifies in his vice (as opposed to, say, me, who is a glutton, but recognizes and repents of his vice), or is an unserious man who takes no care for the image he projects of himself when writing for the public, even though he seems to trade on the notion that he is a "Catholic" writer.
sitetest