The blog Recapturing Our Catholic Patrimony: Because Catholicism Existed Before 1963 features a discussion on Robert Sungenis' apology of 'baptism of desire'.
Mr. Sungenis' presentation can be viewed at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXvn0Sqam7I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riUk9RqaE7E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0v0ZYIqnhk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45foZDKg7PI
I was asked by the host to explain what I meant when stating that "Mr. Sungenis made the dogma meaningless"
The intervention is posted at: http://rcpstudy.blogspot.com/2007/05/outside-church-there-is-no-salvation.html
For those interested in further arguments against the hypothesis of 'baptism of desire', being based on reading of the Council of Trent, are advised to follow the source of my quotations from the Council and from Pope St. Leo the Great's letter--Peter and Michael Dimonds' book Outside the Catholic Church There Is Absolutely No Salvation, available on their website http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/2nd_edition_final.pdf
July 23, 2007 9:04 AM
Peter Albert said...
I'm sorry but it's curious in the first place why Mr. Sungenis would deliver all his talk and then conclude that the Church did not define the 'desire' in 'baptism of desire' and that the whole issue had been phrased by Trent in a 'roundabout way' so that the faithful should draw their own conclusions. I'm afraid this is a pretty Protestant way of handling dogmas. In fact, when the speaker claims that 'unless' in John 3:5 should not be taken in the strict sense, I'd like to point to two sources. First, Haydock's commentary to John 3:5 says that "The ancient Fathers, and particularly St. Aug. in divers places, from these words, prove the necessity of giving baptism to infants: and by Christ's adding water , is excluded a metaphorical baptism." (page 1397).
What is worse Mr. Sungenis goes on to use the expression 'and a desire for it' of Session 6, Chap. 4, of the Council of Trent in the sense which seems to exclude the necessity of sacramental baptism even though the text of the canon continues 'as it is written' and quotes John 3:5. However, another canon (Session 7, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism) does not allow a metaphorical understanding of John 3:5:
"If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’, are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”
Still, Mr. Sungenis boldly proceeds that the mere addition 'or a desire for it' "puts a totally different twist" on the issue and eliminates the 'physical' aspect. Is this a safe argument to present to the faithful? Far from it when one considers another quote from Session 6, Chap. 7 on the Causes of Justification:
"The causes of this Justification are: the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ… the efficient cause is truly a merciful God… the meritorious cause is His most beloved and only‐begotten Son… the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without faith no one is ever justified… This faith, in accordance with apostolic tradition, catechumens beg of the Church before the sacrament of baptism, when they ask for faith which bestows life eternal…"
Wouldn't it also be nice if Mr. Sungenis mentioned that in general agreement of the theologians the baptism of desire is not a form of the sacrament of baptism? And he would be wise to consider the unity of the baptism as indicated by Pope St. Leo the Great who, in the dogmatic letter to Flavian, mentioned: "the spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption and the water of baptism" and stated that "these three are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others."
The above quote should alert to the likelihood of reading Sess. 6, Chap. 4 in the meaning that "justification of the impious ... cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it" so that BOTH water AND desire are necessary for the baptism to effect the justification.
I am in general wondering what the point of Mr. Sungenis' lecture is in the congregation of Catholics? Does it reinforce the believers' faith in the mission of the Church? Hardly. Would a non-Catholic stepping into the congregation be impelled to convert to the Catholic Church? Given Mr. Sungenis' emphasis on the 'second option' -- I doubt it.
I would rather expect Mr. Sungenis to point out why 'there is no salvation outside the Church', to explain the significance of the dogma to the faithful and non-Catholics. Mr. Sungenis places too much emphasis on the individual's personal relationship with God on the path of salvation, and fails to elaborate the initial topic of the unique 'power of the keys' to the Church.
Finally, is it edifying for the faith to opt for a more 'liberal' or ambiguous reading of the Councils and Popes when there is a probable reading that is more 'restrictive'? I leave this judgment to you. For the above reasons, I must stick to my original assertion that Mr. Sungenis 'made the dogma meaningless'.However the irony is that by Mr. Sungenis' own judgment he himself may be the victim of 'invincible ignorance' and that would not matter in assessing his theological argument a bit since he had the best of intentions, right?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
If Sungenis is right, then the Council contradicts itself, and is made to be completely illogical, first in stating that if anyone says that Baptism is not necessary let him be anatheman, and then later says that it is not necessary, which is completely ludicrous. This would be the absolute destruction of Papal infallibility, since he would be contradicting himself.
Post a Comment