There is a post by the sedevacantist Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM) criticizing a priest who says that a person can be saved with the baptism of water if God chooses and that all such cases are hypothetical for us. (Traditionalist-sedevacantist priest, Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt, denies the salvation dogma By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.)
Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt, I Baptize With Water, p. 18, quoting from Fr. Tanquery with approval: “Necessity of means, however, is not an absolute necessity, but a hypothetical one. In certain particular circumstances, for example, in the case of the invincible ignorance or of incapability, actual membership in the Church can be supplied by the desire for this membership. It is not necessary that this be explicitly present; it can be included in a willingness and readiness to fulfill the will of God. In this way those who are outside the Catholic Church can achieve salvation.”
This does not mean that everyone does not have to de facto enter the Church formally, with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water, for salvation. (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II).
The problem is that the MHFM considers the Baptism of Desire as de facto and knowable in the present times and so it contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, for them, which says there are no exceptions, and everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation.
The Baptism of desire is always hypothetical for us and de facto only for God.Well, I guess we now know why Fr. Vaillancourt loves baptism of desire so much. It’s because Fr. Vaillancourt believes in salvation outside the Church and is not even Catholic. For a time he even had a warning about our material at the back of his chapel; but, as we see above, it’s quite clear whose material one must be on guard against. Fr. Vaillancourt typifies the “traditionalist” and sedevacantist priests who deny the salvation dogma.
We know that the Baptism of desire can only be accepted in principle ( dejure) and is never de facto for us so how can it be an exception ?
The MHFM states
‘ that there is baptism of desire in any way, shape or form (see the book for more details). On page 17 Vaillancourt indicates that Buddhists, pagans and Muslims could be saved, and that such an idea isn’t ruled out by Catholic teaching:
Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt, I Baptize With Water, p. 17: “Are there any more ‘good faith’ pagans in existence? Is it possible for the Communists of China or the faithful adherents of Buddhism and Mohammedism of the Near and Far East to either have never heard the Gospel, or else had the Gospel presented to them in an erroneous light?... Can the Chinese Communist, or the Indian Buddhist or the Pakistani Muslim be included in such a consideration [of invincible ignorance]? Only God knows, and it is not up to me to decide for Him. I write here merely to uphold the dogmatic principle of the possibility of such cases today, without admitting that all, or even a significant number of those who are in such circumstances will achieve salvation through justification.” (Catholic Research Institute, 2000).
The MHFM is rejecting the baptism of desire (Council of Trent etc) and criticizing a priest who says that a person can be saved with the baptism of water if God chooses and that all such cases are hypothetical for us.
Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt, I Baptize With Water, p. 18, quoting from Fr. Tanquery with approval: “Necessity of means, however, is not an absolute necessity, but a hypothetical one. In certain particular circumstances, for example, in the case of the invincible ignorance or of incapability, actual membership in the Church can be supplied by the desire for this membership. It is not necessary that this be explicitly present; it can be included in a willingness and readiness to fulfill the will of God. In this way those who are outside the Catholic Church can achieve salvation.”
This does not mean that everyone does not have to de facto enter the Church formally, with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water, for salvation. (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II). De facto everyone needs to enter the church with no exceptions.
The problem is that the MHFM considers the Baptism of Desire as de facto and knowable in the present times and so it contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which says there are no exceptions, and everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation.
The MHFM says :
Well, I guess we now know why Fr. Vaillancourt loves baptism of desire so much. It’s because Fr. Vaillancourt believes in salvation outside the Church and is not even Catholic. For a time he even had a warning about our material at the back of his chapel; but, as we see above, it’s quite clear whose material one must be on guard against. Fr. Vaillancourt typifies the “traditionalist” and sedevacantist priests who deny the salvation dogma.
The Baptism of desire is always hypothetical for us and de facto only for God.
We know that the Baptism of desire can only be accepted in principle ( dejure) and it is never de facto for us, so how can it be an exception ?
The MHFM states
‘ that there is baptism of desire in any way, shape or form (see the book for more details). On page 17 Vaillancourt indicates that Buddhists, pagans and Muslims could be saved, and that such an idea isn’t ruled out by Catholic teaching:
De facto we do not know any case on earth of someone who does not need the Baptism of water and Catholic Faith. De jure ( in principle) it is possible that known only to God, there could be an Indian Buddhist etc saved. He could have faith, charity and the desire and God could send a preacher to him or send someone to baptize him with water.
The MHFM is rejecting the baptism of desire (Council of Trent etc) since they mistake it for being as real for us as the baptism of water.
Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt, I Baptize With Water, p. 17: “Are there any more ‘good faith’ pagans in existence? Is it possible for the Communists of China or the faithful adherents of Buddhism and Mohammedism of the Near and Far East to either have never heard the Gospel, or else had the Gospel presented to them in an erroneous light?... Can the Chinese Communist, or the Indian Buddhist or the Pakistani Muslim be included in such a consideration [of invincible ignorance]? Only God knows, and it is not up to me to decide for Him. I write here merely to uphold the dogmatic principle of the possibility of such cases today, without admitting that all, or even a significant number of those who are in such circumstances will achieve salvation through justification.” (Catholic Research Institute, 2000).
De facto we donot know any case on earth of someone who does not need the Baptism of water and Catholic Faith. De jure ( in principle) it is possible that known only to God, there could be an Indian Buddhist etc saved. He could have faith, charity and the desire and God could send a preacher to him or send someone to baptize him with water.
Posts
