P
Portrait
Guest
If I have understood our Church’s position correctly (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paras. 847-848), it appears to maintain that Baptism of Desire covers those who may not necessarily have submitted to the Church in the regular way through the Sacrament of Baptism. Needless to say this decidedly does not invalidate the missionary mandate and so the Church “…still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelise all men” (para. 848). However the very fact thatsome non Catholics have aspirations after goodnes would seem to imply that they aspire after the benefits which Holy Baptism declares.
Now this whole notion of incorporating men, on account of some nebulous ‘desire’, into the Church somehow recalls Karl Rahner’s ‘anonymous Christianity’, which of course has been the target of much debate and an abundance of criticism. Is not this a very patronising approach towards people of other religions?, I mean does it not seem that we are doing them a favour by regarding them, albeit implicitly, as anonymous Christians? Some people would contend that this sort of ‘honorary’ granting of Christian citizenship to those who have not requested it, and indeed have, in some cases, positively resisted it (as is true of both Muslims and Jews), just savours of sheer imperialism. As Catholics what would our reaction be if we were to be told by ardent representatives of Islam, that we are in fact regarded as ‘anonymous Muslims’?
Unless I am clearly missing something, it seems that ‘baptism of desire’ could cover almost any conceivable response and that the ecclesiastical net is being thrown very widely indeed. One could surely argue that this is simply a less offensive way of expressing universalism, with its misguided hope that all men will ultimately be saved. My question reduces to this: has our Church adopted a too inclusivist position with regards to incorporation into the body of Christ?; are we saying in effect that the Church is the sphere where men explicitly acknowledge Christ and the Gospel whom others implicitly acknowledge by showing kindness, unselfishness or loving concern for others, even though they reject Him and declare themselves agnostics? To push this even further, is it possible for the atheist in good faith to be numbered among those who love God and despise self? Furthermore, how do we square all of this with the traditional contention, promulgated by Boniface VIII in the papal bull of 1302, the Unam Sanctum, that ‘outside the Church there is no salvation’?; Again was the well known Father Leonard Feeney incident in the 1940’s really about our Church being embarrassed by its traditional stance and wanting to silence Feeney in the interests of the new ecumenism, not simply because he was just plainly wrong?
Forgive a recent converts dubiety, but this really does seem redolent of the old heresy of universalism so beloved of Liberal Protestantism. Your comments please.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Now this whole notion of incorporating men, on account of some nebulous ‘desire’, into the Church somehow recalls Karl Rahner’s ‘anonymous Christianity’, which of course has been the target of much debate and an abundance of criticism. Is not this a very patronising approach towards people of other religions?, I mean does it not seem that we are doing them a favour by regarding them, albeit implicitly, as anonymous Christians? Some people would contend that this sort of ‘honorary’ granting of Christian citizenship to those who have not requested it, and indeed have, in some cases, positively resisted it (as is true of both Muslims and Jews), just savours of sheer imperialism. As Catholics what would our reaction be if we were to be told by ardent representatives of Islam, that we are in fact regarded as ‘anonymous Muslims’?
Unless I am clearly missing something, it seems that ‘baptism of desire’ could cover almost any conceivable response and that the ecclesiastical net is being thrown very widely indeed. One could surely argue that this is simply a less offensive way of expressing universalism, with its misguided hope that all men will ultimately be saved. My question reduces to this: has our Church adopted a too inclusivist position with regards to incorporation into the body of Christ?; are we saying in effect that the Church is the sphere where men explicitly acknowledge Christ and the Gospel whom others implicitly acknowledge by showing kindness, unselfishness or loving concern for others, even though they reject Him and declare themselves agnostics? To push this even further, is it possible for the atheist in good faith to be numbered among those who love God and despise self? Furthermore, how do we square all of this with the traditional contention, promulgated by Boniface VIII in the papal bull of 1302, the Unam Sanctum, that ‘outside the Church there is no salvation’?; Again was the well known Father Leonard Feeney incident in the 1940’s really about our Church being embarrassed by its traditional stance and wanting to silence Feeney in the interests of the new ecumenism, not simply because he was just plainly wrong?
Forgive a recent converts dubiety, but this really does seem redolent of the old heresy of universalism so beloved of Liberal Protestantism. Your comments please.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait