I have examined the evidence objectively, and there simply isn't enough there to show that BoD/BoB were revealed and are part of the deposit of revelation. I acknowledge that since the time of St. Bernard it has become an increasingly widely-held opinion, but given its lack of roots in revelation, it rests squarely in the realm of speculative theology.
And I have been looking for ANY demonstration of how BoD derives from other revealed doctrine, and no such argument as ever been made. All I find is repeated gratuitous assertions that BoD exists, without any theological proof whatsoever. BoD creates tons of theological problems, and there's strong evidence against it theologically (based on the arguments cited above as ONE and TWO). Consequently, I reject BoD & BoB. But the BoD-ers REFUSE to OBJECTIVELY examine the evidence and make patently false unsupported assertions that it's the unanimous constant teaching of the Church. That's just baloney.
This has also been my experience. When I questioned a CMRI priest on the definition of BoD & BoB, he said, "It is defined." So I asked him what the date of the definition was, and he has never been able to answer that question. The reason is, there is no date, and the reason there is no date is, it has not been defined. What he did do is hand me an inch thick stack of Xeroxes that he had prepared for this challenge (so I'm obviously not the first one to ask him), which includes a number of scandalous screeds by Fr. Martin Stepanich, printed in
The Remnant in 1973-1975. I find this rather self-contradictory when this sedevacantist (Stepanich) wrote such bilge scuм for a newspaper that has consistently denounced sedevacantism over the years, even to the present. But the language of scathing hatred that Stepanich uses against the holy and peace-loving Fr. Leonard Feeney even while he was still alive, is most scandalous.
As you say, Ladislaus,
~
Research provides insufficient results to show that BoD/BoB were revealed and are part of the deposit of revelation. ~
Since the time of St. Bernard, it has become an increasingly widely-held opinion, but given its lack of roots in revelation, it rests squarely in the realm of speculative theology. ~
Regarding how BoD may be seen to derive from other revealed doctrine, no such argument as ever been made. ~
Instead of showing how BoD could have developed from revealed doctrine, there are only repeated gratuitous assertions that BoD exists, without any theological proof whatsoever. ~
BoD creates tons of theological problems, and there's strong evidence against it theologically (based on the arguments cited above as ONE and TWO). ~
The BoD-ers REFUSE to OBJECTIVELY examine the evidence. ~
Instead of objectively examining the evidence, BoD-ers make patently false unsupported assertions that it's the unanimous constant teaching of the Church, which is a bald-faced lie.All the Bod-ers have is their repeated
baseless assertions and sweeping statements with no foundation, repeated in an atmosphere of heresy (Americanism) which they cannot seem to comprehend or answer to.
The Church has consistently and infallibly taught that Baptism of water is necessary to obtain life everlasting. "Baptism of Desire" has been a teological speculation at the most. The fallible teaching on BOD is mostly found in modern catechisms and some saints writings who could be well in error or misinterpreted. Example of this fallacious cathechisms are the Baltimore Catechism, which actually contains errors. Catechisms are not infallible and actually the Baltimore Catechism was the creation of James Cardinal Gibbons, a notorious Americanist (a heresy condemned by Pope Leo XIII in 1893) who inserted some questions about Baptism. (he had to, in order to establish the Catholic religion, in pluralist America) This is the predominant cathechism of the XX century, so entire modern generations have been taught with this, no wonder.
Well said, Cantarella.
There has not been solemn condemnation of BOD/BOB so it is safe to pressume that the theory has been allowed, however is fallible and could be changed. BOD/BOB are not de fide.
Tteaching on BOD has evolved like this historically, in an outline:
- St Ambrose speech on Valentinian, (misinterpretation, and following note of rectification that John 3:5 is to be taken literally).
- St Augustine quote about BOD, then rectification made for donatists.
- Overwhelming consensus of the Church fathers on necessity of the Church and water baptism.
- Theology of the new world 1492. Some BOD opinion -> Peace of Westphalia
1648 - catholic monarchs water down Faith for protestant nations for co-existing.
- Reformation - From political acceptance, personal acceptance followed. Assault of sacramentality as only vehicle of sanctifying grace.
- Pope Piux IX 1848, misunderstanding on Invincible ignorance in allocution.
- Insertion by Cardinal Gibbons on questions of Baptism in the Catechism of Baltimore 1884 - Americanism - speculation on BOD erected into "Church teaching". Generations were raised thinking on this fallible Baltimore catechism as dogma.
The infallible condemnation of Americanism is a great grace for those who would be saved. It's no small wonder that sedevacantism finds its primary support among Americans who know so little about their faith, and are unaware of the condemnation of Americanism as a defined heresy.
BOD /B for catechumens only is because this belief in itself may be harmless if limited to catechumens and martyrs only as it was speculated in the past. The problem is that apparently no modern Catholic limits the belief of BOD for catechumens only, but use this BOD as the root of the heresy of Invincible Ignorance and universal salvation, and it is under this context that it is debated.
As Catholics we are best advised to leave such questions regarding individuals up to the infinite providence of God, and hold fast to the defined dogmas that have been handed down to us.
.
Topic: A Further Reply to the Heretic Feeneyite (Read 7979 times)