Quote from: Jehanne

Does the phrase "while still yet a caechumen" prove that the person in question was not sacramentally baptized?  Was it possible to be a "catechumen", that is, someone "in training" for the Catholic faith, and yet still have received sacramental Baptism?

Looking up the definition of "catechumen" in "A Catholic Dictionary", it is defined as "A non-baptized adult under instruction to be received into the Church; a learner. Catechumens receive ecclesiastical burial if they die without baptism through no fault of their own (cf., Baptism of desire)."

I don't know that such a definition was always the same everywhere in the universal Church 1500 years ago as it is today.  Note my signature, and then note the quote from Father Karl Rahner, an unabashed progressive, in the link which I provided earlier.

Are you saying that I am a heretic if I hope that the martyrs mentioned as being catechumens in the Roman Martyrology were able to experience sacramental Baptism prior to their martyrdom (which, by the way, was also their hope), and perhaps the Roman Martyrology got a few of its details wrong?  After all, it was revised "with corrections" throughout the centuries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Martyrology

No one has ever claimed that it was completely infallible and without error of any kind, hence, the revisions to it.

P.S.  Truth does not depend upon "post popularity," and so what is, ultimately, the Truth will assert itself in the End.

This topic is about salvation without the sacrament which, regardless of whatever else has been taught or whoever taught it - that the sacrament of baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation has already been infallibly defined so we can rest assured that there is no way around the necessity of it for salvation.

That "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" is also a teaching of the fathers of the Church - i.e. the "magisterium".  As the name itself testifies, the "Baptism of Desire" is the mother of all "good intentions".

There is no salvation outside the Church means what it says - or it means nothing, the sacrament of Baptism is the only way one enters the Church - this has also been defined infallibly -  so all other teachings and theological opinions must wholly submit to that which is infallible - "and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding." - Vatican Council 1  

You are suggesting that we submit to that which is infallible. That is good. Are you not aware that the First Vatican Council stated that both solemn and ordinary teaching are infallible and must be believed?

"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed." First Vatican Council

I pulled this from Baptismofdesire.com. I know you hate the thought of reading that site (which is only one page, btw), but maybe it's time you did because the answers are all there. It's literally a 5 minute read.

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: saintbosco13

Quote from: Jehanne

Does the phrase "while still yet a caechumen" prove that the person in question was not sacramentally baptized?  Was it possible to be a "catechumen", that is, someone "in training" for the Catholic faith, and yet still have received sacramental Baptism?

Looking up the definition of "catechumen" in "A Catholic Dictionary", it is defined as "A non-baptized adult under instruction to be received into the Church; a learner. Catechumens receive ecclesiastical burial if they die without baptism through no fault of their own (cf., Baptism of desire)."

I don't know that such a definition was always the same everywhere in the universal Church 1500 years ago as it is today.

Note this same definition is referenced in Canon Law (1917), which was a compilation of all Church law going back 1500 years. The fact that Canon Law (1917) goes back 1500 years is stated in the preface of the book, "The 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law". So that should dispel your doubts.

You're "pounding on open doors."  Father Feeney received a Mass of Christian Burial, by his bishop.  Are you claiming that his bishop gave such a burial to a public heretic?  Are you saying that Pope Paul VI allowed a public heretic to be reconciled to the Church without first abjuring his public errors:

Can. 1184 §1. Unless they gave some signs of repentance before death, the following must be deprived of ecclesiastical funerals:
  1º notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics;
  2º those who chose the cremation of their bodies for reasons contrary to Christian faith;
  3º other manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful.
  §2. If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment must be followed.

Are you claiming that a Roman Catholic bishop is giving the sacrament of Confirmation to public heretics:

http://www.saintbenedict.com/multimedia/slideshows/474-confirmation2012.html

Are you claiming that the Father Karl Rahner, in spite of his progressive theology, was not a valid periti at the Second Vatican Council and that he was wrong, at least in his historical scholarship, when he wrote the following:

"...we have to admit...that the testimony of the Fathers, with regard to the possibility of salvation for someone outside the Church, is very weak. Certainly even the ancient Church knew that the grace of God can be found also outside the Church and even before Faith. But the view that such divine grace can lead man to his final salvation without leading him first into the visible Church, is something, at any rate, which met with very little approval in the ancient Church. For, with reference to the optimistic views on the salvation of catechumens as found in many of the Fathers, it must be noted that such a candidate for baptism was regarded in some sense or other as already 'Christianus', and also that certain Fathers, such as Gregory nαzιanzen 57 and Gregory of Nyssa 58 deny altogether the justifying power of love or of the desire for baptism. Hence it will be impossible to speak of a consensus dogmaticus in the early Church regarding the possibility of salvation for the non-baptized, and especially for someone who is not even a catechumen. In fact, even St. Augustine, in his last (anti-pelagian) period, no longer maintained the possibility of a baptism by desire." (Rahner, Karl, Theological Investigations, Volume II, Man in the Church)

Are you saying that Saint Augustine, a Church Father, was a heretic?

Quote from: Stubborn

This topic is about salvation without the sacrament which, regardless of whatever else has been taught or whoever taught it - that the sacrament of baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation has already been infallibly defined so we can rest assured that there is no way around the necessity of it for salvation.

That "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" is also a teaching of the fathers of the Church - i.e. the "magisterium".  As the name itself testifies, the "Baptism of Desire" is the mother of all "good intentions".

There is no salvation outside the Church means what it says - or it means nothing, the sacrament of Baptism is the only way one enters the Church - this has also been defined infallibly -  so all other teachings and theological opinions must wholly submit to that which is infallible - "and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding." - Vatican Council 1  

You are suggesting that we submit to that which is infallible. That is good. Are you not aware that the First Vatican Council stated that both solemn and ordinary teaching are infallible and must be believed?

"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed." First Vatican Council

I pulled this from Baptismofdesire.com. I know you hate the thought of reading that site (which is only one page, btw), but maybe it's time you did because the answers are all there. It's literally a 5 minute read.

Using the same logic, it is easy to see how we should all be obedient to the Second Vatican Council because there is no finer example of the teachings of the ordinary and universal magisterium.  - - - - but thankfully, it does not work that way.

Please recall that V1 taught "For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine"...... BOD is a new doctrine, it is not of the Deposit of Faith, it is not of the Apostles, it is certainly not what Christ or the scriptures teach and since the necessity of the sacrament has been defined infallibly, the issue of whether BOD saves or not has already been defined that it does not save - so the matter has been authoritatively and infallibly settled for all time.

Best you stick to the teaching which is certainly free from the possibility of error - when you do this, you cannot agree with BOD.
As such, you deny the dogma when you believe in BOD.

 

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Mithrandylan

They martyrology is full of saints who were martyred as catechumens before they were baptized.

Mith,
St. Aiphonsus de Liquori tells us that there were approximately eleven million martyrs in the first three centuries of the Church's history. Out of these eleven million martyrs, and the thousands of others which have been recorded since by various Church historians, there are about ten cases in which the martyrs are reported to have died without baptism. In not one of these cases can we assert or conclude positively that these persons were not baptized.


It is just as easy to speculate that God provided Baptism to these glorious martyrs through an unseen miracle to supply His requisites for salvation, as it is to use our want of knowledge as proof of its dispensability. *What we do not know is not a proof of anything*.

Further, if the Church honors anyone as a saint, *according to Her own teaching*, the presumption must be that the saint was baptized.

Please give me the source for the 11 million martyrs quoted by St. Alphonsus?

Baptism by water is so easy, it is hard for me to believe 11 million souls wanted it, but could not get it by water?

Saliva on one's fingertips, "I Baptize you..." and 15 seconds later... you're in!

Saliva will not work, it must be water, pure and natural. Tap water is fine, soda is not, coffee is not etc.

Out of the 11 million+, only about 10 are reported to have died without the sacrament.

Using the same logic, it is easy to see how we should all be obedient to the Second Vatican Council because there is no finer example of the teachings of the ordinary and universal magisterium.  - - - - but thankfully, it does not work that way.

The Second Vatican Council has teachings that oppose all teachings of the Catholic Church before it. By definition, that excludes it from being part of the solemn or ordinary magisterium.

Please recall that V1 taught "For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine"...... BOD is a new doctrine, it is not of the Deposit of Faith, it is not of the Apostles, it is certainly not what Christ or the scriptures teach and since the necessity of the sacrament has been defined infallibly, the issue of whether BOD saves or not has already been defined that it does not save - so the matter has been authoritatively and infallibly settled for all time.

Interestingly, baptismofdesire.com quotes teachings on baptism of desire and baptism of blood spanning more than 1800 years of the Catholic Church without a single condemnation. And you call this a new doctrine???? That's not a new doctrine, that's a unanimous doctrine.

Interestingly, baptismofdesire.com quotes teachings on baptism of desire and baptism of blood spanning more than 1800 years of the Catholic Church without a single condemnation. And you call this a new doctrine???? That's not a new doctrine, that's a unanimous doctrine.

So, are you saying that if I go to a Mass of Christian of Burial for a catechumen who, allegedly, died without sacramental Baptism, that it is wrong, even sinful, for me to at least hope that the individual did, in fact, end his/her life with sacramental Baptism?  After all, if that catechumen truly desired to be Baptized, then did not the Triune God desire that as well?  And, if so, what's wrong with at least hoping that the individual catechumen and God Himself both achieved what they both desired?

Interestingly, baptismofdesire.com quotes teachings on baptism of desire and baptism of blood spanning more than 1800 years of the Catholic Church without a single condemnation. And you call this a new doctrine???? That's not a new doctrine, that's a unanimous doctrine.

 Why do you think I said it was full of errors and should be removed from the web?