Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: roscoe on May 01, 2013, 09:43:21 PM
-
Under a different topic there seems to be a debate as to whether or not the docuмent was actually penned by the Pope himself.
I tend to think it was not but cannot remember a source. :confused1:
-
Under a different topic there seems to be a debate as to whether or not the docuмent was actually penned by the Pope himself.
I tend to think it was not but cannot remember a source. :confused1:
I asked the person who said that it was penned by Pius X himself to prove it, since in all of my years of debating BOD, not one book or person ever said such a thing. That person is a type of bluffer, he is totally winging it with this comment.
Here's what I have in my archive on the subject:
Unfortunately, what’s being passed-off as the “Catechism of Pope Pius X” is a compendium of other sources along with the Q&A, ostensibly from the Catechism of Pope Pius X. There are two such Compendiums, one of which was edited by Fr. Kevane who updated it to reflect the teachings of VCII - how much credibility then can we place in the more outrageous and perfectly contradictory Q&A which states that there is salvation outside the Church?
The original Catechism was never published in English and for was local use within certain provinces of Italy. The Compendiums we have today went through private translations from Italian to French to English and of course were edited. I refuse to believe that Pope St. Pius X approved the more egregious errors within these “Catechisms” so let’s not be so quick to assume that that these Compendiums are faithful to the original or that Pius X “approved” them.[/quote]
Just in the interests of accuracy - I'm not trying to stir the pot! - I checked an on-line Italian version of this catechism. What Clarew quotes is from the Catechismus Minor, which has no covering letter from Pope St Pius X in the on-line version.
"132. Chi è fuori della Chiesa si salva?
Chi è fuori della Chiesa per propria colpa e muore senza dolore perfetto, non si salva; ma chi ci si trovi senza propria colpa e viva bene, può salvarsi con l'amor di carità, che unisce a Dio, e, in spirito, anche alla Chiesa, cioè all'anima di lei."
The English translation seems pretty close to this.
The Catechismus Maior does have the following letter from Pope St Pius X:
"COMPENDIO DELLA DOTTRINA CRISTIANA PRESCRITTO DA SUA SANTITÀ PAPA PIO X ALLE DIOCESI DELLA PROVINCIA DI ROMA, ROMA, TIPOGRAFIA VATICANA, 1905
AL SIGNOR CARDINALE PIETRO RESPIGHI NOSTRO VICARIO GENERALE
Signor Cardinale,
La necessità di provvedere per quanto è possibile alla religiosa istituzione della tenera gioventù Ci ha consigliato la stampa di un Catechismo, che esponga in modo chiaro i rudimenti della santa fede, e quelle divine verità, alle quali deve informarsi la vita d'ogni cristiano. Pertanto fatti esaminare i molti libri di testo già in uso nelle Diocesi d' Italia, Ci parve opportuno di adottare con lievi ritocchi il testo da vari anni approvato dai Vescovi del Piemonte, della Liguria, della Lombardia, della Emilia e della Toscana. L'uso di questo testo sarà obbligatorio per l'insegnamento pubblico e privato nella Diocesi di Roma e in tutte le altre della Provincia Romana; e confidiamo che anche le altre Diocesi vorranno adottarlo per arrivare cosi a quel testo unico, almeno per tutta l'Italia, che è nell'universale desiderio.
Con questa dolce speranza impartiamo di tutto cuore a Lei, Signor Cardinale, l'Apostolica Benedizione.
Dal Vaticano, li 14 Giugno 1905.
PIUS PP. X"
The answer it gives is slightly different, though not, I think, materially so:
"169 D. Può alcuno salvarsi fuori della Chiesa Cattolica, Apostolica, Romana?
R. No, fuori della Chiesa Cattolica, Apostolica, Romana nessuno può salvarsi, come niuno poté salvarsi dal diluvio fuori dell'Arca di Noè, che era figura di questa Chiesa.
170 D. Come dunque si sono salvati gli antichi Patriarchi, i Profeti e tutti gli altri giusti dell'antico Testamento?
R. Tutti i giusti dell'antico Testamento si sono salvati in virtù della fede che avevano in Cristo venturo, per mezzo della quale essi già appartenevano spiritualmente a questa Chiesa.
171 D. Ma chi si trovasse, senza sua colpa, fuori della Chiesa, potrebbe salvarsi?
R. Chi, trovandosi senza sua colpa, ossia in buona fede, fuori della Chiesa, avesse ricevuto il Battesimo, o ne avesse il desiderio almeno implicito; cercasse inoltre sinceramente la verità e compisse la volontà di Dio come meglio può; benché separato dal corpo della Chiesa, sarebbe unito all'anima di lei e quindi in via di salute."
I am by no means expert at Italian, but a rough translation would be:
"Those who, finding themselves without their own fault, that is in good faith, outside the Church, have recieved Baptism, or have at least the implicit desire for it; and moreover have sought the truth sincerely and have fulfilled the will of God as best they can; although separated from the body of the Church, would be united her soul and so in the path of salvation"
I can find no Latin version. I assume it was composed in Italian.[/quote]
That’s quite interesting. There is no Latin version that I am aware of because this is a local catechism. Now, if they have received baptism then they have at least a belief in Christ and the essential Mysteries. According to this version, if they are not baptized, their Faith in Christ and the essential Mysteries may imply an “implicit desire” for baptism. But notice too that this passage does not state they will be saved “where they are”; but only that they are “in the path of salvation”. Will God leave them on the path of salvation without providing the means to arrive there? Of course, here we go again with what is “implied” but if God granted them the grace of Faith and they co-operate with such grace, would He leave them in this state without also granting them the grace of charity and conversion? If it is God’s will are they not also given the grace to act on His will?
To answer in the negative is to suggest that it is not God who moves the will or that His will can be frustrated by events out of His “control”. Man must assent and co-operate with grace through free will; but it is a will which is assisted by God to assent in the first place.
Item last, the belonging to the “soul of the Church but not the Body” theory has been refuted (or “placed into context”) by magisterial teaching which solemnly declares that the unity of the Soul and the Mystical/ecclesiastical Body is such that the Soul cannot be separated from the Body (there is neither sanctification nor the remission of sins outside the Body). The Holy Ghost moves where He wills and operates on the souls of the elect through actual and pre-disposing graces, but the idea that His uncreated nature substantially abides within a soul resulting in a state of created sanctifying grace without incorporation into the Mystical/ecclesiastical Body is foreign to Trent and magisterial teaching. I am fully aware of the “mental incorporation” theory but once again, it is a theory. What does the infallible Church teach?
-
Under a different topic there seems to be a debate as to whether or not the docuмent was actually penned by the Pope himself.
I tend to think it was not but cannot remember a source. :confused1:
I asked the person who said that it was penned by Pius X himself to prove it, since in all of my years of debating BOD, not one book or person ever said such a thing. That person is a type of bluffer, he is totally winging it with this comment.
Here's what I have in my archive on the subject:
Will the Real Catechism of Pius X Please Stand Up?
Unfortunately, what’s being passed-off as the “Catechism of Pope Pius X” is a compendium of other sources along with the Q&A, ostensibly from the Catechism of Pope Pius X. There are two such Compendiums, one of which was edited by Fr. Kevane who updated it to reflect the teachings of VCII - how much credibility then can we place in the more outrageous and perfectly contradictory Q&A which states that there is salvation outside the Church?
The original Catechism was never published in English and was for local use within certain provinces of Italy. The Compendiums we have today went through private translations from Italian to French to English and of course were edited. I refuse to believe that Pope St. Pius X approved the more egregious errors within these “Catechisms” so let’s not be so quick to assume that that these Compendiums are faithful to the original or that Pius X “approved” them.
Just in the interests of accuracy - I'm not trying to stir the pot! - I checked an on-line Italian version of this catechism. What English speaking believers in BOD quote is from the Catechismus Minor, which has no covering letter from Pope St Pius X in the on-line version.
"132. Chi è fuori della Chiesa si salva?
Chi è fuori della Chiesa per propria colpa e muore senza dolore perfetto, non si salva; ma chi ci si trovi senza propria colpa e viva bene, può salvarsi con l'amor di carità, che unisce a Dio, e, in spirito, anche alla Chiesa, cioè all'anima di lei."
The English translation seems pretty close to this.
The Catechismus Maior does have the following letter from Pope St Pius X:
"COMPENDIO DELLA DOTTRINA CRISTIANA PRESCRITTO DA SUA SANTITÀ PAPA PIO X ALLE DIOCESI DELLA PROVINCIA DI ROMA, ROMA, TIPOGRAFIA VATICANA, 1905
AL SIGNOR CARDINALE PIETRO RESPIGHI NOSTRO VICARIO GENERALE
Signor Cardinale,
La necessità di provvedere per quanto è possibile alla religiosa istituzione della tenera gioventù Ci ha consigliato la stampa di un Catechismo, che esponga in modo chiaro i rudimenti della santa fede, e quelle divine verità, alle quali deve informarsi la vita d'ogni cristiano. Pertanto fatti esaminare i molti libri di testo già in uso nelle Diocesi d' Italia, Ci parve opportuno di adottare con lievi ritocchi il testo da vari anni approvato dai Vescovi del Piemonte, della Liguria, della Lombardia, della Emilia e della Toscana. L'uso di questo testo sarà obbligatorio per l'insegnamento pubblico e privato nella Diocesi di Roma e in tutte le altre della Provincia Romana; e confidiamo che anche le altre Diocesi vorranno adottarlo per arrivare cosi a quel testo unico, almeno per tutta l'Italia, che è nell'universale desiderio.
Con questa dolce speranza impartiamo di tutto cuore a Lei, Signor Cardinale, l'Apostolica Benedizione.
Dal Vaticano, li 14 Giugno 1905.
PIUS PP. X"
The answer it gives is slightly different, though not, I think, materially so:
"169 D. Può alcuno salvarsi fuori della Chiesa Cattolica, Apostolica, Romana?
R. No, fuori della Chiesa Cattolica, Apostolica, Romana nessuno può salvarsi, come niuno poté salvarsi dal diluvio fuori dell'Arca di Noè, che era figura di questa Chiesa.
170 D. Come dunque si sono salvati gli antichi Patriarchi, i Profeti e tutti gli altri giusti dell'antico Testamento?
R. Tutti i giusti dell'antico Testamento si sono salvati in virtù della fede che avevano in Cristo venturo, per mezzo della quale essi già appartenevano spiritualmente a questa Chiesa.
171 D. Ma chi si trovasse, senza sua colpa, fuori della Chiesa, potrebbe salvarsi?
R. Chi, trovandosi senza sua colpa, ossia in buona fede, fuori della Chiesa, avesse ricevuto il Battesimo, o ne avesse il desiderio almeno implicito; cercasse inoltre sinceramente la verità e compisse la volontà di Dio come meglio può; benché separato dal corpo della Chiesa, sarebbe unito all'anima di lei e quindi in via di salute."
I am by no means expert at Italian, but a rough translation would be:
"Those who, finding themselves without their own fault, that is in good faith, outside the Church, have recieved Baptism, or have at least the implicit desire for it; and moreover have sought the truth sincerely and have fulfilled the will of God as best they can; although separated from the body of the Church, would be united her soul and so in the path of salvation"
There is no Latin version, for it was composed in Italian.
That’s quite interesting. There is no Latin version because this was a local catechism. Now, if they have received baptism then they have at least a belief in Christ and the essential Mysteries. According to this version, if they are not baptized, their Faith in Christ and the essential Mysteries may imply an “implicit desire” for baptism. But notice too that this passage does not state they will be saved “where they are”; but only that they are “in the path of salvation”. Will God leave them on the path of salvation without providing the means to arrive there? Of course, here we go again with what is “implied” but if God granted them the grace of Faith and they co-operate with such grace, would He leave them in this state without also granting them the grace of charity and conversion? If it is God’s will are they not also given the grace to act on His will?
To answer in the negative is to suggest that it is not God who moves the will or that His will can be frustrated by events out of His “control”. Man must assent and co-operate with grace through free will; but it is a will which is assisted by God to assent in the first place.
Item last, the belonging to the “soul of the Church but not the Body” theory has been refuted (or “placed into context”) by magisterial teaching which solemnly declares that the unity of the Soul and the Mystical/ecclesiastical Body is such that the Soul cannot be separated from the Body (there is neither sanctification nor the remission of sins outside the Body). The Holy Ghost moves where He wills and operates on the souls of the elect through actual and pre-disposing graces, but the idea that His uncreated nature substantially abides within a soul resulting in a state of created sanctifying grace without incorporation into the Mystical/ecclesiastical Body is foreign to Trent and magisterial teaching. I am fully aware of the “mental incorporation” theory but once again, it is a theory. What does the infallible Church teach?
-
Translation from Original Italian Version:
"Those who, finding themselves without their own fault, that is in good faith, outside the Church, have recieved Baptism, or have at least the implicit desire for it; and moreover have sought the truth sincerely and have fulfilled the will of God as best they can; although separated from the body of the Church, would be united her soul and so in the path of salvation"
The translation from Italian to French to English Compendium:
The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Apostles’ Creed, “The Church in Particular,”
Q. 29: “Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best as he can, such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.”
1) Both of these versions are talking about a living being. Moreover, it says they are on the path, the way of salvation. It does not say anything about a person that dies by accident in this "way of salvation". This has nothing to do with baptism of desire.
2) It is talking about a person who is baptized, and mixing in a person who has implicit desire to be baptized. This implicit desire to be baptized is the theory of St. Thomas, it is a person who believes in (at a minimum)the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation. It is talking about a heretic or schismatic (they are baptized), and about a person who whishes to be a Catgholic (implicit baptism of desire). It is not talking about Implicit faith!
3) In the case of the person who is baptized, he can belong to the metaphorical soul of the Church of Abbot Marmion, which are the baptized who are in a state of grace. In the case of the implicit desire to be baptized, they can also belong to the same soul of the Church if they are justified by God, pre-sanctified before receiving the waters of baptism.
Bottom line is that this quote is not talking about a dead person. and it can be interpreted inline with EENS as it is written.
-
What is EENS as it is written?
EENS (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus) translates to Outside of the Church there is no salvation. EENS as it is written means that we believe the dogmatic decrees on EENS exactly as the words say.
Excerpts of the Nine Dogmatic Decrees that all agree with St. Augustine
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire ..and that nobody can be saved, … even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ[/b], unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, …
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“… this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, … every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
“… one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.”
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”
What those dogmatic Decrees Mean
From: Who Shall Ascend, by Fr. Walthen
Being ex cathedra definitions, they must be taken literally, unequivocally, and absolutely. Hence, to attempt to modify or qualify them in any way is to deny them.
3. The doctrine says clearly that only Catholics go to Heaven; all others are lost, that is, they do not go to Heaven, but to Hell. All who are inclined to dispute this dogma should have the good sense to realize that if this is not what the words of the definitions mean, the Church would never have promulgated such a position. To give any other meaning to these words is to portray the Church as foolish and ridiculous.
4. The pronouncements indicate that, by divine decree, those only will be saved who are members of the Church when they die. This membership must be formal, real, explicit, and, in those of the (mental) age of reason, deliberate. There is no such thing as "potential" membership in the Church, or "implicit" membership, or "quasi-membership," or "invisible membership," or anything of the kind. Neither can those who are catechumens, that is, those who are preparing to enter the Church, be considered members.
12. Let the reader accept the reasonable fact that the Pontiffs who pronounced these decrees were perfectly literate and fully cognizant of what they were saying. If there were any need to soften or qualify their meanings, they were quite capable of doing so.[/size] They were not regarded as heretics or fanatics at the time of their pronouncements, and have never been labelled such by the Church to this very day. It is an easy thing for the people of this "enlightened" age to fall into the modern delusion that the men of former times, especially those of the Middle Ages, were not as bright as we are, so that they sometimes said they knew not what.
13. The dates of these definitions are extremely important. They mark the time when the Church terminated speculation and discussion among theologians on the subject of the conditions of salvation. All writings on this subject, therefore, which predate these definitions have value only in so far as they corroborate these definitions.
15. Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine by explaining it away. He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecclesiam, etc., and ends by denying it while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so. He seems to think it a clever thing to state the formula, then to weasel out of it. What he ought to do is one of two things: either admit that he does not believe this dogma (and also in the same breath, that he does not believe in the Dogma of the Church's lnfallibility); or he should allow for the possibility that there is something about the Catholic Doctrine of Salvation of which he is unaware, or which he refuses to accept, or has been misled into denying.
-
con't:
Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments.
On Baptism
Canon 2. 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, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5), are distorted into some metaphor: let him be anathema.
Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.”
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same
way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all
Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who
have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and
consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy
orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who
have not received this consecration.”
-
Translation from Original Italian Version:
"Those who, finding themselves without their own fault, that is in good faith, outside the Church, have recieved Baptism, or have at least the implicit desire for it; and moreover have sought the truth sincerely and have fulfilled the will of God as best they can; although separated from the body of the Church, would be united her soul and so in the path of salvation"
The translation from Italian to French to English Compendium:
The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Apostles’ Creed, “The Church in Particular,”
Q. 29: “Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best as he can, such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.”
1) Both of these versions are talking about a living being. Moreover, it says they are on the path, the way of salvation. It does not say anything about a person that dies by accident in this "way of salvation". This has nothing to do with baptism of desire.
2) It is talking about a person who is baptized, and mixing in a person who has implicit desire to be baptized. This implicit desire to be baptized is the theory of St. Thomas, it is a person who believes in (at a minimum)the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation. It is talking about a heretic or schismatic (they are baptized), and about a person who whishes to be a Catgholic (implicit baptism of desire). It is not talking about Implicit faith!
3) In the case of the person who is baptized, he can belong to the metaphorical soul of the Church of Abbot Marmion, which are the baptized who are in a state of grace. In the case of the implicit desire to be baptized, they can also belong to the same soul of the Church if they are justified by God, pre-sanctified before receiving the waters of baptism.
Bottom line is that this quote is not talking about a dead person. and it can be interpreted inline with EENS as it is written.
You are reaching and reaching and reaching to try and find anything you can to try and condemn, or find another meaning for what Pope Saint Pius X says in his catechism. You said I was referring to a bad translation, yet you are presenting the same translation here! Because you couldn't find your supposed "correct" translation, you now zero in on anything you can get your teeth on, which in this case is the "on the way of salvation" phrase, trying to give it your own meaning. Catholicism according to the scholarly Bowler. Luther did the same exact thing you are doing - he took existing teachings of the Church and twisted them to his own beliefs. You are doing no different.
Also note question 17 in the Catechism of St. Pius X: Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
Let me guess, another bad translation?
-
You said I was referring to a bad translation, yet you are presenting the same translation here! Because you couldn't find your supposed "correct" translation, you now zero in on anything you can get your teeth on, which in this case is the "on the way of salvation" phrase, trying to give it your own meaning.
Here is your translation:
I would invite SB to show one Magisterial docuмent which states, explicitly, that an unbaptized individual can belong to the "soul of the Catholic Church".
Please remove head from sand and read this magisterial reference:
St. Pope Pius X: Catechism of Christian Doctrine, para. 132, "A person outside the Church by his own fault, and who dies without perfect contrition, will not be saved. But he who finds himself outside without fault of his own, and who lives a good life, can be saved by the love called charity, which unites unto God, and in a spiritual way also to the Church, that is, to the soul of the Church."
What exactly is "the same" about my translation and yours?
Here is mine:
"Those who, finding themselves without their own fault, that is in good faith, outside the Church, have recieved Baptism, or have at least the implicit desire for it; and moreover have sought the truth sincerely and have fulfilled the will of God as best they can; although separated from the body of the Church, would be united her soul and so in the path of salvation"
-
Here's a good Catechism to refer to:
Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine (Fr. Muller, C.SS.R.) (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/familiar.htm)
The Q&A format is very thorough and beautifully written.
Father Muller was a Redemptorist priest fighting the watering-down of Catholic doctrines known as "Americanism".
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6ZJe2V883s0/SlPhHejA81I/AAAAAAAAAKA/LKSEXQf2tGA/s320/Fr+Michael+Müller.jpg)
He was under the spiritual direction of St. John Neumann of Philadelphia.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VaGpVCRHHjs/TnRmwBNlwUI/AAAAAAAAFWA/OCAhOKgdv_I/s1600/Saint%2BJohn%2BNeumann.jpg)
-
Now that it is obvious that your attempt to condemn the Catechism of Saint Pius X has failed, let me now quote from another catechism that teaches exactly the same.
Below is a quote from the Baltimore Catechism, issued by the Third Council of Baltimore and approved by Pope Leo XIII in 1885 as the standard for Catholic schools in the United States. It remained as the standard for Catholic schools for nearly a century. And note as well, that even after extreme scrutiny and corrections after it was published, the following content on the threefold baptism was intentionally left in the catechism throughout the entire century:
Q. 644. How many kinds of Baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of Baptism: 1.Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.
Q. 650. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.
Q. 651. What is Baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood for the faith of Christ.
Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?
A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.
Will you now condemned Pope Leo XIII for approving this catechism? And will you also condemn Pope Saint Pius X, Pope Benedict XV, Pope Pius XI, and Pope Pius XII for allowing this catechism to remain as the standard for Catholic schools in the United States during their reigns????
-
Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
As a follower of Father Feeney, I agree with the above 100%! Why do you think that it would ever be the case that it was "impossible to receive the Baptism of water"?
P.S. Do you also agree with the following from the venerable Baltimore Catechism:
Q. 632. Where will persons go who -- such as infants -- have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?
A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.
-
Now that it is obvious that your attempt to condemn the Catechism of Saint Pius X has failed, let me now quote from another catechism that teaches exactly the same.
Finish one item before you go to another, answer my question:
You said I was referring to a bad translation, yet you are presenting the same translation here! Because you couldn't find your supposed "correct" translation, you now zero in on anything you can get your teeth on, which in this case is the "on the way of salvation" phrase, trying to give it your own meaning.
Here is your translation:
I would invite SB to show one Magisterial docuмent which states, explicitly, that an unbaptized individual can belong to the "soul of the Catholic Church".
Please remove head from sand and read this magisterial reference:
St. Pope Pius X: Catechism of Christian Doctrine, para. 132, "A person outside the Church by his own fault, and who dies without perfect contrition, will not be saved. But he who finds himself outside without fault of his own, and who lives a good life, can be saved by the love called charity, which unites unto God, and in a spiritual way also to the Church, that is, to the soul of the Church."
What exactly is "the same" about my translation and yours?
Here is mine:
"Those who, finding themselves without their own fault, that is in good faith, outside the Church, have received Baptism, or have at least the implicit desire for it; and moreover have sought the truth sincerely and have fulfilled the will of God as best they can; although separated from the body of the Church, would be united her soul and so in the path of salvation"
-
How about the Catechism of the Council of Trent? That's still easily available.
-
Do posters seriously think that St Pius X, the great and vigilant watchdog of the Church against modernism, whose logic and observations we use anytime we find modernism, would allow a compilation of Catholic Teaching to include and support erroneous and heretical doctrine?
-
Do posters seriously think that St Pius X, the great and vigilant watchdog of the Church against modernism, whose logic and observations we use anytime we find modernism, would allow a compilation of Catholic Teaching to include and support erroneous and heretical doctrine?
You're "pounding on open doors" as far as I am concerned. As for SB13, he is engaging in some "selective quotation":
17 Q. Why is the true Church called Holy?
A. The true church is called Holy because holy is her Invisible Head, Jesus Christ; holy are many of her members; holy are her faith, her laws, her Sacraments; and outside of her there is not and cannot be true holiness.
27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?
A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.
29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.
10 Q. Who are they who do not belong to the Communion of Saints?
A. Those who are damned do not belong to the Communion of Saints in the other life; and in this life those who belong neither to the body nor to the soul of the Church, that is, those who are in mortal sin, and who are outside the true Church.
Those Outside the Communion of Saints
11 Q. Who are they who are outside the true Church?
A. Outside the true Church are: Infidels, Jews, heretics, apostates, schismatics, and the excommunicated.
12 Q. Who are infidels?
A. Infidels are those who have not been baptised and do not believe in Jesus Christ, because they either believe in and worship false gods as idolaters do, or though admitting one true God, they do not believe in the Messiah, neither as already come in the Person of Jesus Christ, nor as to come; for instance, Mohammedans and the like.
13 Q. Who are the Jews?
A. The Jews are those who profess the Law of Moses; have not received baptism; and do not believe in Jesus Christ.
14 Q. Who are heretics?
A. Heretics are those of the baptised who obstinately refuse to believe some truth revealed by God and taught as an article of faith by the Catholic Church; for example, the Arians, the Nestorians and the various sects of Protestants.
15 Q. Who are apostates?
A. Apostates are those who abjure, or by some external act, deny the Catholic faith which they previously professed.
16 Q. Who are schismatics?
A. Schismatics are those Christians who, while not explicitly denying any dogma, yet voluntarily separate themselves from the Church of Jesus Christ, that is, from their lawful pastors.
17 Q. Who are the excommunicated?
A. The excommunicated are those who, because of grievous transgressions, are struck with excommunication by the Pope or their Bishop, and consequently are cut off as unworthy from the body of the Church, which, however, hopes for and desires their conversion.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/catechsm/piusxcat.htm
-
Do posters seriously think that St Pius X, the great and vigilant watchdog of the Church against modernism, whose logic and observations we use anytime we find modernism, would allow a compilation of Catholic Teaching to include and support erroneous and heretical doctrine?
Thanks for the comment as this is what the topic is about. I agree that Pius X could not have written it.
-
Do posters seriously think that St Pius X, the great and vigilant watchdog of the Church against modernism, whose logic and observations we use anytime we find modernism, would allow a compilation of Catholic Teaching to include and support erroneous and heretical doctrine?
Thanks for the comment as this is what the topic is about. I agree that Pius X could not have written it.
I am saying that it seems silly to propose that St Pius X would allow a catechism under his name that taught error. I think it's demonstrably true that the Catechism of St Pius X was not written by him, that's the nature of many catechisms. They are compilations or compendiums of Church teaching. I am asking, how could we believe that St Pius X, who recognized error as well as any pontiff, would miss the error in a Catechism that he approved and attached his name to?
-
Do posters seriously think that St Pius X, the great and vigilant watchdog of the Church against modernism, whose logic and observations we use anytime we find modernism, would allow a compilation of Catholic Teaching to include and support erroneous and heretical doctrine?
Thanks for the comment as this is what the topic is about. I agree that Pius X could not have written it.
I am saying that it seems silly to propose that St Pius X would allow a catechism under his name that taught error. I think it's demonstrably true that the Catechism of St Pius X was not written by him, that's the nature of many catechisms. They are compilations or compendiums of Church teaching. I am asking, how could we believe that St Pius X, who recognized error as well as any pontiff, would miss the error in a Catechism that he approved and attached his name to?
Do you have a copy of the original Catechism of Pius X in Italian?
-
Now that it is obvious that your attempt to condemn the Catechism of Saint Pius X has failed, let me now quote from another catechism that teaches exactly the same.
Below is a quote from the Baltimore Catechism, issued by the Third Council of Baltimore and approved by Pope Leo XIII in 1885 as the standard for Catholic schools in the United States. It remained as the standard for Catholic schools for nearly a century. And note as well, that even after extreme scrutiny and corrections after it was published, the following content on the threefold baptism was intentionally left in the catechism throughout the entire century:
Q. 644. How many kinds of Baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of Baptism: 1.Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.
Q. 650. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.
Q. 651. What is Baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood for the faith of Christ.
Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?
A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.
Will you now condemned Pope Leo XIII for approving this catechism? And will you also condemn Pope Saint Pius X, Pope Benedict XV, Pope Pius XI, and Pope Pius XII for allowing this catechism to remain as the standard for Catholic schools in the United States during their reigns????
This thread is specifically about the Catechism of Pius X. Start your own thread about whatever else you want to discuss, or take it to the "other all over the place" BOD thread.
Stay focused!
-
The World According to Bosco13
I'm sorry you still don't understand catechisms are part of the infallible ordinary magisterium.
4) You have not shown proof that Pius X wrote the Catechism of Pius X
I replied to this elsewhere. Even Benedict XVI states that Pope Pius X wrote this catechism.
The catechism of Saint Pius X was written by this Pope and Saint himself, and published in 1908.
Never heard that said before in all of my years debating BOD. Can you prove it?
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Pope St. Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:
“It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned”.[/b]
Above are three of your outrages pontifications that you have not corrected.
1) You declared catechisms infallible. They are not.
2) You said Pope Pius X himself wrote the Catechism of Pius X.
3) You said B-16 stated that Pius X wrote it himself.
-
Do posters seriously think that St Pius X, the great and vigilant watchdog of the Church against modernism, whose logic and observations we use anytime we find modernism, would allow a compilation of Catholic Teaching to include and support erroneous and heretical doctrine?
Thanks for the comment as this is what the topic is about. I agree that Pius X could not have written it.
I am saying that it seems silly to propose that St Pius X would allow a catechism under his name that taught error. I think it's demonstrably true that the Catechism of St Pius X was not written by him, that's the nature of many catechisms. They are compilations or compendiums of Church teaching. I am asking, how could we believe that St Pius X, who recognized error as well as any pontiff, would miss the error in a Catechism that he approved and attached his name to?
This is some of the worst logic I've ever seen people use in my life. A few issues here:
1. Let's say worst-case, Pope Saint Pius X had a Cardinal or other Bishop compile the catechism for him. The catechism was published in 1908 during the reign of Pope Saint Pius X, so Pope Saint Pius X both knew about the catechism, and at a minimum, took ownership of that catechism by allowing his name to be published as part of it. In doing so, you can be sure he knew ALL about the catechism and reviewed it very carefully, even if he weren't to have written it.
2. The absurdity of saying Pope Saint Pius X could "miss" something so obvious in such a short and basic catechism, well, it's beyond absurdity. But just to play along with this absolutely absurd game you guys are playing here, let's say for a moment that Pope Saint Pius X missed an error in the catechism. Don't forget, the Vatican and rest of the world are FULL of other bishops and priests who would certainly catch the error, and let him know about it. No one has ever said a word. Pope Benedict XV, Pope Pius XI, and Pope Pius XII afterward, and all of the bishops and priests of their day throughout the world also would have brought up any errors in the catechism. Nobody has. If you'd like to challenge this, then show us a letter of complaint from any priest or bishop or pope in the last 100 years who is complaining about errors in that catechism.
3. A quick Google search shows multiple websites stating that Pope Saint Pius X wrote the catechism. But again, it's really irrelevant. Pope Pius XII had other bishops help him write the papal encyclical on the Dogma of the Assumption, but yet Pope Pius XII, being the Bishop of Rome at the time, took ownership.
Give me a break guys!!!!
-
Now that it is obvious that your attempt to condemn the Catechism of Saint Pius X has failed, let me now quote from another catechism that teaches exactly the same.
Below is a quote from the Baltimore Catechism, issued by the Third Council of Baltimore and approved by Pope Leo XIII in 1885 as the standard for Catholic schools in the United States. It remained as the standard for Catholic schools for nearly a century. And note as well, that even after extreme scrutiny and corrections after it was published, the following content on the threefold baptism was intentionally left in the catechism throughout the entire century:
Q. 644. How many kinds of Baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of Baptism: 1.Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.
Q. 650. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.
Q. 651. What is Baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood for the faith of Christ.
Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?
A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.
Will you now condemned Pope Leo XIII for approving this catechism? And will you also condemn Pope Saint Pius X, Pope Benedict XV, Pope Pius XI, and Pope Pius XII for allowing this catechism to remain as the standard for Catholic schools in the United States during their reigns????
This thread is specifically about the Catechism of Pius X. Start your own thread about whatever else you want to discuss, or take it to the "other all over the place" BOD thread.
Stay focused!
Yes, I knew you wouldn't dare touch this one. It was okay to be "all over the place" in the other thread, but in this thread, it's not okay. Smokescreen.
-
Now that it is obvious that your attempt to condemn the Catechism of Saint Pius X has failed, let me now quote from another catechism that teaches exactly the same.
Below is a quote from the Baltimore Catechism, issued by the Third Council of Baltimore and approved by Pope Leo XIII in 1885 as the standard for Catholic schools in the United States. It remained as the standard for Catholic schools for nearly a century. And note as well, that even after extreme scrutiny and corrections after it was published, the following content on the threefold baptism was intentionally left in the catechism throughout the entire century:
Q. 644. How many kinds of Baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of Baptism: 1.Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.
Q. 650. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.
Q. 651. What is Baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood for the faith of Christ.
Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?
A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.
Will you now condemned Pope Leo XIII for approving this catechism? And will you also condemn Pope Saint Pius X, Pope Benedict XV, Pope Pius XI, and Pope Pius XII for allowing this catechism to remain as the standard for Catholic schools in the United States during their reigns????
This thread is specifically about the Catechism of Pius X. Start your own thread about whatever else you want to discuss, or take it to the "other all over the place" BOD thread.
Stay focused!
Yes, I knew you wouldn't dare touch this one. It was okay to be "all over the place" in the other thread, but in this thread, it's not okay. Smokescreen.
If you thought it meant anything you would have posted it in the other thread. Catechisms don't say much, they have to be supplemented by real books. Is that as far as your knowledge goes?
-
Of course, no answer from you. Do you ever answer anything?
The World According to Bosco13
I'm sorry you still don't understand catechisms are part of the infallible ordinary magisterium.
4) You have not shown proof that Pius X wrote the Catechism of Pius X
I replied to this elsewhere. Even Benedict XVI states that Pope Pius X wrote this catechism.
The catechism of Saint Pius X was written by this Pope and Saint himself, and published in 1908.
Never heard that said before in all of my years debating BOD. Can you prove it?
The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Pope St. Pius X, in 1907, in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved, wrote:
“It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned”.[/b]
Above are three of your outrages pontifications that you have not corrected.
1) You declared catechisms infallible. They are not.
2) You said Pope Pius X himself wrote the Catechism of Pius X.
3) You said B-16 stated that Pius X wrote it himself.
-
Bosco,
You are the one that started this thread question with your off the wall quote. Are you going to answer this or should I just forget about asking you anything else?
You said I was referring to a bad translation, yet you are presenting the same translation here! Because you couldn't find your supposed "correct" translation, you now zero in on anything you can get your teeth on, which in this case is the "on the way of salvation" phrase, trying to give it your own meaning.
Here is your translation:
I would invite SB to show one Magisterial docuмent which states, explicitly, that an unbaptized individual can belong to the "soul of the Catholic Church".
Please remove head from sand and read this magisterial reference:
St. Pope Pius X: Catechism of Christian Doctrine, para. 132, "A person outside the Church by his own fault, and who dies without perfect contrition, will not be saved. But he who finds himself outside without fault of his own, and who lives a good life, can be saved by the love called charity, which unites unto God, and in a spiritual way also to the Church, that is, to the soul of the Church."
What exactly is "the same" about my translation and yours?
Here is mine:
"Those who, finding themselves without their own fault, that is in good faith, outside the Church, have recieved Baptism, or have at least the implicit desire for it; and moreover have sought the truth sincerely and have fulfilled the will of God as best they can; although separated from the body of the Church, would be united her soul and so in the path of salvation"
-
Moving on, this appears to be the real translation. What I wrote below is a Catholic take on it. Let me add to what I wrote below, that the second example the fellow with "the implicit desire of Baptism", could also be a Protestant from a denomination that does not baptize.
I repeat the most important points, this is s living person, and he is on the path of salvation. That is not the same as a dead person who is saved by baptism of desire. This is not an example of baptism of desire!
Translation from Original Italian Version:
"Those who, finding themselves without their own fault, that is in good faith, outside the Church, have recieved Baptism, or have at least the implicit desire for it; and moreover have sought the truth sincerely and have fulfilled the will of God as best they can; although separated from the body of the Church, would be united her soul and so in the path of salvation"
The translation from Italian to French to English Compendium:
The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Apostles’ Creed, “The Church in Particular,”
Q. 29: “Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best as he can, such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.”
1) Both of these versions are talking about a living being. Moreover, it says they are on the path, the way of salvation. It does not say anything about a person that dies by accident in this "way of salvation". This has nothing to do with baptism of desire.
2) It is talking about a person who is baptized, and mixing in a person who has implicit desire to be baptized. This implicit desire to be baptized is the theory of St. Thomas, it is a person who believes in (at a minimum)the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation. It is talking about a heretic or schismatic (they are baptized), and about a person who whishes to be a Catgholic (implicit baptism of desire). It is not talking about Implicit faith!
3) In the case of the person who is baptized, he can belong to the metaphorical soul of the Church of Abbot Marmion, which are the baptized who are in a state of grace. In the case of the implicit desire to be baptized, they can also belong to the same soul of the Church if they are justified by God, pre-sanctified before receiving the waters of baptism.
Bottom line is that this quote is not talking about a dead person. and it can be interpreted inline with EENS as it is written.
-
Above are three of your outrages pontifications that you have not corrected.
1) You declared catechisms infallible. They are not.
2) You said Pope Pius X himself wrote the Catechism of Pius X.
3) You said B-16 stated that Pius X wrote it himself.
1. I've already clarified this. Individual teachings in the catechism, if taught universally, are part of the infallible ordinary magisterium.
2. As I've already replied elsewhere, it's irrelevant whether Pope Pius X wrote the whole catechism with his own hand, or whether he had other bishops and cardinals helping him. He still has ownership of the catechism because his name is on it, and because it was published while he was Pope. Just like the papal encyclical on the Dogma of the Assumption was written with the help of other bishops, but the final encyclical was published by Pope Pius XII.
3. What I was referring to when I said B16 Said that Pope Saint Pius X wrote the catechism himself, see the wiki article on the catechism of Pope Saint Pius X. The section on B16 shows a quote from him. Also Cin.org, where the catechism of Pius X is displayed in full, clearly states Pope Saint Pius X brought the catechism. EWTN also attributes it to Saint Pius X. But again, as already mentioned above, it's irrelevant.
-
Now that it is obvious that your attempt to condemn the Catechism of Saint Pius X has failed, let me now quote from another catechism that teaches exactly the same.
Below is a quote from the Baltimore Catechism, issued by the Third Council of Baltimore and approved by Pope Leo XIII in 1885 as the standard for Catholic schools in the United States. It remained as the standard for Catholic schools for nearly a century. And note as well, that even after extreme scrutiny and corrections after it was published, the following content on the threefold baptism was intentionally left in the catechism throughout the entire century:
Q. 644. How many kinds of Baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of Baptism: 1.Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.
Q. 650. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.
Q. 651. What is Baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood for the faith of Christ.
Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?
A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.
Will you now condemned Pope Leo XIII for approving this catechism? And will you also condemn Pope Saint Pius X, Pope Benedict XV, Pope Pius XI, and Pope Pius XII for allowing this catechism to remain as the standard for Catholic schools in the United States during their reigns????
This thread is specifically about the Catechism of Pius X. Start your own thread about whatever else you want to discuss, or take it to the "other all over the place" BOD thread.
Stay focused!
Yes, I knew you wouldn't dare touch this one. It was okay to be "all over the place" in the other thread, but in this thread, it's not okay. Smokescreen.
If you thought it meant anything you would have posted it in the other thread. Catechisms don't say much, they have to be supplemented by real books. Is that as far as your knowledge goes?
Well I guess I goofed and posted here. It's irrelevant. Let's have an answer. Waiting.....
-
Well I guess I goofed and posted here. It's irrelevant. Let's have an answer. Waiting.....
If you lack the energy to copy and paste it to another thread, then there is no point in me wasting my time.
-
Well I guess I goofed and posted here. It's irrelevant. Let's have an answer. Waiting.....
The phrase "in the path of salvation" is ambiguous; what did Saint Pope Pius X mean by this? Is it impossible that someone who is "united to the soul" of the Catholic Church could not, at a later time, be "united to the body" of the Catholic Church? By "the path of salvation" does the Sovereign Pontiff mean that a person who is willing to abide by the will of the One and Triune God could, after being enlightened by "divine light and grace", find his/her way into the One True Church & Faith? In addition, could those sincere folks who desire Baptism, even implicitly, will, by the same divine grace, find their way to the baptismal font? Are you claiming that such would be impossible?
-
Well I guess I goofed and posted here. It's irrelevant. Let's have an answer. Waiting.....
The phrase "in the path of salvation" is ambiguous; what did Saint Pope Pius X mean by this? Is it impossible that someone who is "united to the soul" of the Catholic Church could not, at a later time, be "united to the body" of the Catholic Church? By "the path of salvation" does the Sovereign Pontiff mean that a person who is willing to abide by the will of the One and Triune God could, after being enlightened by "divine light and grace", find his/her way into the One True Church & Faith? In addition, could those sincere folks who desire Baptism, even implicitly, will, by the same divine grace, find their way to the baptismal font? Are you claiming that such would be impossible?
You are correctly attempting to understand this quote by interpreting it according to dogma.
People like Bosco13 interpret dogma by catechism snippets interpreted by them.
If to people like Bosco13, ALL the clear dogmas on EENS do not mean what they clearly say, then how can they say this vague catechism snippet quote means whatever? Words no longer have any meaning to these people.
-
Looked up Baptism of Desire under Council of Trent, and found this on the forum, Catholic Answers. I know, liberal.... But interesting nonetheless.
Re: council of trent: no baptism of desire
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by marineboy
its a desire for baptism not baptism of desire
Objection 1. It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But those alone are saved who enter God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.
Objection 2. Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: "We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism." But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have the "faith that worketh by charity" (Gal. 5:6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.
Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.
I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."
Reply to Objection 1. As it is written (1 Kgs. 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Rm. 2:29) that "the circuмcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."
Reply to Objection 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Cor. 3:15.
Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).
-- Mark L. Chance, quoting Saint Thomas Aquinas
__________________
-
Just to clarify. The poster was michance.