Quote from: Clemens Maria You are confused about what constitutes the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. It is only in effect when the pope and the bishops together consistently teach a proposition as being divinely revealed. BOD has never been taught as something divinely revealed by any pope ever.
I answered this on the other thread for e.g. by citing Fr. Adolphe Tanqueray on the Ordinary Universal Magisterium: "290
Bishops teach the flock entrusted and subject to them by means of catechisms, by synodal directives, mandates, and in public sermons.
If it is evident from these docuмents that some doctrine is being set forth universally as an object of faith, then nothing else is required for this doctrine to be accepted de fide. Bishops spread throughout the world, but with the Roman Pontiff forming one Corporate Body, are infallible when declaring a teaching on faith or morals."
Next, your statement that BOD has not been taught as divinely revealed by any Pope ever is incorrect. Pope Leo XIII approved the Baltimore Catechism and that Catechism presents BOD as divinely revealed, as already shown:
"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."
And I also showed the numerous Popes who have praised St. Alphonsus - a Bishop and member of the Teaching Church - and his work teaching BOD was de fide and the teaching of Council of Trent. "“No ecclesiastical writer has ever received more direct, positive and formal approbation than that accorded by the Holy See to the moral writings of this Doctor of the Church. While still alive, four Popes expressed their admiration of his prudent doctrine. (…) In 1831, Pope Gregory XVI enhanced this approbation when he decreed that professors of theology could safely teach any opinion of St. Alphonsus, and that confessors, without weighting reasons, could safely follow him – simply on the fact that St. Alphonsus said so.
Each of the thirteen predecessors of Pius XII in the chair of Peter has in some way or another recommended, approved or exalted the ‘Moral Theology’ of the Patron of confessors."
https://www.goodcatholicbooks.org/alphonsus/alphonsus-facts.html Bishops etc taught this in their seminaries for generations, and it is where the Doctor teaches that BOD is de fide in virtue of Trent.
Even Ladislaus said it would be a blemish on the Church's Mark of Holiness if She declared as Doctor one who taught error as de fide. But it's worse than with the Dimonds. For they claim what he taught as de fide is heresy.
1. Please answer these questions in order. I cited Pope St. Pius V's teaching in the Roman Catechism, I don't want to post it again here. The Dimonds admit this Catechism contradicts their idea. Do you agree that it teaches Baptism of Desire? Do you not see the intrinsic absurdity - not to mention heresy - of believing the Church in Her Catechism contradicted a dogma She had just officially defined? Imagine the Church releasing a Catechism after declaring the Immaculate Conception, and teaching the opposite. Also, if someone contradicted what Trent taught on Transubstantiation after Trent, Catholics would say he is a heretic. So why don't you condemn Pope St. Pius V as a heretic here? Because you know if you did so, you would only condemn yourself as a heretic, since it is heretical to say a Canonized Saintly Pontiff was a heretic. Pope St. Pius X also taught Baptism of Desire in his Catechism, and the Dimonds claim that Catechism "word-for-word" contradicts their understanding of dogma. So, by Dimondite sedevantism, why wasn't H.H. a heretic too?
2. Next, the true understanding of Baptism's necessity is that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire - as the Church teaches in Canon Law. Do you deny this? This is the dogma, not your private understanding of it. Otherwise, the Church has officially taught Heresy against Her own dogmas for centuries. So either condemn all the Popes, Doctors and Saints who taught Baptism is necessary in re or in voto (like St. Robert) was the teaching of Trent, or admit you can't condemn us Catholics who follow their teaching. Ladislaus loves to quote Msgr. Fenton saying "Christ's disciples enjoy infallible security in the Church to such an extent that they can never be brought to the point of ruining themselves spiritually by their obedience" (paraphrase). So what happened to that here? Also, I proved it from Trent, when it said Baptism is necessary just as Penance is necessary. But Penance, as even the Dimonds and you concede, is necessary in re or in voto. Therefore, so is Baptism necessary in re or in voto, as St. Robert says is the authentic teaching of the Council of Trent. What is your response to that? "Thus also the Council of Trent teaches that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire (in re vel in voto)."
Pope St. Pius X also teaches this understanding, that BOD can supply Baptism's necessity, and so does Dr. Ludwig Ott teach the same.
SBC: "That august synod, in its Decree on Justification, defined that the state of justification can only be conferred by the sacrament of baptism in re or in voto — in actual reception or in vowed intent to receive. (Session VI, c. IV)" Not even Fr. Feeney denied this.
The Dimonds are wrong. I accept SBC's theological position that everyone who receives Baptism of Desire will also receive Baptism of Water before they die, as a permissible theological position, and even a probable one. But I condemn Dimondism as heresy, as the Popes have already said it is safe to do, in saying any Catholic, even without knowing reasons, can safely follow St. Alphonsus' opinion.
3. As for Jansenism, Baius was a Jansenist and his opinions were condemned by Pope St. Pius V. It is a logical implication of those condemnations, as the Catholic Encyclopedia explains, that Baptism of Desire is true Doctrine. "The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect
contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure
love of
God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism ... The same
doctrine is taught by
Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by
Popes Pius V and
Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of
Baius." Do you disagree with this?
The Popes also praise St. Alphonsus for fighting Jansenism. Jansenists denied sufficient grace was given to all. St. Alphonsus, and all Thomists on the Grace controversy, teach that it is. As applied to the salvation issue, God gives all sufficient grace to attain salvation.
Pope Ven. Pius XII also taught that an act of love of God or contrition can supply the absence of Baptism for adults. The list is endless.
As for Ecclesia-Vacantism, we'll discuss that in its proper place, the Apostolicity thread, later on. Some SVs argue SVism doesn't necessitate EVism. That's not what the Dimonds argue, nor did they become EVs recently. They've argued for a long time, like at least 10 years, that the entire jurisdictional hierarchy defected, and that therefore there are no more Successors to the Apostles. A manifest heresy, and a purely Protestant one, that the Catholic Church has ceased to be Apostolic. But that discussion is for elsewhere.
Topic: Did the Council of Trent (and Pope St. Pius V) teach Baptism of Desire? (Read 2724 times)