[Durango77]

TLDR, BOD/BOB are part of the Churches teaching and history.  Priest cites several French saints and prayers related to their feast.  Definitely worth a read.


https://twitter.com/AbbeDutertre/status/1661291753192734721?t=AFHKKIwIAHUgTZDfXR2wLw&s=19

[AnthonyPadua]

Quote from: Durango77 5/25/2023, 4:32:28 AMQuote from: Durango77 5/25/2023, 4:32:28 AM
TLDR, BOD/BOB are part of the Churches teaching and history.  Priest cites several French saints and prayers related to their feast.  Definitely worth a read.


https://twitter.com/AbbeDutertre/status/1661291753192734721?t=AFHKKIwIAHUgTZDfXR2wLw&s=19

This doesn't refute any of the arguments against BoD/BoB. This is similar to the issue with St. Emerentiana.


Taking this from the dimonds;

Quote In De Locis Sanctis (On the Holy Places of the martyrs which are outside the city of Rome) dated to the 7th century, it simply lists the martyr Emerentiana as the sister of St. Agnes.  There is no claim that she was a catechumen. (http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=E06997)

In a 7th century docuмent called Notitia ecclesiarum urbis Romae (Catalogue of the Churches of the City of Rome), it calls Emerentiana a martyr.  There is no claim that she was a catechumen. (http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=E00676)

In a manuscript of the Martyrologium Hieronymianum (Martyrology of Jerome), which is considered to be perhaps the oldest surviving Latin martyrology, there is a probable reference to Emerentiana simply as a martyr.  It does not say she was a catechumen. (http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=E04620)

Pope Clement V, The Council of Vienne, 1311-1312:

Quote “In addition to this, one sole baptism, regenerating all who are baptized in Christ, must, just like one God and one sole faith, be faithfully confessed by all; which, celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, we believe to be the perfect remedy unto salvation for both adults and children alike.”

What I'm trying to say. This twitter thread does not refute any infallible statements on the requirement of water baptism. Plus we don't know if any of the docuмents mentioned have been altered, which is why I brought up the stuff about Emerentiana. The breviary can be changed, the liturgy can have changes...

[Ladislaus]

Pffft.  He knows nothing of "Tradition".  5-6 Church Fathers explicitly rejected BoD.  There were only 2 that BoDers can pretend supported it:  St. Augustine and St. Ambrose.

St. Augustine was, by his own admission, speculating tentatively and then forcefully retracted it, issuing some of the strongest anti-BoD statements in existence (ignored by BoDers).

St. Ambrose explicitly states that not even the martyrs who die unbaptized can be crowned, stating that they are washed but now crowned ... which clearly means they don't enter the Kingdom even if they have the punishment for sin washed away.

Finally, in any references to catechumen martyrs, it's not clear that they weren't baptized.  In fact, the Church ordered catechumens to be baptized during times of persecution, and yet they continued to act in all other respects as catechumens, continuing with their instruction being fully admitted to all the Sacraments.  We have several cases of baptized "catechumens".

[Quo vadis Domine]

Pffft.  He knows nothing of "Tradition".  5-6 Church Fathers explicitly rejected BoD.  There were only 2 that BoDers can pretend supported it:  St. Augustine and St. Ambrose.

St. Augustine was, by his own admission, speculating tentatively and then forcefully retracted it, issuing some of the strongest anti-BoD statements in existence (ignored by BoDers).

St. Ambrose explicitly states that not even the martyrs who die unbaptized can be crowned, stating that they are washed but now crowned ... which clearly means they don't enter the Kingdom even if they have the punishment for sin washed away.

Finally, in any references to catechumen martyrs, it's not clear that they weren't baptized.  In fact, the Church ordered catechumens to be baptized during times of persecution, and yet they continued to act in all other respects as catechumens, continuing with their instruction being fully admitted to all the Sacraments.  We have several cases of baptized "catechumens".

I don’t know if you posted them before, but can you post (again?) the cases that support your position for baptized catechumens. 

[Durango77]

This doesn't refute any of the arguments against BoD/BoB. This is similar to the issue with St. Emerentiana.


Taking this from the dimonds;

Pope Clement V, The Council of Vienne, 1311-1312:
What I'm trying to say. This twitter thread does not refute any infallible statements on the requirement of water baptism. Plus we don't know if any of the docuмents mentioned have been altered, which is why I brought up the stuff about Emerentiana. The breviary can be changed, the liturgy can have changes...

It seems like you didn't read the thread at all.  Whatever saints you referenced were not referenced in the thread I posted at all.  I'm not going to repost it here for you to read, but you might take a look at it, just to get some info from the other side of your position. 

[LeDeg]

I don’t know if you posted them before, but can you post (again?) the cases that support your position for baptized catechumens.

Pope St. Sylvester I, First Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D., Can. 2: “For a catechumen needs time and further probation after baptism...”

Council of Braga, 572, Canon xvii:  “Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.”

If those described as “catechumens” were always unbaptized, then there would be no need for the council to say that no chanting or sacrifice is to be employed for catechumens “who have died without baptism.”  Therefore, the fact that the Roman Martyrology describes a few saints as “catechumens,” such as St. Emerentiana, does not prove that they were unbaptized, even though the term “catechumen” usually means unbaptized.  



Donald Attwater, A Catholic Dictionary, p. 310: “An historical statement in the ‘Martyrology’ as such has no authority… A number of entries in the Roman Martyrology are found to be unsatisfactory when so tested.”

Concerning the Roman Breviary, Dom Prosper Guéranger, one of the most celebrated liturgists in Church history, seems to correct certain errors in the Roman Breviary:

Dom Prosper Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, Vol. 8 (Sts. Tiburtius, etc.), p. 315: “The solemnity of November 22, formerly preceded by a vigil, is marked in the Roman breviary as the day of her [St. Cecilia’s] martyrdom; it is, in reality, the anniversary of her magnificent basilica in Rome.”

[WhiteWorkinClassScapegoat]

Didn't jews in the Church start the "BOD" stuff?

[AnthonyPadua]

It seems like you didn't read the thread at all.  Whatever saints you referenced were not referenced in the thread I posted at all.  I'm not going to repost it here for you to read, but you might take a look at it, just to get some info from the other side of your position.

I did read the thread. My response was towards the liturgical evidence and the breviary both which are not infallible.

[Ladislaus]

I did read the thread. My response was towards the liturgical evidence and the breviary both which are not infallible.

Not only were they not infallible, but several popes removed portions of the martyrology due to suspicions about their accuracy.  St. Robert Bellarmine was skeptical about the martyrology accounts.