Author Topic: Original catechism of Saint Pius X in Italian (Read 7158 times)

saintbosco13 · « **on:** October 10, 2013, 10:59:47 AM »

I just ordered a copy of the original Catechism of Pope Saint Pius X in Italian, which was published in 1912. One reason I purchased it is to finally put to rest the lame arguments of Feeneyites that Pope Saint Pius X did not approve of the catechism, and the desperate "bad translation" argument.

Image 1 below shows the cover.
Image 2 and 3 below show pages 3-4 of the catechism, which contains the letter of approval from Pope Saint Pius X, approving of the catechism.
Image 4 below shows page 25 of the catechism which contains Question 132. The text of the question is as follows: "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."

This is the same exact Italian text, word for word, which can easily found through Google searches. Even without knowledge of the Italian language, a broken Google translation of the above text clearly shows Pope Saint Pius X teaching that one can be saved in the soul of the Church through perfect contrition:

Google translation: "132. Who is outside the Church is saved? Who is outside the Church through their own fault and die without pain perfect, you do not save it, but whoever you are find no fault of their own and live well , can be saved with the love of charity, which unites with God, and, spirit, even in the Church, that her soul."

Image 5 below shows pages 48-49 containing Question 280. The text of the question is as follows: "280. Se il Battesimo necessario a tutti, può salvarsi nessuno senza Battesimo? Senza Battesimo nessuno può salvarsi, quando però non si possa ricevere il Battesimo di acqua, basta il Battesimo di sangue, cioè il martirio sofferto per Gesù Cristo, oppure il Battesimo di desiderio che é l'amor di carità, desideroso dei mezzi di salute istituiti da Dio."

Again, this is the same exact Italian text, word for word, that can easily found through Google searches. Even a broken Google translation of the above text clearly shows Pope Saint Pius X teaching both baptism of desire and baptism of blood:

Google translation: "280. If the Baptism necessary at all , no one can be saved without Baptism? Nobody can be saved without baptism , but when we can not receive Baptism of water, just the baptism of blood, that the martyrdom suffered for Jesus Christ , or the Baptism of desire that is the love of charity, willing the means of health instituted by God."

Clearly we can now see firsthand that Pope Saint Pius X approved of the catechism, and clearly teaches baptism of desire and baptism of blood, and on the soul of the Church. As has been discussed all along, here we have a Pope, and incorrupt Saint, teaching this doctrine, which is perfectly in line with all others in the Church who have taught it. The matter is now put to rest. More details and very clear copies of the actual pages can be found on baptismofdesire.com.

Cantarella · « **Reply #1 on:** October 10, 2013, 11:24:50 AM »

Thank you for posting this but even if this google translation is correct, I do not think this Catechism is infallible. If someone can prove it otherwise, let me know.

That is the thing. You can bring quotes from catechisms, Aquinas, saints, and other Doctors of the Church, but they are not infallible nor the final authority to which Catholics are bound and they cannot surpass the words of Our Lord Himself.

The matter for Baptism as given to us by CHRIST HIMSELF (see Jon 3:5) is true and natural WATER. (See also Eph.5:26; Per 1:20-21)

I can see it clearly that the proper form needed for baptism is water, physical, and tangible:

Infallible Magisterium:

A. Council of Lateran IV, The Catholic Faith:

The sacrament of Baptism, which at the invocation of God and the undivided Trinity, namely the Father the Son and The Holy Ghost, is solemnized in water, righly conferred to anyone in the form of the Curch is useful unto salvation.

B. Council of Florence, Exaltate Domino (1439):

Holy Baptism...holds the first place among the sacraments....the matter of this sacrament is real and natural water, it makes no difference warm or cold.

C. Pope Innocent III, Non ut Apponeres (1206):

In Baptism, two things are always and necessarily required, namely the words and the element (water)...You ought not to doubt that they do not have true Baptism in which one of them is missing.

D. Council of Trent, Canons of Baptism (Canon 2)

If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

PereJoseph · « **Reply #2 on:** October 10, 2013, 11:39:20 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

That is the thing. You can bring quotes from catechisms, Aquinas, saints, and other Doctors of the Church, but they are not infallible nor the final authority to which Catholics are bound and they cannot surpass the words of Our Lord Himself.

The matter for Baptism as given to us by CHRIST HIMSELF (see Jon 3:5) is true and natural WATER. (See also Eph.5:26; Per 1:20-21)

Which Protestant temple do you attend ?

You appeal to the authority of the Church, yet it is the authority of the Church that binds you to believe in Baptism of Desire. But if your proximate rule of faith is your own untrained and ill-formed mode of private reasoning, I guess no papal statement will sway you (a woman, by the way) from stubborn adhesion to the pseudo-dogma you have established in your own mind. I, for one, will give due deference to the papal teaching office and the consensus of approved theologians. I was once in the ranks of untrained laymen and laywomen (!) who believed that one could recognise but resist the authoritative teachings of indisputably valid Pontiffs, but I have no interest in going back to such a state (surely one's salvation is precarious in that milieu). The Catholic's proximate rule of faith is not his own mind unguided by the authority of teachers deputed by Christ.

Cantarella · « **Reply #3 on:** October 10, 2013, 12:37:07 PM »

Quote from: PereJoseph

Quote from: Cantarella
That is the thing. You can bring quotes from catechisms, Aquinas, saints, and other Doctors of the Church, but they are not infallible nor the final authority to which Catholics are bound and they cannot surpass the words of Our Lord Himself.

The matter for Baptism as given to us by CHRIST HIMSELF (see Jon 3:5) is true and natural WATER. (See also Eph.5:26; Per 1:20-21)

I, for one, will give due deference to the papal teaching office and the consensus of approved theologians. .

Given that I see not such consensus on this matter and that I recognize that my own personal reasoning is of no significance, I try to adhere myself to the infallible teaching of the Church.

The question is simple:

Is this catechism infallible or not?

Stubborn · « **Reply #4 on:** October 10, 2013, 01:14:14 PM »

Quote from: saintbosco13

I just ordered a copy of the original Catechism of Pope Saint Pius X in Italian, which was published in 1912. One reason I purchased it is to finally put to rest the lame arguments of Feeneyites that Pope Saint Pius X did not approve of the catechism, and the desperate "bad translation" argument.

If BODers are not going to believe infallibly defined dogma teaching explicitly that the sacrament is necessary, what makes you think an Italian Catechism will convince them?

Better to use the original catechism right from the Council of Trent, it's already translated:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html

Stubborn · « **Reply #5 on:** October 10, 2013, 01:29:32 PM »

Quote from: PereJoseph

Quote from: Cantarella
That is the thing. You can bring quotes from catechisms, Aquinas, saints, and other Doctors of the Church, but they are not infallible nor the final authority to which Catholics are bound and they cannot surpass the words of Our Lord Himself.

The matter for Baptism as given to us by CHRIST HIMSELF (see Jon 3:5) is true and natural WATER. (See also Eph.5:26; Per 1:20-21)

Which Protestant temple do you attend ?

You appeal to the authority of the Church, yet it is the authority of the Church that binds you to believe in Baptism of Desire. But if your proximate rule of faith is your own untrained and ill-formed mode of private reasoning, I guess no papal statement will sway you (a woman, by the way) from stubborn adhesion to the pseudo-dogma you have established in your own mind. I, for one, will give due deference to the papal teaching office and the consensus of approved theologians. I was once in the ranks of untrained laymen and laywomen (!) who believed that one could recognise but resist the authoritative teachings of indisputably valid Pontiffs, but I have no interest in going back to such a state (surely one's salvation is precarious in that milieu). The Catholic's proximate rule of faith is not his own mind unguided by the authority of teachers deputed by Christ.

No one is bound to believe in the mythical non-sacrament known as a BOD - - there are not two BODers who even agree on what it even consists of. This lack of universality in the understanding of it only serves to prove that we are not bound to believe in it.

Ambrose · « **Reply #6 on:** October 10, 2013, 01:51:31 PM »

Bosco,

Thank you for posting this excerpt from the original St. Pius X catechism. As usual, I expected that the Feeneyites would reject this.

If they cannot even believe the Council of Trent, then they will not accept a catechism.

SJB · « **Reply #7 on:** October 10, 2013, 02:00:28 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: PereJoseph
Quote from: Cantarella
That is the thing. You can bring quotes from catechisms, Aquinas, saints, and other Doctors of the Church, but they are not infallible nor the final authority to which Catholics are bound and they cannot surpass the words of Our Lord Himself.

The matter for Baptism as given to us by CHRIST HIMSELF (see Jon 3:5) is true and natural WATER. (See also Eph.5:26; Per 1:20-21)

I, for one, will give due deference to the papal teaching office and the consensus of approved theologians. .

Given that I see not such consensus on this matter and that I recognize that my own personal reasoning is of no significance, I try to adhere myself to the infallible teaching of the Church.

The question is simple:

Is this catechism infallible or not?

That's the wrong question and irrelevant.

There is consensus and I've repeatedly asked those espousing your position to provide any authorities EXPLAINING what you say you believe. To date, NOBODY has responded.

Stubborn · « **Reply #8 on:** October 10, 2013, 02:00:55 PM »

As usual, the Cushingites go out of their way to find something that isn't there then proclaim the dogmas do not mean what they say.

Stubborn · « **Reply #9 on:** October 10, 2013, 02:04:54 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: PereJoseph
Quote from: Cantarella
That is the thing. You can bring quotes from catechisms, Aquinas, saints, and other Doctors of the Church, but they are not infallible nor the final authority to which Catholics are bound and they cannot surpass the words of Our Lord Himself.

The matter for Baptism as given to us by CHRIST HIMSELF (see Jon 3:5) is true and natural WATER. (See also Eph.5:26; Per 1:20-21)

I, for one, will give due deference to the papal teaching office and the consensus of approved theologians. .

Given that I see not such consensus on this matter and that I recognize that my own personal reasoning is of no significance, I try to adhere myself to the infallible teaching of the Church.

The question is simple:

Is this catechism infallible or not?

That's the wrong question and irrelevant.

There is consensus and I've repeatedly asked those espousing your position to provide any authorities EXPLAINING what you say you believe. To date, NOBODY has responded.

You've had the highest possible authorities defining the Church teachings explicitly - but all that does is make you reject them explicitly.

Your problem is that you misunderstand the nature of dogmatic definitions. Definitions by their nature are to define what we believe. Some context is helpful but not necessary. One doesn't interpret a dogmatic definition, one either accepts it or rejects it.

You reject it.

Ambrose · « **Reply #10 on:** October 10, 2013, 02:06:57 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

As usual, the Cushingites go out of their way to find something that isn't there then proclaim the dogmas do not mean what they say.

I am not interested in Cushing. Your error begins with a faulty understanding of Trent. Feeneyism is built on this, and until you recognize that the root of your tree is rotten, you will be part of its rotten fruit.

I also amazed that the question that SJB just put forth has not provoked any thought that this position is not that of the Church.

No one has ever taught what you believe, with the possible exception of the excommunicate, Peter Abelard.

SJB · « **Reply #11 on:** October 10, 2013, 02:23:42 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: PereJoseph
Quote from: Cantarella
That is the thing. You can bring quotes from catechisms, Aquinas, saints, and other Doctors of the Church, but they are not infallible nor the final authority to which Catholics are bound and they cannot surpass the words of Our Lord Himself.

The matter for Baptism as given to us by CHRIST HIMSELF (see Jon 3:5) is true and natural WATER. (See also Eph.5:26; Per 1:20-21)

I, for one, will give due deference to the papal teaching office and the consensus of approved theologians. .

Given that I see not such consensus on this matter and that I recognize that my own personal reasoning is of no significance, I try to adhere myself to the infallible teaching of the Church.

The question is simple:

Is this catechism infallible or not?

That's the wrong question and irrelevant.

There is consensus and I've repeatedly asked those espousing your position to provide any authorities EXPLAINING what you say you believe. To date, NOBODY has responded.

You've had the highest possible authorities defining the Church teachings explicitly - but all that does is make you reject them explicitly.

Your problem is that you misunderstand the nature of dogmatic definitions. Definitions by their nature are to define what we believe. Some context is helpful but not necessary. One doesn't interpret a dogmatic definition, one either accepts it or rejects it.

You reject it.

By your own standards that you just stated above (One doesn't interpret a dogmatic definition, one either accepts it or rejects it.), we both accept the same dogmatic definitions. How do you explain why we both accept the definition, yet differ in understanding? Normally, one would seek out what an approved teacher EXPLAINS regarding the definition. Since you can't do this (because NOBODY understands things the way you do) you seek to confuse the issue by stating "some context" is "helpful but not necessary."

Alcuin · « **Reply #12 on:** October 10, 2013, 02:39:13 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: PereJoseph
Quote from: Cantarella
That is the thing. You can bring quotes from catechisms, Aquinas, saints, and other Doctors of the Church, but they are not infallible nor the final authority to which Catholics are bound and they cannot surpass the words of Our Lord Himself.

The matter for Baptism as given to us by CHRIST HIMSELF (see Jon 3:5) is true and natural WATER. (See also Eph.5:26; Per 1:20-21)

I, for one, will give due deference to the papal teaching office and the consensus of approved theologians. .

Given that I see not such consensus on this matter and that I recognize that my own personal reasoning is of no significance, I try to adhere myself to the infallible teaching of the Church.

The question is simple:

Is this catechism infallible or not?

That's the wrong question and irrelevant.

There is consensus and I've repeatedly asked those espousing your position to provide any authorities EXPLAINING what you say you believe. To date, NOBODY has responded.

Why don't you hold yourself to the same position?

Stubborn · « **Reply #13 on:** October 10, 2013, 02:44:03 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Stubborn
As usual, the Cushingites go out of their way to find something that isn't there then proclaim the dogmas do not mean what they say.

I am not interested in Cushing. Your error begins with a faulty understanding of Trent. Feeneyism is built on this, and until you recognize that the root of your tree is rotten, you will be part of its rotten fruit.

I also amazed that the question that SJB just put forth has not provoked any thought that this position is not that of the Church.

No one has ever taught what you believe, with the possible exception of the excommunicate, Peter Abelard.

The Council of Trent taught what I believe.
For whatever reason, when the Council declares that the Sacrament is necessary, BODers think it says something else so they interpret into something it does not say.

Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22:
“The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned

Stubborn · « **Reply #14 on:** October 10, 2013, 02:47:34 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: PereJoseph
Quote from: Cantarella
That is the thing. You can bring quotes from catechisms, Aquinas, saints, and other Doctors of the Church, but they are not infallible nor the final authority to which Catholics are bound and they cannot surpass the words of Our Lord Himself.

The matter for Baptism as given to us by CHRIST HIMSELF (see Jon 3:5) is true and natural WATER. (See also Eph.5:26; Per 1:20-21)

I, for one, will give due deference to the papal teaching office and the consensus of approved theologians. .

Given that I see not such consensus on this matter and that I recognize that my own personal reasoning is of no significance, I try to adhere myself to the infallible teaching of the Church.

The question is simple:

Is this catechism infallible or not?

That's the wrong question and irrelevant.

There is consensus and I've repeatedly asked those espousing your position to provide any authorities EXPLAINING what you say you believe. To date, NOBODY has responded.

You've had the highest possible authorities defining the Church teachings explicitly - but all that does is make you reject them explicitly.

Your problem is that you misunderstand the nature of dogmatic definitions. Definitions by their nature are to define what we believe. Some context is helpful but not necessary. One doesn't interpret a dogmatic definition, one either accepts it or rejects it.

You reject it.

By your own standards that you just stated above (One doesn't interpret a dogmatic definition, one either accepts it or rejects it.), we both accept the same dogmatic definitions. How do you explain why we both accept the definition, yet differ in understanding? Normally, one would seek out what an approved teacher EXPLAINS regarding the definition. Since you can't do this (because NOBODY understands things the way you do) you seek to confuse the issue by stating "some context" is "helpful but not necessary."

The difference is that you add exceptions to the dogma which are not in the dogma - as though the dogma itself is deficient by itself. Which, per V1, we are not permitted to add any exceptions.

Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding. - First Vatican Council