The Catholic Encyclopedia (1917) in the article on Infallibility, states: "Three Organs of Infallibility: 1. the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See (exercised by what theologians describe as the ordinarium magisterium, i. e. the common or everyday teaching authority of the Church), 2. ecuмenical councils under the headship of the pope; and 3. the pope himself separately.

Definition of “Infallibility” from “A Catholic Dictionary”, 1951: "This infallibility resides (A) in the pope personally and alone; (B) in an ecuмenical Council subject to papal confirmation (these infallibilities are distinct but correlative); (C) in the bishops of the Church, dispersed throughout the world, teaching definitively in union with the pope. This is not a different infallibility from (B) but is the ordinary exercise of a prerogative (hence called the "ordinary magisterium") which is manifested in a striking manner in an ecuмenical Council. This ordinary magisterium is exercised by pastoral letters, preaching, catechisms, the censorship of publications dealing with faith and morals, the reprobation of doctrines and books: it is thus in continuous function and embraces the whole deposit of faith."

Infallible Solemn Magisterium:

First Vatican Council (1870):

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

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

You simply avoid the problem in your position, which isn't Catholic in the least.

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."

Quote from: Stubborn

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

You simply avoid the problem in your position, which isn't Catholic in the least.

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."

I have no problem - the burden of proof lies with you and your mythical non-sacrament. Search hard as you want, reject the clear infallible teachings and cling to your mythical non-sacrament which no two BODers can even agree what it consists of.

Why can't you people just admit you are wrong?  You have on your side one priest, who was excommunicated for disobedience by the Pope, and a bunch of untrained laypeople.

Because Saint Thomas also taught:

As God, in accordance with the perfection of the divine power, can do all things, and yet some things are not subject to His power, because they fall short of being possible; so, also, if we regard the immutability of the divine power, whatever God could do, He can do now. Some things, however, at one time were in the nature of possibility, whilst they were yet to be done, which now fall short of the nature of possibility, when they have been done. So is God said not to be able to do them, because they themselves cannot be done. (ST, Ia q. 25 a. 4, ad 2)

And, "who am I" to "put limits" on what the Triune God can or will do or what He will not do???  Besides, as I said in my other post (which no one has yet replied to), let's assume that "Baptism of Desire" occurs in the complete absence of sacramental Baptism, that is, there are folks in Paradise who, since the Law of Baptism became obligatory on every human being, ended this life without that Sacrament.  Am I a heretic if I assert, even as a theological opinion, that such occurrences are exceeding rare, in fact, virtually nonexistent?  Or, is there some "implicit quota" on the number of nonbaptized folks in Paradise which I am forced to believe occurs in the real World?

Quote from: GregorianChat

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1917) in the article on Infallibility, states: "Three Organs of Infallibility: 1. the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See (exercised by what theologians describe as the ordinarium magisterium, i. e. the common or everyday teaching authority of the Church), 2. ecuмenical councils under the headship of the pope; and 3. the pope himself separately.

Definition of “Infallibility” from “A Catholic Dictionary”, 1951: "This infallibility resides (A) in the pope personally and alone; (B) in an ecuмenical Council subject to papal confirmation (these infallibilities are distinct but correlative); (C) in the bishops of the Church, dispersed throughout the world, teaching definitively in union with the pope. This is not a different infallibility from (B) but is the ordinary exercise of a prerogative (hence called the "ordinary magisterium") which is manifested in a striking manner in an ecuмenical Council. This ordinary magisterium is exercised by pastoral letters, preaching, catechisms, the censorship of publications dealing with faith and morals, the reprobation of doctrines and books: it is thus in continuous function and embraces the whole deposit of faith."

Infallible Solemn Magisterium:

First Vatican Council (1870):

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

The Universal Ordinary Magisterium are the ones who got us in and are maintaining us in the NO mess.

The UOM must agree with defined dogma - they are not permitted to come up with a new variation to defined dogma just because they teach it.

Blessed Pope Pius IX knew this, otherwise why would he care that a Congress assembled without him? Read the excerpt from Tuas libenter:

 
For the rest, We cannot hide from you that We have been made rather anxious: for We feared that the example of this Congress, assembled independently of the ecclesiastical authority, might little by little do damage to the right of spiritual government and legitimate teaching which, in virtue of the divine institution, belongs properly to the Roman Pontiff and to the bishops who in union and agreement with the Successor of St. Peter; and that, as a consequence of this harm done to the government of the Church, the principle of unity and obedience in matters of faith might eventually be weakened in many souls. We feared also lest, in the same Congress, opinions and systems might be aired and supported which, by reason above all of the publicity given to them, would imperil the purity of doctrine and the duty of obedience.

If you are referring to the UOM of the Catholic Church, this is a terrible thing to say.  I hope that you are unaware of what the UOM actually is, because to say that it is responsible for creating and maintaining any ill is heretical.

Some think perfect contrition suffices (which, per Trent's catechism, is nearly impossible for life long devout Catholics to attain - let alone infidels). Some think an ardent wish suffices as is taught in the Baltimore Catechism - right there you have a contradiction and I only gave two simple examples from the multitude of different ones available - yet you are trying to say THAT is de fide? I'll say again, that is an absurd assumption.

No, this is not correct, "perfect contrition or charity" and an "ardent wish" in this context are the same thing (For example, in Baltimore's catechism, 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. 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.) - the precise proposition that some theologians (among them St. Alphonsus) think is de fide is this: There are some souls saved by baptism of desire.

All theologians without exception, for about the last 1000 years since this became unanimous in the Catholic schools, and as Fr. Cekada has amply docuмented, ascribe to this proposition above a theological grade of certitude so high that it is mortally sinful, objectively speaking, to publicly deny.

They give of course the examples of St. Emerentiana among martyrs, Valentian among catechumens among other examples. These examples are well known and the absurd reasoning which proposes to deny them is a novelty unknown to 15 Christian centuries from the time of Fathers to Fr. Feeney who firsst proposed it (i.e. the claim that St. Ambrose "really meant" that the Emperor Valentian was water baptized).

This proposition is precisely that which Feeneyism strictly so called in its many variations ("justification but not salvation" - Fr. Feeney, "justification also not possible" - the Dimonds etc) not only wishes to disbelieve but also ventures to go so far as to somehow propose to teach the contrary as dogma (i.e. there are no souls saved by baptism of desire).

If this is so, then what St. Alphonsus and the Doctors teach as dogma or doctrine is really heretical. Which is an absurdity so ridiculous one would think faithful Catholics would shrink from proposing it. One may make every allowance for culpability among those who misguidedly hold to this opinion, especially given the situation in the Church today, but no, objectively speaking, you have no right at all to deny the doctrine that there are indeed souls who are and have already been saved by baptism of desire.

Thank you for posting this but even if this google translation is correct, I do not think this Catechism is infallible.

Your statement is irrelevant. There is nothing in Church teaching that says something must be specifically defined as infallible before we believe it. Rather, the First Vatican Council says we must believe ordinary teaching, AND solemn teaching.

Pope Pius XII clarifies this when he states the following in his encyclical, Humani Generis, in 1950 (Denz. 2313):

"It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: "He who heareth you, heareth me." [Luke 10:16]; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among the theologians."

The letter from the Holy Office in 1949 is a perfect example of this. When you insist that something be infallible before you believe, it shows you do not not even understand how Catholicism works.

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.  

These are the Canons on Baptism on the Council Of Trent. I do not see any reference for baptism of desire here.

The Council of Trent
The Seventh Session

ON BAPTISM

CANON I.-If any one saith, that the baptism of John had the same force as the baptism of Christ; let him be anathema.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one saith, that in the Roman church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church doth, is not true baptism; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that one who has been baptized cannot, even if he would, lose grace, let him sin ever so much, unless he will not believe; let him be anathema.

CANON VII.-If any one saith, that the baptized are, by baptism itself, made debtors but to faith alone, and not to the observance of the whole law of Christ; let him be anathema.

CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that the baptized are freed from all the precepts, whether written or transmitted, of holy Church, in such wise that they are not bound to observe them, unless they have chosen of their own accord to submit themselves thereunto; let him be anathema.

[Page 57] CANON IX.-If any one saith, that the resemblance of the baptism which they have received is so to be recalled unto men, as that they are to understand, that all vows made after baptism are void, in virtue of the promise already made in that baptism; as if, by those vows, they both derogated from that faith which they have professed, and from that baptism itself; let him be anathema.

CANON X.-If any one saith, that by the sole remembrance and the faith of the baptism which has been received, all sins committed after baptism are either remitted, or made venial; let him be anathema.

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that baptism, which was true and rightly conferred, is to be repeated, for him who has denied the faith of Christ amongst Infidels, when he is converted unto penitence; let him be anathema.

CANON XII.-If any one saith, that no one is to be baptized save at that age at which Christ was baptized, or in the very article of death; let him be anathema.

CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that little children, for that they have not actual faith, are not, after having received baptism, to be reckoned amongst the faithful; and that, for this cause, they are to be rebaptized when they have attained to years of discretion; or, that it is better that the baptism of such be omitted, than that, while not believing by their own act, they should be baptized in the faith alone of the Church; let him be anathema.

CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that those who have been thus baptized when children, are, when they have grown up, to be asked whether they will ratify what their sponsors promised in their names when they were baptized; and that, in case they answer that they will not, they are to be left to their own will; and are not to be compelled meanwhile to a Christian life by any other penalty, save that they be excluded from the participation of the Eucharist, and of the other sacraments, until they repent; let him be anathema.




Notice Canon II. It explicitly states that the physical element of water is needed for baptism.