Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Original catechism of Saint Pius X in Italian  (Read 7224 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline GregorianChat

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 73
  • Reputation: +28/-1
  • Gender: Male
Original catechism of Saint Pius X in Italian
« Reply #15 on: October 10, 2013, 03:09:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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."

    2 Thessalonians 2:14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

    Galatians Chapter 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14726
    • Reputation: +6066/-906
    • Gender: Male
    Original catechism of Saint Pius X in Italian
    « Reply #16 on: October 10, 2013, 03:19:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1932/-17
    • Gender: Male
    Original catechism of Saint Pius X in Italian
    « Reply #17 on: October 10, 2013, 03:24:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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."
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil

    Offline Jehanne

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2561
    • Reputation: +459/-11
    • Gender: Male
    Original catechism of Saint Pius X in Italian
    « Reply #18 on: October 10, 2013, 03:37:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: saintbosco13
    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."


    You act like this contradicts what Father Feeney taught:

    Quote
    There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the sceptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you. (Bread of Life, pg. 56)


    So, how about the idea that what the Catechism of Saint Pius X taught is absolutely true, but yet, it is a hypothetical, a "null set" which never occurs in the real world???  "True, it could happen, but it simply doesn't?"  How about that?

    But, let's assume that there are souls in Paradise whom the Triune God allowed to depart this life without sacramental Baptism.  How many such souls are there?  If we accept your understanding of BoD/BoB, then the later, you must admit, is quite rare.  After all, how many true martyrs for Jesus Christ actually died without sacramental Baptism?  A few dozen?  A hundred or so?  Whose to say that "perfect charity" that does not result in sacramental Baptism is at all common in the World?  After all, if we accept what Saint Alphonsus taught, namely, that:

    Quote
    “‘Some theologians hold that the belief of the two other articles - the Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Trinity of Persons - is strictly commanded but not necessary, as a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. But according to the more common and truer opinion, the explicit belief of these articles is necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved.’" (quoted in Father Michael Muller’s The Catholic Dogma)


    then "baptism of desire" is quite rare, so rare, in fact, that it is really a "non issue."

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14726
    • Reputation: +6066/-906
    • Gender: Male
    Original catechism of Saint Pius X in Italian
    « Reply #19 on: October 10, 2013, 03:48:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: SJB
    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.


    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


    Offline Ambrose

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3447
    • Reputation: +2429/-13
    • Gender: Male
    Original catechism of Saint Pius X in Italian
    « Reply #20 on: October 10, 2013, 04:07:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Stubborn
    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.
      :facepalm:


    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


    No, the Council of Trent taught Baptism of Desire.  It is de fide.   If you deny Baptism of Desire, then you profess heresy.

    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.  

    On our side, we have the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Trent, papal teaching, multiple regional catechisms, the universal consensus of the theologians, every Doctor of the Church that ever spoke on this, and every approved Catholic book written prior to Vatican II.

    But according to you and yours, you know better.  John 3:5 must be interpreted as water only, you say.  The trouble for you is that the Church has taught otherwise, and everyone knows it except you and the few who think like you.
    The Council of Trent, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Papal Teaching, The Teaching of the Holy Office, The Teaching of the Church Fathers, The Code of Canon Law, Countless approved catechisms, The Doctors of the Church, The teaching of the Dogmatic

    Offline Jehanne

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2561
    • Reputation: +459/-11
    • Gender: Male
    Original catechism of Saint Pius X in Italian
    « Reply #21 on: October 10, 2013, 04:22:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ambrose
    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:

    Quote
    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?

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14726
    • Reputation: +6066/-906
    • Gender: Male
    Original catechism of Saint Pius X in Italian
    « Reply #22 on: October 10, 2013, 05:42:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ambrose
    Quote from: Stubborn
    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.
      :facepalm:


    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


    No, the Council of Trent taught Baptism of Desire.  It is de fide.   If you deny Baptism of Desire, then you profess heresy.

    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.  

    On our side, we have the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Trent, papal teaching, multiple regional catechisms, the universal consensus of the theologians, every Doctor of the Church that ever spoke on this, and every approved Catholic book written prior to Vatican II.

    But according to you and yours, you know better.  John 3:5 must be interpreted as water only, you say.  The trouble for you is that the Church has taught otherwise, and everyone knows it except you and the few who think like you.


    This is sheer lunacy to say that the Council of Trent taught a BOD. Even more absurd to say it is de fide. The only thing that saying "a BOD is de fide" proves, is that you have no idea what you are talking about. I do not mean to insult you, I am just stating the fact.

    As it is, unlike the sacrament, there is no one teaching or definition on a BOD that even two BODers will agree on which proves it is not a universal teaching which proves it is not de fide.

    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.

    If literal, explicit infallible definitions need the interpretations of theologians, then the theologians' interpretations also need interpretations - and etc. ad infinitum.

    Again, unlike Scripture, one doesn't interpret an infallible  definition, one either accepts it or rejects it.


    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse


    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4579
    • Reputation: +5300/-457
    • Gender: Male
    Original catechism of Saint Pius X in Italian
    « Reply #23 on: October 10, 2013, 05:59:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Stubborn
    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.
    "Be kind; do not seek the malicious satisfaction of having discovered an additional enemy to the Church... And, above all, be scrupulously truthful. To all, friends and foes alike, give that serious attention which does not misrepresent any opinion, does not distort any statement, does not mutilate any quotation. We need not fear to serve the cause of Christ less efficiently by putting on His spirit". (Vermeersch, 1913).

    Offline Binechi

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2318
    • Reputation: +512/-40
    • Gender: Male
    Original catechism of Saint Pius X in Italian
    « Reply #24 on: October 10, 2013, 06:59:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  •  
    Quote
    No, the Council of Trent taught Baptism of Desire.  It is de fide.  If you deny Baptism of Desire, then you profess heresy.



    Ambrose,,,

    Refresh my mind,,, Where in the Council of Trent does the words 'Baptism of Desire",  appear.  Session and Chapter , please

    Offline Nishant

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2126
    • Reputation: +0/-7
    • Gender: Male
    Original catechism of Saint Pius X in Italian
    « Reply #25 on: October 10, 2013, 07:44:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    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.


    Offline Ambrose

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3447
    • Reputation: +2429/-13
    • Gender: Male
    Original catechism of Saint Pius X in Italian
    « Reply #26 on: October 10, 2013, 08:41:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Stubborn wrote:

    Quote
    This is sheer lunacy to say that the Council of Trent taught a BOD. Even more absurd to say it is de fide. The only thing that saying "a BOD is de fide" proves, is that you have no idea what you are talking about. I do not mean to insult you, I am just stating the fact.


    Quote
    Concerning Baptism

    Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water ["fluminis"], of desire ["flaminis" = wind] and of blood.

    We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved "without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it".

    Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality ["non ita stricte"] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from Baptism of blood – translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.

    It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ.
    (Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7.) http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/baptism.html

    Do you now agree that the Council of Trent taught Baptism of Desire?  As St. Alphonsus states, Baptism of Desire was taught by the Council of Trent and it is de fide.  Saint Alphonsus uses the Council of Trent as the basis of his assertion that Baptism of Desire is de fide.

    If you read the statement from Trent that he cites, Session 6, Chapter IV, the Council states:  

    Quote
    In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior.

    This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written:

    Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God
    .[18]

    http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/TRENT/trent6.htm

    The Council of Trent teaches that Baptism or the desire for it:
    1.  Translates a sinner from the state of Adam to the state of grace.
    2.  Brings about adoption of the person to become adopted sons of God.  As an adopted son, one has the right to his inheritance, which is Heaven.  

    Another point that cannot be missed in this passage from Trent is that John 3:5 is given by the Council demonstrate its teaching on Baptism and Baptism of Desire.  
    The Council of Trent, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Papal Teaching, The Teaching of the Holy Office, The Teaching of the Church Fathers, The Code of Canon Law, Countless approved catechisms, The Doctors of the Church, The teaching of the Dogmatic

    Offline saintbosco13

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 647
    • Reputation: +201/-311
    • Gender: Male
    Original catechism of Saint Pius X in Italian
    « Reply #27 on: October 10, 2013, 10:29:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cantarella
    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.


    Offline saintbosco13

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 647
    • Reputation: +201/-311
    • Gender: Male
    Original catechism of Saint Pius X in Italian
    « Reply #28 on: October 10, 2013, 10:46:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Stubborn
    Quote from: Ambrose

    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.


    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.


    Stubborn,

    You state that the Council of Trent didn't teach baptism of desire, yet the quotes below show the Holy Office, 2 Doctors of the Church, and the Catholic Encyclopedia each stating that the Council of Trent DID teach it. I think I will trust their word over yours.

    1. St. Robert Bellarmine states, "...the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire".

    2. St. Alphonsus Liguori also states above, "Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de pres-bytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4...".

    3. The quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia above also states, “This doctrine (baptism of desire) is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent".

    4. The quote from the Letter of the Holy Office above also states, "This (Sacrament through desire) we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent..."


    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4579/-579
    • Gender: Female
    Original catechism of Saint Pius X in Italian
    « Reply #29 on: October 10, 2013, 10:47:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ambrose
    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.





    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.