Cantarella,

To use this canon as a proof against Baptism of Desire is perverse.

The Canon states:

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.

Baptism of Desire is not the sacrament of baptism, nor is it a metaphor for the sacrament.  Baptism of Desire is not the sacrament at all, and can never be substituted for it.  

True and natural water must be used for the sacrament of baptism.  Baptism of Desire is not the sacrament of baptism.  If someone is justified through Baptism of Desire, he must still receive the sacrament of Baptism, as there is no substitute for receiving the sacrament of Baptism.

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.

Yes. But Catholics are indeed bound to believe that what is infallible first and foremost. You cannot simply contradict or reform what is infallible.  It is infallible precisely because it cannot be contradicted. When the pope speaks ex cathedra, is infallible and cannot be erroneous. Here are 2 examples of Popes speaking ex-cathedra about the necessity of words and water for the sacrament of Baptism:

Pope St. Zachary (741 - 752), Sacris Liminibus (748)

It is recognized that such a decree and judgment demonstrated that whoever had been washed without the invocation of the Trinity, has not been perfected unless he shall have been baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

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.

Nowhere has the Magisterium ever taught that the metaphorical can take place of the literal. There is only 0NE baptism, not three. And without the proper form (words) or matter (true and natural water), true baptism is not received. Both are indispensable.

The Church solemnly condemns those who turn water into a metaphor:

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.

Council of Trent

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.  

 

Dear Stubborn,

There are several radical schismatics that deny the Council of Trent as heretical because of the Baptism of Desire issue. They have very convincing arguments too, and they reject the entire magisterium post Council of Trent... However, for some odd reason they accept the teaching of papal infallibility which was only defined in Vatican I... So they cite Vatican I against Trent, this is the tactic of heretics quoting the Church against herself. It reminds me of +Fellay and Benedict XVI, how "the pope" would complain to him that we just keep quoting the Council's against them. The Council's can only be applied against those that are condemned already, whether or not it has been publicly declared yet or to be declared matters little. Or to those members who are, maybe not yet heretics, but in doubt as to what the Church might teach (material heresy), formal heretics in potentio.

The heresy of Conciliarism was attempting to use the previous approved Ecuмenical Council's against the authority of the Church. The heresy of Jansenism was also attempting to quote the Church against herself. It is interesting because even Old Catholics attempted to do the same thing, and initially they just denied Vatican I because it was not approved together with the Universal Church, this is of course the heresy of Conciliarism and collegiality. Shortly after they denied Trent, denied everything that logically made their position totally illogical. St. Vincent Ferrer was completely submissive to Pedro de Luna up to the point where it became completely apparent to the great Saint that he was objectively a Schismatic and as such could be condemned by the Church.

The followers of Fr. Feeney (no I won't call you Feeneyites) quote the Church against the Church, this is dangerous! I do not for one second believe that you have ever intended to formally separate yourself from the Church, but you are certainly in dangerous company! Do not let these words fall in deaf ears, please.

We know for certain that those who are not baptized are not members of the Church, this is absolutely right. A catechumen is a very special case, and that is what the judgement of the Church has had for an AWFUL lot of time treated them differently from those who are actual members and those who are completely outside of Her communion. We are not talking a few popes from a certain century and on, we are talking the evidence is beyond overwhelming for explicit BOD. Any speculation above that is pure "solemn non-sense" as our dear heretic Bergoglio would say. A catechumen is a Catholic in potentio, and as such can be distinguished from unbelievers. The Church has to have the freedom to be able to teach her children her doctrine before they desire to be regenerated in the saving waters of baptism.

Can a Hinduh/Pagan/Jew who has never heard of the Catholic religion be saved? No, simple as that. Can he reach Limbo, i.e. not go to the part of Hell where there is fire, weeping and gnashing of teeth. Most certainly he can still go to Limbo, so long as a bunch of other conditions apply (too many to list here). He will be judged by the natural law, but unless he was specifically a believing Catholic (then at this point it is useless to call him a Hinduh), before his soul went away from his body, then we cannot presume that he can reach heaven. Is it theoretically possible some Angel might have baptized them or some Saint who bilocated to baptize them, sure we have some recorded instances of such things happening. There are several hermits around the world currently right now and there has always been such individuals, does God bilocate them all over the world at certain times to save the few by baptizing them in the regenerative waters of baptism, possible. Honestly we can speculate on either side, we are only commanded to know the external forum and through that we are able to formulate judgements. If someone was not a Catholic, showed no signs of repentance etc... You do not need to pray for his soul, because we can be certain he is damned to Hell. Remember external FORUM, EXTERNAL forum, EXTERNAL FORUM this is the only means by which we are commanded, unless through Divine revelation (good authentic private revelation, and even then I would be wary of this without a GOOD solid spiritual director) that is authentic, unless God reveals to you otherwise then you should not pray for their soul. There are actually several incidents in the life of Holy/Saints men and women where God has told them not to pray for that soul because it is damned, and vice-versa in different directions.

Who know that we are only commanded to believe in what the Church has taught authoritatively either in her practice or official teaching. The Church has clearly taught in her liturgy that a catechumen is not the same thing as a pagan/heretic/schismatic. As such we can be able to know that the judgement of the Church and her Divine magisterial authority teaches that they too can be part of the elect, if the proper conditions apply. To think that a non-Catholic can be saved is outside of what has been given to us in Divine Revelation + Sacred tradition + magisterial teaching. If this is what so called "Feeneyites" are disputing then I agree with them.

Ultimately it comes down to the question of where do non-baptized good willed people go? The same place as those who are aborted and never had a chance through no fault of their own. This would be the proper teaching of invincible ignorance, yes Native savages or infidels who have never had an opportunity to know about the saving Ark of Salvation. Certain conditions must be true, I am sure most people here are familiar with them. Just pick up St. Thomas and read what he says on the topic. Imagine how hard it is for us Catholics who have the true sacraments to stay in the state of grace! How much more difficult would it be for them, living in such a wicked apostate environment etc...

A pagan can never be a Catholic, this is true in act. He never has the potential to be Catholic (thus cannot be a part of the soul of the Church) if he dies in that state of paganism. Remember the big emphasis is dying in a state of paganism/mohammedism/atheism/insert your false religion here. A catechumen is in potentio Catholic, in fact he already believes that the Catholic Church is the one True Church. The only problem is a question of time because that is what the Church has ruled in its wisdom and disciplinary law. This disciplinary law has basis in the authority of the Church, which trust in Divine Providence that the best way is to wait to instruct them so that they know precisely what they are accepting through their own free willed choice. Thus we can be certain that this disciplinary ruling of waiting until they are instructed is something that is precisely from the Holy Ghost, that protects the infallibility of the Church. This custom has been something that was practiced since the most ancient times of the Church and this is something that is not necessarily brought as an argument for BOD many times. This has been something that was from the earliest time of the Church there are other European local Councils even before Nicea had actually repeated the same teaching. Remember that we are allowed to pray together with catechumens, and Catholics, no one else. Anything over and above this, is specifically communicatio in sacris, mortally sinful against faith. We can only pray with those who are part of the communion of Saints (Church militant, triumphant and suffering).

Now canon 2 is quoted not because of precisely someone who is a catechumen will become necessarily a cleric, but solely for the sentence, "For to the catechumen himself there is need of time..." Obviously for a cleric, even after baptism is needed still a longer trial. However it re-iterates what we all have been taught, that the catechumen must be ready for baptism by knowing the truth's of the faith which take time to explain. Of course all of this can be dispensed with in extra-ordinary occasions where death is certain.

From the Council of Nicea on the topic:

Canon 2

    Forasmuch as, either from necessity, or through the urgency of individuals, many things have been done contrary to the Ecclesiastical canon, so that men just converted from heathenism to the faith, and who have been instructed but a little while, are straightway brought to the spiritual laver, and as soon as they have been baptized, are advanced to the episcopate [office of bishop] or the presbyterate [office of elder], it has seemed right to us that for the time to come no such thing shall be done. For to the catechumen himself there is need of time and of a longer trial after baptism. For the apostolical saying is clear, "Not a novice; lest, being lifted up with pride, he fall into condemnation and the snare of the devil." But if, as time goes on, any sensual [lit., "soulish"] sin should be found out about the person, and he should be convicted by two or three witnesses, let him cease from the clerical office. And whoso shall transgress these [enactments] will imperil his own clerical position, as a person who presumes to disobey the great Synod.

Canon 14

    Concerning catechumens who have lapsed, the holy and great Synod has decreed that, after they have passed three years only as hearers, they shall pray with the catechumens.

From the article on catechumens:

What seems extraordinary to our modern notions is that the catechumens themselves put off their baptisms for many years, sometimes even till their last illness. Constantine the Great is an example of this extreme delay. St. Ambrose, St. Basil, St. Gregory nαzιanzen, and St. John Chrysostom were not baptized till after their thirtieth year. A question much discussed was the fate of those who died in this stage. As we have seen, they were looked upon as Christians, but not as belonging to the "faithful", because the cleansing waters of baptism had not been poured over their souls.

What is amazing is just how common it was for catechumens who had Christian parents did not baptize until in their thirties! Or sometimes even later! The early Christians took very seriously baptism that is for sure! One it shows how much they trusted in the Providence of God, I know if I was a catechumen I would be tormented if I was not baptized. Every single cell of my being would desire the regenerative saving waters of Baptism.

By the way if all of you can pray for me, today is my 20th anniversary of the saving waters of baptism being applied to me. Twenty years of being a member of the Church, I know for sure I was baptized, I even have a video of it. Blessed be God! That I am a Catholic, every single day I give thanks to him for this wonderful grace. May I persevere until the very end. Amen. God is truly Good!

+Pax vobis+

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.

There is no such thing as 'Feeneyism'.  

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.

Well, what were the +2000 members who participated in V2 if not a part of the UOM? And after it was over, all the magisterium, theologians and clergy, aside from only a few Bishops and a handful of clergy here and there, promulgated the NO - are / were they all innocent?

And what of the pope of V1, Blessed Pope Pius IX's teaching from Tuas libenter I posted above? That letter is, after all, one that many BODers use to promote the infallibility of the UOM's teaching on a BOD, yet they disregard the pope's fear and concern over their ability to teach and spread error.

Aside from that, the teaching of a BOD, contrary to popular opinion and appearances, is *not* the teaching of the UOM, only the Sacrament enjoys that honor.  

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: Stubborn

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.

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.

Well, what were the +2000 members who participated in V2 if not a part of the UOM? And after it was over, all the magisterium, theologians and clergy, aside from only a few Bishops and a handful of clergy here and there, promulgated the NO - are / were they all innocent?

Holy smokes Stubborn, I can't believe you are making such a statement after all your time in this forum! The ordinary magisterium consists of the unanimous, continuous teaching of the Church. That is its definition. Vatican II was not a continuation of unanimous Church teaching, but went directly contrary to it by promoting ecuмenism, which means it is an illegitimate Council and not part of the magisterium. There have been many illegitimate councils throughout the history of the Church, so this is nothing new.

And if you are wondering how so many people, posing as Catholics, could actually not be Catholics, we have seen this in history before as well during the Arian heresy. The majority of the Church fell for that heresy, and that is why Saint Athanasius is quoted as saying, ""they have the buildings, but we have the faith".

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: Stubborn

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.

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.

Well, what were the +2000 members who participated in V2 if not a part of the UOM? And after it was over, all the magisterium, theologians and clergy, aside from only a few Bishops and a handful of clergy here and there, promulgated the NO - are / were they all innocent?

Holy smokes Stubborn, I can't believe you are making such a statement after all your time in this forum! The ordinary magisterium consists of the unanimous, continuous teaching of the Church. That is its definition. Vatican II was not a continuation of unanimous Church teaching, but went directly contrary to it by promoting ecuмenism, which means it is an illegitimate Council and not part of the magisterium. There have been many illegitimate councils throughout the history of the Church, so this is nothing new.

And if you are wondering how so many people, posing as Catholics, could actually not be Catholics, we have seen this in history before as well during the Arian heresy. The majority of the Church fell for that heresy, and that is why Saint Athanasius is quoted as saying, ""they have the buildings, but we have the faith".

Not you again.

As you said, "The ordinary magisterium consists of the unanimous, continuous teaching of the Church." - since you know that much, why is it you cannot connect that knowledge with the fact that a BOD, not being a part of the UOM's teaching and not being defined at all at any council at any time or by any pope -  is not de fide?

This thread is branched off into many different topics. Let's get back to the purpose of it.

To summarize the purpose of this thread, we can see from the original post that Pope Saint Pius X very well knew and approved of the catechism published in his name in 1912. We can also see he plainly teaches baptism of desire and baptism of blood, and speaks of people being saved in the soul of the Church. This is something we've all known all along, of course, but the Feeneyites have been blue in the face, squirming every which way, denying these things the entire time, because they cannot let go of their heresy.

Now let me guess, will you Feeneyites declare Pope Saint Pius X, an incorrupt Pope and Saint, to be a heretic, now that the proof has been placed right under your noses?

You belittle the Popes and Councils with your rejection of the truth. To remedy this syndrome, study below - there will be a test. Pay close attention to the progression of error in the catechisms below.

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein 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 Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

Catechism from Trent explains OR THE DESIRE THEREOF:
Dispositions for baptism

Intention

The faithful are also to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for Baptism. In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it; for as in Baptism we all die to sin and resolve to live a new life, it is fit that it be administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord; it is to be forced upon none. Hence we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. This disposition even infants are presumed to have, since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken.


Necessity Of Confession [Doctrine on Perfect Contrition]

Contrition, it is true, blots out sin; but who does not know that to effect this it must be so intense, so ardent, so vehement, as to bear a proportion to the magnitude of the crimes which it effaces? This is a degree of contrition which few reach; and hence, in this way, very few indeed could hope to obtain the pardon of their sins. It, therefore, became necessary that the most merciful Lord should provide by some easier means for the common salvation of men; and this He has done in His admirable wisdom, by giving to His Church the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, a doctrine firmly to be believed and constantly professed by all, if the sinner have a sincere sorrow for his sins and a firm resolution of avoiding them in future, although he bring not with him that contrition which *may* be sufficient of itself to obtain pardon, all his sins are forgiven and remitted through the power of the keys, when he confesses them properly to the priest. Justly, then, do those most holy men, our Fathers, proclaim that by the keys of the Church the gate of heaven is thrown open, a truth which no one can doubt since the Council of Florence has decreed that the effect of Penance is absolution from sin.

HOW "OR THE DESIRE THEREOF" AS DECLARED AT THE COUNCIL OF TRENT AND EXPLAINED IN IT'S CATECHISM WAS ADULTERATED INTO AND PROMULGATED AS A "BAPTISM OF DESIRE"
NOTE: Notice how easily attainable and unquestionably reliable for everyone the catechisms after Trent make Perfect Contrition out to be.


Catechism of St Pius X (1908):
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.


Baltimore Catechism (19th and 20th centuries):
159. Q. 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 out salvation.

"Ardent wish" by one who has no opportunity of being baptized-for no one can baptize himself. He must be sorry for his sins and have the desire of receiving the Baptism of water as soon as he can; just as a person in mortal sin and without a priest to absolve him may, when in danger of death, save his soul from Hell by an act of perfect contrition and the firm resolution of going to confession as soon as possible.

Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water? A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.


Myrna'M's book on a BOD
An adult who for some reason or other cannot be baptized, can never the less, by an act of perfect love of God or perfect contrition, gain sanctifying grace and save his soul.  


CCC
1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.