Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: saintbosco13 on October 10, 2013, 10:59:47 AM
-
I just ordered a copy of the original Catechism of Pope Saint Pius X in Italian, which was published in 1912. One reason I purchased it is to finally put to rest the lame arguments of Feeneyites that Pope Saint Pius X did not approve of the catechism, and the desperate "bad translation" argument.
Image 1 below shows the cover.
Image 2 and 3 below show pages 3-4 of the catechism, which contains the letter of approval from Pope Saint Pius X, approving of the catechism.
Image 4 below shows page 25 of the catechism which contains Question 132. The text of the question is as follows: "132. Chi è fuori della Chiesa si salva? Chi è fuori della Chiesa per propria colpa e muore senza dolore perfetto, non si salva; ma chi ci si trovi senza propria colpa e viva bene, può salvarsi con l'amor di carità, che unisce a Dio, e, in spirito, anche alla Chiesa, cioè all'anima di lei."
This is the same exact Italian text, word for word, which can easily found through Google searches. Even without knowledge of the Italian language, a broken Google translation of the above text clearly shows Pope Saint Pius X teaching that one can be saved in the soul of the Church through perfect contrition:
Google translation: "132. Who is outside the Church is saved? Who is outside the Church through their own fault and die without pain perfect, you do not save it, but whoever you are find no fault of their own and live well , can be saved with the love of charity, which unites with God, and, spirit, even in the Church, that her soul."
Image 5 below shows pages 48-49 containing Question 280. The text of the question is as follows: "280. Se il Battesimo necessario a tutti, può salvarsi nessuno senza Battesimo? Senza Battesimo nessuno può salvarsi, quando però non si possa ricevere il Battesimo di acqua, basta il Battesimo di sangue, cioè il martirio sofferto per Gesù Cristo, oppure il Battesimo di desiderio che é l'amor di carità, desideroso dei mezzi di salute istituiti da Dio."
Again, this is the same exact Italian text, word for word, that can easily found through Google searches. Even a broken Google translation of the above text clearly shows Pope Saint Pius X teaching both baptism of desire and baptism of blood:
Google translation: "280. If the Baptism necessary at all , no one can be saved without Baptism? Nobody can be saved without baptism , but when we can not receive Baptism of water, just the baptism of blood, that the martyrdom suffered for Jesus Christ , or the Baptism of desire that is the love of charity, willing the means of health instituted by God."
Clearly we can now see firsthand that Pope Saint Pius X approved of the catechism, and clearly teaches baptism of desire and baptism of blood, and on the soul of the Church. As has been discussed all along, here we have a Pope, and incorrupt Saint, teaching this doctrine, which is perfectly in line with all others in the Church who have taught it. The matter is now put to rest. More details and very clear copies of the actual pages can be found on baptismofdesire.com (http://www.baptismofdesire.com).
(http://baptismofdesire.com/PiusX-Catechism-cover.jpg)
(http://baptismofdesire.com/PiusX-Catechism-p2-3.jpg)
(http://baptismofdesire.com/PiusX-Catechism-p4-5.jpg)
(http://baptismofdesire.com/PiusX-Catechism-p24-25.jpg)
(http://baptismofdesire.com/PiusX-Catechism-p48-49.jpg)
-
Thank you for posting this but even if this google translation is correct, I do not think this Catechism is infallible. If someone can prove it otherwise, let me know.
That is the thing. You can bring quotes from catechisms, Aquinas, saints, and other Doctors of the Church, but they are not infallible nor the final authority to which Catholics are bound and they cannot surpass the words of Our Lord Himself.
The matter for Baptism as given to us by CHRIST HIMSELF (see Jon 3:5) is true and natural WATER. (See also Eph.5:26; Per 1:20-21)
I can see it clearly that the proper form needed for baptism is water, physical, and tangible:
Infallible Magisterium:
A. Council of Lateran IV, The Catholic Faith:
The sacrament of Baptism, which at the invocation of God and the undivided Trinity, namely the Father the Son and The Holy Ghost, is solemnized in water, righly conferred to anyone in the form of the Curch is useful unto salvation.
B. Council of Florence, Exaltate Domino (1439):
Holy Baptism...holds the first place among the sacraments....the matter of this sacrament is real and natural water, it makes no difference warm or cold.
C. Pope Innocent III, Non ut Apponeres (1206):
In Baptism, two things are always and necessarily required, namely the words and the element (water)...You ought not to doubt that they do not have true Baptism in which one of them is missing.
D. Council of Trent, Canons of Baptism (Canon 2)
If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.
-
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.
-
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?
-
I just ordered a copy of the original Catechism of Pope Saint Pius X in Italian, which was published in 1912. One reason I purchased it is to finally put to rest the lame arguments of Feeneyites that Pope Saint Pius X did not approve of the catechism, and the desperate "bad translation" argument.
If BODers are not going to believe infallibly defined dogma teaching explicitly that the sacrament is necessary, what makes you think an Italian Catechism will convince them?
Better to use the original catechism right from the Council of Trent, it's already translated:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
That is the thing. You can bring quotes from catechisms, Aquinas, saints, and other Doctors of the Church, but they are not infallible nor the final authority to which Catholics are bound and they cannot surpass the words of Our Lord Himself.
The matter for Baptism as given to us by CHRIST HIMSELF (see Jon 3:5) is true and natural WATER. (See also Eph.5:26; Per 1:20-21)
I, for one, will give due deference to the papal teaching office and the consensus of approved theologians. .
Given that I see not such consensus on this matter and that I recognize that my own personal reasoning is of no significance, I try to adhere myself to the infallible teaching of the Church.
The question is simple:
Is this catechism infallible or not?
That's the wrong question and irrelevant.
There is consensus and I've repeatedly asked those espousing your position to provide any authorities EXPLAINING what you say you believe. To date, NOBODY has responded.
Why don't you hold yourself to the same position?
-
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
-
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
-
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 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.
-
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."
-
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:
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:
“‘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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Stubborn wrote:
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.
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:
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.
-
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.
-
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..."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
The First Vatican Council defines the ordinary magisterium as infallible, and you turn around and tell us it got us in a mess?!? To make such a statement shows you're not even Catholic.
-
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
-
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.
So you are accepting that the so called "Baptism of Desire" maybe sufficient for justification, but never for salvation? if so, there is no contradiction here.
Do you believe that one needs to be baptized in water before one dies to get into Heaven?
Desire perhaps can get you into a state of justification, an entrance to sanctifying grace, but not to Heaven.
-
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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03430b.htm):
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+
-
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.
Ambrose, you say in your own words:
A) "there is no substitute for receiving the sacrament of Baptism"
B) "True and natural water must be used for the sacrament of baptism"
C) "If someone is justified through Baptism of Desire, he must still receive the sacrament of Baptism"
Now look:
Council of Trent (seventh session, De baptismo, canon V): "If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation: let him be anathema."
Conclusion: you are not saved until you receive the sacrament of baptism with true and natural water.
-
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.
There is no such thing as 'Feeneyism'. :fryingpan:
-
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.
Ambrose, you say in your own words:
A) "there is no substitute for receiving the sacrament of Baptism"
B) "True and natural water must be used for the sacrament of baptism"
C) "If someone is justified through Baptism of Desire, he must still receive the sacrament of Baptism"
Now look:
Council of Trent (seventh session, De baptismo, canon V): "If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation: let him be anathema."
Conclusion: you are not saved until you receive the sacrament of baptism with true and natural water.
Cantarella wrote:
I wrote this reply to a poster on this forum who, like you, uses these sacred canons from Trent to argue against the Church's de fide teaching on Baptism of Desire:
Regarding Session VII, Canon 5: Baptism is not optional, we are commanded by God to receive it. Anyone that says it is optional to either receive it or not receive it, is anathema. Baptism of Desire has nothing to to with this Canon. Those who are justified through Baptism of Desire are not saying, "Baptism is optional, so I choose to not receive it." No, they are actively seeking Baptism, and they are not treating it as an option.
Regarding Session VII, Canon 2: Real and natural water is necessary for the sacrament of Baptism. There can be no substitute. As with Canon 5, this has nothing to do with Baptism of Desire. Baptism of Desire is not the sacrament of Baptism, therefore it is not a metaphor for the Sacrament.
-
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.
-
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 ...........
"An act of Perfect contrition" and "an ardent wish to receive baptism" are two completely different things. Because it is so obvious, I don't know what else to say about that. Suffice to say that surely no one can honestly deny that there is a huge disparity of belief even among BODers as to what the requisites for a BOD even are.
Additionally, as the catechism from Trent teaches about perfect contrition, it needs to be remembered that first off, it is teaching about those who have already been baptized, it is not teaching about infidels, and among those who have already been baptized, it dissuades from depending upon it for forgiveness - as it states: "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."
So it is entirely presumptuous to believe one who is not even Catholic can attain the degree of contrition necessary for forgiveness from Original Sin when there are "very few [Catholics]indeed" who can hope to obtain pardon.
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.
Saying that "all theologians without exception" unanimously taught the same thing is wrong. Fr. Cekada conveniently docuмents his biased opinion and rejects all other facts when presented to him - I know, I attempted to debate him on the subject, but he is worse than bosco to debate with. And he hurls ad hominems to bate those who debate him into insulting him, so unless one wants to be driven to insult a priest, there is no use whatsoever in debating him on the subject.
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).
It is just as easy to speculate that God provided Baptism to St. Emerentiana through an unseen miracle to supply His requisites for salvation, as it is to use our want of knowledge as proof of its dispensability. What we do not know is not a proof of anything.
It is impossible to prove that God did not grant the Sacrament of Baptism to her and all martyrs who died apparently without this Sacrament. If the Church honors anyone as a saint, according to her own teaching, the presumption must be that the saint was baptized.
As for the Emperor Valentian, Fr. Wathen states it clearly enough...............
We would just like to make some brief points about the by-now-well-known Funeral Oration' of St. Ambrose for his deceased friend, the Emperor Valentinian-which was hardly the occasion for a doctrinal treatise on baptism. It Is the earliest reference cited as 'proof for the early Church's belief in "Baptism of Desire."
The text quoted usually begins thus:
"But I hear you grieve because he did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism......"
Let us stop St. Ambrose at this point and reflect on what was just quoted. All of the faithful that have gathered for the memorial services of the Emperor were grieved. And why were they grieved? St. Ambrose says they were grieved because there was no evidence that the Emperor, who was known to be a catechumen, had been baptized. Now If "Baptism of Desire" was something contained in the "deposit of Faith" and part of the Apostolic doctrine, why then would these faithful be grieved that Valentinlan had not been baptized with water?
The reason these faithful were grieved was because they believed that "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter the Kingdom of God." Perhaps too, they had been Instructed by Ambrose himself, who said: 'One is the Baptism which the Church administers: the Baptism of water and the Holy Ghost, with which catechumens need to be baptized . . . Nor does the mystery of regeneration exist at all without water: 'For unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom.' Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, with which he also signs himself; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot receive remission of his sins nor the gift of spiritual grace."(De Mysterlls,-THE DIVINE OFFICE).
-
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".
-
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.
Your statement shows you do not understand the definition of infallibility.
The First Vatican Council teaches:
"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."
So the ordinary teaching office (ordinary magisterium) is equally as infallible as solemn pronouncements from the papacy.
The definition of “Infallibility” from “A Catholic Dictionary” concurs with 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."
The Catholic Encyclopedia (1917) in the article on Infallibility, states the same: "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.
Notice these definitions show infallibility has 3 components: A. The Pope + B. General Councils + C. Ordinary magisterium = Infallibility. You and other opponents of baptism of desire consistently state that Catholics need to believe A and B, and you completely ignore C. You need to keep reading the statement from the First Vatican Council (above) over and over and over until it sinks in, that Catholics MUST believe the ordinary magisterium equally.
-
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?
-
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: (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html)
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.
-
You belittle the Popes and Councils with your rejection of the truth.
:laugh2:
Are you really that delusional? Pope St. Pius X has rejected your ignorant opinion, and in an area where you can't even have an opinion!
-
You belittle the Popes and Councils with your rejection of the truth.
:laugh2:
Are you really that delusional? Pope St. Pius X has rejected your ignorant opinion, and in an area where you can't even have an opinion!
Oh that's right, you need an interpreter to interpret literal teaching - but you've never said how you can be sure the interpretations don't need interpreting.
-
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.
Ambrose, you say in your own words:
A) "there is no substitute for receiving the sacrament of Baptism"
B) "True and natural water must be used for the sacrament of baptism"
C) "If someone is justified through Baptism of Desire, he must still receive the sacrament of Baptism"
Now look:
Council of Trent (seventh session, De baptismo, canon V): "If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation: let him be anathema."
Conclusion: you are not saved until you receive the sacrament of baptism with true and natural water.
Cantarella wrote:
I wrote this reply to a poster on this forum who, like you, uses these sacred canons from Trent to argue against the Church's de fide teaching on Baptism of Desire:
Regarding Session VII, Canon 5: Baptism is not optional, we are commanded by God to receive it. Anyone that says it is optional to either receive it or not receive it, is anathema. Baptism of Desire has nothing to to with this Canon. Those who are justified through Baptism of Desire are not saying, "Baptism is optional, so I choose to not receive it." No, they are actively seeking Baptism, and they are not treating it as an option.
Regarding Session VII, Canon 2: Real and natural water is necessary for the sacrament of Baptism. There can be no substitute. As with Canon 5, this has nothing to do with Baptism of Desire. Baptism of Desire is not the sacrament of Baptism, therefore it is not a metaphor for the Sacrament.
I see a contradiction in your statement and you still did not address my questions. You said the same thing.
So you are accepting that "Baptism of Desire" is not a sacrament and not substitute for real Baptism? Desire alone maybe sufficient for justification, but never for salvation.
Do you believe that one needs to be baptized in water before one dies to get into Heaven?
-
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.
Your statement shows you do not understand the definition of infallibility.
The First Vatican Council teaches:
"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."
So the ordinary teaching office (ordinary magisterium) is equally as infallible as solemn pronouncements from the papacy.
The definition of “Infallibility” from “A Catholic Dictionary” concurs with 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."
The Catholic Encyclopedia (1917) in the article on Infallibility, states the same: "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.
Notice these definitions show infallibility has 3 components: A. The Pope + B. General Councils + C. Ordinary magisterium = Infallibility. You and other opponents of baptism of desire consistently state that Catholics need to believe A and B, and you completely ignore C. You need to keep reading the statement from the First Vatican Council (above) over and over and over until it sinks in, that Catholics MUST believe the ordinary magisterium equally.
Catechisms should explain what the Church has always taught and have their merit as long as they do not contradict Magisterial teaching. The Church has always taught that there is only ONE Baptism and that of water and the word. It is a Catholic dogma that there is only ONE Baptism, celebrated with water. (I can provide exact quotes from the Infallible Magisterium if you want me to prove that this is what the Church has always taught). This is de fide. Statements original to the cathechism' text itself do not belong to the Magisterium and are not infallible. For example, it is believed that the Baltimore Catechism indeed contain errors.
My point is: if you want to make a case for the so called "baptism of desire", please use only sources of the highest Magisterial authority (Councils, infallible pronouncements, decrees, canons) but not catechisms.
-
Canrarella wrote:
So you are accepting that "Baptism of Desire" is not a sacrament and not substitute for real Baptism? Desire alone maybe sufficient for justification, but never for salvation.
Yes, Baptism of Desire is most certainly not a sacrament. Nor is it a substitute for Baptism.
If one is justified, they, as Trent teaches are in the state of grace, and God has adopted them as sons. A person in this state, if he is seeking Baptism, and remains in the state of grace, if he dies prior to the sacrament of Baptism would most certainly be saved.
Do you believe that one needs to be baptized in water before one dies to get into Heaven?
It really does not matter what I believe, as I am a subject of the Church, so I believe what the Church tells me to believe. If one dies prior to Baptism, and is in state of grace then he is most certainly saved.
-
It's fine that everyone here is ignoring me, but let me sum-up my central point in this thread one more time:
Even if we are to concede that there are individuals in Paradise, life eternal, who, since the Law of Baptism became obligatory upon all human beings without exception, but who lack the character of sacramental Baptism, there is nothing whatsoever to suppose that such a set consists of a large group of persons. In fact, the number of individuals in Heaven since the coming of Jesus Christ who lack the character of sacramental Baptism may be virtually nonexistent, so small, in fact, to be absolutely negligible, at least as compared to the number of souls in Paradise who possess the character of Baptism.
-
It's fine that everyone here is ignoring me, but let me sum-up my central point in this thread one more time:
Even if we are to concede that there are individuals in Paradise, life eternal, who, since the Law of Baptism became obligatory upon all human beings without exception, but who lack the character of sacramental Baptism, there is nothing whatsoever to suppose that such a set consists of a large group of persons. In fact, the number of individuals in Heaven since the coming of Jesus Christ who lack the character of sacramental Baptism may be virtually nonexistent, so small, in fact, to be absolutely negligible, at least as compared to the number of souls in Paradise who possess the character of Baptism.
Jehanne,
I was not ignoring you, these threads are moving quickly, and I must have missed your post.
I agree with you that cases such as these are most likely not common. Baptism of Desire is a transitory state that ends in sacramental Baptism, or in death, whichever comes first.
A possible case that I think may be relevant in our times may include baptisms that were done incorrectly by the Conciliar church, so the person believes they were baptized correctly as a baby but were not.
-
It's fine that everyone here is ignoring me, but let me sum-up my central point in this thread one more time:
Even if we are to concede that there are individuals in Paradise, life eternal, who, since the Law of Baptism became obligatory upon all human beings without exception, but who lack the character of sacramental Baptism, there is nothing whatsoever to suppose that such a set consists of a large group of persons. In fact, the number of individuals in Heaven since the coming of Jesus Christ who lack the character of sacramental Baptism may be virtually nonexistent, so small, in fact, to be absolutely negligible, at least as compared to the number of souls in Paradise who possess the character of Baptism.
Jehanne,
I was not ignoring you, these threads are moving quickly, and I must have missed your post.
I agree with you that cases such as these are most likely not common. Baptism of Desire is a transitory state that ends in sacramental Baptism, or in death, whichever comes first.
A possible case that I think may be relevant in our times may include baptisms that were done incorrectly by the Conciliar church, so the person believes they were baptized correctly as a baby but were not.
I actually know a Novus Ordite that came to tradition as a result of investigating his own baptism.
He asked his mother if the "priest" ever poured water over his head. His mom said that she does not remember him doing that, on top of that all of the witnesses to the baptism are either dead/untrackable. Even before some Missionaries not through any fault of their own sometimes had individuals who were never baptized in the regenerative waters of baptism, although they had lived even to 90 years old thinking they were members of the Church. Very sad case, but to God who is a rewarder of the just and injust, nothing is far from His Providence.
-
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?
Please define what is meant by the soul of the Church. Does that mean that a pagan that dies in his state of paganism can be saved (go to heaven)? Remember that the difference between traditional magisterial teaching or modernist heretical teachings is but one thread away when dealing with this topic. All I want is clarity so that I am absolutely sure what you mean by that term which is unfortunately hijacked by the modernist. Appreciate your answer.
-
.
Among the nearly incalculable number of false doctrines being
promoted by the present Roman Church is the false doctrine of
the "spiritual Church," otherwise mistaken for the "soul of the
Church."
For the soul of the Church is none other than the Holy Ghost.
But regarding the mistaken idea, this "spiritual Church"
maintains that one can differentiate between the spiritual
Church and the Catholic Church, so that the Catholic Church,
as well as other "churches," realize the "Spiritual Church." The
(false) doctrine of a "spiritual church" is one of the fundamental
and erroneous presuppositions of false Ecuмenism. It is
essentially a protestant principle. As such, it attempts to
spiritually unite Christian communities that are otherwise
separated from one another in faith and worship. These
various communities think of themselves as 'branches' of the
same tree, taking a page from a dusty book on philosophy
that says the 'treeness' of a tree exists only in the mind.
Therefore, the church of Christ exists only in the mind, so
they say. It becomes a subjective reality. Of course, HEBF
says it's a "concrete reality" in his speeches to schmooze
the Accordistas back to sleep.
This is one of the ways that Modernism sprouts its wings to fly.
Here is Bishop Eugenio Correcco of Lugano: "The principle
which must guide all efforts to reconcile Christians with each
other is the community, realized in various degrees, but always
in a more perfect congruence of contents of the faiths, worked
out in the life of the individual parts of the Church, together
forming the World Church of Christ" (Swiss Church Newspaper,
September, 1986, p. 537).
+Fellay could have read that article and others like it, 22
months before his consecration as bishop!
-
Your statement shows you do not understand the definition of infallibility.
The First Vatican Council teaches:
"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."
So the ordinary teaching office (ordinary magisterium) is equally as infallible as solemn pronouncements from the papacy.
The definition of “Infallibility” from “A Catholic Dictionary” concurs with 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."
The Catholic Encyclopedia (1917) in the article on Infallibility, states the same: "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.
Notice these definitions show infallibility has 3 components: A. The Pope + B. General Councils + C. Ordinary magisterium = Infallibility. You and other opponents of baptism of desire consistently state that Catholics need to believe A and B, and you completely ignore C. You need to keep reading the statement from the First Vatican Council (above) over and over and over until it sinks in, that Catholics MUST believe the ordinary magisterium equally.
Catechisms should explain what the Church has always taught and have their merit as long as they do not contradict Magisterial teaching. The Church has always taught that there is only ONE Baptism and that of water and the word. It is a Catholic dogma that there is only ONE Baptism, celebrated with water. (I can provide exact quotes from the Infallible Magisterium if you want me to prove that this is what the Church has always taught). This is de fide. Statements original to the cathechism' text itself do not belong to the Magisterium and are not infallible. For example, it is believed that the Baltimore Catechism indeed contain errors.
My point is: if you want to make a case for the so called "baptism of desire", please use only sources of the highest Magisterial authority (Councils, infallible pronouncements, decrees, canons) but not catechisms.
AGAIN, dogmatic magisterial teaching of the Church consists of A. The Pope + B. General Councils + C. Ordinary magisterium. All 3 components are considered infallible. It's right there in black and white above, docuмented from the First Vatican Council. You already have your "highest magisterial authority". Open your eyes!
-
It's fine that everyone here is ignoring me, but let me sum-up my central point in this thread one more time:
Even if we are to concede that there are individuals in Paradise, life eternal, who, since the Law of Baptism became obligatory upon all human beings without exception, but who lack the character of sacramental Baptism, there is nothing whatsoever to suppose that such a set consists of a large group of persons. In fact, the number of individuals in Heaven since the coming of Jesus Christ who lack the character of sacramental Baptism may be virtually nonexistent, so small, in fact, to be absolutely negligible, at least as compared to the number of souls in Paradise who possess the character of Baptism.
Only God knows when baptism of desire or blood applies to a person. It is not for us to try and guess where it applies. Our job as Catholics is simply to adhere to the teachings of the Church, and one of those teachings says baptism of desire and blood are a possibility. We need not take it any further then that.
-
Then do as you say and believe what the Church teaches. A cathechism is not infallible. Nor Aquinas is. Non-infallible teachings can contain error. Not all teachings are infallible so adhere yourself to what it is.
A human beign that is properly and sincerely disposed will receive the necessary Sacrament of Baptism, just the way Our Lord instituted it, before he dies. Why would you doubt that God can and will get this person properly baptized somehow?. To doubt this, is to doubt God's words since He has commanded Baptism as necessary for eternal salvation and He does not deceive us nor command impossibilities. Again, God can make it possible for a person that truly seeks and asks salvation, to be baptized and enter Heaven. Every single human being can be baptized in water for water is everywhere! What is the problem with accepting that? God will ensure that his elect gets baptized. To say otherwise is to contradict the Infallible Magisterium:
Council Of Trent, on Justification (Chapter 11)
God does not command impossibilities, but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, pray for what you cannot do, and He assists you that you may be able. For God does not forsake those who have once been justified by His grace, unless He be first forsaken by them.
And
If anyone shall say that the commandments of God are, even for a man who is justified, impossible to observe; let him be anathema (Canon18)
God can see into the souls of people, and if He finds unworthy dispositions, then He could very well keep that person from receiving Baptism. "For the lord searches all hearts, and understands all the thougts of minds. If you seek Him, you shall find Him, but if you forsake Him, He will cast you off forever" (Chronicles 28:9).
-
Please define what is meant by the soul of the Church. Does that mean that a pagan that dies in his state of paganism can be saved (go to heaven)? Remember that the difference between traditional magisterial teaching or modernist heretical teachings is but one thread away when dealing with this topic. All I want is clarity so that I am absolutely sure what you mean by that term which is unfortunately hijacked by the modernist. Appreciate your answer.
The definition of "Soul of the Church" in the "New Catholic Dictionary" (1929) provides an explanation for the origins of the term:
Soul of the Church: "From the 16th century, the Catholic theologians expressed more definitely the theological doctrine of the distinction between the Soul and Body of the Church. . . This distinction. . . is formally expressed by Bellarmine in his study on the members of the Church. According to him, men belong to the Body of the Church by virtue of external profession of the faith, and participation in the sacraments; and to the Soul of the Church through the internal gifts of the Holy Ghost, faith, hope, and charity. He draws three general conclusions relative to the members of the Church. There are those: (a) Who belong always to both the Body and Soul of the Church; (b) Who belong to the Soul without belonging to the Body; (c) Who belong to the Body but not to the Soul. This teaching has generally been followed by Catholic theologians."
Examples of this teaching:
St. Robert Bellarmine: The Church Militant (De Ecclesia Militante), c. 2: "Others, however, are of the soul but not of the body (of the Church), as Catechumens and those who have been excommunicated, who may have faith and charity which is possible."
Baltimore catechism: Q. 512. How are such persons said to belong to the Church? A. Such persons are said to belong to the "soul of the church"; that is, they are really members of the Church without knowing it. Those who share in its Sacraments and worship are said to belong to the body or visible part of the Church.
Pope St. Pius X: The Creed, Ninth Article, The Church in Particular: 29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved? A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation
Catholic Encyclopedia: The Church: "Thus, even in the case in which God Saves men apart from the Church, He does so through the Church's graces. They are joined to the Church in spiritual communion, though not in visible and external communion. In the expression of theologians, they belong to the soul of the Church, though not to its body."
A Commentary on Canon Law (Augustine 1918): Canon 2258: "The relation of the individual Catholic to the body of the Church is sometimes styled external communion, whilst his connection with the soul of the Church is called internal communion. This latter communion is not per se severed by excommunication, as grace and charity can not be taken away by the penal sword of the Church, but are lost only through grievous personal guilt. And as this guilt can be repaired by perfect contrition, it may happen that one is excommunicated and yet lives in the friendship of God. Besides, faith and hope may coexist with mortal sin."
A Catholic Dictionary (1931): The Soul of the Church: "The Holy Ghost is the soul of the mystical body of Christ, the Church, as Pope Pius XII declares in Mystici Corporis Christi. But the expression "soul of the Church" has often been used in a metaphorical sense to designate all those who actually are in a state of grace in dependence on the merits of Christ and of the sanctifying action of the Holy Ghost; many of these persons who are not seen to be members of the visible body of the Church. But to say that such persons belonging to the "soul of the Church" is not altogether free from objection. It is better to say of the non-Catholic in good faith that "he belongs invisibly to the Church," as being "related to the mystical Body of the Redeemer by some unconscious reaching out and desire" (Pope Pius XII).
Letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing of Boston (Directly approved by Pope Pius XII, August 8, 1949): Canon Law Digest, 1953, pg 525, Canon 1324 (Dangers to the Faith) (Excerpts): "In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807). The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God. These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, <On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ> (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire. But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6)."
-
It's fine that everyone here is ignoring me, but let me sum-up my central point in this thread one more time:
Even if we are to concede that there are individuals in Paradise, life eternal, who, since the Law of Baptism became obligatory upon all human beings without exception, but who lack the character of sacramental Baptism, there is nothing whatsoever to suppose that such a set consists of a large group of persons. In fact, the number of individuals in Heaven since the coming of Jesus Christ who lack the character of sacramental Baptism may be virtually nonexistent, so small, in fact, to be absolutely negligible, at least as compared to the number of souls in Paradise who possess the character of Baptism.
Only God knows when baptism of desire or blood applies to a person. It is not for us to try and guess where it applies. Our job as Catholics is simply to adhere to the teachings of the Church, and one of those teachings says baptism of desire and blood are a possibility. We need not take it any further then that.
Then, as "a Feeneyite," I think that you are "pounding on open doors." The position of the Saint Benedict Center is that neither "Baptism of Desire" and/or "Baptism of Blood" are heretical or even false. If we wish to have faith and hope that the omnipotent Triune God can bring sacramental Baptism to each and every one of His Elect, such a view, even after being presented to the Magisterium of Saint Pope Pius XII, to the Holy Father and to every living Cardinal, was greeted with silence. I guess that you can consider it to be heretical, if you wish. Perhaps the SSPX does, also; however, they still openly give the Holy Eucharist to "Feeneyites". Perhaps they are of the opinion that we err in "good faith." So be it.
On the other hand, if some of God's Elect end this life without sacramental Baptism, so be it. Certainly, the Syllabus condemned the presumption of knowing, at least with certainty, the state of any such individual. And, if there is one single error of modernism and Vatican II that one could point to, it is is the presumption (or, assumption) that non-Catholics can or will be saved, apart from any explicit faith in Jesus Christ (for adults), the Sacraments (or any explicit desire for them), and/or submission to the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of God, or in the case of sedes, the Chair, now vacant.
-
AGAIN, dogmatic magisterial teaching of the Church consists of A. The Pope + B. General Councils + C. Ordinary magisterium. All 3 components are considered infallible. It's right there in black and white above, docuмented from the First Vatican Council. You already have your "highest magisterial authority". Open your eyes!
You seem to think that you can treat your non-doctrine of the mythical non-sacrament, a BOD, without any reference whatsoever to any other doctrine.
Only the sacrament enjoys the teaching of the UOM which agrees with infallible definitions as well as the literal words of Our Lord. This is how we know that the sacrament is a part of the deposit of faith. Every single saint, father, theologian, doctor, catechism and etc. teach and have always taught what the sacrament is and that it is a necessity for every human being - this teaching is constant even among those authorities who also teach of a BOD.
Your real problem is that you do not admit that the mythical non-sacrament on the other hand, only has *some* teachers, but *a near universal following* of believers. This is how you think a BOD is a universal teaching, when the truth is that it is nearly universally believed.
A BOD is not a part of the deposit of faith because regardless of the fact that a BOD has never been defined, the overwhelming majority of Fathers, saints and theologians never taught it - and it contradicts that which has been defined infallibly.
If a BOD were a teaching of the UOM, there would be a singular universal understanding of what it even is. For example, the sacrament of baptism has a formula that the whole world, even non-Catholics understand - and have always understood since the time of the Apostles.
The mythical non-sacrament, a BOD on the other hand, has as many different formulas as there are protestant sects - this fact is indefensible. This fact proves that a BOD is not a part of the deposit of faith. This fact condemn the whole idea that a BOD is de fide.
Now please, do your duty and defend your doctrine of a BOD by providing it's complete formula once and for all!
This should be interesting - will see how long before all the BODers end up debating amongst themselves.
-
AGAIN, dogmatic magisterial teaching of the Church consists of A. The Pope + B. General Councils + C. Ordinary magisterium. All 3 components are considered infallible. It's right there in black and white above, docuмented from the First Vatican Council. You already have your "highest magisterial authority". Open your eyes!
You seem to think that you can treat your non-doctrine of the mythical non-sacrament, a BOD, without any reference whatsoever to any other doctrine.
Only the sacrament enjoys the teaching of the UOM which agrees with infallible definitions as well as the literal words of Our Lord. This is how we know that the sacrament is a part of the deposit of faith. Every single saint, father, theologian, doctor, catechism and etc. teach and have always taught what the sacrament is and that it is a necessity for every human being - this teaching is constant even among those authorities who also teach of a BOD.
Your real problem is that you do not admit that the mythical non-sacrament on the other hand, only has *some* teachers, but *a near universal following* of believers. This is how you think a BOD is a universal teaching, when the truth is that it is nearly universally believed.
A BOD is not a part of the deposit of faith because regardless of the fact that a BOD has never been defined, the overwhelming majority of Fathers, saints and theologians never taught it - and it contradicts that which has been defined infallibly.
If a BOD were a teaching of the UOM, there would be a singular universal understanding of what it even is. For example, the sacrament of baptism has a formula that the whole world, even non-Catholics understand - and have always understood since the time of the Apostles.
The mythical non-sacrament, a BOD on the other hand, has as many different formulas as there are protestant sects - this fact is indefensible. This fact proves that a BOD is not a part of the deposit of faith. This fact condemn the whole idea that a BOD is de fide.
Now please, do your duty and defend your doctrine of a BOD by providing it's complete formula once and for all!
This should be interesting - will see how long before all the BODers end up debating amongst themselves.
I don't believe you are a Catholic. Your rule of faith is no different than that of a Protestant.
-
AGAIN, dogmatic magisterial teaching of the Church consists of A. The Pope + B. General Councils + C. Ordinary magisterium. All 3 components are considered infallible. It's right there in black and white above, docuмented from the First Vatican Council. You already have your "highest magisterial authority". Open your eyes!
You seem to think that you can treat your non-doctrine of the mythical non-sacrament, a BOD, without any reference whatsoever to any other doctrine.
Only the sacrament enjoys the teaching of the UOM which agrees with infallible definitions as well as the literal words of Our Lord. This is how we know that the sacrament is a part of the deposit of faith. Every single saint, father, theologian, doctor, catechism and etc. teach and have always taught what the sacrament is and that it is a necessity for every human being - this teaching is constant even among those authorities who also teach of a BOD.
Your real problem is that you do not admit that the mythical non-sacrament on the other hand, only has *some* teachers, but *a near universal following* of believers. This is how you think a BOD is a universal teaching, when the truth is that it is nearly universally believed.
A BOD is not a part of the deposit of faith because regardless of the fact that a BOD has never been defined, the overwhelming majority of Fathers, saints and theologians never taught it - and it contradicts that which has been defined infallibly.
If a BOD were a teaching of the UOM, there would be a singular universal understanding of what it even is. For example, the sacrament of baptism has a formula that the whole world, even non-Catholics understand - and have always understood since the time of the Apostles.
The mythical non-sacrament, a BOD on the other hand, has as many different formulas as there are protestant sects - this fact is indefensible. This fact proves that a BOD is not a part of the deposit of faith. This fact condemn the whole idea that a BOD is de fide.
Now please, do your duty and defend your doctrine of a BOD by providing it's complete formula once and for all!
This should be interesting - will see how long before all the BODers end up debating amongst themselves.
I don't believe you are a Catholic. Your rule of faith is no different than that of a Protestant.
If you're going to flap your lips, why not actually do something productive for once - - - - Now please, do your duty and defend your doctrine of a BOD by providing it's complete formula once and for all!
This should be interesting - will see how long before all the BODers end up debating amongst themselves.
-
If you're going to flap your lips, why not actually do something productive for once - - - - Now please, do your duty and defend your doctrine of a BOD by providing it's complete formula once and for all!
Your request merely pinpoints your error, which is the error of most "feeneyites." You argue for a while then always end up either demanding a solemn definition or saying "that's not infallible!"
This is why debating with you is a complete waste of time. I only do it to combat Matthew's allowing you to remain here promoting your errors and possibly influence others.
-
If "Feeneyism" was as big of "error" as you say that it is, one must wonder (out loud) why Father Feeney's Bread of Life was not placed on the Index. There was plenty of time from its publication (January 1, 1952) until the death of Pope Pius XII (October 9, 1958) for this to have had happened:
http://www.amazon.com/Bread-life-Leonard-Feeney/dp/B0007ELXAA
P.S. Read the reviews at Amazon. By the way, SJB, have you ever read Bread of Life?
-
SJB,
Matthew knows that a BOD is not a dogma and in the rules, he has posted so. Your attempt at insulting me for defending the necessity of the Sacrament (which is a dogma) is lamentable, but still, I think one day there's always that chance that you may accept the teaching on the Sacrament from of Our Lord, Apostles, Councils, popes, saints, catechisms and theologians who universally mean what they teach when they echo the words of Our Lord in Mat 3:5.
Now there is nothing to debate - try very hard to actually do what was asked - provide the complete formula for a BOD. Be sure and try not to leave anything out.
-
If "Feeneyism" was as big of "error" as you say that it is, one must wonder (out loud) why Father Feeney's Bread of Life was not placed on the Index. There was plenty of time from its publication (January 1, 1952) until the death of Pope Pius XII (October 9, 1958) for this to have had happened:
http://www.amazon.com/Bread-life-Leonard-Feeney/dp/B0007ELXAA
P.S. Read the reviews at Amazon. By the way, SJB, have you ever read Bread of Life?
SJB is another one who has no idea what he is even arguing about - so long as he can call names and attempt insults toward those who defend the necessity of the Sacrament, he accomplishes his purpose in posting on CI.
-
If "Feeneyism" was as big of "error" as you say that it is, one must wonder (out loud) why Father Feeney's Bread of Life was not placed on the Index. There was plenty of time from its publication (January 1, 1952) until the death of Pope Pius XII (October 9, 1958) for this to have had happened:
http://www.amazon.com/Bread-life-Leonard-Feeney/dp/B0007ELXAA
P.S. Read the reviews at Amazon. By the way, SJB, have you ever read Bread of Life?
SJB is another one who has no idea what he is even arguing about - so long as he can call names and attempt insults toward those who defend the necessity of the Sacrament, he accomplishes his purpose in posting on CI.
I made reference to the error of the "feeneyites," which has nothing to do with Fr. Feeney. I've said many times I HAVE NO DESIRE to attack Fr. Feeney.
-
SJB,
Matthew knows that a BOD is not a dogma and in the rules, he has posted so. Your attempt at insulting me for defending the necessity of the Sacrament (which is a dogma) is lamentable, but still, I think one day there's always that chance that you may accept the teaching on the Sacrament from of Our Lord, Apostles, Councils, popes, saints, catechisms and theologians who universally mean what they teach when they echo the words of Our Lord in Mat 3:5.
Now there is nothing to debate - try very hard to actually do what was asked - provide the complete formula for a BOD. Be sure and try not to leave anything out.
Then Matthew is wrong because the argument isn't that BOD is a dogma, it's that Catholics are required to hold much more than just defined dogmas.
I'm not sure Matthew understands the issue. I know you don't.
-
Now there is nothing to debate - try very hard to actually do what was asked - provide the complete formula for a BOD. Be sure and try not to leave anything out.
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.
Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue.
The proposition all Catholics must assent to, under pain of mortal sin, is that there are indeed souls that have been saved by baptism of desire and blood.
-
Now there is nothing to debate - try very hard to actually do what was asked - provide the complete formula for a BOD. Be sure and try not to leave anything out.
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.
Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue.
The proposition all Catholics must assent to, under pain of mortal sin, is that there are indeed souls that have been saved by baptism of desire and blood.
I am okay with this proposition, however, is it also de fide (in your opinion) that these souls lack the character of sacramental Baptism? And, must we believe that these souls lack the character of sacramental Bapitsm under pain of mortal sin? If so, how many such souls are we required to believe that are in Paradise? If I assert, if only as a theological opinion, that only at most a few dozen such souls are in Paradise, am I a heretic? By the way, was it (or, is it) heretical to believe that the Emperor Trajan was raised from the dead five hundred years after his death by Saint Pope Gregory I so that he could receive Christian Baptism? Is it heretical to believe that such could have occurred with others, also? More here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan#Trajan.27s_legacy