Author Topic: A couple of things on BOD/BOB (Read 1327 times)

Merry · « **on:** March 21, 2021, 07:16:36 PM »

...Catholicism in America was of such a liberal stripe that by 1899 the Pope wrote a Bull directly to James Cardinal Gibbons of Baltimore – who wrote right back objecting to what the Pope had said. To make being Catholic in America “easier,” one method was the loosening up of the catechisms used. The liberalizing of baptism with Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood is seen as an almost American peculiarity, making Church membership/salvation “easier.” (One can speak with Catholics from other countries who will say they never, ever heard of BOD/BOB!)

It seems the catechism that had been used in the US in the earlier 1800’s was the Catechism of St. John Neumann of Philadelphia. Very simple and straightforward and no mention of any Baptism but that of water.  he US Church then thought to use the famous Butler’s Penny Catechism from Ireland, again based on Trent, and very clear that one had to be Catholic to be saved and Baptism was of water (See page 23 - https://archive.org/details/cihm_26727 . And notice this version was Butler’s as used in Quebec!)

But no – it seems eventually around 1885 began the series of Baltimore Catechisms. At first was a version with BOB/BOD. The BOB/BOD reference was removed when the Catechism was shortened by several questions, so for a while the Baltimore Catechism only asserted Baptism of Water. Then version #3 and #4 again included the “diversions” of the alternative BOB/BOD baptisms.

Now, here is presented Fr. Leonard Feeney's indignant discussion of this whole convoluted mess. It's worth following to the end --

Fr. Feeney -

The Catholic Faith in the United States of America is always academically ascribed to the Baltimore Catechism.

The Baltimore Catechism was confected at the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, by a group of American Bishops under the control and influence of James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore. James Cardinal Gibbons was a Catholic prelate who did not hesitate to get up before a Methodist congregation, in a Methodist Church, and give a supposedly Catholic sermon while reading from a Protestant Bible!

  Cardinal Gibbons was not a great theologian. He was a controller of theological thought. I hesitate to call him an opportunist, because there may be times when a priest might brilliantly take advantage of a situation, for Our Lord’s sake. But when a Catholic prelate becomes all opportunist, and is interested in teaching what doctrines of the Church would be most to the liking of his hearers or what general summary of the Church’s history — as in the Baltimore Cardinal’s book, The Faith of Our Fathers — will be least offensive to his new-found neighbors, then I think opportunism, is serious defect.

  Cardinal Gibbons’ main ambition was to show that Catholicism was good Americanism. It is for that reason he went out of his way to take such metaphorical expressions in theology as “Baptism of Desire” and “Baptism of Blood” and put them side by side with Baptism of Water. As a consequence, every little Catholic child in a Catholic school, from the time of Cardinal Gibbons on, has been required to say, in answer to the question, “How many kinds of Baptism are there?”: “There are three kinds of Baptism: Baptism of Water, Baptism of Desire, and Baptism of Blood.”

  That is heresy! There is only one Baptism, just as there is only one Lord and one Faith. (Eph. 4:5.) The Council of Vienne explicitly defines that this one Baptism, which is administered by water, is the one which must be faithfully confessed by all.

  The Council of Trent, in its second Canon on the subject of Baptism, declares, with the majestic authority of the Church:
  If anyone shall say that true and natural water is not of necessity in Baptism, and therefore shall turn those words of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, “unless one be born again of water and the Holy Spirit” (John 3:5), into some metaphor, let him be anathema.

  Therefore, I repeat, metaphorical water is forbidden under pain of heresy. And what is “Baptism of Desire,” as the Liberals teach it, but metaphorical water dishonestly substituting itself for the innocent requirement of Christ?

  The same heretical theology that turned Baptism of Water into any dry desire one might have in the general direction of Heaven, has also turned one Lord into one’s personal sincerity, and one Faith into the light of invincible ignorance!

  And, by the way, speaking of the Baltimore Catechism, even its most ardent supporters are forced to admit that shortly after the publication of the Baltimore Catechism, various editions with word meanings, explanatory notes, and even with different arrangements, came forth — so that, by testimony of all Catholic theologians in America, there is a considerable diversity in the books that go by the name of the Baltimore Catechism. Yet the Baltimore Catechism is always referred to in a singular apostrophe, as though it had the dignity of the Gospel itself.

  A catechism is as good as the man who wrote it. If the Baltimore Catechism is so good, why do they revise it and revise it and revise it?

  The crucial point, then, at which heresy entered the Catholic Church in the United States and backwashed to the dying Faith of Europe and the rest of the world, was through the teaching of the doctrine known as “Baptism of Desire,” in the Baltimore Catechism.

  As I have explained ... many times, neither “Baptism of Desire” nor “Baptism of Blood” should truly be called Baptism. Neither is a sacrament of the Church. Neither was instituted by Jesus Christ. No one can receive any of the other sacraments by reason of having received these so-called “Baptisms.” Baptism of Water is the initial requirement for the reception of all the other sacraments.

Merry · « **Reply #1 on:** March 21, 2021, 07:17:27 PM »

Section on Baptism from the Council of Trent Catechism translated in Maynooth in 1899 and printed in New York in 1905.

#1. Pages 114-115

Bottom paragraph "Its matter" section –

But, as we first said, when treating of the Sacraments in general, that every Sacrament consists of matter and form; it is therefore, necessary to point out what constitutes each of these in the Sacrament of Baptism. The matter then, or element of this Sacrament, is any sort of natural water, which is, simply, and without addition of any kind, commonly called water; be it sea-water, river-water, water from a pond, well, or fountain; our Lord has declared that, “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” The Apostle also says, that the Church was cleansed “by the laver of water;” and in the epistle of St. John, we read these words: - “There are three that give testimony on earth; the spirit, and the water, and the blood.” The Scripture affords other proofs which establish the same proof. When however, the Baptist says that the Lord will come, “who will baptize in the Holy Ghost, and in fire;” he is not to be understood to speak of the matter, but of the effect of baptism, produced in the soul by the interior operation of the Holy Ghost; or, if not, of the miracle performed on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost, descended on the Apostles, in the form of fire, as was foretold by our Lord, in these words; “John, indeed, baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.”

** In the above section after the underline italicized phrase “by the laver of water” – is where the progressives usually insert “or the desire for it.” This Council of Trent Catechism has NO MENTION of BOB/BOD.

Merry · « **Reply #2 on:** March 21, 2021, 07:18:15 PM »

EXTRA ECCLESIAM – Baptism of Water, Blood, Desire

Let's look briefly again at the 3 infallible definitions regarding No Salvation Outside the Church –

#1 “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.”
(Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

#2 “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

#3 “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

A few talking points follow in their regard –

With dogma, one starts THERE, or WITH IT – and works out accordingly. Dogma is not the handmaid of theory, or some previously-argued theology or, as we see in our age, simply ignored or denigrated to liberal interpretation.

The No Salvation doctrine never needed defining previous to the years seen above, as until then it was understood that the Church held and taught such accordingly. As princes and people began to question and lose respect for the papacy, and depreciate the Church, definitions were forthcoming from the Holy Ghost.

And notice the rise in specificity with each. They become increasingly more exacting – and not to be misunderstood.

Also note the particular years in which these pronouncements were made. One wonders how St. Thomas (d. 1274), who held baptism of desire, would have thusly termed his works if he lived and studied after Definition 2 (1302) and 3 (1441) were made. Surely it is to be hoped – if not assumed - that he would have submitted as a Catholic and as a preacher and teacher, and dropped any “desire” notion he otherwise propounded. It is allowed to hope that, as there is a similar turmoil in our day on the issue of salvation, baptism – and even justification – that the Church in happier, future days, may define with further clarity on the issue.

The original version of the Catechism of the Council of Trent - call it the Latin version - has NO MENTION of either “baptism of blood” or “baptism of desire”! These phrases did not appear in Trent catechism copies until the late 1800s.

Further, this Council defined: If anyone say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and thus distort those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost (he cannot enter into the kingdom of God)” (Jn. 3:5), let him be anathema. (Session VII – Canon 2)

We are therefore obliged to believe this.

As for the Catechism of St. Pius X, or the Baltimore Catechism for that matter - they do not have the same authority as definitions of the Church – or of the actual, defining Council of Trent’s promulgations (the original, untouched account of the actions of the Council of Trent).

We do not learn our theology directly from the Fathers or Doctors, any more than we learn our religion directly from the Bible. We learn our religion directly from the Church through her Magisterium which is guided and protected by the Holy Ghost. As Queen Isabella once said to her confessor as he attempted to answer a question she had presented to him: “Father, I do not want to know what the Fathers said, good as they were. I want to know what the Church says.”

Incredulous · « **Reply #3 on:** March 22, 2021, 08:02:43 AM »

Quote from: Merry on March 21, 2021, 07:16:36 PM

Now, here is presented Fr. Leonard Feeney's indignant discussion of this whole convoluted mess. It's worth following to the end --

Fr. Feeney -

The Catholic Faith in the United States of America is always academically ascribed to the Baltimore Catechism.

The Baltimore Catechism was confected at the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, by a group of American Bishops under the control and influence of James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore. James Cardinal Gibbons was a Catholic prelate who did not hesitate to get up before a Methodist congregation, in a Methodist Church, and give a supposedly Catholic sermon while reading from a Protestant Bible!

Cardinal Gibbons was not a great theologian. He was a controller of theological thought. I hesitate to call him an opportunist, because there may be times when a priest might brilliantly take advantage of a situation, for Our Lord’s sake. But when a Catholic prelate becomes all opportunist, and is interested in teaching what doctrines of the Church would be most to the liking of his hearers or what general summary of the Church’s history — as in the Baltimore Cardinal’s book, The Faith of Our Fathers — will be least offensive to his new-found neighbors, then I think opportunism, is serious defect.

Cardinal Gibbons’ main ambition was to show that Catholicism was good Americanism. It is for that reason he went out of his way to take such metaphorical expressions in theology as “Baptism of Desire” and “Baptism of Blood” and put them side by side with Baptism of Water. As a consequence, every little Catholic child in a Catholic school, from the time of Cardinal Gibbons on, has been required to say, in answer to the question, “How many kinds of Baptism are there?”: “There are three kinds of Baptism: Baptism of Water, Baptism of Desire, and Baptism of Blood.”

That is heresy! There is only one Baptism, just as there is only one Lord and one Faith. (Eph. 4:5.) The Council of Vienne explicitly defines that this one Baptism, which is administered by water, is the one which must be faithfully confessed by all.

The Council of Trent, in its second Canon on the subject of Baptism, declares, with the majestic authority of the Church:
If anyone shall say that true and natural water is not of necessity in Baptism, and therefore shall turn those words of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, “unless one be born again of water and the Holy Spirit” (John 3:5), into some metaphor, let him be anathema.

Therefore, I repeat, metaphorical water is forbidden under pain of heresy. And what is “Baptism of Desire,” as the Liberals teach it, but metaphorical water dishonestly substituting itself for the innocent requirement of Christ?

The same heretical theology that turned Baptism of Water into any dry desire one might have in the general direction of Heaven, has also turned one Lord into one’s personal sincerity, and one Faith into the light of invincible ignorance!

And, by the way, speaking of the Baltimore Catechism, even its most ardent supporters are forced to admit that shortly after the publication of the Baltimore Catechism, various editions with word meanings, explanatory notes, and even with different arrangements, came forth — so that, by testimony of all Catholic theologians in America, there is a considerable diversity in the books that go by the name of the Baltimore Catechism. Yet the Baltimore Catechism is always referred to in a singular apostrophe, as though it had the dignity of the Gospel itself.

A catechism is as good as the man who wrote it. If the Baltimore Catechism is so good, why do they revise it and revise it and revise it?

The crucial point, then, at which heresy entered the Catholic Church in the United States and backwashed to the dying Faith of Europe and the rest of the world, was through the teaching of the doctrine known as “Baptism of Desire,” in the Baltimore Catechism.

As I have explained ... many times, neither “Baptism of Desire” nor “Baptism of Blood” should truly be called Baptism. Neither is a sacrament of the Church. Neither was instituted by Jesus Christ. No one can receive any of the other sacraments by reason of having received these so-called “Baptisms.” Baptism of Water is the initial requirement for the reception of all the other sacraments.

In his age, Father Feeney was one of the few Catholic priests with the grace to see through the lies.

Intellectually, he was unique in realizing Catholics had lost confidence in their Faith due to the confusion corrupt prelates had introduced on the exclusivity of Salvation and the need for water Baptism.

From 1952 to 1959, in his "The Point" magazine, Father Feeney prophetically warned us what was coming with the judaic infiltration and influence within the Church and Society. The Point

Author Topic: A couple of things on BOD/BOB (Read 1327 times)

Merry

A couple of things on BOD/BOB

Merry

Re: A couple of things on BOD/BOB

Merry

Re: A couple of things on BOD/BOB

Incredulous

Re: A couple of things on BOD/BOB