Hi Clemens Maria. Can you give the citation from Dr. Ott?
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr Ludwig Ott, Section 2, I, 4, p. 356:
1. Necessity of [the Sacrament of] Baptism for Salvation
Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception, for salvation. (De fide.)
2. Substitutes for Sacramental Baptism
In case of emergency Baptism by water can be replaced by Baptism of desire or Baptism of blood. (Sent. fidei prox.)
He also admits that in the explanation of #1 above that it is a necessity of means. But in #2 he goes on to directly deny what he has just stated in #1. But at least he is on record as saying that #1 is De fide whereas #2 is not!
Here is Trent on Perfect Contrition with reference to the Sacrament of Penance: "The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein." http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch14.htm
The Council of Trent is here explaining what it means by the Voto of the Sacraments. Not a natural desire but a supernatural desire perfected by charity, i.e. love of God or contrition, in which the Desire for the Sacraments is at least implicit. Thus, St. Alphonsus defined BOD as "Baptism of Desire is love of God or contrition along with explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of Water". The same definition is found in the Baltimore Catechism and that of Pope St. Pius X.
No, S. 14, C. 4 is specifically about the Sacrament of Penance. The sacraments in general are discussed in S. 7, C. 4. Let the pope do the generalizations. We just need to accept what he has taught.
One of the many weaknesses of the BOD argument is that by definition it is not a sacrament and it does not confer the sacramental character nor remit the temporal punishment due to sins. Fr Laisney seems to think that the baptismal character is of little or no importance. But in actuality it signifies our incorporation into the Mystical Body of Christ, the Catholic Church. There is no other means by which men can become members of the Church. And that a man could somehow be in the Church without being a member of the Church has been refuted by the popes. The Church is a visible institution and any idea that someone who hasn't visibly received the Sacrament of Faith (Baptism) can be an invisible member of the Church is completely off-base and false. The Anonymous Christian theory is condemned. The invisible Church is condemned.
Another serious weakness of BOD is that it smells of Pelagianism. When St Augustine wrote against the Pelagians he ended up denying the possibility of BOD (years after he had entertained the possibility of it). But the Sacrament of Baptism cannot be validly conferred on oneself so that really kills Pelagianism at its root. Can we say the same about BOD? Is it really God's grace or is it man using his own natural lights to compel God to save him? If you add invincible ignorance to the mix (which practically everyone who believes in BOD does), you can see that it is actually man who saves himself by his own natural powers.
I don't know/am not sure, if the Catechism of St. Pius X makes BOD de fide. I would say it at least makes BOD Catholic Doctrine, if it wasn't already so, and thus an objective mortal sin to deny. The condemnation of St. Pius V also needs to be taken into account. The Catholic Encyclopedia, and many other Theologians, pointed out it dogmatically taught BOD. Did no one notice, for 400 years, that all these many approved and Imprimatured Catholic sources were in complete error?
No, a catechism cannot define dogma. A catechism presupposes the existence of dogma. It is designed to explain dogmas such that simple laymen can understand them. It is not an exercise of ex cathedra apostolic authority. Even the Roman Catechism has a couple of errors/imprecisions in it (things that have no direct relation with the BOD controversy).
Baltimore Catechism says the Church has the conviction that Baptism of Desire or of Blood will save us, because Holy Scripture teaches Perfect Contrition can secure the remission of sins; and Our Lord promised salvation to those who lay down their life for Him or His Teaching. These Catechisms were universally taught. Do they not come under the OUM? Do they not propose what they teach as divinely revealed (the teaching of Holy Scripture)? Do not all Catholic Theologians, after Trent, hold that BOD belongs to the Faith, and is at least a mortal sin to deny, objectively speaking? Can you show me any who don't? I may change my opinion if you can.
God Bless. Edit: to give another example that just occurred to me, St. Athanasius is not infallible. But the Athanasian Creed is certainly dogmatic, since Popes have approved St. Athanasius' teaching on the subject, as the true summary of Nicaea-Constantinople etc. It is similar for St. Alphonsus' on Trent teaching BOD.
The UOM/OUM isn't as well-defined as the pope's infallibility. But at a minimum it consists in those doctrines which the popes along with the ordinaries have taught consistently from the beginning as having an apostolic origin (i.e. divinely revealed). I can't imagine anything falling into that category which does not have a basis in Sacred Scripture. And I see no scriptural basis for BOD. When I read explanations of BOD in manuals, I see no references to Sacred Scripture. St Augustine, when he taught BOD, provided no reference to Sacred Scripture. Neither did St Thomas when he took up St Augustine's early thought on the topic. There is no number of theologians which when added up can make a dogma. If the doctrine in question has no scriptural basis, no solemn definition and no consistent claim to an apostolic origin, I have to conclude that it is not a Church tradition but a tradition of man.
Topic: The Absurdities of The Feeneyite Heresy (Read 32223 times)