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

Author Topic: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire  (Read 64392 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #270 on: April 01, 2023, 07:38:18 AM »
1.  BOD is not in every catechism.  It started being inserted in the 1700/1800s.  Examples: Some posters here in the past showed pictures of the original Baltimore Catechism which has no mention of it.  But subsequent editions mentioned it.  It was added. 

It appears, to the contrary, that the original BC (1885, volume 2 - I misnamed it as "1889") does refer to BOD. See the attached from archive.org: https://ia800308.us.archive.org/28/items/baltimorecatechi14552gut/14552.txt

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #271 on: April 01, 2023, 08:02:56 AM »
The question is:  Was BOD in the original text (i.e. the original language...latin), or only in the "translated" texts (i.e. english, italian, etc)?  And when was it translated?

Was it? Let's you and me try to find it. I'm trying. Lend a hand.

But I don't think it will matter, will it? I suspect you'll still read the text your way, even if a conspiracy of later "insertion" is dispelled.


The OP post is attempting to disprove that. Allegedly it was the Dimonds who first said that the Catechism of Trent teaches BoD. Did anyone else teach this before them?

There's a book called "Sources of Baptism of Blood and Desire" - Sources of Baptism of Blood & Baptism of Desire : Christopher P. Conlon : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

I
f you review it, you will see that the post-Trentian sources on BOD almost always, when they cite a support, cite the Council of Trent itself. There was a universal consensus that that's what Trent said in Session VI, Chapter 4 - one could be justified by a desire for the sacrament. If one thought Trent itself said that, why would one quote the Catechism on BOD? No one questioned Trent itself on BOD, and it was not necessary to refer to the Catechism as there was no controversy that Trent itself said it until the late 1940s or 1950s and, subsequently, "Feeneyism."

In response to a challenge that Trent referred to BOD, one would naturally go then to the Catechism of the Council. There would be no need in the absence of a dispute or challenge as to what Trent itself said.


Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #272 on: April 01, 2023, 08:10:08 AM »
I don't reject V1 though I'm not 100% sure on the point you are trying to make. I thought it was not possible to make 'massive' changes to the mass? Though there are other issues with the V2 'Popes' than just the new mass.

I'm not accusing you of rejecting V1, and I'm sorry if you took it that way. My point was, men - fallible sinners and imperfect men - will take a truth and extend or pervert it to extremes. The extremities to which these fallible men stretch a truth does not render the truth itself (on its terms, properly understood) false.


Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #274 on: April 01, 2023, 11:16:29 AM »
I'm not accusing you of rejecting V1, and I'm sorry if you took it that way. My point was, men - fallible sinners and imperfect men - will take a truth and extend or pervert it to extremes. The extremities to which these fallible men stretch a truth does not render the truth itself (on its terms, properly understood) false.

Not per se, but very often when a concept like BoD ends up derailing, it's OFTEN (although not certainly) an indicator that there was some subtle flaw in it in the first place.  To extend the detailing metaphor, that train in East Palestine OH derailed, but hotspot indicators saw that one of the wheels was shooting out flames many miles before the actual derailment.  It COULD have been that the derailment happened just right there on the spot, or it could be that something led up to it.

BoD has been extended and perverted to completely gut EENS dogma.  Is it just because it was misunderstood and misapplied or because there was some ticking timebomb, a theological flaw, in the first place?  There's also the notion of its fruits.  When a theological position has such incredibly bad fruits, as BoD has had, it's generally a good sign or indicator that it was flawed out of the gate.

Where was the line crossed?  For St. Robert, it was just for catechumens.  For other, it was for catechumen-like individuals (even if they hadn't formally "signed up" as catechumens), for others it could be implicit, and then even more implicit, and even so implicit that any "nice guy trying to do good" could implicitly receive Baptism?  Where is the line to be drawn?  We don't know.  And the fact that we don't know is even more prima facie evidence that this notion has never been defined.

For those who claim BoD is de fide, we do not give the assent of faith to a concept or a phrase, such as "BoD".  We assent to propositions.  WHAT are we to believe about BoD?  Nobody knows, as there's a different opinion about for almost everyone who believes in BoD, including applying BoD to baptized heretics.  Really, the greatest common factor of all BoD theory is that the Sacrament of Baptism is not necessary for salvation ... which is heretical.