CathInfo.com

@JohnAnthonyMarie

Notice how you completely ignore the infallible statements from Florence and Trent and go straight to fallible sources such as commentaries on canon law?

You quoted the 1917 CCL.

Canon 1, 1917 Code of Canon Law: "Although in the Code of canon law the discipline of the Oriental Church is frequently referenced, nevertheless, this

Code: [Select]

applies only to the Latin Church and does not bind the Oriental, unless it treats of things that, by their nature, apply to the Oriental."

     A pope speaks infallibly from the Chair of Peter when his teaching on faith or morals binds the entire Church, which the 1917 Code doesn’t:
 
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4: "...the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks Ex Cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church... operates with that infallibility..."

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (#66), June 29, 1943: "Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed upon all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins, and confessors."
 
     This would mean that a disciplinary law is not a law of the "Catholic" (i.e. universal) Church unless it binds the universal Church.  Regardless, the 1917 Code doesn’t enjoy infallibility.  This is further proven by the following canons.

The 1917 Code teaches that heretics can be in good faith.
 
Canon 731.2, 1917 Code: "It is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church."
 
     A heretic, by infallible definition, is of bad faith and brings down upon his head eternal punishment.
Pope St. Celestine I, Council of Ephesus, 431: "... all heretics corrupt the true expressions of the Holy Spirit with their own evil minds and they draw down on their own heads an inextinguishable flame."


    Thus, the 1917 Code’s proposition in canon 737 that Baptism is necessary "at least in desire" for salvation is not binding on the universal Church or protected by infallibility.  Regarding its law in canon 1239, that unbaptized catechumens can be given Christian burial, this contradicts the entire Tradition of the Catholic Church for 1900 years on whether unbaptized persons can be given Christian burial.


Since the time of Jesus Christ and throughout all of history, the Catholic Church universally refused ecclesiastical burial to catechumens who died without the Sacrament of Baptism, as The Catholic Encyclopedia admits:
 
The Catholic Encyclopedia, 'Baptism,' Volume 2, 1907: "A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere... The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga (572 AD): 'Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.'"
 
     This is the law of the Catholic Church since the beginning and throughout all of history.  So, since this issue is tied to the Faith and not merely disciplinary, either the Catholic Church was wrong since the time of Christ for refusing ecclesiastical burial for catechumens who died without baptism or the 1917 Code is wrong for granting it to them. It is either one or the other, because the 1917 Code directly contradicts the Traditional and constant law of the Catholic Church for nineteen centuries on this point which is tied to the Faith.  The answer is, obviously, that the 1917 Code is wrong and not infallible, and the Catholic Church’s law for all of history refusing ecclesiastical burial to catechumens is right. Also, it is interesting to note that the Latin version of the 1917 Code contains many footnotes to traditional popes, councils, etc. to show from where certain canons were derived. Canon 1239.2 on giving ecclesiastical burial to unbaptized catechumens has no footnote, not to any pope, previous law or council, simply because there is nothing in Tradition which supports it!!   
 
     The Catholic Encyclopedia (1907) quotes an interesting decree from Pope Innocent III wherein he commented on the traditional, universal and constant law of the Catholic Church from the beginning which refused ecclesiastical burial to all who died without the Sacrament of Baptism.
 
The Catholic Encyclopedia, "Baptism," Volume 2, 1907: "The reason of this regulation [forbidding ecclesiastical burial to all unbaptized persons] is given by Pope Innocent III (Decr., III, XXVIII, xii): 'It has been decreed by the sacred canons that we are to have no communion with those who are dead, if we have not communicated with them while alive.'"


Just for the record as i said earlier all today who believe in 'b.o.d' and 'b.o.b' believe non-Catholics can be saved. ALL non-Catholics go to Hell, this is Catholic Dogma, only baptized Catholics who die in a state of grace are saved.

There were so many miraculous baptisms throughout Church history and this alone obliterates 'b.o.d' and 'b.o.b'.

For example the North American martyrs [St.Isaac Jogues, St.John De Brebeuf etc...] when they were converting the pagans and the Iroquois showed up to slaughter them and their converts. The catechumens who were not baptized started begging for baptism. NOW WAIT A SEC. If these catechumens already knew the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith, and were about to get slaughtered by the Iroquois, according to modernists they would have received 'b.o.b'. The saints rushed to baptize them, NOTHING WAS MENTIONED OF desire and blood. Read the lives of the NA martyrs there were countless miraculous baptisms. St.Joan of Arc brought back a dead infant from the dead to baptize it! This happened many times. The fact that saints brought people back from the dead obliterates desire and blood. Also in the early Church when the martyrs were waiting in prison to die for the faith, some of them were not baptized and water miraculously started coming out from the ground! Why would this happen if they were going to be martyred? BECAUSE WATER BAPTISM IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION!

 Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism, Tan Books, p. 171: "Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, WHEN HE GAVE HIS APOSTLES THE COMMAND to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, THE LAW OF BAPTISM became obligatory on all who were to be saved."

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Ex Cathedra: "If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema."




I'm not ignoring anything. I am merely showing where Baptism of Desire is observed by the Church. 

Do you reject this canon?