1) Both of these versions are talking about a living being. Moreover, it says they are on the path, the way of salvation. It does not say anything about a person that dies by accident in this "way of salvation". This has nothing to do with baptism of desire.
The Catechism of Pius X addresses baptism of desire in the section on baptism, not the section on the Creed. Here's what it teaches:what exactly does implicit baptism of desire mean?
16 Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."
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.
The Catechism of Pius X addresses baptism of desire in the section on baptism, not the section on the Creed. Here's what it teaches:As stated in the OP, The Catechism of Pius X was never written in English, it was in ltalian, so one can't just say "The Catechism of Pius X addresses baptism of desire in the section on baptism" and post something in English. Please tell us what year it was published and by whom? From the OP "There are two such Compendiums, one of which was edited by Fr. Kevane who updated it to reflect the teachings of VCII -
16 Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."
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.
As stated in the OP, The Catechism of Pius X was never written in English, it was in ltalian, so one can't just say "The Catechism of Pius X addresses baptism of desire in the section on baptism" and post something in English. Please tell us what year it was published and by whom? From the OP "There are two such Compendiums, one of which was edited by Fr. Kevane who updated it to reflect the teachings of VCII -
"After the Second Vatican Council, a number of new catechisms appeared which did not present Catholic
Doctrine as it should be presented, and these new publications even included some very grave errors.
Coupled with the new methods, whereby children are not required to memorize, two generations of
children have grown up not knowing the Catholic Faith. For many years Rome did nothing. Now there has
been published the new Catechism of the Catholic Church. It has been written for Bishops, who are
required to adapt it to the needs of the faithful. One may fear that some Bishops will put off this task for a
very long time, others will water-down the Doctrine even further, yet others will give only a partial
presentation of the Doctrine, leaving important points untold.
"Thus the need is still great for a Catechism to be put in the hands of the student in which he may find clear
and complete answers to his questions. What better could be given him than the Catechism of St. Pius X,
the holy Pope of the modern era?
"To my knowledge, the Catechism of St. Pius X has never been published in English in its original text.
There is one Catechism of Christian Doctrine, published by the Rev. Msgr. Eugene Kevane in Virginia,
USA in 1974, but in fact, it contains a much later text which lacks much of the original text: it is the
translation of the Catechismo della Dottrina Cristiana, the standard Italian Catechism, as it was in 1953.
That Italian Catechism is in turn, a summary and reduction of the original Catechism of St. Pius X. The
American edition in 1974 has further been "adapted according to the Second Vatican Council", thus losing
much of the value of the original text (e.g. expressions like "Soldiers of Christ" are suppressed from the
teaching on the effects of Confirmation). The only book where I was able to find the authentic text is the
excellent Compendium of Catechetical Instruction by the Right Reverend Monsignor John Hagan, first
published in Dublin in 1910, and containing for each chapter of the Catechism the relevant part from the
Catechism of the Council of Trent , the questions and answers of the Catechism of Saint Pius X and Father
Raineri's Catechetical Instructions, which were very popular in the nineteenth century.
"We present here Msgr. Hagan's text with very slight modifications of style only. The current discipline of
the Church on matters such as fasting has been included in smaller print to bring the text up-to-date without
altering the original answers."
what exactly does implicit baptism of desire mean?
A theoretical example of justification by implicit baptism of desire would be the case in which a person 1) makes a supernatural act of faith, 2) combined with a perfect act of charity, and 3) the disposition of soul whereby the person wishes to conform his will to the Will of God. Although the explicit desire for baptism is lacking, the implicit desire is contained within #3.
Of course, we are dealing here with theoretical possibilities that are likely few and far between, but this is how theologians have always explained justification by implicit baptism of desire. It is also important to note that many people mistakenly believe that justification by implicit baptism of desire only requires #3. That is not the case. Supernatural faith and perfect charity are absolutely necessary. #3 simply supplies for an explicit desire for baptism.
...from whence it follows that the missionary is still essential, since a completely implicit act of supernatural faith is impossible (i.e., without knowledge and assent to some article of faith, said act would be merely natural, not supernatural), and would equate to Rahner's "anonymous Christianity," which in turn implies JPII's universal salvationism.How does this help the invincibly ignorant, like your example of the Chinaman at the time of Christ, if you first need a missionary to teach you about the faith?
...from whence it follows that the missionary is still essential, since a completely implicit act of supernatural faith is impossible (i.e., without knowledge and assent to some article of faith, said act would be merely natural, not supernatural), and would equate to Rahner's "anonymous Christianity," which in turn implies JPII's universal salvationism.
Yes, the "in the path of salvation" language is crucial and completely missed/ignored by the BoDers. It's consistent with the teaching of Pius IX on the matter, that they are on a trajectory towards salvation and will, if they stay on that path, be given the necessary grace and enlightenment in order to be saved. "In/on the path" means that they are on the way, but not there yet, that they have not arrived at their destination. So this language was used deliberately.
And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.
On page 74 of +ABL's book "Open Letter to Confused Catholics"., it reads:
"The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows amongst Protestants, Muslim, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this they become part of the Church".
You may recall the account of Bp. Fellay giving a sermon in San Francisco in Jan 2016, where he claimed aborted babies made it into Heaven via BOB.
On page 74 of +ABL's book "Open Letter to Confused Catholics"., it reads:
"The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows amongst Protestants, Muslim, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this they become part of the Church".
I thought people of invincible ignorance went to Limbo. Now I realize if that's the default, then that means they did not receive enough graces to save their souls.That's not what it means at all. As some saints have pointed out, since God knows all men's hearts, He also knows who will or won't accept the Faith. The invincible ignorant native may not have heard of the Faith, but if he had, maybe God knew he would've rejected it. So isn't an eternity of Limbo (without hearing of the Faith) better than an eternity in hell (for rejecting the Faith)? Isn't this a manifestation of God's supreme mercy?
I have always firmly believed that God gives each person enough grace to save their souls."Thanks be to God, we corresponded with the grace which He gave us! God has sufficient grace waiting for every man in the world,would he but take it! Were God to see that he would take it were it offered to him, it would be given." - Fr. Feeney
The majority of non-Catholics have heard of the Catholic Church but for various and sundry reasons don't look into it seriously, choose not to join etc... They make their choices."Before man is life and death, good and evil, that which he shall choose shall be given him" Eccl. 15:15
So now the question is do they save their souls through implicit baptism of desire or does Providence always send a way for them to have at least explicit baptism of desire, if not water baptism."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 skeptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you". - Fr. Feeney
Other than trusting God's perfect justice and mercy 100%, I don't know what to think. It's seems like deep down it depends on whether you believe a) God gives to each enough grace to save or damn their souls, or, b) God gives some enough grace to either save or damn their souls and to others He gives just enough not to damn themselves but not enough to save themselves. Where you stand on that is going to dictate where you stand on implicit baptism of desire.Trusting in God's perfect justice and mercy is what is known as having faith in God.
"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 skeptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you". - Fr. Feeney
Three words: Old Testament Saints. / One Scripture: Luke 18:14 / Justification is not salvation.
"Of this Justification the causes are these: [...] the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism" (Council of Trent)
Obviously, there is noone who dies in the state of justification and has not received the sacrament of baptism.
Fr. Feeney teaches justification without the sacrament of baptism, contradicting the true faith. Fr. Feeney does not preach the "clear truths of salvation".
Three words: Old Testament Saints. / One Scripture: Luke 18:14 / Justification is not salvation.
On the Inability of Nature and of the Law to justify man.
[...] they were so far the servants of sin, and under the power of the devil and of death, that not the Gentiles only by the force of nature, but not even the Jєωs by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom; [...]
"Old Testament Saints" is a misnomer. They all went to hell when they died. The limbo is part of hell. Saints go to purgatory or to heaven when they die.
"Limbo of the Just". Look it up.
"Limbo of the Just". Look it up.You took the words right out of my mouth, thanks Pax.
It's called "Limbo of the Fathers".So you're saying they were justified after they died. That's a big fat negative.
"Limbo of the Just" is a misnomer. Should be: "Limbo of the Fathers which were justified when Christ descended there".
"Limbo of the Just". Look it up.
You took the words right out of my mouth, thanks Pax.
So you're saying they were justified after they died. That's a big fat negative.
Dogma: They were not justified when they died. See above, the Council of Trent.You should call all priests FATHER. Disrespecting priests is unjust.
Conclusion: They were justified later, not before the Lord died.
You should stop writing and start forgetting about Feeney and start studying the Decree on Justifaction of the Council of Trent.
Dogma: They were not justified when they died. See above, the Council of Trent.1. Trent's doctrines do not apply to the Old Testament to the same degree as the New.
At any rate, Fr. Feeney was not claiming that infidels can be justified, in that quote, he was pandering to the liberals. Further on, he says:
Q. Can anyone now be saved without Baptism of Water?
A. No one can be saved without Baptism of Water.
Q. Are the souls of those who die in the state of justification
saved, if they have not received Baptism of Water?
A. No. They are not saved.
Q. Where do these souls go if they die in the state of justification but have not received Baptism of Water?
A. I do not know.
Q. Do they go to Hell?
A. No.
Q. Do they go to Heaven?
A. No.
Q. Are there any such souls?
A. I do not know! Neither do you!
Q. What are we to say to those who believe there are such
souls?
A. We must say to them that they are making reason prevail
over Faith, and the laws of probability over the Providence of God.
1. Trent's doctrines do not apply to the Old Testament to the same degree as the New.
2. When Scripture says that someone was "just", it means they were holy. Justification is another name for the "state of grace".
3. Those who went to the "Limbo of the Just" after they died, went there because they died in a "just" state.
4. They could not enter heaven because Christ had not yet died and redeemed mankind.
If you cannot call a priest Father, then you definitly have a problem. Work on correcting that problem before you worry about anything else.
Trent teaches On the Inability of Nature and of the Law to justify man. And Trent teaches that after the promulgation of the gospel baptism is the instrumental cause of justification.What in blazes are you talking about? Those of the Old Testament who went to the Limbo of the Just were justified by the Jєωιѕн Faith! They were justified by the rite of circuмcision and by the sacrifices of the old law, which were still in effect until Pentacost.
There was no sanctifying grace before Our Lord died. There was no state of grace before our Lord died. There was noone justified before our Lord died. Those called just in the Old Testament, went to hell (limbo). Noone is in hell in the state of grace.You have no idea what you're talking about. You can't use a Church council's explanation of the New Testament laws to understand the Old Law.
They could not be justified, they could not be in the state of grace, because they could not have "received the benefit of His death", since Our Lord hadn't died yet. They were "under the power of the devil and of death" which is why they had to wait in hell.Abraham, Moses, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and all the prophets, etc, etc were "under the power of the devil"? You're nuttier than squirrel turds.
What in blazes are you talking about? Those of the Old Testament who went to the Limbo of the Just were justified by the Jєωιѕн Faith! They were justified by the rite of circuмcision and by the sacrifices of the old law, which were still in effect until Pentacost.Good points Pax, but don't forget Saints Adam and Eve who were certainly justified before they sinned, yet could not enter heaven either in that state.
.You have no idea what you're talking about. You can't use a Church council's explanation of the New Testament laws to understand the Old Law.
.Abraham, Moses, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and all the prophets, etc, etc were "under the power of the devil"? You're nuttier than squirrel turds.
I actually read Trent the same way as you and used to argue that no baptism = no justification as you do. I still believe that but not enough to concern myself with it for the simple reason that even if it were possible to be justified without Baptism as the saints of the OT were, no one gets into heaven without the sacrament.My observations on this side track debate of whether a person can be justified before baptism:
Additionally, if that hypothetical person were to be justified before receiving the sacrament, no way would God permit that hypothetical person to die before providing for him that which he desires and is in need of for salvation, i.e. the sacrament of baptism.
At any rate, I am done with you until you show proper respect for priests. Although you think you're something, you're certainly in no position to be disrespecting anyone, least of all priests.
My observations on this side track debate of whether a person can be justified before baptism:I am not actually defending Fr. Feeney - in Bread of Life, he said that he "did not know and neither do you" if there were any souls justified before baptism. Struthio has a major problem with him not knowing and saying he does not know. Too bad he doesn't read the book.
1) Struthio is quoting Trent, that there is no justification without baptism. Struthio does not believe in baptism of desire of the catechumen (let alone what 99% of false BODers believe that salvation by implicit faith)
2) Pax Vobis believes that there is justification before baptism, but he limits his belief to baptism of desire of the catechumen and implicit baptism of desire of St. Alphonsus Ligouri, both require belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity (if I remember correctly, St. Thomas taught that such souls go to Purgatory, while St. Alphonsus Ligouri said they went to Heaven) .
3) Stubborn does not believe in baptism of desire the same as Struthio, but he is defending Fr. Feeney's teachings about justification before baptism, which he does not consider of importance since he believes no one is justified who is not later baptzed.
4) for the record, I am with Struthio here, and there is more proof in Trent than what he posted.
Bottom Line is that the above details would never had occurred to any of us were it not for the fact that all of Catholicism has gone nuts and today believes that anyone can be saved outside of the Church. THAT is the problem.
4) for the record, I am with Struthio here, and there is more proof in Trent than what he posted.So Last Tradhican, what's your take on the Old Testament saints? Yes, they went to Limbo ("hell") and did make it to heaven for their eternity after Christ's Ascension into heaven, so how did they get into heaven if they were not in the state of justification when they died?
Bottom Line is that the above details would never had occurred to any of us were it not for the fact that all of Catholicism has gone nuts and today believes that anyone can be saved outside of the Church. THAT is the problem.
P.S.: @StubbornFYI, you're nobody. Other priests or theologians are not "all". If your mother never taught you what proper respect is for addressing priests, I have no illusions that I'm able to.
Nobody says "this is opposed to the opinion of Fr Suarez". All say "this is opposed to the opinion of Suarez".
Now Trent speaks of the "instrumental cause" of justification; "the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified..."The sacrament of faith is another name for the sacrament of baptism. Who added that "(faith)" ?
Yes, it's hard to believe that St. Joseph was not in a state of justification. And, in fact, I find it difficult to believe that Our Lord did not teach him about the Holy Trinity and that therefore he had explicit faith in those as well ... but no Baptism, so no heaven.Yes, exactly. And also St. John the Baptist, Noah, Isaias, Moses, Judith, Abraham and on and on and on. Their justification at death was the difference between them and everyone else that perished during the flood or died during God's wrath at Sodom and Gomorrah and so on and etc.. If they were able to attain justification in Limbo, then so did every single person who died in the OT - including Judas Iscariot.
The sacrament of faith is another name for the sacrament of baptism. Who added that "(faith)" ?It's what is written in the link: https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html
Fr. Feeney who opined that all the souls in Limbo were baptized after Christ descended into hell, before He Ascended into heaven. Not sure where I read it but he said it was only his opinion. Which seems to align more with Struthio's idea.It was very easy to have everyone in Limbo of the Patriarchs baptized, and infinitely more likely than that anyone today can be justified without faith in anything Catholic, which is what 99% of false BODers believe.
Nobody says "this is opposed to the opinion of Fr Suarez". All say "this is opposed to the opinion of Suarez".
FYI, you're nobody. Other priests or theologians are not "all". If your mother never taught you what proper respect is for addressing priests, I have no illusions that I'm able to.
It's what is written in the link: https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.htmlThat looks very fishy.
Yes, it's hard to believe that St. Joseph was not in a state of justification. And, in fact, I find it difficult to believe that Our Lord did not teach him about the Holy Trinity and that therefore he had explicit faith in those as well ... but no Baptism, so no heaven.I'm making a distinction here but the reason that the OT saints couldn't get to heaven was because heaven was closed due to the need for a redeemer. The need for Christ to die for our sins is the main reason they had to go to the "limbo of the just" and wait. The idea of being baptized in limbo is a speculation. The OT saints were circuмcised, so that was their version of baptism. I'd more likely believe that they needed to receive Our Lord in the Eucharist before joining heaven (which has a connection to understanding the Trinity and it would also be a spiritual way for them to finally have the long-awaited for Redeemer, which was the basis for the entire OT Faith). I don't believe that baptism would be needed in Limbo (though I get the argument), because it minimizes the whole OT law. Why stop at baptism? Was there Mass offered in Limbo? Did they say the rosary? ...I think you get my point.
That looks very fishy.I've only ever seen it that way. And imo, it makes sense since the faith is necessary for worthy reception of the sacrament. The two go hand in hand.
Yes, in this sense I am nobody, just like e.g. St Robert Bellarmine, who calls Fr Suarez simply Suarez when discussing his theological opinions.Then you should have learned to use "Father" in front of the names of priests because that is commonly used and accepted, and respectful.
My parents taught me to copy commonly used and accepted conventions.
I've only ever seen it that way. And imo, it makes sense since the faith is necessary for worthy reception of the sacrament. The two go hand in hand.The (faith) stands out like a sore thumb. I just looked up Denzinger in Latin from 1946, edited by Karl Rahner and it does not have the (faith), and that is Karl Rahner! It looks like it was added by an English speaker or Rahner did not bother to change the Latin.
Which explains why those baptized in prot churches or outside the Church and without the proper intention (because they do not have the faith) are sinful.
It was very easy to have everyone in Limbo of the Patriarchs baptized, and infinitely more likely than that anyone today can be justified without faith in anything Catholic, which is what 99% of false BODers believe.So if no one is justified without the sacrament, is that what you think happened? That the OT were justified in Limbo?
The (faith) stands out like a sore thumb. I just looked up Denzinger in Latin from 1946, edited by Karl Rahner and it does not have the (faith), and that is Karl Rahner! It looks like it was added by an English speaker or Rahner did not bother to change the Latin.Well faith had meaning during Trent, which is why it makes some type of sense to me. As such, it could make sense for that same reason that it was edited it out of Denzinger? - which as previously posted a long time ago here on CI, malicious editing is a common occurrence with Denzinger.
You are interpreting (faith) as a Catholic who follows dogma, but the modernists will use it to teach what they taught at VatII, that any unbaptized can have has faith. Looks like a plant.
So if no one is justified without the sacrament, is that what you think happened? That the OT were justified in Limbo?I've always thought that those in Limbo of the Patriarchs were under the old law which did not require baptism. As far as if they were in a state of sanctifying grace (justified) I never thought about it. I do not believe they could be in the same state of grace as those that are baptized, because those that are baptized are born again by the blood of Christ. Remember that Limbo of the Patriarchs was not just Jєωs, it contained 5000 years of peoples of all races and beliefs, from all over the world.
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?This reply is from Neil Obstat about 5 years ago:
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.
Well faith had meaning during Trent, which is why it makes some type of sense to me.But it does not say (faith), it says the Mystery of Faith, which was understood to mean the same as the sacrament of baptism.
The sacrament of faith is another name for the sacrament of baptism. Who added that "(faith)" ?
the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justifiedhttps://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/trent/sixth-session.htm
instrumentalis item sacramentum baptismi, quod est "sacramentum fidei", sine qua nulli umquam contigit iustificatio
It's from papalencyclicals.net:
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/trent/sixth-session.htm
qua is female while sacramentum is neuter and fides is female.
Thus it's the faith here, without which ...
I've always thought that those in Limbo of the Patriarchs were under the old law which did not require baptism. As far as if they were in a state of sanctifying grace (justified) I never thought about it. I do not believe they could be in the same state of grace as those that are baptized, because those that are baptized are born again by the blood of Christ. Remember that Limbo of the Patriarchs was not just Jєωs, it contained 5000 years of peoples of all races and beliefs, from all over the world.Sounds good to me. Also agrees with Pax re: they died under the old dispensation wherein they were justified without the sacrament. Which brings us back to the question if it is possible under the new law to attain justification before reception of the sacrament of baptism.
Sounds good to me. Also agrees with Pax re: they died under the old dispensation wherein they were justified without the sacrament. Which brings us back to the question if it is possible under the new law to attain justification before reception of the sacrament of baptism.I want to add that if that is the case, then Fr. Feeney would be correct in that there is really no way to know for certain if a person is justified before the sacrament. And we cannot ever know with certainty unless they have both the faith (which we cannot know but assume they have) and the sacrament.
Fr. Feeney just said he did not know, Trent says, assuming the translation is correct, that the sacrament of baptism, "which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified". Seems to say that it is faith that is necessary for justification. No?
So? Faith is a necessary cause of justification. This does not mean that the Sacrament is not. In fact, Trent teaches that the Sacrament is necessary for justification also. So what's your point?
It sounds like you're trying to turn a necessary cause into a sufficient cause, and that's faulty logic.
I cannot live without water. From which you conclude that I can live on water alone.
What in blazes are you talking about? Those of the Old Testament who went to the Limbo of the Just were justified by the Jєωιѕн Faith! They were justified by the rite of circuмcision and by the sacrifices of the old law, which were still in effect until Pentacost.Hold on there. I know some theologians teach that - maybe even St. Thomas - but it contradicts Romans, Galatians, Hebrews (regarding the old sacrifices which didn't justify from sin), and the Magisterium of the Church. I'll find the quote from Denzinger, but I'm pretty sure that one of the popes quoted in there said circuмcision didn't justify.
.You have no idea what you're talking about. You can't use a Church council's explanation of the New Testament laws to understand the Old Law.
.Abraham, Moses, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and all the prophets, etc, etc were "under the power of the devil"? You're nuttier than squirrel turds.
Hold on there. I know some theologians teach that - maybe even St. Thomas - but it contradicts Romans, Galatians, Hebrews (regarding the old sacrifices which didn't justify from sin), and the Magisterium of the Church. I'll find the quote from Denzinger, but I'm pretty sure that one of the popes quoted in there said circuмcision didn't justify.
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/trent/sixth-session.htmCHAPTER I.
On the Inability of Nature and of the Law to justify man.
The holy Synod declares first, that, for the correct and sound understanding of the doctrine of Justification, it is necessary that each one recognise and confess, that, whereas all men had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam-having become unclean, and, as the apostle says, by nature children of wrath, as (this Synod) has set forth in the decree on original sin,-they were so far the servants of sin, and under the power of the devil and of death, that not the Gentiles only by the force of nature, but not even the Jєωs by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom; although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them.
That looks very fishy..
Voilà:
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/trent/sixth-session.htm
. . . not even the Jєωs by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom . . .
Will the Real Catechism of Pius X Please Stand Up?
It's well known that the American Baltimore catechism of the 1800s had BOD and BOB in there, and the US bishops included them, not rome. It would not be surprising that the US Bishops inserted BOD and BOB into Pius X's catechism as well.
On the website of the Museo San Pio X (http://www.museosanpiox.it/sanpiox/) in Salzano (Venezia) there are digital transcripts of three versions of what is called "Catechism of Pius X" includingIl Catechismo di don Giuseppe Sarto, Arciprete di Salzano (http://www.museosanpiox.it/sanpiox/catechismo.html)
Scanning the text for "batt"esimo (baptism), "sang"ue (blood), and "desi"derio (desire) I could not find any reference to BoB or BoD.
The other two later versions found on that site do talk about Battesimo di sangue, Battesimo di desiderio, desiderio almeno implicito etc.
@Ladislaus
See the link in the first line of my post you quote. It leads to a page full of links. The second heading there is
Docuмenti scritti da Pio X [sic]
The first three links under that heading are links to catechisms.
Or just search for "catechismo" on that page.
On the website of the Museo San Pio X (http://www.museosanpiox.it/sanpiox/) in Salzano (Venezia) there are digital transcripts of three versions of what is called "Catechism of Pius X" includingIl Catechismo di don Giuseppe Sarto, Arciprete di Salzano (http://www.museosanpiox.it/sanpiox/catechismo.html)
Scanning the text for "batt"esimo (baptism), "sang"ue (blood), and "desi"derio (desire) I could not find any reference to BoB or BoD.
The other two later versions found on that site do talk about Battesimo di sangue, Battesimo di desiderio, desiderio almeno implicito etc.
The catechism of Don Giuseppe Sarto, Archpriest of Salzano
The first news of the existence in the Episcopal Archives of Treviso of a "manuscript catechism of Don Giuseppe Sarto" was given in 1954 by Mons. Francesco Tonolo in Catechesi (As a parish priest Pius X taught the Catechism, Don Giuseppe Sarto, Catechesi, XXIII (1954), pp. 367-376). After the announcement made by Tonolo, we do not know that any study has been published on this docuмent. A few hints, some reflections in degree theses [eg: A. BALOCCO, Theological-pastoral trends and attitudes in today's diocesan catechisms of national diffusion, Milan 1958 (Thesis at the Gregorian University); S. DALLE FRATTE, The work of Canon Giuseppe Sarto,Treviso 1967 (Thesis at the University of S. Tommaso in Rome); M. BARTOLUCCI, The pastoral perspectives of the catechetical ministry of St. Pius X, academic year 1971-1972 at the Lateran University]. Nor is it mentioned in scientific works on the history of the catechism of St. Pius X. Don Luciano Nordera, of the Salesian Theological Studio in Saval, Verona, is preparing a wide-ranging scientific study on the genesis of the Catechism of St. Pius X ( 1912). The publication of the full text of the "Salzano notebooks" will bring, we are sure, a contribution for the study of the various phases of the thought and work of Pope Sarto in the plan of catechesis.
As regards the date of composition of this "catechism", we know nothing that can establish it with certainty. In the Episcopal Archive of Treviso we read a docuмent that dates back to the first year in which the Sarto was parish priest of Salzano: the decree of Bishop Zinelli on the pastoral visit to that parish on 20 December 1867. It reads: «With true satisfaction of we have made sure that children are very well instructed in Christian doctrine ”. In 1872, Bishop Zinelli, in his Pastoral Letter of Lent, demonstrated "the need to give a more regular order to the teaching of Christian Doctrine" and, in June of the same year, invites the parish priests to give new impetus to the "Confraternity of Doctrine Christian ";he re-elaborates the Regulations and arranges a new edition of the diocesan Catechism, which was actually published the following year.
Was it on this occasion that the parish priest of Salzano compiled his "catechism"? Or does the drafting date back to the early days of his parish ministry, at a time when the bishop already noted "with real satisfaction" that his children were "very well educated in Christian doctrine"?
The docuмent consists of two notebooks of 16 x 22 format. Each page has a layout of 23 lines. On both covers we read: «Don Giuseppe Sarto Archpriest of Salzano». The Questions and Answers are written on the right side of each sheet; the left side is left free for didactic notes or for some questions added later. The Questions are not numbered or interrupted by titles or, in any case, by any division. We have replaced the letters D. and R. (Question and Answer) with the number of the progressive numbering. The two notebooks are each made up of 32 sheets. The first is written in full; the second up to sheet 18 recto.
As already mentioned, the manuscript bears 252 variations, all by the hand of the Sarto.
THE TRUE CHURCH - "One, because the truth is only one" - "the Bishop of Rome .. . center of unity " .
263 - How Many Real Churches Are There?
[f. 43] The true Church is one, and out of this one cannot hope for Health
264 - How, those who are outside the Church are not saved?
No sir, it is not Health
271 - Why is it called Roman?
Because the Roman Church is the head of all, because the Bishop of Rome, being the successor of St. Peter, becomes the Vicar of GC. and therefore the center of unity.
"ALL MEMBERS OF ONE FAMILY because all help each other" - the faithful who live on earth. .. the saints in heaven .. . souls in purgatory ».
In the "communion of saints" - in the "sharing of goods" - "all sanctified in baptism" - "all called to holiness" .
272 - Only the faithful who live on earth belong to the true Church ?
Also the Saints in heaven, and the souls in Purgatory.
273 - What is the name of the Church of the Faithful on earth?
The Church of the Faithful on earth is called militant because the Faithful on earth militate and fight to obtain the glory of Heaven.
LETTER FROM THE HOLY FATHER PIUS X
TO CARDINAL PIETRO RESPIGHIVICAR OF ROMEBY WHICH THE APPROVALOF THE CATECHISM OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINEIS GIVEN FOR THE DIOCESIS AND ECCLESIATICAL PROVINCEOF ROME(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qUHiLfd1eeg/UH8Ocjc5e2I/AAAAAAAAI0w/q6xCWK5d-1w/s1600/cate-dott-cr.jpg) (https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qUHiLfd1eeg/UH8Ocjc5e2I/AAAAAAAAI0w/q6xCWK5d-1w/s1600/cate-dott-cr.jpg)__________________________________Lord Cardinal,Since the beginning of Our Pontificate We have dedicated the greatest care in the religious instruction of the Christian people, in particular of the children, convinced that many of the evils that afflict the Church are caused by ignorance of her doctrines and laws. The enemies of the Church condemn them, blaspheming that which they ignore, and many of Her children, knowing them badly, live as if they did not exist. For this reason, We often insisted on the absolute necessity of Catechism instruction, and We promoted it everywhere, in accordance with Our power, both through the Encyclical Letter Acerbo nimis, and with dispositions regarding catechisms in parishes, with the approval and encouragement of Catechistic Congresses and Religion schools, and with the introduction of the text of the Catechism here in Rome, which has been used for some time now in some large ecclesiastical provinces in Italy.However, with the passing of the years and as a result of new difficulties interfering insidiously in the ordinary teaching of Christian Doctrine in the schools, where it was imparted for centuries, along with the provident anticipation of the First Communion for children, which We desired, as well as for other reasons expressed to Us, that is, a need for an adequate Catechism, one which was also shorter and more suitable for today’s necessities, We consented to reducing the Old Catechism into a new one, significantly condensed, which We, Ourselves examined and wished also to be examined by our brother Bishops in Italy, in order that they, according to their knowledge and experience, would express their opinion in general and indicate in particular the modifications to be introduced.Having received an almost unanimous favourable appreciation from them, with more than a few precious observations, which we ordered to be held in due account, it seems to Us, for various reasons, that we must not delay any further in a substitution of the text, recognized as opportune, trusting that with the Lord’s benediction, it will be more convenient and as much as, if not more, profitable than the old one, since the volume of the book and the things to be learned having been quite reduced, it will not discourage the youth, already seriously overburdened by scholastic programmes, and will thus permit teachers and catechists to make them learn it all. Here they will find, despite its brevity, the truths better explained and accentuated, those that nowadays are the most hardly fought, misunderstood, or forgotten, and which result in immense harm done to souls and society.In fact, we hope that even adults, those who wish, as at times they should, in order to live better and for the education of their family, to revive in their soul the fundamental knowledge on which the spiritual and moral life of a Christian is based, that they are to find this brief account useful and pleasing, very accurate even in its form, where they will encounter, set forth with great simplicity, the most important Divine truths and the most efficacious Christian reflections.This Catechism, therefore, and the prime elements from it that We have set out to be used, without any altering of the text, is for the convenience of children. We, with the authority of this letter, approve and prescribe to the ecclesiastical Diocese and Province of Rome the use of this text, forbidding, henceforth, the use of other texts in the teaching of catechism. Regarding the other Italian dioceses, the pledge is enough for Us, that the same text, which We and many other Ordinaries have deemed adequate, be adopted as well, so that the deadly confusion and discomfort that today so many experience in the frequent changes of abode, cease, when finding in their new place of residence, formulas and texts notably different which they have difficulty in learning, whilst at the same time, because of disuse, they confuse and ultimately forget even that which they once knew. It is worse for children, since there is nothing so deadly in obtaining good results from teaching as continuing it with a different text other than the one to which the youngster is more or less already accustomed.With the introduction of the present text, adults might encounter some difficulties, as some formulas have strayed from precedent ones, so it is for this reason, in order to remove these inconveniences, that We order that at all the main feast-day Masses, as also in all of the classes on Christian doctrine, that the initial prayers and the other principle formulas be recited, at the beginning, aloud, clearly, and in a composed manner. In that way, after a little while, without effort, everyone will have learned them. Thus, an excellent and amiable habit of common prayer and instruction will be introduced which has been in vigor in many Italian dioceses for some time now, with much edification and profit.In the name of the Lord, We strongly exhort all catechists, now that the brevity itself of the text eases their work, to explain the Christian doctrine with even greater care and allow it to penetrate the souls of young people, as today there is a greater need for solid religious instruction because of the spreading of godlessness and immorality. That they remember always that the fruit of the Catechism depends almost entirely on their enthusiasm, intelligence, and ability in rendering the instruction easier and more pleasing to their students.Let us pray to God that, as the enemies of the Faith who are currently constantly increasing in numbers and strength and who with every means go about propagating error, as many willing souls will rise up to assist parish priests, Christian teachers, and parents with great enthusiasm, in the much needed noble and fruitful teaching of the Catechism.It is with this wish that We heartily impart Our apostolic blessing to you, your Lordship, and to all those who will be the collaborators in such a holy mission.From the Vatican, October 18, 1912.PIUS PP. X.
From Rorate Ceili. A letter from Pius X to Cardinal Respighi, dated 18 October 1912, approving The Catechism of Christian Doctrine.
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/10/centennial-of-letter-of-pope-saint-pius.html