Article: I. Whether a Pope Can Fall into Heresy?

Objection 1: It seems that a Pope cannot fall into heresy. For the Church is compared to the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12), and it is written that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18). Now, a heretical pope would seem to be a part of the Church who holds something contrary to faith; therefore he would not be able to resist the power of hell.

Objection 2: Further, every heretic departs from the unity of the Church. But a Pope, as the Vicar of Christ on earth, is the bond of unity among men (Ephesians 4:13): consequently, he cannot himself be a schismatic or a heretic.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Haeresibus lxiii, qu. xxxiv): "If he who is placed over others becomes a heretic, he ceases to be their pastor."

I answer that, As stated above (Q[75], A[1]), heresy consists in obstinately holding a doctrine condemned by the Church. Now, it belongs to the essential duty of the Pope to hold the deposit of faith delivered to him by tradition and handed down through the Fathers (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 890). If, however, a Pope were to fall into heresy, he would no longer possess that faith which he is bound to profess and hand on to others. Therefore, if such a case arises, the faithful have the duty, according to the words of Saint Robert Bellarmine (De Romano Pontifice, III, cap. ii, n. 10), to "reject as erroneous and heretical any dogmatic statement made by the Roman Pontiff which is known to contradict the defined doctrines of our faith."

Reply to Objection 1: This objection considers only the external aspect of the Church militant, whereas the internal aspect must also be taken into account. In this regard, we read in Ecclesiastes 4:14 that "for want of a shepherd, the people was scattered abroad," meaning that when the head of the community fails, its members may be led astray. Thus, although the Church as a whole remains invincible, individual members, including Popes, can fall away from the faith.

Reply to Objection 2: While it is true that the Pope is the visible bond of unity within the Church, his personal union with the Church does not prevent him from falling into error. However, if he should commit such an offense, the Church's spiritual authority, represented by the College of Bishops and other faithful, would remain intact to correct him and restore unity.

Sources:
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement: Quaestiones Disputatae de Veritate, Question 22, Articles 1-3.
Augustine of Hippo, De Haeresibus, Book LXIII, Question XXXIV.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section Two - The Life in Christ, Chapter One - Man's Response to God, Article 890.

Inspired by the Thomas Aquinas Emulator (based on the proprietary ChatGPT Plus), introducing its open-source analogue, the

St. Thomas Aquinas assistant,

powered by HuggingChat and the Mixtral-8x7B Large Language Model (LLM), a pretrained generative Sparse Mixture of Experts.

Example:
Happy feast of the Angelic Doctor today, whose angelic intellect no machine could ever mimic, but who gave us solid principles upon which to build!

Bro. Peter Dimond presents a compelling argument against the doctrine of baptism of desire. He argues that the grace conferred by the sacrament of baptism is a unique grace that remits every sin and all temporal punishment due to sin, leaving a person in a state in which they would go immediately to Heaven if dying afterward. He contrasts this with the effects of baptism of desire, which does not remove temporal punishment due to sin and does not leave a person in a state where they would go immediately to Heaven if they died.

Bro. Dimond supports his argument by citing definitions and decrees from the Councils of Florence and Trent, which define the effects of baptism and the necessity of baptism for salvation. He also quotes extensively from St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus Liguori, who taught that baptism of desire does not grant the grace of baptism or spiritual rebirth, and that recipients of baptism of desire might have to suffer for past sins.

Furthermore, Bro. Dimond argues that the doctrine of baptism of desire stands in opposition to the clear teaching of Scripture and the Catholic Church that one must have the grace of regeneration/baptism/being "born again" in order to be justified and saved. He concludes that baptism of desire is a false, man-made doctrine that contradicts defined dogma and clear scriptural teaching on what is necessary to be justified and saved.

Overall, Bro. Peter Dimond's argument provides strong evidence against the legitimacy of the doctrine of baptism of desire and highlights the importance of understanding the unique grace conferred by the sacrament of baptism.

In conclusion, the doctrine of baptism of desire is a false teaching that contradicts the defined dogmas and clear scriptural teaching on what is necessary to be justified and saved. It is not taught by the Church and has no basis in apostolic tradition. The Church teaches that one must be born again through the Sacrament of Baptism to be justified and saved, and this regeneration remits all sin and all punishment due to sin. Any interpretation suggesting otherwise is mistaken and should be rejected.

Additionally, those who promote baptism of desire risk falling into serious error and compromising the integrity of the faith. They may also open themselves up to accepting other false teachings, such as the possibility of salvation outside of the Church and the Catholic faith. It is essential to follow the authority of the Magisterium and to prioritize its teachings over the opinions of theologians, saints, or doctors of the Church.

Finally, it is important to recognize that the doctrine of baptism of desire is not found in any infallible decree or council, nor was it taught by the Church in papal encyclicals leading up to Vatican II. Instead, the Church consistently taught the necessity of water baptism for salvation and membership in the Church. By remaining faithful to this apostolic truth, we can avoid falling into error and better understand the biblical proofs for other important doctrines, such as Mary's Immaculate Conception.

These seven dogmatic arguments provide compelling evidence against the doctrine of baptism of desire and baptism of blood.

• First, the Church understands the words of Jesus Christ in John 3:5 to mean that no one can enter Heaven without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost.
• Second, it is necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, which requires receiving the Sacrament of Baptism.
• Third, the Church teaches that there is only one baptism, which is celebrated in water, and that there is no salvation outside the Church, which consists of the faithful who have received water baptism.
• Fourth, the Church teaches that one cannot be inside the Church without the Sacrament of Baptism, and that all inside the Church are members of the Catholic Church.
• Fifth, the Church teaches that the water of baptism, the spirit of sanctification, and the blood of redemption are inseparable in sanctification.
• Sixth, the bull Exultate Deo at the Council of Florence infallibly teaches that men cannot enter Heaven without rebirth of water and the Spirit.
• Finally, Pope St. Siricius' decree to Himerius teaches that all those who desire water baptism but die without receiving it will not be saved.

These arguments demonstrate that baptism of desire and baptism of blood are false doctrines that contradict the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church.

I gave it a quick test, it spews out the common nonsense of baptism of desire and faulty arguments.

The one-track Feeneyite mind never ceases to amaze me. I asked a question about two weird mediums in the 50s who claimed to be Catholics, and my question was, how could such people receive the sacraments in the fifties? And Tony responds, "Things were bad in the fifties. Look at what happened to Feeney."

Tony sees an AI software application that claims to mirror St. Thomas Aquinas, and first thing he has to say about it is, "What does it think about Baptism of Desire?"

Tony comes across a website called "Restoring Christendom" or something like that, and his first question is, "I wonder if they will debate the Dimonds."

Tony, have you ever tried to think about anything except Feeneyism?

Quote from: AnthonyPadua on March 07, 2024, 07:26:44 AM

I gave it a quick test, it spews out the common nonsense of baptism of desire and faulty arguments.

This is hilarious!

For instance, Pope John XXIII, elected in 1958, had previously served as an antipope during the Western Schism (1378-1417) under the name Benedict XIII. His election as a legitimate Pope occurred only after the Schism's resolution through the Council of Constance (1414-1418).