A catechism is a presentation of Church doctrine but the docuмents of it are not infallible themselves. They have their merit as long as they do not contradict dogma.
So, you believe a catechism official approved by the pope could have things again dogma? And exist like that for generations?
That is heretical.
It is undeniable that Pius V thaugt and believed in baptism of desire. The truth is if bod was in away contradicted by Trent it would have been soeficallt condemned, matyrology changed, the summa would have been changed (as Pius V did edit the summa). The fact is Feeneyites (for a lack of better word for those who believe Trent contradicted baptism of desire) are left to using protestant like games. The reject any church authority that questions Feeney's error, pick selectively Church authority and condemn wontonly anyone who disputes it. Instead of a bible the use a denzinger.
This is because nobody saw the authentic teaching of Baptism of Desire (for sincere catechumens only) contradicting Catholic dogma. The genuine Feenneyite belief is not that Baptism of Desire is necessarily heresy, by the way, but that is not a dogma.
It has been speculated about and taught (for catechumens only) but the Baptism of Desire was not an issue until XX century when the Americanists made it so. These liberals took the original teaching of BOD and twisted it to introduce novel concepts such Invincible Ignorance and Salvation By Implicit Desire for non-Catholics, totally undermining the EENS dogma which states that only Catholics can be heirs of Heaven.
What you have to ask yourself ultimately, we know that there are many heretics regarding the EENS dogma out there.
Does the current teaching of +Lefebvre, and pretty much all other traditional groups that follow his line of thought. Is their teaching making the formula as Humani Generis complains into a meaningless formula?
Are we really to put in the same boat as Karl Rahner and all those other heretics, in the same boat as +Lefebvre?
I think it is totally dishonest to equate them in an equivocal manner. Very clearly all those traditionalists that believe in BOD/BOB, believe that first of all it is extremely rare. The way they see it its like jumping a plane without a parachute, we know of several examples of men who have survived it even from incredible heights. However, it happens so rarely that you can equate that to a rounding error.
It was not simply Pius V that believed in BOD, but many other saintly Pontiffs after Trent. They were reading the very same approved magisterial docuмents. Yes, you know you are wrong if you needed some two guys 400 years after the fact, point out to everyone how wrong they all were. What is incredible there is not even a single priest in the past 300 years that you could be able to quote that anathematized in any way shape or form those who held BOD/BOB. Even Father Feeney, and all the supposed heroes that fought for EENS, believed in the salvation of catechumens. Albeit his understanding of it, was a bit different than what other theologians had taught, but the end result is the same. So therefore what you have is no one, and I mean absolutely no one in the clergy for the past 300 years that ever taught it in the way that people are teaching it now.
It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jєωs and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
MHFM and their ilk, will use this section to proof that Cantate Domino is contra BOB. Now their taking out of context, notice how that whole paragraph doesn't even have a period. Its all one big paragraph, very clearly in CONTEXT. It is talking about what I have bolded pagans, Jєωs, heretics and schismatics. So it is saying the OBVIOUS that these folks even if they were to shed their blood for Christ, they would be false martyrs. A matyr by the greek meaning of the word means witness, and its a contradiction you can't be a true witness if you are not professing the Catholic faith. No where within the whole docuмent, is it talking about catechumens or anything of that sort. Yet, they will totally dishonestly claim that somehow CD is contra BOB. This is what I mean by total hypocrisy of the worst kind, they read without understanding. Never taking things in context, by context is meant that you are to read it with the surrounding text. Then of course later we have the Council of Trent, and that is the nail of the coffin. If that is not enough, we still have Canon Law that says that catechumens are to be buried in a Catholic cemetary. Everything for hundreds of years clearly shows what the mind of the Church is on the matter, but yet proof-texting is what is fashionable in the day.
All of these folks are the ones that give everyone else a bad name, what is worse is that most who follow the school of thought of Father Feeney. What is surprising is that most of these people don't even have a basic understanding of Latin, but ohh they know the Church teaches! You would think that they would be sedevacantist, but they are not! They are the most convinced of the Vatican II sect! I mean how in the world you arrive at such a conclusion, for if I would ever have arrived at their understanding of EENS I would have been since day 1 a sedevacantist, and I would have probably joined MHFM monastery for they are the most consistent with that particular position. For it logically follows that the Vatican II sect, goes over and above denying explicitly EENS in every single possible manner. They put it enshrined in law (canon law contradicts it, 1983), Vatican II docuмents explicitly teach against it, etc... If you believe in BOD/BOB with enough mental gymnastics you can be able to defend it as Catholic, that is Vatican II. If you re-interpret the simple and literal meaning of words, in the Light of Tradition. You can come up with a very basic non explicitly heretical Council, but if you have the strict EENS understanding there is no way you can EVER be able to defend its Catholicity. It is simply impossible, I would have to throw my brain in the trash in order to do such a feat.
Topic: Catechism of Trent is NOT the Council of Trent (Read 4322 times)