That is the reason the Karl Rahner had to insert those two letters into Denzinger:
Be specific. Which "two letters"?
I asked the foregoing question because, in his post above, Nishant
had quoted from four different papal letters, viz: "Apostolicam Sedem
" (uncertain date), "Debitum pastoralis officii
" (28 Aug 1206), “Tuas Libenter
” (21 Dec 1863) and “Mystici Corporis Christi
” (29 June 1943).Bowler
has not graced us with a reply, but it seems likely from his other remarks that "Apostolicam Sedem
" is one of the letters that he claims was inserted into Denzinger by Karl Rahner. If so, then the joke is on Bowler
Why? Because the letter "Apostolicam Sedem
" can be found (under reference 388) in the 1911 edition of Denzinger. That edition was formally approved on 11 December 1910 and received its Imprimatur two months later. In December 1910, Karl Rahner was not yet seven years old!
A six-year old editing Denzinger?
With regard to the content of the letter "Apostolicam Sedem
First of all, there is no such thing as a priest who has not been baptized. This problem alone demonstrates that the above statement is ludicrous. Secondly, the date of this document is unknown, the author is unknown, it is by no means clear that it was Innocent II, and the person to whom it is addressed is unknown! Could such a document ever prove anything? No. It remains a mystery why a document of such doubtful authenticity found its way into Denzinger, a handbook of dogmatic statements. This is probably because Denzinger was edited by Karl Rahner, a notorious heretic, whose heretical bias caused him to present this clearly non-magisterial statement as Magisterial, for he is a believer in baptism of desire.
Firstly: Whether, for want of water baptism, the deceased had truly been a priest, was and remains, entirely beside the point. The question raised by the Bishop of Cremona was evidently about whether, in view of this want, prayers and sacrifices should be offered for the repose of the man’s soul. The decision was in the affirmative.
Secondly: The documentary doubt as to whether it was Pope Innocent II or Pope Innocent III who settled the question, is also beside the point. The decision has long been accepted by the Church as having papal authority, and, centuries ago, the underlying principle was incorporated into Canon Law by specific reference to the case. Ref: Gregorius IX, Decretalium compilatio
, Liber Tertius, Titulus XLIII, Cap. II. See here.Bowler
, I have to agree with Nisant
: Your contempt for the Church's magisterium, and for your betters within the Church, is astonishing, and, if left unrepented, it must put your eternal salvation into jeopardy, notwithstanding baptism in water!