FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Another EENS, please be patient...
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
I agree that we cannot limit our faith to only extraordinary acts of the infallible magisterium, but also its ordinary acts:

THerefore I once again humbly and quite respectfully ask:

Where in the DOCUMENTS of the ordinary magisterium (and it is arguable about whether a local condemnation constitutes an act of the magisterium) do we find the belief that some people can so desire baptism that they receive its effects: Namely the remission of the eternal guilt of original and all actual sin albeit without the sacramental character, Where is THAT teaching in the DOCUMENTS of the Ordinary magisterium? It sure is not in any acts of the extraordinary magisterium, so if it IS part of the Ordinary magisterium:

Where? Where is it expressly taught by the church herself?

As for the theologians, I agree in general, though not entirely: Were not the majority of theologians compromised during the Arian Crisis? Did they not mask their heresy with very orthodox sounding and biblical language? Wasn't their view panned off as the most "probable"? SO it does not always follow; and it seems in regards to this issue that the same thing may be happening.

But if you could show me the equivical assertion of BOD as explained and understood by the Post Vatican II Church Theologians, I may change my mind. No need to fight the church.

P.S. I really am trying to learn here.
(05-02-2011, 10:00 PM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]But if you could show me the equivical assertion of BOD as explained and understood by the Post Vatican II Church Theologians, I may change my mind. No need to fight the church.

P.S. I really am trying to learn here.

First show us what Baptism of Desire as understood by the "Post Vatican II Church Theologians" is.

The traditional thoughts on the matter were already given. You cannot present a variety of vague opinions (Post VII Theologians) and then make us defend them. Present the single issues you want addressed, and we'll address them.

We are not going to play a game like this. It is useless.

This entry seems to have all you want: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

Now, if you won't accept what is shown to you, then that is your issue.

What is hown to me?

A single document that you can reinterpret to mean the opposite of what others say it means? That's hardly equivocal.

Please show me in the magisterial documents the teaching that an explicit or implicit (How that can exist, I do not know) desire, that is, longing for salvation in general can suffice to win for that soul Justification, which is the remission of the eternal punishment of Original and Actual Sin, and the infusion of sanctifying grace, empowering this individual to persevere in the faith without the grace of the sacraments. That is usually what passes for BOD , and I would like to know where it is taught in the magisterial documents, if at all.

Please show as many citations as possible. I would like to learn if I am wrong, but I will also speak up if something appears erroneous. :) THanks.

P.S. The verses quoted on BOD in that link speak of Christ manifesting himself to the soul that has a perfect love for him. Can the author of that article seriously conceive of Christ manifesting himself without also manifesting the truths of faith? Forget about it: In Acts, God sent an Angel to Cornelius, who was God-fearing, and revealed to him the fullness of the faith and had him baptized by Peter.

THAT is How Christ manifests himself to people of good will: He calls them from darkness to light: The FULLNESS of faith. He doesn't leave them subject to half-measures.
"An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism" (Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, 29 October 1951).

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12midwives.htm


Pope St. Pius X was largely responsible for the 1917 Code of Canon Law, of which canon 1239 §2 reads:

"Catechumeni qui nulla sua culpa sine baptismo moriantur, baptizatis accensendi sunt."

My English translation reads: "Catechumens who through no fault of their own die without baptism are to be reckoned as baptized."

http://www.jgray.org/codes/cic17lat.html


Pope Gregory XIII, Roman Martyrology – unbaptized saints proposed for veneration by the faithful (Ss. Emerentiana, Genesius of Arles, Victor of Braga, and Rogatian)

http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2008/01/...yites.html

Gregory I Wrote:empowering this individual to persevere in the faith without the grace of the sacraments.

It depends on how long the person goes without the sacraments.  Certainly, man cannot keep from sin for long without the graces given only in the sacraments, and those who are aware of the necessity of baptism should receive it as soon as is possible:

"Perfect charity, together with the desire for Baptism, indeed remits original sin and actual sins, and in like manner infuses sanctifying grace; but it does not imprint the baptismal character, nor of itself does it remit the entire temporal punishment due to sin.  Wherefore the obligation remains to receive Baptism of water when the opportunity is given. ... Baptism of water is really necessary by necessity of means, but extrinsically only, according to the positive will of God.  But what is necessary only extrinsically can be supplied through something else; it was altogether fitting that this would be supplied through charity or perfect contrition, which are the best depositions" (Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, vol. II, pp. 228-229).

As I said in a recent thread:

Quote:The problem for an unbaptized person, is, if he's morally and physically capable of receiving Baptism, then he's obligated to do so under pain of sin.  And without Baptism, such a person cannot receive the other sacraments, so it'd be practically impossible for him to persevere.  Without frequent recourse to the sacraments, one will not be just for long.  If it can be helped, Baptism is not something to delay or put off.
(05-02-2011, 10:11 PM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]What is hown to me?

A single document that you can reinterpret to mean the opposite of what others say it means? That's hardly equivocal.
Then what would satisfy then? If you persist in interpreting things a certain way, there is no way anything would suffice.

Quote:Please show me in the magisterial documents the teaching that an explicit or implicit (How that can exist, I do not know) desire, that is, longing for salvation in general can suffice to win for that soul Justification, which is the remission of the eternal punishment of Original and Actual Sin, and the infusion of sanctifying grace, empowering this individual to persevere in the faith without the grace of the sacraments. That is usually what passes for BOD , and I would like to know where it is taught in the magisterial documents, if at all.

I do not know or care what "passes for" Baptism of Desire. State it clear, otherwise, it cannot be addressed sufficiently.

If you cannot present something to be judged, then do not ask people to judge it.

We get you are skeptical about Baptism of Desire. But you must understand what Baptism of Desire is and is not, and how it is defined, before you start delving into documents concerning it.
Rosarium, I think my definition suffices. It is THIS that I would like to know if there are any magisterial documents supporting...it. Sorry, phrased that weird. lol.

Are there any Magisterial documents that support the view I have given?

And the 1917 code of canon law Southpawlink has to do with Christian burial. Those Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be considered baptized. i.e. They can be buried with the baptized. :) They are not literally considered as having the spiritual equivalence of Baptism. COntext.

Can 1239
§1. Ad sepulturam ecclesiasticam non sunt admittendi qui sine baptismo decesserint.
"To burying of the Church of admitting they are not, who have died without baptism."

§2. Catechumeni qui nulla sua culpa sine baptismo moriantur, baptizatis accensendi sunt.


§3. Omnes baptizati sepultura ecclesiastica donandi sunt, nisi eadem a iure expresse priventur.

This is also manifest in the 1983 code of canon law:

CHAPTER II : THOSE TO WHOM CHURCH FUNERALS ARE TO BE ALLOWED OR DENIED

Can. 1183 §1 As far as FUNERAL RITES are concerned, catechumens are to be reckoned among Christ’s faithful.

Gregory I,
Is it not reasonable to assume that catechumens are given Christian burials because there's good hope they died in the state of grace?

See also canon 737 §1, which reads:

"Baptismus, Sacramentorum ianua ac fundamentum, omnibus in re vel saltem in voto necessarius ad salutem, valide non confertur, nisi per ablutionem aquae verae et naturalis cum praescripta verborum forma."

In English, it says: "Baptism... the Sacrament which, if we are to attain salvation, must be either actually received or at least desired—is given validly by ablution with truly natural water and the pronouncing of the prescribed form of words."
well, it seems difficult to take seriously when it is only a practice of about 100 years that has its origin right around the time when modernism was at its height. A hundred year use does not attest to the universality of belief.

And the code of Canon law is not exactly a magisterial document. :) It is not a TEACHING authority.
Are we to believe that the same saint who so forcefully condemned modernism fell victim to it only a few years later?  And didn't he already explicitly teach BoD while as a bishop, and when as Supreme Pontiff, directed his catechism to be taught throughout the province of Rome?

Regarding the authority of Canon Law:

Quote:The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church's rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment: 1. “This law squares with the Church's doctrine of faith and morals”; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. (15)  This amounts to a doctrinal decree.
- Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, vol. II, chap. III, art. IV, corollary, assert. 3:

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/van_no...ility.html
No, PIUS X was no modernist. But of course he was surrounded by people who were. And like I said, the canon only applies to burials, not a declaration of a spiritual reality. This is surely no doctrinal decree, merely a statement of law.

How about a magisterial document? :)