Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles by Fr. Cekada
(01-14-2012, 07:13 PM)moneil Wrote: I can resonate with Fr. Cekada’s reply #252 :grin: I think we can all figure out that Stubborn is, well, stubborn, and God bless him for his tenacity in the faith.  Still I do at times worry about the young pre VII Catholics becoming confused on this point as to what the Church actually teaches.

In my reply #213 (page 22) I cited what are, to my knowledge, the major pre VII catechisms (indeed pre 1950’s catechisms) used in the United States:

The Baltimore.  I would venture to say that since 1885 through the early 1960’s the vast majority of young Catholics were prepared for their First Holy Communion and their Confirmation from this text.

Father Smith Instructs Jackson and The Faith of Millions … The Credentials of the Catholic Religion, both from the 1930’s, were principal catechetical texts used in instructing adult converts.  Father Smith Instructs Jackson was widely distributed by the Knights of Columbus and was frequently found on parish pamphlet racks.

My list also included The Douay Catechism of 1649 which I understand was popular in the United Kingdom and Faith of Our Fathers (Being a Plain Exposition and Vindication of the Church Founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ) by James Cardinal Gibbons (1876).

Cardinal Gibbons’ catechism is written in prose style but he sprinkles historical tidbits through out which makes it an interesting read.

They all teach BOD / BOB, every single one of them.  To suggest that the Church has never taught or believed BOD / BOB is to suggest that since 1649 (The Douay Catechism) and continuing with catechisms in the U.S. beginning in 1876 (Cardinal Gibbons) millions and millions of young and adult English speaking Catholics have been taught erroneous doctrine, if not outright heresy and the Church never lifted a finger.  These catechisms all carried (and carry to this day) official ecclesiastical approbation.

Now I grant that, even way before VII, even going clear back to John Carroll, the first Bishop of Baltimore (1789 – 1815) the U.S. has always been considered suspect by some elements in the Church.  Therefore one might look at the The Douay Catechism of 1649
Quote:Q. Can a man be saved without baptism?
A. He cannot, unless he have it either actual or in desire, with contrition or to be baptized in his blood as the holy Innocents were, which suffered for Christ. ,
[/b]
Than we have the Catechism of Saint Pius X
Quote: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.


So, there is this dilemma.  While I consider it important to continue to educate myself in the faith I don’t consider it my place, not having formal training in theology, to wander through the decrees of Trent and the writings of various Church Fathers and Doctors to try and decipher what the Church teaches.  That is why She issues catechisms with ecclesiastical approbation (and at times removes that approbation) and the catechisms teach BOD / BOB as beliefs of the Church, plain and simple.

Unless one is going to accuse Saint Pius X of, at best, being an incompetent imbecile in regards to teaching the faith, or, at worst, promoting heresy, I think what the Church believes in this regard is pretty clear.

(01-14-2012, 07:49 AM)Stubborn Wrote: This is what Pius IX has laid down in the Brief "Tuas Libenter," addressed to the Archbishop of Munich (1863), on the occasion of the theological Congress held in that city, in which he [Pius IX] declares that it is not enough for the learned [theologians] in their writings "to venerate and receive those things which have been defined by express decrees of Ecumenical Councils and of the Roman Pontiffs," as well as " those things which are delivered as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching (magisterium) of the Church dispersed throughout the world, and are therefore, by the universal and constant consent of Catholic theologians held to belong to the faith;" but that they [theologians] are likewise "bound in conscience to submit themselves both to the doctrinal decisions of the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those points of doctrine which, by the common and constant consent of Catholics, are held as theological truths and conclusions of such certainty that the opinions opposed to these points of doctrine, though they cannot be termed heretical, nevertheless deserve some other theological censure."

Interestingly while theologian are "bound in conscience to submit themselves … to the doctrinal decisions of the Pontifical Congregations …” Father Feeney refused to even to meet with the Holy Office, which is why he was excommunicated in 1953 (Pope Pius XII).  It is true that when he was reconciled to the Roman Catholic Church in 1972 (Pope Paul VI) he was not required to retract or recant his interpretation of "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus".

It is also true that the Church has never declared Saint Pius X’s teaching on Baptism (nor that of any of the other catechisms cited) to be in error.

I’m not really smart enough to always understand this stuff but I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Saint Pius X or Father Feeney?.  I believe the former is the safer path for a Catholic.

Yes, the catechism teaches BOD - but that is not a constant teaching of the Church - so according to Father's own principles, no one is bound to believe in salvation via BOD.

The catechism tells us plainly what the constant, common and universal teaching is that we ARE bound to believe as I posted in my last post.

I think you said you attend the NO - well, I do not, but if you never read a catechism in your life, you could depend on the Mass to teach you that there is only one baptism - - - at every Mass, the priest prays the same Creed, which in it says,
Confiteor Unum Baptisma in Remissionem Peccatorum, (I confess One Baptism for the remission of sins). It hardly gets simpler than that.
Reply
(01-14-2012, 11:19 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(01-14-2012, 07:13 PM)moneil Wrote: I can resonate with Fr. Cekada’s reply #252 :grin: I think we can all figure out that Stubborn is, well, stubborn, and God bless him for his tenacity in the faith.  Still I do at times worry about the young pre VII Catholics becoming confused on this point as to what the Church actually teaches.

In my reply #213 (page 22) I cited what are, to my knowledge, the major pre VII catechisms (indeed pre 1950’s catechisms) used in the United States:

The Baltimore.  I would venture to say that since 1885 through the early 1960’s the vast majority of young Catholics were prepared for their First Holy Communion and their Confirmation from this text.

Father Smith Instructs Jackson and The Faith of Millions … The Credentials of the Catholic Religion, both from the 1930’s, were principal catechetical texts used in instructing adult converts.  Father Smith Instructs Jackson was widely distributed by the Knights of Columbus and was frequently found on parish pamphlet racks.

My list also included The Douay Catechism of 1649 which I understand was popular in the United Kingdom and Faith of Our Fathers (Being a Plain Exposition and Vindication of the Church Founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ) by James Cardinal Gibbons (1876).

Cardinal Gibbons’ catechism is written in prose style but he sprinkles historical tidbits through out which makes it an interesting read.

They all teach BOD / BOB, every single one of them.  To suggest that the Church has never taught or believed BOD / BOB is to suggest that since 1649 (The Douay Catechism) and continuing with catechisms in the U.S. beginning in 1876 (Cardinal Gibbons) millions and millions of young and adult English speaking Catholics have been taught erroneous doctrine, if not outright heresy and the Church never lifted a finger.  These catechisms all carried (and carry to this day) official ecclesiastical approbation.

Now I grant that, even way before VII, even going clear back to John Carroll, the first Bishop of Baltimore (1789 – 1815) the U.S. has always been considered suspect by some elements in the Church.  Therefore one might look at the The Douay Catechism of 1649
Quote:Q. Can a man be saved without baptism?
A. He cannot, unless he have it either actual or in desire, with contrition or to be baptized in his blood as the holy Innocents were, which suffered for Christ. ,
[/b]
Than we have the Catechism of Saint Pius X
Quote: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.


So, there is this dilemma.  While I consider it important to continue to educate myself in the faith I don’t consider it my place, not having formal training in theology, to wander through the decrees of Trent and the writings of various Church Fathers and Doctors to try and decipher what the Church teaches.  That is why She issues catechisms with ecclesiastical approbation (and at times removes that approbation) and the catechisms teach BOD / BOB as beliefs of the Church, plain and simple.

Unless one is going to accuse Saint Pius X of, at best, being an incompetent imbecile in regards to teaching the faith, or, at worst, promoting heresy, I think what the Church believes in this regard is pretty clear.

(01-14-2012, 07:49 AM)Stubborn Wrote: This is what Pius IX has laid down in the Brief "Tuas Libenter," addressed to the Archbishop of Munich (1863), on the occasion of the theological Congress held in that city, in which he [Pius IX] declares that it is not enough for the learned [theologians] in their writings "to venerate and receive those things which have been defined by express decrees of Ecumenical Councils and of the Roman Pontiffs," as well as " those things which are delivered as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching (magisterium) of the Church dispersed throughout the world, and are therefore, by the universal and constant consent of Catholic theologians held to belong to the faith;" but that they [theologians] are likewise "bound in conscience to submit themselves both to the doctrinal decisions of the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those points of doctrine which, by the common and constant consent of Catholics, are held as theological truths and conclusions of such certainty that the opinions opposed to these points of doctrine, though they cannot be termed heretical, nevertheless deserve some other theological censure."

Interestingly while theologian are "bound in conscience to submit themselves … to the doctrinal decisions of the Pontifical Congregations …” Father Feeney refused to even to meet with the Holy Office, which is why he was excommunicated in 1953 (Pope Pius XII).  It is true that when he was reconciled to the Roman Catholic Church in 1972 (Pope Paul VI) he was not required to retract or recant his interpretation of "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus".

It is also true that the Church has never declared Saint Pius X’s teaching on Baptism (nor that of any of the other catechisms cited) to be in error.

I’m not really smart enough to always understand this stuff but I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Saint Pius X or Father Feeney?.  I believe the former is the safer path for a Catholic.

Yes, the catechism teaches BOD - but that is not a constant teaching of the Church - so according to Father's own principles, no one is bound to believe in salvation via BOD.

The catechism tells us plainly what the constant, common and universal teaching is that we ARE bound to believe as I posted in my last post.

I think you said you attend the NO - well, I do not, but if you never read a catechism in your life, you could depend on the Mass to teach you that there is only one baptism - - - at every Mass, the priest prays the same Creed, which in it says,
Confiteor Unum Baptisma in Remissionem Peccatorum, (I confess One Baptism for the remission of sins). It hardly gets simpler than that.

Just wondering why a bishop(s) would give an imprimatur to a catechism that teaches BOD and BOB? So that Feeneyites could have some cause which to rally around!
Reply
Because ever since St. Bernard imprudently took it upon himself to believe in it, even though he suspected St. Augustine and St. Ambrose may have erred, or not taught what he thought they did, other scholastics have been finding a justification for it as well. THen St. THomas gets ahold of it, and then everything begins to snowball....
Reply
(02-02-2012, 03:23 AM)Gregory I Wrote: Because ever since St. Bernard imprudently took it upon himself to believe in it, even though he suspected St. Augustine and St. Ambrose may have erred, or not taught what he thought they did, other scholastics have been finding a justification for it as well. THen St. THomas gets ahold of it, and then everything begins to snowball....

Yes, that Post-Lateran II Church, apostate and heretical at the core.  :LOL:
Reply
You need to stop putting words in my mouth Young lady.  :eyeroll:

I never said ANY of that. You sound like the modern media, gosh, all sensation, no real thought.

DO you DENY That St. Bernard commited himself to a position he admits having inadequate knowledge of, and that HE WAS THE FIRST to do so?

Reply
(02-02-2012, 03:59 AM)Gregory I Wrote: You need to stop putting words in my mouth Young lady.  :eyeroll:

I never said ANY of that. You sound like the modern media, gosh, all sensation, no real thought.

DO you DENY That St. Bernard commited himself to a position he admits having inadequate knowledge of, and that HE WAS THE FIRST to do so?

That's young man to you, Bub.  :P  :LOL:

You are saying that; if the entire Church can't get a basic topic like Baptism right for a thousand years, that's pretty damned fucking heretical and apostate.  You keep claiming that is not what you are saying, but it is the outcome.  The Magisterial Church has explicitly maintained BoD for at least thousand years.  If BoD is not correct, then the Magisterium has taught error for a millenia, and is NOT REALLY THE MAGISTERIUM.

I deny the St. Bernard was in error to teach as he did.

Reply
YOu need to watch your language.

No, I did NOT say anything about the magisterium, I said that THEOLOGIANS were wrong to teach it.

Your problem is that you keep equating theologians with the teaching of the Church. THe Church herself does not each Baptism of desire ANYWHERE.

There are no magisterial documents.

The Unanimous consent of the Fathers is against it

Therefore it is not a part of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium.

Your failure to even get the most basic of premises right, namely that theologians are distinct from the Magisterial teaching office of the church simply proves that this is not a discussion you are ready to have.
Reply
(02-02-2012, 04:15 AM)Gregory I Wrote: YOu need to watch your language.

No, I did NOT say anything about the magisterium, I said that THEOLOGIANS were wrong to teach it.

Your problem is that you keep equating theologians with the teaching of the Church. THe Church herself does not each Baptism of desire ANYWHERE.

There are no magisterial documents.

The Unanimous consent of the Fathers is against it

Therefore it is not a part of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium.

Your failure to even get the most basic of premises right, namely that theologians are distinct from the Magisterial teaching office of the church simply proves that this is not a discussion you are ready to have.

I'll speak as is warented.  :P

So, when the Church declares a theologian a Doctor of the Church, or even Universal Doctor, it doesn't mean that they have Magisterial approval?  When all the Doctors who touch on the topic teach a certain way, and the Magisterium approves them, it means nothing?  What a peculiarly Gnostic approach to teaching authority.  Tell me, where do I sign up for my magical Magisterial Decoder Ring which let's me see the truth through the lies of the Church authorities?  :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:

There are no Magisterial documents, aside from the canons of Trent and the Catechism promulgated by the Popes to teach what Trent taught.  :LOL:

You say that the Church has taught THE WRONG THING for a thousand years, and deny saying that the Magisterium has failed.  And then accuse others of failing to make valid distinctions.  :eyeroll:
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)