Once again : is BOD and BOB Feeneyite or Cushingite.Where would you place them on this model?
Common Arguments
1. The Council of Trent did not speak about Baptism of Desire.
Some have tried to argue that the Council of Trent did not speak of Baptism of Desire, so as to try and remove the only example of solemn teaching on the subject, leaving all other examples above as ordinary teaching. First, you'll notice in the quotes above that St. Robert Bellarmine states, "...the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire". St. Alphonsus Liguori also states above, "Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4...". The quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia above also states, “This doctrine (baptism of desire) is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent". And the quote from the Letter of the Holy Office above also states, "This (Sacrament through desire) we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent..." So it is obvious the Holy Office, these two Doctors of the Church, and the Catholic Encyclopedia state otherwise. As for those who try to discredit the Catholic Encyclopedia; over 1500 clergy, professors, authors etc. from around the world contributed to its compilation, in addition to it containing an imprimatur, so it is considered a trusted Catholic reference.
Regardless of these facts, we can clearly see from the definitions of the Magisterium above, that whether the Council of Trent spoke of this doctrine or not is irrelevant, since we can see the Ordinary magisterium (also infallible) has also taught it repeatedly century after century.
Some have tried to argue that the Council of Trent did not speak of Baptism of Desire, so as to try and remove the only example of solemn teaching on the subject, leaving all other examples above as ordinary teaching. First, you'll notice in the quotes above that St. Robert Bellarmine states, "...the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire". St. Alphonsus Liguori also states above, "Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4...". The quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia above also states, “This doctrine (baptism of desire) is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent". And the quote from the Letter of the Holy Office above also states, "This (Sacrament through desire) we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent..." So it is obvious the Holy Office, these two Doctors of the Church, and the Catholic Encyclopedia state otherwise. As for those who try to discredit the Catholic Encyclopedia; over 1500 clergy, professors, authors etc. from around the world contributed to its compilation, in addition to it containing an imprimatur, so it is considered a trusted Catholic reference.
Regardless of these facts, we can clearly see from the definitions of the Magisterium above, that whether the Council of Trent spoke of this doctrine or not is irrelevant, since we can see the Ordinary magisterium (also infallible) has also taught it repeatedly century after century.
The baptism of desire is no more an issue. The issue is whether you are interpreting it with Feeneyism or Cushingism, with hypothetical cases being just hypothetical or also defacto and objectively known in the present times.This is the issue which has not been touched in this long article.
_________________________
2. Baptism and Desire and/or Blood were never solemnly defined.
The Council of Trent clearly refers to Baptism of Desire in the example above, yet there are some that still attempt to argue the meaning of what the Council of Trent meant. For those that try to argue whether or not this doctrine was solemnly defined, it is irrelevant, since the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church (also infallible) has taught this doctrine throughout the history of the Church, without a single condemnation from the Solemn Magisterium. For more information on whether doctrines actually need to be defined, see our menu option above labeled, "Must Doctrines Be Defined?"
The Council of Trent clearly refers to Baptism of Desire in the example above, yet there are some that still attempt to argue the meaning of what the Council of Trent meant. For those that try to argue whether or not this doctrine was solemnly defined, it is irrelevant, since the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church (also infallible) has taught this doctrine throughout the history of the Church, without a single condemnation from the Solemn Magisterium. For more information on whether doctrines actually need to be defined, see our menu option above labeled, "Must Doctrines Be Defined?"
Once again : is BOD and BOB Feeneyite or Cushingite.Where would you place them on this model?
___________________________
3. Church Fathers, Saints, and the other examples above are “not infallible”.
This argument is also in vain as we can clearly see from the definitions of the Magisterium above that when a teaching of the Church is unanimous, it is part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, which is itself infallible, according to the solemn teaching of the First Vatican Council. Certainly, when a theologian speaks or writes on a doctrine, that in itself is not an infallible statement; it is when that doctrine is unanimously taught elsewhere in the Church without condemnation that it becomes part of the infallible Ordinary Magisterium.
Furthermore, to say any of the sources above are “not infallible” is to directly imply that they have been in error for all the years or centuries since they were allowed to propagate, and that the Solemn Magisterium did nothing to correct it. This is to say that the Catholic Church can propagate error and heresy, which is a denial of the dogma of the Infallibility of the Church. It is blasphemy to say the One, Holy, Universal, and Apostolic Catholic Church can introduce anything harmful to the faithful.
Church teaching on the subject: Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei, 1794, condemns: ''the Church, governed by the Holy Spirit, could impose a disciplinary law that would be not only useless and more burdensome for the faithful than Christian liberty allows, but also dangerous and harmful" (again, this was condemned). Also, Pope Gregory XVI in Quo Graviora (1833) states, "The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, all of which truth is taught by the Holy Spirit. Should the church be able to order, yield to, or permit those things which tend toward the destruction of souls and the disgrace and detriment of the sacrament instituted by Christ?”
This argument is also in vain as we can clearly see from the definitions of the Magisterium above that when a teaching of the Church is unanimous, it is part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, which is itself infallible, according to the solemn teaching of the First Vatican Council. Certainly, when a theologian speaks or writes on a doctrine, that in itself is not an infallible statement; it is when that doctrine is unanimously taught elsewhere in the Church without condemnation that it becomes part of the infallible Ordinary Magisterium.
Furthermore, to say any of the sources above are “not infallible” is to directly imply that they have been in error for all the years or centuries since they were allowed to propagate, and that the Solemn Magisterium did nothing to correct it. This is to say that the Catholic Church can propagate error and heresy, which is a denial of the dogma of the Infallibility of the Church. It is blasphemy to say the One, Holy, Universal, and Apostolic Catholic Church can introduce anything harmful to the faithful.
Church teaching on the subject: Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei, 1794, condemns: ''the Church, governed by the Holy Spirit, could impose a disciplinary law that would be not only useless and more burdensome for the faithful than Christian liberty allows, but also dangerous and harmful" (again, this was condemned). Also, Pope Gregory XVI in Quo Graviora (1833) states, "The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, all of which truth is taught by the Holy Spirit. Should the church be able to order, yield to, or permit those things which tend toward the destruction of souls and the disgrace and detriment of the sacrament instituted by Christ?”
Same as above.
4. Your information on the Ordinary Magisterium is incorrect.
In our explanation of the magisterium and infallibility above, we have presented quotes from the First Vatican Council, "A Commentary on Canon Law", Catholic Encyclopedia, and "A Catholic Dictionary" to support our definitions. The first reference is obviously an infallible General Council, while the latter three are trusted Catholic references, each with their own imprimatur. For those who insist on stating these trusted Catholic sources are erroneous, we ask you to present something more trustworthy from the Church that trumps these references we have used. So far no one has responded to this request.
Same as above.If the references to BOD,BOB and I.I are interpreted with Cushingism then it is irrational, non traditional and heretical.It is a rupture with the original sources. Since the original sources do not claim that they refer to physically visible cases and practically we know that BOD, BOB and I.I cannot be explicit exceptions to EENS.
5. The Church may have taught explicit baptism of desire, but it did not teach implicit baptism of desire.
This is incorrect. As we see in the quotes above, St. Thomas Aquinas writes in his Summa in the 13th century, "Man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly". St. Alphonsus Liguori writes in his manual on Moral Theology in the 18th century, "...accompanied by anexplicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water". St. Pope Pius X writes in the Catechism of St. Pius X in the 20th century, "...along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism". The Holy Office writes in 1949 (approved by Pope Pius XII), "...when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire". Numerous other detailed examples on explicit versus implicit faith can be found in the Summa Theologica.
This is incorrect. As we see in the quotes above, St. Thomas Aquinas writes in his Summa in the 13th century, "Man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly". St. Alphonsus Liguori writes in his manual on Moral Theology in the 18th century, "...accompanied by anexplicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water". St. Pope Pius X writes in the Catechism of St. Pius X in the 20th century, "...along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism". The Holy Office writes in 1949 (approved by Pope Pius XII), "...when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire". Numerous other detailed examples on explicit versus implicit faith can be found in the Summa Theologica.
Same as above.
6. Baptism of desire and blood is a modernist error.
Looking at the quotes from Church teaching on baptism of desire and blood above, the quotes span nearly the entire history of the Church. Modernism originated in the 19th century, so it is obvious that baptism of desire and blood have nothing to do with Modernism.
Looking at the quotes from Church teaching on baptism of desire and blood above, the quotes span nearly the entire history of the Church. Modernism originated in the 19th century, so it is obvious that baptism of desire and blood have nothing to do with Modernism.
To interpret BOD,BOB and I.I with Cushingism instead of traditional Feeneyism, is an innovation in the Church. It is modernism.
7. Pope St. Pius X did not write, or had nothing to do with, the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X.
Incorrect. In the first English translation of Pope Saint Pius X's catechism ("A Compendium of Catechetical Instruction" published by Reverend Monsignor John Hagan in 1910), it states in the Introduction: "During the sitting of the first Catechetical Congress in 1880, the then Bishop of Mantua (later St. Pius X) proposed that the Holy Father be petitioned to arrange for the compilation of a simple, plain, brief, and popular Catechism for uniform use all over the world. Shortly after his elevation to the Chair of Peter, Pius X at once set about realizing, within certain limits, his own proposal of 1880, by prescribing a uniform Catechism — the Compendium of Christian Doctrine — for use in the dioceses of the ecclesiastical province of Rome, at the same time indicating that it was his earnest desire to have the same manual adopted all over Italy."
On October 18, 1912, Pope Pius X also wrote this letter to Cardinal Pietro Respighi approving his Catechism of Christian Doctrine for use in the ecclesiastical province of Rome. Here are photocopies of that letter on pages 3–4 of the original Catechism published in 1912: Catechism cover Page 2–3 Page 4–5
Incorrect. In the first English translation of Pope Saint Pius X's catechism ("A Compendium of Catechetical Instruction" published by Reverend Monsignor John Hagan in 1910), it states in the Introduction: "During the sitting of the first Catechetical Congress in 1880, the then Bishop of Mantua (later St. Pius X) proposed that the Holy Father be petitioned to arrange for the compilation of a simple, plain, brief, and popular Catechism for uniform use all over the world. Shortly after his elevation to the Chair of Peter, Pius X at once set about realizing, within certain limits, his own proposal of 1880, by prescribing a uniform Catechism — the Compendium of Christian Doctrine — for use in the dioceses of the ecclesiastical province of Rome, at the same time indicating that it was his earnest desire to have the same manual adopted all over Italy."
On October 18, 1912, Pope Pius X also wrote this letter to Cardinal Pietro Respighi approving his Catechism of Christian Doctrine for use in the ecclesiastical province of Rome. Here are photocopies of that letter on pages 3–4 of the original Catechism published in 1912: Catechism cover Page 2–3 Page 4–5
Same as above.
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment