Trent and Forced Baptisms

As long as it was brought up here and elsewhere, what is the universal testimony supporting "implicit desire"?

hsilver wrote:As long as it was brought up here and elsewhere, what is the universal testimony supporting "implicit desire"?

Search as we may, There is none.
The best we can find on the subject are the dogmatic statements concerning the necessity of sacramental Baptism. But why bother with them?

hsilver wrote:As long as it was brought up here and elsewhere, what is the universal testimony supporting "implicit desire"?

An "implicit desire" for what?

MRyan,

My main contention with your presentation regarding the CCC is that you seem to be putting the teachings within the CCC on the same level as the decrees of Ecumenical Councils and/or Papal encyclicals. Ecumenical Councils are not revisable, as is the CCC. Disciplinary changes, etc. are made through new promulgations and not by altering the Conciliar texts. The CCC has gone through various modifications of the text itself, especially in the English translation (for an account of that mess, check out the book Flawed Expectations). You reference can. 752 as the reason we owe submission of the mind and will contained within the CCC as regards 'baptism of desire', but take it a step further by claiming we must submit to it as a doctrine rather than a theological opinion.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent only included adults as possible 'recipients' of baptism of desire and said no other means of salvation was available to infants. Yet, the current CCC says we should hope that there is another way of salvation for infants who have died without baptism. Thus, at one point it was explicitly taught that baptism of desire applied only to adults, yet now we have this explicitly denied and baptism of desire is taught as though it can be applied also to infants. How can this be more than theological opinion when it is so inconsistent and undefined?


Also, regarding the OP, the Catechism of Trent also lists among the necessary dispositions for the reception of the sacrament of baptism the desire and intention to receive it-- as is my argument for the real meaning of "or the desire thereof".

My main contention with your presentation regarding the CCC is that you seem to be putting the teachings within the CCC on the same level as the decrees of Ecumenical Councils and/or Papal encyclicals.

I have a problem with the position that sees the CCC and Papal encyclicals as being inconsistent. No one here has identified any such inconsistency. What I see here is people saying that certain past statements of ecumenical councils or pontiffs are inconsistent based upon their reading of the past statement.

For example, in an exchange with Catholic_Truth, I asked him to identify a past infallible, solemn statement that indicated that one cannot be saved without water baptism. He referred to a passage in the Council of Trent which anathematized anyone who said that baptism is "optional" or "free," which it then glossed as
"i.e., not necessary for salvation." In other words, you are saying baptism is not necessary for salvation if you say it is "optional." Taking the position that one may be justified by desire in certain circumstances where baptism by water is not available is not violating Trent because that is not saying that baptism is "optional." The Feeneyite position is so ridiculous it actually has the Catechism of Trent (which recognizes a desire for baptism "availing one to righteousness") violating the Council of Trent, and subject to its anathema, even though I believe some of the very same clerics and theologians were instrumental in the crafting of both - or at least involved in the production, or at least approval, of the texts of both. How that does not set off alarms ringing in Feeneyite ears is truly amazing.

We have a glaring and recent example of someone attacking Father Harrison as being "deceptive" on the basis of their own interpretation of magisterial statements, with ironically their interpretation being the one that was deceptive. If you want to see something, you'll tend to see it. Which is why we are not supposed to look and decide with our eyes, but the eyes of the Church.

I wager MRyan and I will be beating this drum until the day you have ears to hear. I am confident that day will come, since I believe you are all sincere, if misguided.

tornpage

tornpage wrote:I have a problem with the position that sees the CCC and Papal encyclicals as being inconsistent. No one here has identified any such inconsistency. What I see here is people saying that certain past statements of ecumenical councils or pontiffs are inconsistent based upon their reading of the past statement.

For example, in an exchange with Catholic_Truth, I asked him to identify a past infallible, solemn statement that indicated that one cannot be saved without water baptism.

tornpage, a Catholic doesn't need to go to you, MRyan or any other so called "self proclaimed" theologian to know what is taught infallibly. All a Catholic needs to do is to go to the infallible statements themselves.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, Can. 5: "IF ANYONE SHALL SAY THAT BAPTISM IS OPTIONAL, THAT IS, NOT NECESSARY FOR SALVATION (cf. John 3:5): let him be anathema."

Tornpage, you and MRyan reject this infallible statement. You obviously reject it because both of you have made exceptions to it, when the statement itself does not speak of any exceptions. You and MRyan make such exceptions in the name of a "deeper understanding".

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.” (Denzinger 1800)

tornpage wrote:I wager MRyan and I will be beating this drum until the day you have ears to hear. I am confident that day will come, since I believe you are all sincere, if misguided.

If anyone is misguided in this Forum, then it would have to be you and MRyan. Also, we have eyes to see, so therefore we can go to the infallible statements themselves, given by the Holy Spirit, which are the clear, final, declarative teaching on the subject and do not need re-interpretation in the name of a "deeper understanding" by fallible "men" such as yourself.

CT,

The Church says baptism is necessary and at the same time that one may be justified by desire. If you want to understand what the necessity of baptism means, don't you think that understanding must also be consistent with the truth that one could be justified by desire? Because both the necessity of baptism and the possibility of justification by desire are true. Or does truth not matter with you?

I've highlighted the most important words for you:

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.” (Denzinger 1800)

Now read it over about a billion times. Maybe the highlighted words will then reach a level of consciousness in this instance which the words "optional, that is, not necessary" from Trent have never attained.

I guess "fallible men" doesn't include you, CT, since you're a magisterium of one. No, make that one plus whoever agrees with you. As to MRyan and myself, we know we're fallible, so we let the Church tell us what She means.

tornpage

MarianLibririan,

If there was any hope that we were moving towards some sort of mutual understanding of key principles and arguments, even if we remain in disagreement, that seems to have vanished with your latest response. Chalk it up to flawed expectations.

Honestly, I can’t help but feel that this is an exercise in futility where nothing I can present actually resonates.

But let’s go though this again.

You say I am putting the teachings of the CCC on the same level as the decrees of Ecumenical Councils and/or Papal encyclicals when it is obvious that what I actually presented was ignored or simply did not register. On Friday, in the thread titled “The Compendium of the Catholic Church on baptism of desire” I answered this specific charge of yours in great detail. My post placed all of this into context, made the necessary distinctions and pointed out the fact that “when it comes to the actual presentation or explication of non-revealed and non-definitive individual Catholic doctrines, the ‘weight’ of each proposal, whatever the chosen authentic organ of transmission, may vary as the required adherence is “differentiated according to the mind and the will manifested”.

Now that is a true statement reflecting the Church's own teaching; and ignoring it will not make it any less true.

If you read my detailed response, it should be obvious that we are not talking about “revising” an Encyclical or an Ecumenical Council, but about the Church subsequently modifying its presentation or expanding upon a specific discipline or doctrine presented in a Council or an Encyclical or the CCC, as the Church is wont to do and does all the time. You are simply creating a straw man having absolutely no relevancy to this “debate”.

Btw, just so I’m clear on this, when I say that “non-revealed, non-definitive teachings are reformable, and thus, are subject to revision”, I do not mean that the doctrines themselves can be in error, but only that the presentation of the doctrine is reformable if it appears to be at odds with its traditional understanding, or may not adequately reflect the mind and will of the supreme teaching authority (the pope and/or the Bishops/Council in union with him).

If you do not have a response to my detailed explanation addressing your argument, or you do not understand it, then just say so; but please stop ignoring what I say as if I said nothing.

MarianLibrarian wrote:The CCC has gone through various modifications of the text itself, especially in the English translation (for an account of that mess, check out the book Flawed Expectations).

Are you suggesting that the subsequent editing or modification of the CCC, especially corrections to its various translations, somehow undermines its authority by the simple fact that new editions come out and corrections are made, especially to flawed translations?

Are you suggesting that the Church’s presentation on baptism of desire/baptism of blood in the CCC is suspect because it is subject to “revision” and that the teaching itself may in fact be in error?

It’s amazing how far you will go to denigrate the authority of the CCC. But your reference to Flawed Expectations does not help your case in the least. In fact, the work undermines every one of your arguments. You make a big deal about the initial English translation "mess" when you do not seem to realize that the authors were commenting on the English translation from the French that had not yet been released to the public. In fact, one of the reasons the English translation was so long in coming was because of its many flaws that needed correction.

I have a copy of the first official edition of the English translation and by checking some of the examples of errors (to include the horrendous “inclusive” language”) the authors highlighted in side-by-side comparisons (correct vs. flawed), I was able to confirm that the errors were in fact corrected in every example I checked.

Here is a citation from the book I thought you might appreciate:

These same people appear very uncomfortable with the idea that the book can just be purchased and used by, well, anybody; and that it can be consulted at any time to provide an authoritative statement of what the Church teaches in any given area. How can the religious-education establishment maintain its effective monopoly on religious education in such a situation? It has thus become very important in certain quarters that the Catechism not be seen as authoritative or, indeed, as anything very special at all.

As one catechetical expert wrote in a publication intended for, and primarily read by DREs, catechists, and those in what is increasingly today being called parish "ministry", the Catechism is merely "a point of departure". This expert, who is a professor of religious-education at the university level, confidently assures her readers throughout the Church's religious-education system that "the Catechism is primarily a reference book."'

Sound familiar?

And as far as the authoritative nature of the CCC, the authors write:

From Flawed Expectations, Forward [my emphasis]:

It [the CCC] lays out for us the teachings of Christ for the sake of our sanctification and salvation; we cannot go wrong following this guide. In bringing out this great work, the Catholic bishops have thus, Once again, proved themselves quite literally to be the authentic "witnesses" to Jesus "to the end of the earth" that he intended and commissioned them to be.

The principal aim of this book is to focus on the basic question of the reception of the Catechism ... that is, transmitting the authentic faith of the Church to others.

Chapter One:

The new Catechism is "authoritative", the Holy Father said very plainly on this same occasion of promulgating it, and it "faithfully reiterates the Christian doctrine of all times".

Chapter Six:

In vain, apparently, did the Pope declare that the work contains "what the Church believes", for we have here some twenty-odd Catholic theologians from around the world, most of whom would not too politely beg to differ with him. They reserve the right to decide for themselves "what the Church believes"; and therefore also to decide what kind of "reception" should be accorded to this Catechism as well.

From what standpoint does a group of academic theologians, even if described in the publishers' blurb as "distinguished", presume to judge and find so drastically wanting a Catechism of the Catholic Church issued by the supreme authority in the Church?

How do they manage or contrive to be taken seriously? How do they manage to get published by seemingly mainstream Catholic publishers?

Continuing:

We need to bear in mind what we covered in the first two chapters.

—The Catechism of the Catholic Church was requested by the 1985 World Synod of Bishops.

—It was commissioned by the Supreme Pontiff.

—It was overseen at every stage by a special commission of twelve cardinals and bishops headed by the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

—It was carried through ten separate drafts by an editorial committee composed primarily of seven diocesan bishops and one priest who enjoyed expert theological advice and assistance at every stage.

—It was edited carefully at every stage by another bishop who is also a distinguished Dominican theologian.

—The Catechism was submitted for review to all the Catholic bishops of the world, to all the bishops' conferences, and to major Catholic universities, with the result that nearly twenty-five thousand separate proposed amendments (modi) were sent back and carefully considered (and many times incorporated) by the editorial committee; this was the first time in the history of the Catholic Church that a major teaching document such as this was ever subjected to such a massive, worldwide consultation process.

—The final draft was then personally reviewed by the Holy Father, who called for certain modifications (he later commented that he had corrected the drafts himself!).

—Finally, the completed Catechism was promulgated and given to the world with the full authority of the Church behind it.

This is impressive; the document resulting from this process would be entitled to respect by any standards. Anyone who believes in the divine mission and commission of the Catholic Church, and in the promises given to her by Jesus Christ, however, would repose even greater confidence in any result stemming from a process including all the above steps. Conversely, those who rush to judge the Catechism only to find it so drastically wanting would appear not to believe very strongly in the divine mission and commission of the Catholic Church or in the promises given to her by Jesus Christ.

Continuing:

The Magisterium—Catholics believe and the Catechism reiterates—enjoys the special assistance of the Holy Spirit. However, this does not appear to impress these commentators. They do not grant to the teaching Church what they claim in practice for themselves.

On what basis do the theologian-writers of the Commentary on the Catechism of the Catholic Church presume to criticize so radically, and proceed on their own to correct, a foundational teaching document issued by the supreme authority of the Church? Apparently on the basis of their own academic study of the faith—that is, on their learning, scholarship, science—or on their citation of what other scholars or specialists have allegedly established.

We live in the age of the expert.

Continuing:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church aims to hand down, and does hand down, nothing else but "the Catholic faith that comes to us from the apostles". It does so—as we have just quoted John Paul II as saying in Fidei Depositum—in order "to allow the Christian mystery to be better known and to revive the faith of God's people". This does not mean that it is not also entirely up-to-date in the things it is supposed to be up-to-date on, namely, how the traditional faith that has been handed down from the time of the apostles has also been developed and interpreted under the guidance of the Magisterium with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. As a matter of fact, the Catechism is outstanding in this particular regard: including and explaining modern developments. Nevertheless, the Catechism is still what it is: a statement of the Church's faith.

The issuance of the Catechism of the Catholic Church by the Church's highest authority obviously marks a discouraging and very serious setback for the kind of revisionist theology that experts such as these had long since hoped and expected to see the Church adopt. Their disappointment is patent throughout this whole book. As the authors relentlessly point out in the pages of this Commentary, the Church has not adopted any Neomodernist positions. Indeed, the Church has quite conspicuously not adopted any of the typical revisions and modifications in the faith that these theological dissenters have been so tirelessly promoting over the past quarter century.

With this particular Catechism, the Church has instead restated and reiterated her authentic ancient faith, even while thoroughly and marvelously updating it in the authentic sense of that word. The revisionists claim that it slights Vatican Council II, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church cites the Council as its authority no fewer than 767 times, far more than any other source except the holy Scriptures themselves. This book thus represents one of the richest, most varied, and most nuanced statements of the Church's faith ever produced; but it remains a statement of her faith.

It would appear, MarianLibriarian, that your reference to Flawed Expectations was a flawed expectation on your part if you believed that the book helps your arguments in any way whatsoever.

MarianLibrarian wrote:You reference can. 752 as the reason we owe submission of the mind and will contained within the CCC as regards 'baptism of desire', but take it a step further by claiming we must submit to it as a doctrine rather than a theological opinion.

When are you going to respond to my actual response that went like this:

Once again it is implied (and alleged on this forum) that the doctrines of baptism of blood/baptism of desire are neither sure, nor authentic, nor doctrines; and they most certainly do not represent non-revealed “teachings … presented as true or at least as sure” as “an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff … set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, or to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith” (CDF Doctrinal Commentary); no, they actually represent throw-away theological opinions the Church has this funny habit of presenting to the Faithful (for “reference” only) as if she actually believes that these “theological opinions” represent authentic expressions of Catholic truth and that she actually believes she knows what she is talking about when she teaches “The Church has always held the firm conviction that …This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.”

And this:

The Church does not “create doctrines”, she teaches doctrines. The Church does not teach “authentic expressions” of “theological opinions”; she teaches authentic expressions of truth through her authoritative instruments for teaching Catholic truth. The fact that some of these expressions are non-defined doctrines does not make them any less authentic expressions of the truth (only the degree of adherence changes depending on the factors already presented - which may vary depending on one's understanding of these same factors).

Besides canon 752, how can you simply ignore the CDF Commentary, Lumen Gentium, Humani generus, VCI, and several other magisterial texts; all of which teach the same with respect to the required level of submission to authentic expressions of truth, regardless of the organ of transmission by which it is presented?

MarianLibrarian wrote:The Catechism of the Council of Trent only included adults as possible 'recipients' of baptism of desire and said no other means of salvation was available to infants. Yet, the current CCC says we should hope that there is another way of salvation for infants who have died without baptism. Thus, at one point it was explicitly taught that baptism of desire applied only to adults, yet now we have this explicitly denied and baptism of desire is taught as though it can be applied also to infants. How this be more than theological opinion when it is so inconsistent and undefined?

You are grasping at straw with your Catechism of Trent argument by comparing it to the CCC’s comment on the “hope” that God will have mercy on the unbaptized infants. You seem determined in your quest to accuse the Church of changing her teaching on the necessity of infant baptism, when she has done no such thing.

So you admit that the Catechism of Trent teaches that adults may be recipients of baptism of desire, but you question the CCC when it teaches the same doctrine by calling it a “theological opinion” of no “weight” whatsoever; at least none that would require religious assent to the authority of the Church in teaching the same doctrine she taught in the Catechism of Trent?

That’s pretty weak.

MarianLibrarian wrote:Also, regarding the OP, the Catechism of Trent also lists among the necessary dispositions for the reception of the sacrament of baptism the desire and intention to receive it-- as is my argument for the real meaning of "or the desire thereof".

So does the CCC, so what’s your point? The CCC does not suggest that infants may be saved by desire and intention, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

Btw, Flawed Expectations can be read on-line, here:

http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/catechism/flawed-expectations/fe-home-page.htm

MRyan
I think on some things we are simply talking around in circles.

MRyan wrote:You say I am putting the teachings of the CCC on the same level as the decrees of Ecumenical Councils and/or Papal encyclicals when it is obvious that what I actually presented was ignored or simply did not register. On Friday, in the thread titled “The Compendium of the Catholic Church on baptism of desire” I answered this specific charge of yours in great detail.

While I do scan the posts in the forums to make sure they aren't offensive, I don't tend to read every single post on this (or any other) message board. I simply don't have the time. So I apologize that I did not find your answer in another thread. Perhaps we should try and keep things to one thread until we understand each other?

If you read my detailed response, it should be obvious that we are not talking about “revising” an Encyclical or an Ecumenical Council, but about the Church subsequently modifying its presentation or expanding upon a specific discipline or doctrine presented in a Council or an Encyclical or the CCC, as the Church is wont to do and does all the time. You are simply creating a straw man having absolutely no relevancy to this “debate”.

I was not creating a straw man, I was responding directly to your earlier post:

And your statement that “Papal Encyclicals and Ecumenical Councils cannot be revised” is simply false. What is contained within Papal Encyclicals and Council documents can certainly be revised because not every teaching or discipline within an Encyclical or Council document is irreformable. That which is reformable can be revised, or it wouldn't be reformable.

Perhaps I assumed too much in thinking you understood what I meant by the CCC's being able to be revised, and the Conciliar text's irrevisablility (which I explained above as an altering of the text itself). We don't go back and alter Conciliar declarations.

Btw, just so I’m clear on this, when I say that “non-revealed, non-definitive teachings are reformable, and thus, are subject to revision”, I do not mean that the doctrines themselves can be in error, but only that the presentation of the doctrine is reformable if it appears to be at odds with its traditional understanding, or may not adequately reflect the mind and will of the supreme teaching authority (the pope and/or the Bishops/Council in union with him).

Ok. I agree with you here.

Are you suggesting that the subsequent editing or modification of the CCC, especially corrections to its various translations, somehow undermines its authority by the simple fact that new editions come out and corrections are made, especially to flawed translations?

Did I say that? No. I am simply pointing out that Catechisms, as such, are not on the same 'level' of authority as Papal Encyclicals and/or Ecumenical Councils. The language of the Catechism is not definitive except where the Catechism cites the authoritative texts themselves (Conciliar documents, Papal documents, etc.).

Are you suggesting that the Church’s presentation on baptism of desire/baptism of blood in the CCC is suspect because it is subject to “revision” and that the teaching itself may in fact be in error?

The teaching is a theological opinion which a Catholic is free to not hold. The Church has made no definitive judgment on the matter, and this 'teaching' changes and has changed throughout the centuries, as has been mentioned.

It’s amazing how far you will go to denigrate the authority of the CCC. But your reference to Flawed Expectations does not help your case in the least. In fact, the work undermines every one of your arguments.

I have not said the CCC is not authoritative. It is. But the authority lies in the whole. You also misunderstood my reference to the book. I agree with the majority of the work, that's why I referenced it-- especially when speaking in relation to the mess of the English translation.

When are you going to respond to my actual response that went like this:

Once again it is implied (and alleged on this forum) that the doctrines of baptism of blood/baptism of desire are neither sure, nor authentic, nor doctrines; and they most certainly do not represent non-revealed “teachings … presented as true or at least as sure” as “an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff … set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, or to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith” (CDF Doctrinal Commentary); no, they actually represent throw-away theological opinions the Church has this funny habit of presenting to the Faithful (for “reference” only) as if she actually believes that these “theological opinions” represent authentic expressions of Catholic truth and that she actually believes she knows what she is talking about when she teaches “The Church has always held the firm conviction that …This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.”

It is a caricature of my argument to suggest that I think the CCC contains "throw-away theological opinions". It's NOT a bad thing to say that CCC is a reference book. It is an extremely valuable reference book that every Catholic should own to aid in understanding the teachings of the Church. The contention about 'baptism of desire' is that the teaching has no outside support. There is nothing pinned down as regards what one must believe about 'baptism of desire'. There is no other teaching of the Church which is so flimsy and mutable.

You are grasping at straw with your Catechism of Trent argument by comparing it to the CCC’s comment on the “hope” that God will have mercy on the unbaptized infants. You seem determined in your quest to accuse the Church of changing her teaching on the necessity of infant baptism, when she has done no such thing.

I have not accused the Church of changing her teaching on infant baptism. That is an unfair accusation. My argument was in reference to how 'baptism of desire' has changed. In Trent, it applied only to adults; now, to all.

So you admit that the Catechism of Trent teaches that adults may be recipients of baptism of desire, but you question the CCC when it teaches the same doctrine by calling it a “theological opinion” of no “weight” whatsoever; at least none that would require religious assent to the authority of the Church in teaching the same doctrine she taught in the Catechism of Trent?

The Catechism of the Council of Trent has the same weight as the current CCC, I have never said otherwise. It's authority lies in the whole, and the weight of its individual doctrines come from their outside declarations. The Conciliar texts themselves say nothing of "baptism of desire"-- the inclusion of it in the Catechism is the inclusion of a theological opinion. It would be as if any of the Catechisms taught that Our Lady died (or did not die) before her Assumption. It is theological opinion which Pope Pius XII left open when defining her glorious Assumption. The popular one is that Our Lady suffered death-- many liturgical and prayer books make mention of it, and the Eastern rites celebrate her Dormition "falling asleep" which some explain as death. But a Catholic is not obliged to hold a particular opinion about it (ex. that she did die). A Catholic can be a good Catholic without dissenting from the Church in holding either opinion on the matter (so long as the understanding of either opinion does not conflict with what the Church does teach regarding our Blessed Mother). This is also the case with 'baptism of desire' (depending upon how one understands 'baptism of desire'). There are an infinite number of possible things God can/could do, we are only obliged to hold to those truths which the Church has revealed as necessary for us to believe. Is it possible for God to impart the grace of Baptism without the reception of the Sacrament? In theory, yes. Am I obliged to believe He would do this? No. It is also equally possible for God to impart the grace of Baptism through the actual reception of the Sacrament, even if by miraculous means.

Mryan, You may be labouring under the impression that many here do not understand your position correctly. I feel we do understand what your saying yet disagree with it.
Would it be a fair summary of your position to say that you don’t hold baptism of desire to be a doctrine of the faith but rather that baptism of desire as a possibility “is” a doctrine of the faith?

As the recipients of baptism of desire would be known only to God then that of course automatically excludes any human knowledge as to when or if it ever occurs.
Now, as doctrines only pertain to those things which “can” be known as having been revealed by God to the apostles, then it would follow that those things that cannot be known to man are not part of the deposit of faith and therefore cannot be considered as doctrines.

I think that most of us who disagree with you and tornpage are only making the point that the unknowable likelihood of what God might or might not do, can’t be in itself a doctrine. That’s why the CCC can state categorically in 1257, "The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude;"
This statement is in accord with previous dogmatic declarations on the subject and so can be stated as it is, a matter of fact.

I am not “laboring” under any false impressions. I am laboring to discover how it is that a doctrine of the Church consistently taught by the Magisterium for centuries can be dismissed as a throw-away “theological opinion” that cannot demand of anyone a religious submission of the mind and will. I mean, I cannot even get an agreement that an external submission is required to the teaching authority of the Church in this regard; but, perhaps one may make an internal reservation if one finds it difficult to square with “tradition” (when no objection to this doctrine was raised until 1952).

So no, after all this time you still do not know what my position is, so what am I supposed to conclude from this? Did I ever suggest to you that baptism of desire/baptism of blood are only “possible” doctrines, but not actual doctrines of the faith the Church has taught through her various organs of authoritative transmission since at least the Council of Trent? Whether baptism of desire ever actually happens we cannot know, but we know it can happen because the Church teaches that it can.

As far as your argument that the recipients of baptism of desire and their salvation can be known only to God, the same goes for every baptized Catholic who has not been canonized as a saint.

Your argument is a red herring. It is not a matter of subjective discernment of objective reality that makes a doctrine true or false, it is the truth of the doctrine itself. The Church also dogmatically teaches that one may be reconciled to God in justification without the sacrament of penance under very specific conditions (requiring "desire"); yet, there is no way any of us can know if such a case ever existed or does exist.

The doctrine declares that under certain conditions justification once lost can be regained without the sacrament, and the Church also teaches that under certain conditions the non-baptized may be justified and saved by “the desire thereof”.

You either accept these doctrines as the Church teaches them, or you don’t.

columba wrote:
As the recipients of baptism of desire would be known only to God then that of course automatically excludes any human knowledge as to when or if it ever occurs.

Now, as doctrines only pertain to those things which “can” be known as having been revealed by God to the apostles, then it would follow that those things that cannot be known to man are not part of the deposit of faith and therefore cannot be considered as doctrines.

Btw, baptism of blood is an external manifestation of baptism of desire that the Church allows us to believe since many of these acts are recorded in the Martyrology. So not only do we have the human knowledge that it can occur, the Church allows us to believe that it has occurred, and endorses these same acts in her approval of the Martyrology.

Forget the “well, the acts of the Martyrology may not be reliable” canard; it does not matter. If the doctrine of baptism of desire/baptism of blood could in any way be false, the Church would not only forbid the doctrine from being taught, she would prevent her children from holding any such belief in the un-baptized martyrdom of those she reveres as saints in heaven.

Now, can you name one person who has ever fallen into mortal sin who was saved by a “perfect contrition” and the "desire" for the sacrament of Penance, without the sacrament?

No? Then, if I follow your logic, you don’t have to believe in the doctrine, is that correct?

MarianLibrarian wrote:
MRyan
I think on some things we are simply talking around in circles.

And I would argue that the reason for this is your own ever-constricting circular logic; as we shall see.

MarianLibrarian wrote:

MRyan wrote:
You say I am putting the teachings of the CCC on the same level as the decrees of Ecumenical Councils and/or Papal encyclicals when it is obvious that what I actually presented was ignored or simply did not register. On Friday, in the thread titled “The Compendium of the Catholic Church on baptism of desire” I answered this specific charge of yours in great detail.

While I do scan the posts in the forums to make sure they aren't offensive, I don't tend to read every single post on this (or any other) message board. I simply don't have the time. So I apologize that I did not find your answer in another thread. Perhaps we should try and keep things to one thread until we understand each other?

That’s fine; except my post on the other thread was a response to a specific post and challenge of yours. If you wish to confine yourself to one thread, then please do so ... it will make things easier.

MarianLibrarian wrote:

MRyan wrote:
If you read my detailed response, it should be obvious that we are not talking about “revising” an Encyclical or an Ecumenical Council, but about the Church subsequently modifying its presentation or expanding upon a specific discipline or doctrine presented in a Council or an Encyclical or the CCC, as the Church is wont to do and does all the time. You are simply creating a straw man having absolutely no relevancy to this “debate”.

I was not creating a straw man, I was responding directly to your earlier post:

MRyan wrote: And your statement that “Papal Encyclicals and Ecumenical Councils cannot be revised” is simply false. What is contained within Papal Encyclicals and Council documents can certainly be revised because not every teaching or discipline within an Encyclical or Council document is irreformable. That which is reformable can be revised, or it wouldn't be reformable.

Perhaps I assumed too much in thinking you understood what I meant by the CCC's being able to be revised, and the Conciliar text's irrevisablility (which I explained above as an altering of the text itself). We don't go back and alter Conciliar declarations.

You assumed too much if you thought your argument had any merit. It’s still a straw man because, as I explained, a subsequent revision or greater expansion of a teaching within an Encyclical or a Conciliar document is still a revision and a greater expansion, even if the original documents are not “revised”. The doctrine itself is still true, but that does not mean that is not subject to a revision or expansion (without changing its essential meaning). It is no different with the CCC, except the revision usually is included in the next official edition or even a Compendium. In other words, we are talking about the teachings themselves, and not the official and magisterial organ of transmission, with the authority for each being one and the same Magisterium.

You will need to come clean on this because you really are creating a straw man.

MarianLibrarian wrote:

MRyan wrote:
Are you suggesting that the subsequent editing or modification of the CCC, especially corrections to its various translations, somehow undermines its authority by the simple fact that new editions come out and corrections are made, especially to flawed translations?

Did I say that? No. I am simply pointing out that Catechisms, as such, are not on the same 'level' of authority as Papal Encyclicals and/or Ecumenical Councils. The language of the Catechism is not definitive except where the Catechism cites the authoritative texts themselves (Conciliar documents, Papal documents, etc.).

No; you are simply wrong. The language of Encyclicals or even Ecumenical Councils is not definitive unless it is clear that a particular doctrine is being formally defined (a revealed truth) or proposed for belief by definitive act (a non-revealed truth closely related to a dogma).

Your assertion is entirely misleading and most often false. There is no “definitive” language within the CCC because the purpose of the CCC is not to “define” doctrines or to propose for belief certain doctrines by definitive act; its purpose is to pass on the Faith of the Church though her highest ordinary and universal authority as supreme teacher, as she herself holds them as a testimony of our Apostolic Faith.

Very rarely does an Encyclical define a doctrine or propose one as a definitive act. In fact, VCII did not define any doctrines, but it does appear to have settled at least one doctrine by definitive act (collegiality).

According to Dr. John Hagan, who is cited in the Introduction to the Catechism of Trent (and he knows a thing or two about Catechisms), the Roman Catechism is “of the same authority as a dogmatic Papal Encyclical.” Only if an Encyclical defines a doctrine or proposes one by a definitive act can the Encyclical be said to be of a higher authority than the CCC; but only because of the magisterial act of defining. All other ordinary Magisterial teachings have no more weight than the supreme teacher intends to give them -- regardless of the organ of transmission.

Again, when it comes to ordinary and authentic teachings of the Magisterium, to include the presentation of individual non-defined and non-definitive teachings of a Council, or an Encyclical or the CCC, a particular teaching has no more weight than that manifested in the will and intention of the supreme Teacher/Legislator or Council, regardless of the authoritative instrument in which it is presented.

This “hierarchy of authority” argument is entirely misleading and even false when it suggests that there are truths that are “less true” because they are presented in the CCC rather than an Encyclical. When it comes to giving assent to the teachings of the Magisterium, there is only one Magisterium and no such thing as “no submission” to a particular doctrine because it is presented through an alleged “lesser authority”. Both an internal and external submission is required to all magisterial teachings; and only internally can someone reserve submission to a particular non-revealed or non-definitive teaching, and only with just cause.

MarianLibrarian wrote:

MRyan wrote:
Are you suggesting that the Church’s presentation on baptism of desire/baptism of blood in the CCC is suspect because it is subject to “revision” and that the teaching itself may in fact be in error?

The teaching is a theological opinion which a Catholic is free to not hold. The Church has made no definitive judgment on the matter, and this 'teaching' changes and has changed throughout the centuries, as has been mentioned.

Where did you come up with the idea that the CCC teaches doctrines as “theological opinions” we are free not to hold (submission of the mind and intellect)? I don’t remember the CCC teaching that she holds this as a “theological opinion” when she declared “The Church has always held the firm conviction that … This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.”

Once again you make the egregious error of suggesting that you are only required to submit to “definitive judgments”. It appears that nothing the Church teaches on this matter resonates with you since you seem to be the sole arbiter of tradition and what you will accept as a doctrine and what you are free not to hold.

When the CCC declares: “The Church has always held the firm conviction”; does that sound like “The Church has always held the theological opinion you are free not to hold” to you?

Seriously, name the source of this non-servium position of yours and give some evidence for its validation.

MarianLibrarian wrote:

MRyan wrote:
It’s amazing how far you will go to denigrate the authority of the CCC. But your reference to Flawed Expectations does not help your case in the least. In fact, the work undermines every one of your arguments.

I have not said the CCC is not authoritative. It is. But the authority lies in the whole. You also misunderstood my reference to the book. I agree with the majority of the work, that's why I referenced it-- especially when speaking in relation to the mess of the English translation.

I get it; the authority of the CCC lies in the whole, as if all of its individual doctrines do not make up the whole, but only the ones you agree with. The Church is thankful that you agree with most of her teachings. I understood your reference to Flawed Expectations, and proved that regardless of the initial pre-publication mess of the English translation, your argument was entirely groundless. I then used the same book to rebut every one of your arguments, but you seem to have missed that part.

MarianLibrarian wrote:

MRyan wrote:
When are you going to respond to my actual response that went like this:

Once again it is implied (and alleged on this forum) that the doctrines of baptism of blood/baptism of desire are neither sure, nor authentic, nor doctrines; and they most certainly do not represent non-revealed “teachings … presented as true or at least as sure” as “an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff … set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, or to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith” (CDF Doctrinal Commentary); no, they actually represent throw-away theological opinions the Church has this funny habit of presenting to the Faithful (for “reference” only) as if she actually believes that these “theological opinions” represent authentic expressions of Catholic truth and that she actually believes she knows what she is talking about when she teaches “The Church has always held the firm conviction that …This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.”

It is a caricature of my argument to suggest that I think the CCC contains "throw-away theological opinions". It's NOT a bad thing to say that CCC is a reference book. It is an extremely valuable reference book that every Catholic should own to aid in understanding the teachings of the Church. The contention about 'baptism of desire' is that the teaching has no outside support. There is nothing pinned down as regards what one must believe about 'baptism of desire'. There is no other teaching of the Church which is so flimsy and mutable.

The CCC is not just a “reference book” or “aid”. “The Catechism of the Catholic Church … does hand down, nothing else but ‘the Catholic faith that comes to us from the apostles’. The new Catechism is ‘authoritative’, the Holy Father said very plainly on this same occasion of promulgating it, and it ‘faithfully reiterates the Christian doctrine of all times’".

If it is a caricature, it is also very close to the mark when you say that you do not have to “hold” those teachings of the CCC you do not agree with. Your position is no different from that of the liberals. The authors of the book exposed these same flawed excuses for not submitting to those teachings they had a problem with. You use the very same arguments. In the end, the authority of the CCC, with respect to its individual teachings, has no more weight than you choose to give them - even no weight, such as with baptism of desire.

Again, from Flawed Expectations:

In vain, apparently, did the Pope declare that the work contains "what the Church believes", for we have here some twenty-odd Catholic theologians from around the world, most of whom would not too politely beg to differ with him. They reserve the right to decide for themselves "what the Church believes"; and therefore also to decide what kind of "reception" should be accorded to this Catechism as well.

From what standpoint does a group of academic theologians [and Feeneyites], even if described in the publishers' blurb as "distinguished", presume to judge and find so drastically wanting a Catechism of the Catholic Church issued by the supreme authority in the Church?

You do not have the authority to tell the Church her teachings are flimsy and mutable when she presents them to you in a manner and with an authority and conviction even a child can understand. Tell me what is so difficult with “The Church has always held the firm conviction that … This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.”

Why are you trying to pick this doctrine apart and to find excuses for "not holding it" it when the Church has been teaching the same doctrine since at least the Council of Trent?

MarianLibrarian wrote:

MRyan wrote:
You are grasping at straw with your Catechism of Trent argument by comparing it to the CCC’s comment on the “hope” that God will have mercy on the unbaptized infants. You seem determined in your quest to accuse the Church of changing her teaching on the necessity of infant baptism, when she has done no such thing.

I have not accused the Church of changing her teaching on infant baptism. That is an unfair accusation. My argument was in reference to how 'baptism of desire' has changed. In Trent, it applied only to adults; now, to all.

Really? First you say that I have accused you of saying that the Church has changed her teaching on infant baptism; you then turn right around and say that the Church has changed its teaching on baptism of desire by applying it now not only to adults, but “to all”; meaning to infants as well. Why would you specifically mention the CCC’s “change” in its teaching on infants if that was not the case?

“Baptism of desire” cannot apply to infants, and the Church has not “changed” her teaching on baptism of desire -- period.

Baptism of desire applies to adults only; where in heaven’s name did you get the idea that it may now apply “to all”; including infants?

MarianLibrarian wrote:

MRyan wrote:
So you admit that the Catechism of Trent teaches that adults may be recipients of baptism of desire, but you question the CCC when it teaches the same doctrine by calling it a “theological opinion” of no “weight” whatsoever; at least none that would require religious assent to the authority of the Church in teaching the same doctrine she taught in the Catechism of Trent?

The Catechism of the Council of Trent has the same weight as the current CCC, I have never said otherwise. It's authority lies in the whole, and the weight of its individual doctrines come from their outside declarations.

No, the “weight” of the individual doctrines comes first and foremost from the authority of the Church teaching - the Magisterium, regardless of the organ of transmission. Obviously, the supreme Magisterium when defining an article of faith, or the ordinary and universal magisterium when proposing a doctrine for belief by definitive act, has the highest authority, but all other ordinary teachings of the Magisterium are no less true, regardless of the organ the Church has chosen for passing on the Faith, be it Encyclical, Allocution, or universal Roman Catechism.

Discerning this “weight” will require discerning the intention and will of the supreme teacher and legislator, “which require degrees of adherence differentiated according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.”

In the same DOCTRINAL COMMENTARY just cited, Cardinal Ratzinger declared:

10. The third proposition of the Professio fidei states: "Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.” To this paragraph belong all those teachings on faith and morals - presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Such teachings are, however, an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops and therefore require religious submission of will and intellect.18 They are set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, or to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith, or lastly to warn against ideas incompatible with these truths or against dangerous opinions that can lead to error.

Please show me, MarianLibrarian, where the CDF meant to exempt from required submission those authentic expressions of truth found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Please show us where the Church has ever said that her presentation of the teachings within the CCC is not an exercise of the authentic Magisterium and where it was ever said that its “teachings on faith and morals” are not “presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.”

Where do you get the authority to tell us that the authentic teachings of the CCC on baptism of blood/baptism of desire are not authentic teachings of the Magisterium? Why is your position not any different from that of the liberals referenced in Flawed Expectations that holds that one is free to determine on his own authority what teachings of the CCC are authentic -- and those one deems non-authentic expressions used for “reference” only, and thus, they are free “not to hold”?

MarianLibrarian wrote:
The Conciliar texts themselves say nothing of "baptism of desire"-- the inclusion of it in the Catechism is the inclusion of a theological opinion. It would be as if any of the Catechisms taught that Our Lady died (or did not die) before her Assumption. It is theological opinion which Pope Pius XII left open when defining her glorious Assumption. The popular one is that Our Lady suffered death-- many liturgical and prayer books make mention of it, and the Eastern rites celebrate her Dormition "falling asleep" which some explain as death. But a Catholic is not obliged to hold a particular opinion about it (ex. that she did die). A Catholic can be a good Catholic without dissenting from the Church in holding either opinion on the matter (so long as the understanding of either opinion does not conflict with what the Church does teach regarding our Blessed Mother). This is also the case with 'baptism of desire' (depending upon how one understands 'baptism of desire'). There are an infinite number of possible things God can/could do, we are only obliged to hold to those truths which the Church has revealed as necessary for us to believe.

Your argument is a smorgasbord of confusion and false analogies. Here’s the relative point: IF there was evidence of a tradition for our Blessed Mother’s “death” (though it is a doctrine that she could not have suffered bodily corruption), and Pius XII or any other pope confirmed this evidence and then taught the doctrine as an authentic expression of the truth (without defining it) through whatever Magisterial organ of transmission he is free to choose, be it Encyclical, Allocution, Roman Catechism, or whatever; you would not be free to dissent from that teaching.

The point is, unlike baptism of blood/baptism of desire, no such teaching has ever been presented by the Church as a doctrine (as an authentic expression of truth), so your argument is just one more irrelevant straw man.

MarianLibrarian wrote:
Is it possible for God to impart the grace of Baptism without the reception of the Sacrament? In theory, yes. Am I obliged to believe He would do this? No. It is also equally possible for God to impart the grace of Baptism through the actual reception of the Sacrament, even if by miraculous means.

You believe as the Church teaches that it is possible for God to impart the grace of Baptism without the reception of the Sacrament; in other words, you believe in the doctrines of baptism of blood/baptism of desire, though you refuse to call them doctrines that are taught by the authentic Magisterium.

Honestly, I cannot get my arms around your thinking. You are actually arguing against this very same authority of the Church on a doctrine you say you accept, but refuse to call it a legitimate doctrine. No, you say, it is only a theological opinion you do not have to hold. But you do so hold it, for reasons unknown - for it does not appear that your submission (though that might be too strong a term) is related to a required submission to the authority of the Church. So in theory, like many Feeneyites, you hold that you are not obliged to submit to this doctrine, but may reject it outright as a doctrine since it is only a “theological opinion”.

No wonder we can't seem to break out of this circle.

Catholic_Truth wrote:

MRyan wrote:
When someone cites scores of consistent magisterial texts in defense of a position, and also cites a universal moral consensus of Doctors and theologians whose testimony supports this same position, one need not be a “theologian” ("arm-chair" or otherwise) to have confidence that the position is correct for the simple reason it is the position held and proposed to the Faithful by the Magisterium.

MRyan, first of all, you can't claim that there has been a "universal moral consensus" when most of the early Church fathers rejected Baptism of Desire.

That’s a totally gratuitous and groundless comment. There are Fathers who rejected the idea of a mere desire that was devoid of the proper intentions, but there is no Father that you can prove “rejected Baptism of Desire”.

St. Thomas Aquinas, who knew the teachings of the Fathers better than you, taught that the simple and absolute necessity of the sacrament in necessary to every man without exception, while also teaching that its essential fruit could be attained by baptism of blood and baptism of desire. So a Father’s affirmation of the sacraments absolute necessity is not a “rejection” of baptism of blood or baptism of desire.

Go ahead, name the early Fathers that “rejected” baptism of desire and produce the evidence. We’ve already seen some examples, and we also saw how these same Fathers were taken out of context or did not say what is alleged. There is nothing new under the sun and you and I both know that you’ve got nothing with which to “prove” your false assertion.

There is no reason to refute the rest of your baseless arguments if you can’t produce the evidence for “most of the early Church fathers rejected Baptism of Desire.”

Let's see you step up to the plate.

columba wrote:

hsilver wrote:As long as it was brought up here and elsewhere, what is the universal testimony supporting "implicit desire"?

Search as we may, There is none.
The best we can find on the subject are the dogmatic statements concerning the necessity of sacramental Baptism. But why bother with them?

No, what you really mean is why bother listening to the Church when she presents her understanding of her own dogmas as she has always understood them, and as they were "once declared".

You are a magisterial authority of one. Is it lonely at the top?

hsilver: You never responded to my question about your reference to "implicit desire"; the 'implicit desire" for what? I guess it wasn't important.

MRyan said:
No, what you really mean is why bother listening to the Church when she presents her understanding of her own dogmas as she has always understood them, and as they were "once declared".

You are a magisterial authority of one. Is it lonely at the top?

Not at all lonely. In fact it's getting quite crowded here.
MR, using the same method of interpretation that can reconcile the necessity of water Baptism with it being non-essential in certain cases, can also be used to reconcile the overall perfection of the CCC with it’s specific imperfections. When we mess about with ambiguous language, then all things become possible.

You know; that’s the problem with Popes, especially those earlier ones; they go around declaring dogmas right, left and centre without giving any consideration as to what future theologians might make of these. They declare these dogmas as if they themselves were speaking on behalf of God and even have the audacity to call down the wrath of God on anyone who should presume to deny them.
Not being content with that, they arrogantly refuse to give even a moment’s thought to the possible exceptions, and fail to include these exceptions in their final draft.
As if that weren’t bad enough, they then go on to state that no one at all has the right to mess with the meaning that they have now established. Hadn’t they ever heard of democracy? And where they so short-sighted as not to see a future Council in the 20th century that might not appreciate being hampered by outdated dogmatic definitions and clear unambiguous language that no one of that time could ever hope to understand. With their total lack of concern for political correctness, they called a spade a spade and couldn’t foresee how this lack of tact would infuriate so many future free thinkers. How arrogant and self-centred those previous Popes where. Good to see them getting put n their place. Little wonder then that Latin didn’t stand the test of time with it hampering that flexibility so precious and essential to many modern theologians and their developing languages.

At least now we can have a catechism that all can understand in their own way. Whatever we want it to mean, then that’s what it means. It’s a win, win situation. The more liberal minds are content and so too are the Traditionalists and we can have forums to discuss in perpetua (I hate those Latin words) how each passage can have so many different meanings without violating any previous dogma. It’s just great.
I particularly like that part in the CCC where it says in 121 “The Old Covenant which has never been revoked” can still be understood in conformity with those old popes (Eugene IV and Benedict 14th) who declared that the old covenant had been revoked at the coming of Christ, but that hopefully can be material for a new thread.

columba wrote:
Not at all lonely. In fact it's getting quite crowded here.

I doubt that; though you might have a point if we include in your private magisterium the liberals who submit only to those doctrines they agree with. But I still maintain that every individual who proclaims that the Magisterium taught errors for centuries on baptism of blood/baptism of desire, and that Catholics have no duty to submit to it, is a magisterium of one.

And, if a few of you agree with each other, you still stand alone in interpreting for yourselves the “once declared” meaning of the Church’s dogmas without recourse to the only living and permanent authority commissioned by our Lord for precisely such a task.

columba wrote:
MR, using the same method of interpretation that can reconcile the necessity of water Baptism with it being non-essential in certain cases, can also be used to reconcile the overall perfection of the CCC with it’s specific imperfections. When we mess about with ambiguous language, then all things become possible.

Let’s get this “private interpretation” doctrine of yours on the table. Here is the issue:

However, this dogma [Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus] must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church. (Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, Letter to Ab Cushing, 1949)

You can't seem to get your mind wrapped around this very Catholic "concept". Its what separates us from Protestants.

The doctors and approved theologians, and the Church, long ago reconciled the basic truths which hold that the sacrament of baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation for every man without exception as both a necessity of precept and of means. As a precept, the necessity cannot be binding when it cannot be fulfilled. As a necessity of means, it is always necessary and must be fulfilled either through the actual sacrament or the desire for it (faith, charity and intention) when it is impossible to receive. That’s what the Church teaches and that’s what she has always taught -- and we have an authentic, living and permanent Magisterium that confirms this truth.

There is NO contradiction just because you cannot grasp it.

What you do not understand, and will never understand (apparently), is the following teaching of the Church:

In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807). (Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, Letter to Ab Cushing, 1949)

That is why “the desire thereof” can fulfill the absolute requirement of regeneration in baptism because Supernatural Faith, Charity and Sanctifying Grace are intrinsic to salvation, while the divinely instituted “helps” are temporary external instruments our Lord instituted as “the ordinary and chief means” for conveying these same intrinsic necessities, and are thus extrinsic to salvation as a necessity of means.

That is why St. Thomas Aquinas taught the distinction between explicit faith as an intrinsic necessity of means, with the instrumental means for transmitting the life of grace being an extrinsic necessity of means. In other words, the simple and absolute necessity of regeneration in baptism is intrinsic to salvation, but the instrumental means is not intrinsic to sanctifying grace and the divine life of the soul when our Lord acts as the instrumental means for conveying this same grace.

Do you think that because you find this difficult to comprehend that you can simply dismiss the authority of the Church in teaching this doctrine and actually accuse the Church of not understanding her own dogmas when you accuse her of contradictions?

With the doctrines of baptism of desire/baptism of desire, you are basically accusing the Church of “obscuring” her own dogmas through the use of “ambiguous language”. As I mentioned in a previous post, since you are so fond of citing dogmatic declarations, why don’t you ever pay attention to this condemnation in the Bull "Auctorem Fides”, by Pope Pius VI, August 28, 1794:

Obscuring of Truths in the Church [From the Decree de Grat., sec. I]:

The proposition, which asserts "that in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ, [condemned as] “—heretical”.

In fact, I do not see how you avoid this censure from the same Bull, as well:

Calumnies Against Some Decisions in the Matter of Faith Which Have Come Down from Several Centuries

But, by this expressed condemnation of the aforesaid propositions and doctrines, we by no means intend to approve other things contained in the same book, particularly since in it very many propositions and doctrines have been detected, related either to those which have been condemned above, or to those which show an attitude not only of rash contempt for the commonly approved doctrine and discipline, but of special hostility toward the Roman Pontiffs and the Apostolic See.

I fail to see the "ambiguity" of baptism of desire and baptism of blood when the Church has taught the same doctrines for centuries; precisely like this:

”And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.” (Trent, Sess. 6, Ch. 4)

“If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis out eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema.}” (Trent, Canons on the Sacraments in General: Canon 4)

“On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.” (Catechism of the Council of Trent)

“No one can doubt that the Sacraments are among the means of attaining righteousness and salvation … A Sacrament, he [St. Augustine] says, is a sign of a sacred thing; or, as it has been expressed in other words of the same import: A Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace, instituted for our justification”. (Catechism of the Council of Trent)

"That holy baptism, the gateway to the Christian religion and to eternal life, holding as it does the first place among the sacraments instituted by Christ for the New Covenant, is necessary for salvation for all, either in act or desire, is testified by the divine Truth Himself in these words: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (Jn 3.5). Therefore, the greatest concern is to be exercised for its correct and timely administration and reception" (Pope Paul V [1605-1621], Roman Ritual, Part II, Chapter I, para #1).

“In the same way in man, nothing is more internal than heavenly grace which begets sanctity, but the ordinary and chief means of obtaining grace are external: that is to say, the sacraments which are administered by men specially chosen for that purpose, by means of certain ordinances.” (Pope St. Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum)

"Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, actually or at least in desire is necessary for all for salvation and is not validly conferred except by washing with true and natural water along with the prescribed formula of words" (1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 737 §1).

“In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason. Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open.” (Pope Pius XII, Allocution to midwives, 1951)

“Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments, is necessary for salvation by actual reception or at least by desire. By it people are freed from sins, are born again as children of God and, made like to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated into the Church. It is validly conferred only by a washing in real water with the proper form of words used.” (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 849).

“The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.” (CCC 1257)

“The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.” (CCC 1258)

“For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.” (CCC 1259)

We could of course go through the entire litany of Fathers, saints, theologians and Doctors, to include the Father of the Church, St. Bernard of Clarivaux; the “Common” and the “Angelic Doctor”, St. Thomas Aquinas; Doctor and Saint Alphonsus Liguori and Doctor and Saint Robert Bellarmine, the last of whom wrote, in “Liber II, Caput XXX: "Boni Cathecumeni sunt de Ecclesia, interna unione tantum, non autem externa." (Good catechumens are of the Church, by internal union only, not however, by external union.).

But we know that it would just fall on deaf ears.

columba wrote:
You know; that’s the problem with Popes, especially those earlier ones; they go around declaring dogmas right, left and centre without giving any consideration as to what future theologians might make of these. They declare these dogmas as if they themselves were speaking on behalf of God and even have the audacity to call down the wrath of God on anyone who should presume to deny them.

You know, that's the problem with Catholics who have the temerity to believe that the magisterium can be divided up between the popes as if they do not speak with the one univocal voice of Peter (and the voice of our Lord) every time they exercise their office as supreme teacher -- and in whatever authoritative magisterial mode they choose to convey that universal voice when passing on the faith to the faithful.

And here you are blaming the theologians as if it is not the authentic, living, and permanent Magisterium that teaches these same doctrines.

Its very clear, columba, that you do not accept the Church’s understanding of her own dogmas, yet you have the brass to suggest that your interpretation is correct; that you stand with former popes as if they would encourage your erroneous interpretations and not scold you for daring to suggest that the Magisterium is in error and has been in error for these many centuries.

The rest of your rant is not even worth commenting on, with this one exception:

columba wrote:
I particularly like that part in the CCC where it says in 121 “The Old Covenant which has never been revoked” can still be understood in conformity with those old popes (Eugene IV and Benedict 14th) who declared that the old covenant had been revoked at the coming of Christ, but that hopefully can be material for a new thread.

You are referring to the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church which says in paragraph 121: “The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture…for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.” And, as Robert Sungeins pointed out, “This is not surprising, since in the original Greek and the Vulgate the words 'testament' and 'covenant' are often interchangeable."

Meaning, of course, that the CCC was not referring to the revoked Mosaic Covenant, but to the whole Old Testament as the “Old Covenant”.

It helps to know the context, and a little Greek, don’t you think?

MRyan,

I have been mulling over some of the things you have said and have a question for you. Was(/Is) the letter of Pope Honorius I to Sergius something which demand(/ed/s) submission of the mind and will on the part of the faithful?

MarianLibrarian wrote:MRyan,

I have been mulling over some of the things you have said and have a question for you. Was(/Is) the letter of Pope Honorius I to Sergius something which demand(/ed/s) submission of the mind and will on the part of the faithful?

Good question, so let’s walk through this. Was the Letter published for the benefit of the Faithful? What did the Letter actually say and what was the will and intention of the supreme teacher? Did Honorius propose a doctrine, let alone propose one opposed to the faith, or did the Church later condemn him and his Letter for not being vigilant enough in striking down the Monothelite heresy at its root? Does the appearance of being soft on heterodoxy, or using language that is easily misunderstood, mean that Honorious was a manifest heretic and condemned as such?

No, it did not, as a subsequent Pope, Saint Bellarmine and history would attest. In fact, the letter is not opposed to any doctrines, but only gave the appearance of being sympathetic to heterodoxy. So there was nothing for the Faithful to “submit” to in the first place when Honorius was condemned for expressing himself in such a way as to be misunderstood.

I think I understand where you are going with this, but I think you’ve got the wrong idea of what was actually said in the Letter, why a Council condemned Honorius as a “heretic” (in fact of appearance, but not in intent, as has been amply confirmed), and what obligations the Letter imposed, if any (it imposed none), on the Faithful.

He can certainly be blamed for appearing to confuse the two wills of Christ; but, a Letter of Pope John IV (who held a synod in which he condemned Monothelitism) contains the following sentence concerning his predecessor, Pope Honorius I:

So, my aforementioned predecessor said concerning the mystery of the incarnation of Christ, that there were not in Him, as in us sinners, contrary wills of mind and flesh; and certain ones converting this their own meaning, suspected that He taught one will of His divinity and humanity which is altogether contrary to the truth….

Furthermore, as James Larson pointed out in a written debate with Robert Sungenis:

“Mann, in an attempt to understand the appellation “heretic” as applied to Pope Honorius, also has the following to say:

It has indeed been contended that the Council may not have anathematized Honorius in the same sense as it did Pyrrhus and Sergius. For it must be observed that the word heretic did not always denote one who ‘knowlingly and willingly’ taught error. It sometimes, as Bolgeni has conclusively shown, was applied to such as favoured error in any way. And it would certainly seem, from the edict which Constantine issued at the close of the council, regarding the observance of its decrees, that when the council included Honorius in its anathemas, it only did so in the sense of his having favoured the spread of Monothelism by his letters to Sergius. The edict speaks of Honorius as “a confirmer of the heresy and as one who was not consistent with himself.’”

And, contrary to what many people think, Pope Agatho never condemned Honorius I, but in fact confirmed that every one of his predecessors possessed the never-failing Faith promised by our Lord.

Sorry for the long response to a simple question (sort of); but I think some perspective is needed if we are to have a proper understanding of the confusing Pope Honorius I matter.

MarianLibrarian,

That was the "technical" answer, and it may not have satisfied; so let me add this:

The doctrine of the two wills of Christ was (and is) certainly confusing, but the Church had already expressed in clear enough in terms that the Faithful, whether East or West, could know the truth and had no excuse (objectively speaking) for following the Monothelite heresy.

As such, just like certain traditional Catholics who cite the ambiguous language of certain documents of VCII that are easily misunderstood, the Faithful who were privy to the letter of Honorius and were confused by its language had a duty to understand the letter's explication on the doctrine in the same sense that Tradition and the Church always held it.

MRyan,

I did not ask whether Pope Honorius I was a heretic, or even whether the letter contained heresy; nor do I intend to insinuate as much. It was a public letter, an official reply of the Holy Father. So I asked if the faithful ought to give it submission of the mind and will? No frills, no ulterior motive... I am simply trying to better understand your perspective on giving submission of the mind and will to the Magisterium.

Your assertion that there was nothing in the letter to submit to is false... Pope Honorius was replying directly to a doctrinal matter on the wills of Our Lord, was he not? "Ambiguous"/"easily misunderstood" or not, did (/does) the letter require submission of the mind and will?

LOL, why is it, MRyan, that you always think you have me all figured out and what all my responses will be?

I ask a question and instead of a simple reply (which does not necessarily have to be 'yes' or 'no'), I get a list of what you think my argument is, where you think I'm going with it, why it's wrong, etc. You could save yourself some typing if you stopped worrying about what you think I'm going to say.

I meant that there was nothing contrary or new to the faith that one needed to “submit to” - - though I apologize for how poorly I stated it. The Letter was an official reply to a formal consultation; so yes, in so far as it was issued by the Pope, its doctrinal content for those who were privy to it required the submission of mind and will. And if someone were legitimately confused by the seemingly conflicting language, or believed that Honorious was actually teaching “one will of Christ” when “Following the lead of Sergius, who had said that ‘two operations’ might lead people to think two contrary wills were admitted in Christ, Honorius (after explaining the communicatio idiomatum, by which it can be said that God was crucified, and that the Man came down from heaven) adds: ‘Wherefore we acknowledge one Will of our Lord Jesus Christ, for evidently it was our nature and not the sin in it which was assumed by the Godhead, that is to say, the nature which was created before sin, not the nature which was vitiated by sin’", then they cannot be at fault if they misread his intention.

Do you have a point?

MarianLibrarian wrote:LOL, why is it, MRyan, that you always think you have me all figured out and what all my responses will be?

I ask a question and instead of a simple reply (which does not necessarily have to be 'yes' or 'no'), I get a list of what you think my argument is, where you think I'm going with it, why it's wrong, etc. You could save yourself some typing if you stopped worrying about what you think I'm going to say.

LOL, because you responses are usually a source of utter confusion and contradiction. You have this knack for studiously avoiding my arguments and responses to your specific replies.

I can't worry about what you might say, because what you actually do say is always much more entertaining; though lately, perhaps a bit too predictable and even disappointing.

The case of Pope Honorius I is kind of a special interest of mine, so I reserve the right to blather on as much as I like when someone brings up this issue, as they always do. I gave you more information than you asked for - but so what, maybe someone else finds his case interesting.

Are we taking a little detour; or will you return to actually addressing my arguments?

MarianLibrarian wrote:MRyan,

I have been mulling over some of the things you have said and have a question for you. Was(/Is) the letter of Pope Honorius I to Sergius something which demand(/ed/s) submission of the mind and will on the part of the faithful?

Since you're definitely not in the mood for my blathering historical detours, I'll answer this in the same way I have been answering it since this discussion began (eons ago):

As examples of doctrines belonging to the third paragraph, one can point in general to teachings set forth by the authentic ordinary Magisterium in a non-definitive way, which require degrees of adherence differentiated according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.

Now, where have you heard that before?

MRyan wrote:I meant that there was nothing contrary or new to the faith that one needed to “submit to” - - though I apologize for how poorly I stated it. The Letter was an official reply to a formal consultation; so yes, in so far as it was issued by the Pope, its doctrinal content for those who were privy to it required the submission of mind and will.

Thank you.

Do you have a point?

I told you, I am trying to grasp your understanding of what it means to give submission of the mind and will. So I wanted to see if you consistently held to your "submission of the mind and will" argument even in a controversial/ambiguous case. -- though your initial reaction that "there was nothing to submit to" was an interesting one.

Are we taking a little detour; or will you return to actually addressing my arguments?

Both. But you'll have to give me some time as things are a bit hectic at the moment.

Ah, so your ulterior motive was to see if I am consistent; not that I am trying to guess what you are up to or anything.

My initial reply was interesting if one considers that one's intention to submit in this particular case may have little to do with one's understanding of a very confusing Letter on a very confusing doctrine. But, if the proper intention is there -- that's what matters.

Take your time ... I know you're busy.

MRyan, sorry for asking another question when you have a lot of writing to do in keeping up with these posts.
I was trying in my imagination to bring the case of Pope Honorious into the present day and instead of the two natures of Christ, we pretend that it concerns baptism of desire.
What would the correct course of action be when there is uncertain meaning (or what appears at least to be contrasting views taken) in the way a certain teaching is presented to the faithful by the Magestarium?
My particular way of coping is to fall back on a previous more clearly worded teaching on the matter (that being in this particular case a dogmatic pronouncement on the necesstity of sacramental baptism that seems to opose non-water bapyism as a substitute), at least until a more definate or final declaration is made upholding one view over the other. Of course when the previous definition happens to be a dogmatic statement, the question arises, can there be multiple interpretaions of such a statement?

The following is a short sermon I came across by Fr Repperger on this very subject
(the dfferent forms of assent) and seems (at least to me) that in the time of Pope Honorious, (as in the present baptism of desire case) the faithful could have witheld assent until a conclusive declaration was presented.

When you have time, if you listen to this sermon would you agree that mine (and your) position can -at least in the interim- be ligitimately held?

http://www.sensustraditionis.org/webaudio/Sermons/Ecclesiology/EcclesiologyV.mp3

Columba,

There are a couple of problems with using the Pope Honorius I example as a precedent for withholding assent to the ordinary magisterial teaching of the Church with respect to baptism of blood/baptism of desire.

The doctrine of the two wills, like the doctrine of the two natures of Christ would take some time to develop as the Church worked out the finer details. As she clarified these doctrines she would begin to use terms such as Hypostatic Union, the communicatio idiomatum ("communication of properties") and "homoousious"; terms that weren't explicitly defined or even used by the Apostles, but the concept behind the terms was "once-for-all" given to the Apostles to hold and pass down.

My point is that baptism of blood and baptism of desire, while having undergone a similar development with respect to how they relate to the sacrament of baptism and to unity with the Mystical Body, are not, in their essence (faith, charity and intention) doctrines that have ever been disputed by the theologians (at least not in any significant numbers), even if there were disagreements over the finer details of how they work. For example, theologians disagreed over how baptism of blood actually becomes efficacious (you may remember the “quasi ex opere operato” theory).

However, in as much as the doctrines are related directly to how the Church understands the dogma of water baptism, I do not see how any Catholic could claim that the Church, by teaching baptism of blood/baptism of desire for these many centuries, stands in opposition to her own dogma.

Prior to the Church formally condemning the Monothelite (one will) heresy, Catholics from the East (where the heresy erupted) could probably be excused for not understanding the two natures (the denial of which is Monophysitism) and the two wills of Christ; and so long as they believed that our Lord is both God and Man, they were probably fine.

If it is your contention that the Church might one day formally condemn the doctrines of baptism of blood an baptism of desire as she did the Monophysite and Monothelite heresies, and you are thus free to hold to the more “ancient” understanding of the dogma of water baptism until such time, I would say that you need to stop smoking whatever it is you’re smoking. (Sorry, that just kind of slipped out). Are you the arbiter of tradition, or the Church?

When you say that your way for “coping is to fall back on a previous more clearly worded teaching on the matter (that being in this particular case a dogmatic pronouncement on the necessity of sacramental baptism that seems to oppose non-water baptism as a substitute)”, you are clearly implying that the Church has changed the meaning of her dogmatic formula and/or does not understand the dogma today as she did when it was “once declared”. This means, of course, that you believe that the Church at one time seemed to be opposed to her own doctrines of baptism of blood and baptism of desire since the doctrines and the dogma appear to be opposed.

I also see with your analogy that you might be trying to say that so long as you believe that the sacrament of baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, that’s all the Church requires of you. And I would say fine; except that is not all that the Church has to say on the subject. You are fine, IMHO, so long as you don’t “reject and deny” her magisterial teaching that holds (and “has always held the firm conviction”) that one may be justified and saved under certain conditions without the sacrament. Whatever internal reservations you have with certain aspects of the doctrines are probably OK so long as external assent to the authority of the Church teaching is not lacking; at least it seems to me.

Remember, whether you believe that baptism of desire ever happens is irrelevant to giving religious assent to the doctrine itself -- for “He who hears you, hears Me”. Isn’t that what it always boils down to?

Thanks for the link to the talk by Fr. Ripperger; I intend to listen to it when I get the chance.

MRyan
When you say that your way for “coping is to fall back on a previous more clearly worded teaching on the matter (that being in this particular case a dogmatic pronouncement on the necessity of sacramental baptism that seems to oppose non-water baptism as a substitute)”, you are clearly implying that the Church has changed the meaning of her dogmatic formula and/or does not understand the dogma today as she did when it was “once declared”. This means, of course, that you believe that the Church at one time seemed to be opposed to her own doctrines of baptism of blood and baptism of desire since the doctrines and the dogma appear to be opposed.

I don't think I'm saying that at all. What I am saying (and you of course disagree) is that the Church hasn't changed her meaning but is rather still in the process of reconciling baptism of desire with the dogma. Having not yet definitively achieved this it is still being speculated upon as it was in the early Church, and as yet with no firm resolution on the matter. You declare that it has been resolved and we must hold this as of the faith.

Whatever internal reservations you have with certain aspects of the doctrines are probably OK so long as external assent to the authority of the Church teaching is not lacking; at least it seems to me.

Hmmm.. My thinking is, "if it was of the faith" there would be no room for internal reservations and if I hold internal reservations my external assent would be in contradiction to this. The fact that you allow for such reservation (internally) would seem to demote baptism of desire to something less than doctrine; which of course is what my point of debate has been this past few weeks.

Remember, whether you believe that baptism of desire ever happens is irrelevant to giving religious assent to the doctrine itself -- for “He who hears you, hears Me”. Isn’t that what it always boils down to?

I agree of course with “He who hears you, hears Me”. But you and I are hearing two different things. That is why I hope for a definitive pronouncement on the matter.
I believe I already have one, but just to clear the air another one would be welcome as in the thrice declared dogma on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
With the present language employed by the Church I doubt if the Hierarchy could produce such a declaration.

Thanks for the link to the talk by Fr. Ripperger; I intend to listen to it when I get the chance.

You're welcome. It is quite informative.

columba wrote:

MRyan
When you say that your way for “coping is to fall back on a previous more clearly worded teaching on the matter (that being in this particular case a dogmatic pronouncement on the necessity of sacramental baptism that seems to oppose non-water baptism as a substitute)”, you are clearly implying that the Church has changed the meaning of her dogmatic formula and/or does not understand the dogma today as she did when it was “once declared”. This means, of course, that you believe that the Church at one time seemed to be opposed to her own doctrines of baptism of blood and baptism of desire since the doctrines and the dogma appear to be opposed.

I don't think I'm saying that at all. What I am saying (and you of course disagree) is that the Church hasn't changed her meaning but is rather still in the process of reconciling baptism of desire with the dogma. Having not yet definitively achieved this it is still being speculated upon as it was in the early Church, and as yet with no firm resolution on the matter. You declare that it has been resolved and we must hold this as of the faith.

First of all, you are flat out wrong when you state that I “declare … we must hold this as of the faith.” How many times must I repeat this and produce the magisterial evidence that explains the difference between the assent of faith and the religious submission of the mind and will?

columba wrote:Hmmm.. My thinking is, "if it was of the faith" there would be no room for internal reservations and if I hold internal reservations my external assent would be in contradiction to this.

You must stop with this incessant, and what I must assume by now is a deliberate, misrepresentation of my position and that of the Church on how we are to hold non-revealed doctrines proposed by “the authentic ordinary Magisterium in a non-definitive way, which require degrees of adherence differentiated according to the mind and the will manifested” … which “require religious submission of will and intellect. They are set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, or to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith”. (CDF DOCTRINAL COMMENTARY ON THE CONCLUDING FORMULA OF THE PROFESSIO FIDEI).

What part of this do you not understand? Why do you continue to do this when we have been over this how many times? Seriously, are you just being obtuse, or is it that you simply cannot grasp these fundamental magisterial principles?

Furthermore, there is no process of “reconciling” baptism of desire with the dogma of water baptism as it relates the martyr and to the fervent faith and charity-filled soul who desires baptism, but is hindered from receiving it. The doctrine is so well established that to pretend that the Church has not taught the same doctrine these many centuries, or that she is still trying to reconcile it with the dogma, is simply to deny reality and to put one’s head in the sand as if this will make it go away. Feeneyites sometimes like to create their own reality - but it never works - tradition and the truth stop them every time.

And it is to these doctrines that the Church declares:

The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

So tell us, columba, what “process” is still going on that has the Church still “speculating upon” how to “reconcile” the doctrines just cited with the doctrine of the “early Church” as if the Church hadn’t already “reconciled” the doctrine of “desire” since at least the Council of Trent when she put it in dogmatic form?

What exactly do you think the Church means when she says “The Church has always held the firm conviction” that baptism of blood and baptism of desire “brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament”? Does she sound confused to you? Does she sound like she is still trying to “reconcile” these doctrines as if she hasn’t “always held the firm conviction” that tradition long ago reconciled these doctrines?

Let’s stop playing games and look the truth square in the face.

However, with respect to invincible ignorance and how God may bring an ignorant soul who remains outside the visible Church to a translation to His justice and within His Mystical Body; though the core doctrine has been taught since St. Thomas Aquinas, the “details” have undergone some development over the last several centuries (especially with the teachings of Pope Pius IX) and the Church has given her theologians some leeway to explore its boundaries and its fullness; some of the results of which are expressed in VCII and the CCC, but not with the “firm conviction” language (for how this happens) she reserves for the core doctrines of baptism of blood and baptism of desire cited above.

But I’m sure you will continue to conflate what the Church as always held (baptism of blood/baptism of desire) with her more recent developments and with some unsettled aspects of invincible ignorance as if she is still “reconciling” the former with the “early Church”.

I'm also sure you will continue to pretend that it is only to defined or to revealed truths that you must render an internal assent by confusing the assent of faith with the submission of the mind and will; as if the latter does not require an internal submission. And, you will continue to ignore what the Church teaches on this matter so long as you can feign "invincible ignorance".

That’s how this deception works.

How long are we going to play these games?

Columba,

I would appreciate an acknowledgment, when you find the time, that you understand the difference between the assent of faith and the religious submission of the intellect and will, as it is spelled out in the CDF Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio fidei, and other cited magisterial documents. Without such and acknowledgment, I see little point in continuing this discussion.

Thank you.

MRyan wrote:Columba,

I would appreciate an acknowledgment, when you find the time, that you understand the difference between the assent of faith and the religious submission of the intellect and will, as it is spelled out in the CDF Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio fidei, and other cited magisterial documents. Without such and acknowledgment, I see little point in continuing this discussion.

Thank you.

Sorry MR for the delay in replying.
Re, the difference I see between the assent of faith and religious submission would be, that the assent of faith is required for those things which are "de fide" and have been declared so in such a way that there can be no mistaking. Religious assent would be required of those things which have not specifically been declared "de fide" yet enjoy universal agreement, i.e. have been believed by all and at all times.

You of course will say that baptism of desire and baptism of blood have passed that test according to the CCC where it says, "The Church has always held the firm conviction" etc which would be ok if the Church had not already made a dogmatic pronouncement on very subject. out-ranking the CCC's speculation and the above dubious remark. The Churches dogmatic statement tells us that She holds the "Absolute conviction" that water baptism is necessary for salvation. The Church actually believes that without water baptism no can become a member of the Church and therefore will remain outside the Church and therefore will be excluded from salvation.
(in a few places the CCC says more than its prayers).

I believe that previously baptised heretics and schismatics could obtain salvation on their deathbed, say, by a special grace from God, enabling them to interiorly renounce their false beliefs and subjecting themselves to the truths of Catholic Faith and having perfect contrition. But this cannot apply to the unbaptized as sacramental baptism is a necessary requirement for admittance to the Catholic Faith.

columba wrote:Sorry MR for the delay in replying.

No problemo.

columba wrote:Re, the difference I see between the assent of faith and religious submission would be, that the assent of faith is required for those things which are "de fide" and have been declared so in such a way that there can be no mistaking. Religious assent would be required of those things which have not specifically been declared "de fide" yet enjoy universal agreement, i.e. have been believed by all and at all times.

You are correct on the first part, but I would just add for clarification that the assent of theological faith is to be given to all truths professed by the Church as divinely revealed and to all truths “defined with a solemn judgment”; while non-revealed truths proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium “must be firmly accepted and held”.

However, while your “religious assent” to "universal" non-revealed teachings is certainly true, it falls short. Submission is not limited to universal ancient truths, but also to all “teachings … on faith and morals - presented as true or at least as sure … set forth by the authentic ordinary Magisterium in a non-definitive way".

Of course, the non-revealed truths set forth by the Magisterium as “true or at least sure” are already a part of tradition as the Church understands it, even if you don’t understand it since your litmus test is not the same test the Church uses for this category of teaching. In other words, where is it written that every non-defined truth proposed by the Church must have been taught always and by all men -- when some non-defined truths have undergone certain historical development? These developments and “points of doctrine” are examples of non-revealed truths the Church “sets forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, or to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith”.

However, with baptism of desire and baptism of blood, as an “authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff”, the debate should not be over whether the well-established doctrines are true or false, but only over the degrees of required adherence which are “differentiated according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.”

We have the dogmatic Council of Trent, its Roman Catechism, a Papal Allocution, Papal Encyclicals, the testimony of Pope Paul V, numerous local Catechisms to include the Catechism of Pope Pius X, Canon Law and the CCC, all attesting (especially the last) to “the mind and the will manifested”, “the frequent repetition of the same doctrine”, the magisterial “nature of the documents” and “the tenor of the verbal expression”.

We know, in other words, that when the ordinary Magisterium authoritatively teaches "The Church has always held the firm conviction, etc.", she means it, and can back it up.

Since baptism of desire and baptism of blood are directly related to having a correct understanding of the dogma on baptism, they simply cannot be opposed since they are essential to understanding how the Church understands her own dogma.

Allow me to interject an example of a development in doctrine as it relates to moral theology where some theologians and other Catholics have taken exception to a teaching proposed by Pope JPII in his 1993 Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, and see if we cannot apply the same consistency while attempting to determine the degree of adherence “differentiated according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.”

Paragraph 80 of Veritatis Splendor seems to imply very strongly that slavery is an intrinsic evil. As such, this would seem to be a turning point in the development of moral doctrine on the rights and dignity of the human person; the violation of which is a “negation of the honour due to the Creator" (Veritatis Splendor). This not only appears to be a development in moral theology, but an actual reversal of the Church’s position as articulated in the 1866 Instructio of the Holy Office which says:

Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons. It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.

One of those taking exception to this apparent turnabout in teaching was Cardinal Avery Dulles who, writing as a private theologian, disagreed with Pope John Paul II [“Development or Reversal?”, First Things, Oct. 2005] and he based his disagreement on Tradition, Scripture and past magisterial documents.

But, what JPII, as supreme teacher, was telling the world through his ordinary Magisterium was that this tradition and teaching can no longer be justified, that the dignity of the human person and his rights as a child of God has undergone a development in understanding and the Church must now insist that slavery is intrinsically immoral. As Archbishop Chaput put it, “humans learn the hard way, but eventually we do learn”. And, as the CDF Instruction Donum Veritatis says: “Only time has permitted discernment and, after deeper study, the attainment of true doctrinal progress.”

If we follow your litmus test, columba, Pope JPII and his magisterial authority is simply out numbered. His teaching has no real tradition; and, as Cardinal Dulles argues: “So far as I am aware, he never repeated his assertion that slavery is intrinsically evil. Neither the Catechism of the Catholic Church nor the recent Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, in their discussions of slavery, speaks so absolutely.”

So what is Catholic’s obligation with respect to submission? My answer is the same: “By reason of the connection between the orders of creation and redemption and by reason of the necessity, in view of salvation, of knowing and observing the whole moral law, the competence of the Magisterium also extends to that which concerns the natural law.” (Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae). As such:

I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act." To this paragraph belong all those teachings on faith and morals - presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. … They are set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, or to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith, or lastly to warn against ideas incompatible with these truths or against dangerous opinions that can lead to error.

However, should someone (as many have) take exception to the teaching of Pope JPII for all of the reasons articulated by Cardinal Dulles and others; if we follow Church teaching, one is still obliged to given an external assent (the will) to the magisterial authority of the Roman Pontiff over all such matters, while being allowed to make an internal reservation of the intellect due to the difficulty in reconciling this apparent “reversal” in teaching.

For me, there is no such difficulty; not only because of the authority of the teaching Magisterium, but because of the soundness of the teaching. I’ve read many of the objections and it sounds like so much special pleading. Slavery is immoral, period; and we are not talking about “indentured servitude” where one freely contracts his services to another. We are talking about enslavement and the buying and selling of human persons against their will.

The Church’s slowness in recognizing this truth of intrinsic immorality may have helped perpetuate slavery, especially in the U.S. where the American Bishops, led by Bishop Kenrick, justified slavery by citing the Holy Office and tradition. We tended to just look the other way instead of taking the lead in condemning this immoral practice as an intrinsic evil. As one commentator put it: “In the past Popes would buy slaves for their households in the slave market in Rome and no questions were asked, anymore than people worried about the human rights of castrati in the papal choir. The Church has since gotten far more sensitive about human rights.”

To your anticipated question (or MarianLibrarian’s) that asks if one was obliged to submit to the Church’s former position that held that slavery is not in itself an intrinsic evil, I would give the same answer: External submission of the will to the teaching authority of the Church is always required, while one may have withheld an internal submission of the intellect because one believed in their heart that the practice is intrinsically evil. This was a case where it would take some time for the Church to catch up with one’s “gut” instinct on the natural law.

Which brings us back to baptism of desire and baptism of blood. Will you use the justified objections (right or wrong) to the Church’s "new" stance on slavery as a precedent for justifying withholding internal AND external assent to the Church’s clear and traditional teaching on baptism of desire and baptism of blood? Will you seriously attempt to say that the respective teachings have the same “degrees of adherence … according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.”?

I hope not, for there is no comparison except with respect to one’s obligation to external submission. The CDF Instruction Donum Veritatis, “On the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian”, provides additional insight:

When the Magisterium, not intending to act "definitively", teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect.(23) This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.

Furthermore:

31. It can also happen that at the conclusion of a serious study, undertaken with the desire to heed the Magisterium's teaching without hesitation, the theologian's difficulty remains because the arguments to the contrary seem more persuasive to him. Faced with a proposition to which he feels he cannot give his intellectual assent, the theologian nevertheless has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question.

For a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church, such a situation can certainly prove a difficult trial. It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail.

B. The problem of dissent

32. The Magisterium has drawn attention several times to the serious harm done to the community of the Church by attitudes of general opposition to Church teaching which even come to expression in organized groups. In his apostolic exhortation Paterna cum benevolentia, Paul VI offered a diagnosis of this problem which is still apropos.(25) In particular, he addresses here that public opposition to the Magisterium of the Church also called "dissent", which must be distinguished from the situation of personal difficulties treated above. The phenomenon of dissent can have diverse forms. Its remote and proximate causes are multiple.

33. Dissent has different aspects. In its most radical form, it aims at changing the Church following a model of protest which takes its inspiration from political society. More frequently, it is asserted that the theologian is not bound to adhere to any Magisterial teaching unless it is infallible. Thus a Kind of theological positivism is adopted, according to which, doctrines proposed without exercise of the charism of infallibility are said to have no obligatory character about them, leaving the individual completely at liberty to adhere to them or not. The theologian would accordingly be totally free to raise doubts or reject the non-infallible teaching of the Magisterium particularly in the case of specific moral norms. With such critical opposition, he would even be making a contribution to the development of doctrine.

34. Dissent is generally defended by various arguments, two of which are more basic in character. The first lies in the order of hermeneutics. The documents of the Magisterium, it is said, reflect nothing more than a debatable theology...

… As to the "parallel magisterium", it can cause great spiritual harm by opposing itself to the Magisterium of the Pastors. Indeed, when dissent succeeds in extending its influence to the point of shaping; a common opinion, it tends to become the rule of conduct. This cannot but seriously trouble the People of God and lead to contempt for true authority.(30)

Although theological faith as such then cannot err, the believer can still have erroneous opinions since all his thoughts do not spring from faith.(32) Not all the ideas which circulate among the People of God are compatible with the faith.

38. Finally, argumentation appealing to the obligation to follow one's own conscience cannot legitimate dissent. This is true, first of all, because conscience illumines the practical judgment about a decision to make, while here we are concerned with the truth of a doctrinal pronouncement. This is furthermore the case because while the theologian, like every believer, must follow his conscience, he is also obliged to form it. Conscience is not an independent and infallible faculty. It is an act of moral judgement regarding a responsible choice. A right conscience is one duly illumined by faith and by the objective moral law and it presupposes, as well, the uprightness of the will in the pursuit of the true good.

Sorry for the length of that citation, but I thought it important. But tell me, columba, besides Fr. Feeney, can can you name even one saint, Doctor, theologian or Pope since Trent who, when "Faced with a proposition" of baptism of desire and baptism of blood, felt "he cannot give his intellectual assent"?

Just one?

columba wrote:You of course will say that baptism of desire and baptism of blood have passed that test according to the CCC where it says, "The Church has always held the firm conviction" etc which would be ok if the Church had not already made a dogmatic pronouncement on very subject. out-ranking the CCC's speculation and the above dubious remark. The Churches dogmatic statement tells us that She holds the "Absolute conviction" that water baptism is necessary for salvation. The Church actually believes that without water baptism no can become a member of the Church and therefore will remain outside the Church and therefore will be excluded from salvation. (in a few places the CCC says more than its prayers).

Of course that is what I will say, and I will firmly reject your heretical suggestion that the Church’s supreme ordinary Magisterium can be opposed to her supreme extraordinary Magisterium. There is only ONE Magisterium, with different modes of expression, not that you might have noticed. This does not mean that the ordinary magisterium is “infallible”, but only that our submission is in all cases to the same teaching authority.

Why you continue to suggest that the Church is opposed to her own dogmas is simply beyond my comprehension; but it does appear that you are a magisterium of one.

I don't pretend to be an expert but slavery was clearly condemned often way before what MRyan is saying :

Slavery was never condoned by Christianity but tolerated.

The movement against enslavement of Africans was started in the University of Salamanca Spain as soon as the Portuguese started it. This in turn stimulated the pope to come out against it.

In 1462, Pius II declared slavery to be "a great crime". Note that this was 30 years before Columbus "discovered"
America.

Queen Isabella of Spain forbade enslavement in her kingdom ( including the Americas) as did Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. Christopher Columbus was brought back in chains for enslaving the indigenous people.

In 1537, Paul III forbade the enslavement of the Indians

Urban VIII forbade it in 1639

Benedict XIV forbade it in 1741

Pius VII demanded of the Congress of Vienna, in 1815, the suppression of the slave trade

Gregory XVI condemned it in 1839

In the Bull of Canonization of the Jesuit Peter Claver,
one of the most illustrious adversaries of slavery, Pius IX branded the
"supreme villainy" (summum nefas) of the slave traders.

Leo XIII, in 1888, addressed a letter to the Brazilian bishops,
exhorting them to banish from their country the remnants of slavery -- a
letter to which the bishops responded with their most energetic
efforts, and some generous slave-owners by freeing their slaves in a
body, as in the first ages of the Church.


Sublimus Dei,
Pope Paul III (Topic: the enslavement and evangelization of Indians)1537:

"We define and declare by these Our
letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed
with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be
given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may
be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be
discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the
possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus
Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their
liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way
enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect. " http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul03/p3subli.htm

Pretty strong language and it continued and no one seemed to notice?


Over looking these pronouncements against slavery just causes me more confusion on how some said it isn't a clear teaching. How could the pope clearly teach it was wrong so many times and Catholics still didn't get it? How can the Church teach so many times Baptism is necessary for salvation and we still don't get it?

I think Orestes Brownson was scandalized by the Church of his day, in the USA, for not coming out against slavery. Their excuse was losing property!!!
This was his controversy with the Jesuits. They were more interested in property than justice!

cowboy wrote:I don't pretend to be an expert but slavery was clearly condemned often way before what MRyan is saying :

Slavery was never condoned by Christianity but tolerated.

Cowboy, you are correct; but you are missing the entire point. The question is whether slavery is intrinsically immoral in itself, and the Church in the past answered: "Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine". (1866 Instructio of the Holy Office)

This is not to say that the Church did not almost always condemn the practice as a grave evil; but, because she did not hold it as intrinsically immoral, she did in fact recognize instances where "there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons."