Trent and Forced Baptisms

MarianLibriarian wrote:I say that it seems more likely Trent was speaking about the practice of forced baptisms, because that exact issue (forced conversions/baptisms) is mentioned in more than one papal document: Pope Innocent III, Pope Pius XII, etc..

The subject of Session 6, Ch. 4 is: "A description … of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.” Justification is then defined as:

“a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour.”

Under the law of grace, the Manner of this translation is defined as:

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.

So Trent was not making “forced baptisms” the object or subject of her description of Justification, and neither was this her intention when establishing "the Manner thereof".

The “desire thereof” necessarily includes those dispositions necessary to be translated to a state of grace; and we know from Trent’s full body of teaching that these dispositions are contrition/charity, faith and the resolve/intention/desire to receive Baptism, to enter the Church and to do the will of God, and all that the Church commands.

In other words, Trent is not concerning herself here with possible impediments to Justification (e.g., the practice of forced baptisms), but only with its description and the Manner thereof (What is justification, and how does one obtain it?).

Chapter VII goes on to declare that “Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man” is accomplished “through the voluntary reception of the grace”. Obviously, a “forced baptism” would be one of the impediments to the voluntary reception of grace.

Trent was certainly concerned with the practice of forced conversions and baptisms, but Session VI, Ch. 4 is not where she addressed such practices.

MarianLibriarian wrote:I have been reading (and re-reading) as many Papal encyclicals, letters, etc. searching for a similar account as regards baptism of desire that leaves no manner of being interpreted otherwise. I am not an encyclopedia, so I am asking those here that support baptism of desire as a doctrine rather than a theological opinion to point me to sources that clearly outline baptism of desire in the Magisterium. Is baptism of desire for catechumens (explicit faith), or a kind of 'universal salvation', or somewhere in between? Where is this 'doctrine' clearly laid out so that one may understand what the Church authentically teaches about it?

The doctrine is clearly presented in Trent, Session, 6, Chapters 4 and in Session 7, Canon 4; its clearly presented in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, it is clearly presented by Pope Innocent II in the Letter “Apostolicam Sedem” to the Bishop of Cremora, it is clearly presented by Pope Innocent III in his Letter “Debitum pastoralis oficii” to the Bishop of Metz, it is clearly presented in Canon Law (both old and new), it is clearly presented in The Allocution to midwives by Pope Pius XII, it is clearly presented in the Holy Office Letter of 1949 and it is clearly presented in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and its Compendium.

The Church would not declare (in the CCC) that she “has always held the firm conviction” that baptism of blood and baptism of desire “bring about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament” unless she has always held the firm conviction; a conviction based on the testimony of Scripture, Tradition and the dogmatic Council of Trent. Did you know Marian, that when the heretic Peter Abelard denied the doctrine of baptism of desire, that Bernard of Clairvaux and Hugo of St. Victor rose up in defense of the doctrine and cited the Church’s long tradition, to include the tradition of the Fathers?

Vatican II (Dei Verbum # 10) declares: "The task of authoritatively interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on [Scripture or Tradition], has been entrusted exclusively to the living Magisterium of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."

But, you ask, where is the “magisterial” teaching for baptism of desire, as if the “teaching authority” of the Church is on hiatus when she presents the universal doctrine; a doctrine she presents as “authentic”, “sure” and “true”, to the Roman Catholic faithful.

If the so-called "theological constructs" commonly known as baptism of blood/baptism of desire have always been held by the Church, and are held, as the Church tells us, as “authentic”, “sure” and “true”; are you really going to insist that these "constructs" are not "doctrines" of the Church; let alone "magisterial" doctrines?

I hope not.

MRyan said:

The doctrine is clearly presented in Trent, Session, 6, Chapters 4 and in Session 7, Canon 4; its clearly presented in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, it is clearly presented by Pope Innocent II in the Letter “Apostolicam Sedem” to the Bishop of Cremora, it is clearly presented by Pope Innocent III in his Letter “Debitum pastoralis oficii” to the Bishop of Metz, it is clearly presented in Canon Law (both old and new), it is clearly presented in The Allocution to midwives by Pope Pius XII, it is clearly presented in the Holy Office Letter of 1949 and it is clearly presented in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and its Compendium.

The Church would not declare (in the CCC) that she “has always held the firm conviction” that baptism of blood and baptism of desire “bring about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament” unless she has always held the firm conviction; a conviction based on the testimony of Scripture, Tradition and the dogmatic Council of Trent. Did you know Marian, that when the heretic Peter Abelard denied the doctrine of baptism of desire, that Bernard of Clairvaux and Hugo of St. Victor rose up in defense of the doctrine and cited the Church’s long tradition, to include the tradition of the Fathers?

If the Church “has always held the firm conviction” The Church would not have declared infallibly the neceesity for sacramental baptism for attaining salvation without naming the exceptions.
The heretic Peter Abelard was not necessarly a complete apostate and was not in heresy over the doctrine of baptism of desire as no such doctrine existed then, as now. Bernard of Clairvaux and Hugo of St. Victor neither could they have been defending a non-existant doctrine.

MRyan said:

Vatican II (Dei Verbum # 10) declares: "The task of authoritatively interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on [Scripture or Tradition], has been entrusted exclusively to the living Magisterium of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."

But, you ask, where is the “magisterial” teaching for baptism of desire, as if the “teaching authority” of the Church is on hiatus when she presents the universal doctrine; a doctrine she presents as “authentic”, “sure” and “true”, to the Roman Catholic faithful.

I can't find anywhere this "sure and true" you speak of nor can I find the declaration by which this doctrine must be universally held as a Catholic truth.

If the so-called "theological constructs" commonly known as baptism of blood/baptism of desire have always been held by the Church, and are held, as the Church tells us, as “authentic”, “sure” and “true”; are you really going to insist that these "constructs" are not "doctrines" of the Church; let alone "magisterial" doctrines?

I hope not.

Can you show us where it is writen, "If anyone shall say that baptism of desire is a mere theological hypothesis and cannot save those who receive it, let him be anathema?"

I can show you this..
If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for Baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost.. (John 3:5).. are distorted into some sort of metaphior:
Let him be anathema

And another few if you need them.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
The doctrine is clearly presented in Trent, Session, 6, Chapters 4 and in Session 7, Canon 4; its clearly presented in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, it is clearly presented by Pope Innocent II in the Letter “Apostolicam Sedem” to the Bishop of Cremora, it is clearly presented by Pope Innocent III in his Letter “Debitum pastoralis oficii” to the Bishop of Metz, it is clearly presented in Canon Law (both old and new), it is clearly presented in The Allocution to midwives by Pope Pius XII, it is clearly presented in the Holy Office Letter of 1949 and it is clearly presented in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and its Compendium.

The Church would not declare (in the CCC) that she “has always held the firm conviction” that baptism of blood and baptism of desire “bring about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament” unless she has always held the firm conviction; a conviction based on the testimony of Scripture, Tradition and the dogmatic Council of Trent. Did you know Marian, that when the heretic Peter Abelard denied the doctrine of baptism of desire, that Bernard of Clairvaux and Hugo of St. Victor rose up in defense of the doctrine and cited the Church’s long tradition, to include the tradition of the Fathers?

If the Church “has always held the firm conviction” The Church would not have declared infallibly the necessity for sacramental baptism for attaining salvation without naming the exceptions.

Of course, but she did “name" the “exceptions” when she included “the desire thereof” in her dogmatic declarations on justification (Session 6, Chapter IV and Session 7, Canon 4) and also declared that there can be nothing lacking by way of the law for anyone who dies in a state of justification (Session 6, Chapter XVI). So just forget Trent and forget the Catechism of Trent … Columba is going to tell us the manner in which the Church must present her dogmas and her doctrines … and how she must “name” the “exceptions” in a manner that Columba can understand; otherwise, the Church’s teaching on baptism of blood/baptism of desire is false - it never existed.

columba wrote:The heretic Peter Abelard was not necessarly a complete apostate and was not in heresy over the doctrine of baptism of desire as no such doctrine existed then, as now. Bernard of Clairvaux and Hugo of St. Victor neither could they have been defending a non-existant doctrine.

And you know this how? So Bernard of Clairvaux and Hugo of St. Victor were defending a “non-existent doctrine”; a non-existent doctrine they just happened to believe existed because of the testimony of the Fathers and tradition. Of course, you are much closer to the traditions of the Fathers and know exactly what was handed down - and Bernard of Clairvaux, Hugo of St. Victor, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc. etc.; well, they made it all up - there is no “doctrine” of baptism of blood or desire. Who knows what the Catechism of Trent was teaching, but it certainly cannot be called baptism of desire!

Where do you get the chutzpah to suggest that this is all just a fable? Is this what you call an argument? You just throw stuff on the wall and hope it will stick? It’s your word against the testimony of saints, Doctors and scholastics?

Why, yes, it is.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
Vatican II (Dei Verbum # 10) declares: "The task of authoritatively interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on [Scripture or Tradition], has been entrusted exclusively to the living Magisterium of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."

But, you ask, where is the “magisterial” teaching for baptism of desire, as if the “teaching authority” of the Church is on hiatus when she presents the universal doctrine; a doctrine she presents as “authentic”, “sure” and “true”, to the Roman Catholic faithful.

I can't find anywhere this "sure and true" you speak of nor can I find the declaration by which this doctrine must be universally held as a Catholic truth.

Of course not, because you don’t have to actually read anything except dogmatic definitions in order to know the “truth”, never mind how the Church has always understood that same truth.

Actually, the Catechism of the Council of Trent and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are “authoritative by default”:

Question and Answers on the Catechism of the Catholic Church
Reverend John Pollard
Former Staff and Present Consultant, Bishops' Committee on the Catechism
(revised by staff 4.07)

16. What is the doctrinal or teaching authority of the Catechism?

The Catechism is part of the Church's official teaching in the sense that it was suggested by a Synod of Bishops, requested by the Holy Father, prepared and revised by bishops and promulgated by the Holy Father as part of his ordinary Magisterium. Pope John Paul II ordered the publication of the Catechism by the Apostolic Constitution, Fidei Depositum, on October 11, 1992. An apostolic constitution is a most solemn form by which popes promulgate official Church documents. The new Code of Canon Law, for example, was promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution, Sacrae Disciplinae Leges. In Fidei Depositum, Pope John Paul II said, "The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved June 25th last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion."

When the CCC repeats the same doctrine as the Catechism of Trent; the very same doctrine taught consistently and universally ever since then (the same doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas), as an authentic expression of the Church’s ordinary teaching authority “attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church's Magisterium”, and presents it as true or at least sure, even if it has not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, our response is one of submission of will and intellect. And here, we refer to the DOCTRINAL COMMENTARY ON THE CONCLUDING FORMULA OF THE PROFESSIO FIDEI (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith):

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.19

In the same DOCTRINAL COMMENTARY, Cardinal Ratzinger provides some guidance in this regard:

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 (38)

(38) Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, 25; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Veritatis, 17, 23 and 24: AAS 82 (1990), 1557-1558, 1559-1561.

The Roman Catechism and the CCC are authoritative teaching documents of the ordinary magisterium, promulgated by order of the pope as “sure norm[s] for teaching the faith”. The doctrine of baptism of blood/baptism of desire has been presented over and over again precisely as it is presented in the CCC since at least the Council of Trent (and before). The tenor of the verbal expression leaves no doubt as to precisely what the Church means when she declares that:

“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."

For added measure:

VCI, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, ch. 3, n. 25: This religious submission of will and of mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra"

Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII: For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";(Luke 10:16) and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters [and generally what is expounded and inculcated in official Roman Catechisms as authentic and sure norms for teaching the faith] already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine.”

But don’t worry, Columba, you can pretend that the doctrine of baptism of blood/baptism of desire does not exist and that the Church’s authentic and ordinary magisterial teachings to the contrary are nothing by unsubstantiated hot air; whatever floats your magisterial boat.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
If the so-called "theological constructs" commonly known as baptism of blood/baptism of desire have always been held by the Church, and are held, as the Church tells us, as “authentic”, “sure” and “true”; are you really going to insist that these "constructs" are not "doctrines" of the Church; let alone "magisterial" doctrines?

I hope not.

Can you show us where it is writen, "If anyone shall say that baptism of desire is a mere theological hypothesis and cannot save those who receive it, let him be anathema?"

A great, and entirely irrelevant, non sequitur.

columba wrote:I can show you this..

If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for Baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost.. (John 3:5).. are distorted into some sort of metaphior: Let him be anathema

And another few if you need them.

Wow, well, that puts an end to this discussion - don’t you think? I mean, there it is in back and white - real and natural water is necessary for the sacrament of baptism, and our Lord’s words cannot be turned into some sort of metaphor for the same. I mean, why didn’t Trent, its Catechism committee, popes, saints, scholastics, theologians, doctors and the Church herself think of this when over and over again they would confirm this dogmatic truth against the heretical Protestants, and then in the same breadth teach the Catholic doctrine of baptism of blood/baptism of desire? I mean, what was she thinking for all of these centuries? Doesn’t the Church even know what her own dogmatic Canons mean?

Wait, perhaps it’s only you and few others who don’t have a clue as to what the Church actually teaches and what these dogmatic Canons of Trent actually mean. Has that thought ever crossed your mind?

Of course not!

Since you won’t believe me or the Church, why didn’t you take my advice and call Br. Andre or Brian Kelly at the SBC NH and ask them if your use of this Canon supports your argument against baptism of desire, and see what they have to say. I already know what they’ll say, and it doesn’t look good for you. Of course, I know that won’t slow you down either - but it is a bit humorous coming from an avowed “Feeneyite”.

Yeah, just keep them coming!

WOW dude you are like a debating machine!! LOL

Chill man we are all Catholics here, well at least I am and it looks like you and Columba are too.

cowboy wrote:WOW dude you are like a debating machine!! LOL

Chill man we are all Catholics here, well at least I am and it looks like you and Columba are too.

I disagree with you Cowboy. If MRyan truly is a "debating machine" then such talent would not be limited to a Catholic Forum while he sits comfortably from his home. No, instead he would use such debating skills to take on the Dimond brothers on this particular issue of Baptism of Desire . After all, he has already attacked them in this Forum. It would only be fair that the Dimonds be given a chance to defend themselves against his attacks in a one on one live phone debate. Surely if MRyan truly has the debating skills you think he has, Cowboy, then he would not run from such a challenge, as most all the Vatican II supporters always do. It would seem as if they are all afraid of the Dimond brothers.

The Dimond brothers are always willing to debate
The Dimond brothers' email address is mhfm1@aol.com
One can reach them toll free at 1-800-275-1126

Hi Cowboy.

Don't worry. I haven't taken any offence from MRyan. We are living in confusing times that make such debates as these possible. Frustration on all sides is bound to be part of that.

Mryan, I do appreciate the amount of work and research you put into your replies and I admire that, even though it's in contradiction to my understanding of things. I don't say things to purposely goad you though it can be difficult not to come across that way.

I don't put half the effort as you do into my research though I do as much as time allows but on the other hand I feel I'm not required to do verbal gymnastics with statements , theories, saints quotes and the like in order that they will in some way fit into dogmatically declared prouncements. These dogmatic statements are the summing up in plaiin, understandable language what the Church actually believes and requires of us to believe at the risk of censure. They take the confussion out of the ambiguous, mind bending, dual meaning speculations, even as these try to present themselves as doctrine.

The dogmatic statements apply not only to the past, but the present and future as well.
Thankfully we have these dogma's, otherwise I would believie as you do and with just cause. However, If my self assured stance in defending these dogmas appears arrogant, I can assure you this is due more to submisiveness than pride. I submit myself to the Churches infallible declarations on the matter for fear of being anamethmized (if there be such a word) and I can find no way round these dogma's other than submission.

Pope Pius VI. Bull "Auctorem Fides" August 28, 1794.
Th ancient doctors knew well the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties. by the use of seemingly innocuous words such that would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation.
....It cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erronious pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected, as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement... Such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.

Theologians can speculate all they want on "extraordinary means" of salvation, but it doesn't change the fact that God has already told us infallibly through his Church that he only uses "ordinary means" to save us. So, I have hope that God has used "Water baptism" on every single baby who has ever died before a human was able to baptize that infant. I personally believe all unborn babies and babies who died before a human on Earth could baptize them all entered into Heaven because God had baptized them himself with actual Water just before their death. We don't have to see it happen for it to happen. Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe.

Catholic_Truth wrote:Theologians can speculate all they want on "extraordinary means" of salvation, but it doesn't change the fact that God has already told us infallibly through his Church that he only uses "ordinary means" to save us. So, I have hope that God has used "Water baptism" on every single baby who has ever died before a human was able to baptize that infant. I personally believe all unborn babies and babies who died before a human on Earth could baptize them all entered into Heaven because God had baptized them himself with actual Water just before their death. We don't have to see it happen for it to happen. Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe.

It is infallible Holy Mother Church, who is without blemish of error, and who can neither deceive nor be deceived, who dogmatically teaches that God can fulfill his vow to regenerate one of His elect into the justice of His love by baptism, or the desire for it. That’s what the Church has infallibly declared, while also declaring and recognizing:

- That the law of baptism is binding on all men without exception

- That God made the sacraments for man, and not man for the sacraments

- That He is not bound by His own institutional laws; and thus,

- He does not have the absolute need of baptism by water to save a soul

Your personal beliefs are irrelevant to what the Church actually teaches.

Catholic_Truth wrote:Theologians can speculate all they want on "extraordinary means" of salvation, but it doesn't change the fact that God has already told us infallibly through his Church that he only uses "ordinary means" to save us.

I couldn't resist this citation provided by Tornpage:

Pope St. Leo XIII, “Satis Cognitum”:

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.

Digest that piece of truth by the great "theologian" Pope Leo XIII, and get back with us.

MRyan, For curiosity sake, If 1259 and 1260 in the CCC had been omitted
1259 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.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

would you still hold baptism of desire as a doctrine binding on all or would you consider a speculation only?

columba wrote:Thankfully we have these dogma's, otherwise I would believie as you do and with just cause. However, If my self assured stance in defending these dogmas appears arrogant, I can assure you this is due more to submisiveness than pride. I submit myself to the Churches infallible declarations on the matter for fear of being anamethmized (if there be such a word) and I can find no way round these dogma's other than submission.

Pope Pius VI. Bull "Auctorem Fides" August 28, 1794.
Th ancient doctors knew well the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties. by the use of seemingly innocuous words such that would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation.
....It cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erronious pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected, as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement... Such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.

This is rich; you would have Pope Pius VI’s condemnation of the Gallican and Jansenist acts and tendencies of the Synod of Pistoia (1786) apply to the very See of Peter of which he is its Vicar. In other words, he is condemning himself and all of the popes who you suggest might “distort the confession of faith which is necessary for salvation by promoting error or excusing it”, who, with “their tortuous maneuvers … used by innovators to establish error … insinuate error into souls”.

In other words, laymen have been given the authority to expose and condemn the errors of the very See of Peter that revealed the “most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor Saint Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity.”

Say, if it worked for the Pope in condemning the errors against Nestorius, it can work against the Pope who dares to infect the Church with his errors through cunning and deceit!

Go get ‘em columba!

But why did you not cite the following condemnations from the same Bull?

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”.

Isn't that the very charge you are leveling against the Church and her Pontiffs on the "non-existent" doctrine of Baptism of Blood/Desire?

And why did you fail to cite this condemnation from the same Bull?

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

12. The assertions of the synod, accepted as a whole concerning decisions in the matter of faith which have come down from several centuries, which it represents as decrees originating from one particular church or from a few pastors, unsupported by sufficient authority, formulated for the corruption of the purity of faith and for causing disturbance, introduced by violence, from which wounds, still too recent, have been inflicted,—false, deceitful, rash, scandalous, injurious to the Roman Pontiffs and the Church, derogatory to the obedience due to the Apostolic Constitutions, schismatic, dangerous, at least erroneous.

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.

'Nuff said. This whole idea of defending the popes from themselves and protecting the "true faith" by defending the dogmas "as they were once declared", as opposed to the understanding of the Church as she presents these same doctrines in her authoritative teaching documents is -- ludicrous.

MRyan wrote:

Catholic_Truth wrote:Theologians can speculate all they want on "extraordinary means" of salvation, but it doesn't change the fact that God has already told us infallibly through his Church that he only uses "ordinary means" to save us.

I couldn't resist this citation provided by Tornpage:

Pope St. Leo XIII, “Satis Cognitum”:

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.

Digest that piece of truth by the great "theologian" Pope Leo XIII, and get back with us.

Pope St. Leo XIII wasn't saying there that "ONLY" men on Earth can administer the Sacraments. The Sacrament of Holy Communion was administered by an Angel for the 3 little children at Fatima. If anyone else was there when that had taken place, then they probably would not have seen that Angel, just as there was not others who had seen the blessed virgin Mary when she had appeared to those children. St. Thomas Aquinas had said that if baptism were essential to the salvation of such a man(who was unable to be baptized by anyone on Earth), then God would sooner send an Angel to (water)baptize him than allow him to be lost.

Catholic_Truth wrote:

MRyan wrote:

Catholic_Truth wrote:Theologians can speculate all they want on "extraordinary means" of salvation, but it doesn't change the fact that God has already told us infallibly through his Church that he only uses "ordinary means" to save us.

I couldn't resist this citation provided by Tornpage:

Pope St. Leo XIII, “Satis Cognitum”:

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.

Digest that piece of truth by the great "theologian" Pope Leo XIII, and get back with us.

Pope St. Leo XIII wasn't saying there that "ONLY" men on Earth can administer the Sacraments. The Sacrament of Holy Communion was administered by an Angel for the 3 little children at Fatima. If anyone else was there when that had taken place, then they probably would not have seen that Angel, just as there was not others who had seen the blessed virgin Mary when she had appeared to those children. St. Thomas Aquinas had said that if baptism were essential to the salvation of such a man(who was unable to be baptized by anyone on Earth), then God would sooner send an Angel to (water)baptize him than allow him to be lost.

So, you’re saying that an angel sent to administer baptism to a repentant faith-filled soul would be an example of “internal … heavenly grace which begets sanctity,” while “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.”

Well, no, you’ve got it wrong and have the angel administering baptism through the external, ordinary and chief means of obtaining grace.

But … nice try.

And IF St. Thomas Aquinas believed that, that’s what he would have said ... but he didn’t; and in fact said the same thing as Pope Leo XIII.

Open your eyes and read the words of Pope Leo XIII "as they are written" and "once declared" and stop changing their meaning under the specious pretext of a "deeper understanding".

MRyan wrote:
Well, no, you’ve got it wrong and have the angel administering baptism through the external, ordinary and chief means of obtaining grace.

We, the public, do not have to see the administration of such Sacraments for them to remain "external" . They remain "external" and "ordinary" simply due to the fact that those receiving such Sacraments are aware of them, such as when the 3 children at Fatima had received Holy Communion from that Angel,...Not to mention, that those Sacraments remain as real , natural, literal "Matter" and the "Form" remains the same, unlike "baptism of desire".

MRyan, by your logic, the Angel at Fatima didn't administer the actual literal Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist,(body, soul and divinity of our Lord) to those 3 little children, but instead it was only some symbolic non-literal way of delivering "heavenly grace which begets sanctity".

Also, do you seriously believe that when Aquinas says God would send an Angel to baptize someone on Earth, that he was speaking of Baptism of Desire? Any honest person who reads Aquinas' quote knows that he was speaking of the actual literal Sacrament of Water baptism.

Therefore "extraordinary means" of salvation is not Church Doctrine which Catholics must believe, but instead still falls in the realm of theological speculation for those whom frankly have little faith and whom reject the already established overwhelming infallible teachings from numerous Popes and Councils handed down by the Universal Magisterium . Infallible teaching says that we receive sanctifying grace only through "ordinary means" of salvation.
Therefore God can use an Angel to deliver the Sacraments to us through "ordinary means",.....Aquinas suggested that it could happen and it did actually happen at Fatima in 1917

Sigh.

Hello, anyone home?

Actually I think it has to be a living human being that administers the Sacrament of Baptism. I don't think an angel can do it. An angel can inform the person of the need and where to go for it. Like with Cornelius or St. Paul both had to receive baptisms from humans on earth.
As for the angel delivering the Blessed Sacrament he just took it from a tabernacle of a church. Just like lay people can give communion so can an angel.

duckbill wrote:Actually I think it has to be a living human being that administers the Sacrament of Baptism. I don't think an angel can do it. An angel can inform the person of the need and where to go for it. Like with Cornelius or St. Paul both had to receive baptisms from humans on earth.
As for the angel delivering the Blessed Sacrament he just took it from a tabernacle of a church. Just like lay people can give communion so can an angel.

You two can go off on this little tangent and speculate to your heart’s content on the totally irrelevant “rules” governing the angelic administration of the external, ordinary and chief means of obtaining grace -- the sacraments, while completely ignoring the words of Pope Leo XIII on the other internal means of obtaining heavenly grace which begets sanctity.

C_T began this little irrelevant debate about angelic administration after refusing to acknowledge that Pope Leo XIII seems to have put a papal damper to C_T’s claim that:

Theologians can speculate all they want on "extraordinary means" of salvation, but it doesn't change the fact that God has already told us infallibly through his Church that he only uses "ordinary means" to save us.

Of course, the standard Feeneyite reply (present Duckbill company excluded) would be: “Yes, one may be justified through the internal means of sanctification, but no one can be saved without the ordinary means of sanctification through the external rite of baptism.”

Of course, the statement “God has already told us infallibly through his Church that he only uses ‘ordinary means’ to save us” is simply false, but that has never stopped a determined Feeneyite from playing with the Truth.

Btw, Duckbill, you are on record as saying that you believe that no one can be justified without the sacrament; yet, Pope St. Leo XIII, in “Satis Cognitum”, seems to have laid to rest that little bit of mischief when he taught:

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.

You are swimming upstream without a paddle.

duckbill wrote:Actually I think it has to be a living human being that administers the Sacrament of Baptism. I don't think an angel can do it. An angel can inform the person of the need and where to go for it. Like with Cornelius or St. Paul both had to receive baptisms from humans on earth.
As for the angel delivering the Blessed Sacrament he just took it from a tabernacle of a church. Just like lay people can give communion so can an angel.

Duckbill,

“. . . he just took it from a tabernacle of a church . . .” Really, sometimes you astound me with your own pronouncements on things.

You are minimizing the miraculous. Just like you minimize God’s will to possibly do the miraculous by some through desire (along with charity, faith and repentance), differently from the ordinary and normal way He set up the sacrament.

While hosts are kept in tabernacles, chalices with His Precious Blood are not. Lucia received a Host dripping with His Precious Blood and Francisco and Jacinta (who I think had not yet received their First Holy Communion) were given the chalice to drink His Precious Blood.

Of course an angel could not consecrate the Eucharist, that is only reserved to priests. (unlike Baptism) But it did not need to be an earthly priest reserving the Sacrament in the tabernacle. The host, and obviously the chalice, had a Heavenly consecration. Either a Saint who was a priest or our “great High Priest forever,” Our Lord Jesus Christ, could have consecrated the Eucharist.

He could do whatever He wants. While priests are the only ones who can consecrate the Eucharist, an angel would certainly be able to baptize. On earth a Hindu or Jew can baptize someone in an emergency, but an angel, Saint or Our Lord’s own mother can’t? How about Jesus Christ Himself? Would you ALLOW Him to baptize someone with His own Heavenly holy water? (Like the “river of life giving water” that flows through Heaven according to Revelation.)

Show me where it is written authoritatively that ONLY human beings can administer baptism and that angels can’t. Jesus can send whomever He wants to baptize someone in the moments between life and death, invisible to those of us on earth. We are speculating, but it is definitely possible. Can’t be dismissed.

Of course, even a possible Heavenly baptism is speculation and never said to be necessary for Baptism of Desire. NO ONE knows the details of baptism of desire or baptism of blood. We trust in the Lord as we trust in His teachings through His Church.

He can do all things and it does not make Him a liar if He makes exceptions to the rules He sets up. Who are we to judge God's ways.

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts and my ways are not your ways."

God bless everyone here.
Love,
Elisa


_________--------

http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/tsfatima.htm

The angel of peace's third visit

While we were there (Lucia has testified), the angel appeared to us for the third time, holding in his hand a chalice, and above the chalice, a Host, from which a few drops of blood were falling. Leaving the chalice and Host suspended in air, he prostrated himself on the ground and repeated three times this prayer:

"Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, I adore You profoundly, and I offer You the most precious body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, present in all the tabernacles of the world, in reparation for the outrages, sacrileges and indifference by which He is offended. And by the infinite merits of His most Sacred Heart and through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I beg the conversion of poor sinners."

Afterwards, he rose and took again the chalice and the Host and gave the Host to me and the contents of the chalice to Jacinta and Francisco, saying to them:

"Take and drink the body and blood of Jesus Christ, horribly outraged by ungrateful men. Repair their crimes and console your God."

Once more he prostrated himself and repeated with us three times the prayer, "Most Holy Trinity... etc." He then disappeared. As in the other instances of the angel's appearance, exhaustion and the lock of silence held both little girls. Only Francisco, not having heard the angel, had a question to ask. "Lucia," he said, "I know the angel gave you Holy Communion, but what was it that he gave to Jacinta and me? "That was Communion, too, Francisco. Didn't you see the blood that dropped into the chalice from the Host?"

The little boy, rich with the Feast that was in him, seemed satisfied. "I knew that God was in me," he said, "but I didn't know exactly how." Then he knelt in love and thanksgiving to repeat and repeat the beautiful prayer of the angel.

"minimizing the miraculous" is an interesting phrase... don't those who insist that God would sanctify someone without baptism because of "impossible circumstances" ("through no fault of their own") minimize the miraculous? Rather than holding that God would provide a missionary through miraculous means (ex. Ven. Mary of Agreda or an angel as St. Thomas suggested at one point), they hold that God would just do it by ignoring the means He Himself established.

What's the point of establishing anything as necessary if it can be so easily bypassed?

Elisa,

Well said.

And I do not mean to pick on Duckbill, for his “anti-incarnational” or “anti-material” charge does has its legitimate place, but not here.

Duckbill’s rigid Pharisaical mechanical conception of salvation removes any possibility of an internal unity with our Lord and imposes by divine decree a legalistic system of salvation whereby the divine life of the soul becomes secondary to the instrumental and ordinary means established by our Lord for attaining grace and salvation.

I believe that it is true for all true-blue Feeneyites that any suggestion of a non-material and non-visible sanctification and unity with our Lord (and His Mystical Body) that does not lead to a visible incorporation through the ordinary instruments of sanctification is rejected out of hand - never mind what the Church teaches.

But the Duckbill doctrine (justification is impossible without the sacrament) is a rather extreme reaction against the non-material system of grace of the Protestants that removes any secondary instruments between the soul and our Lord. However, as Fr. Scheeben wrote:

Out of fear of drawing too close to the error of the Protestants and of undermining the truth that Christian justice is internal to the justified person, many theologians have held that this idea of extending the justice of the head to the members is a suggestion fraught with peril.

It would be dangerous, indeed, and instead of crowning would overthrow the very foundations of the mystery of justification, if it excluded justification by internal renewal and regeneration. It would still be dangerous even if it merely intimated that the inner regeneration by grace was not sufficient to make man truly just, that is, to expel sin from him and to equip him for leading a truly holy life. One who entertained either of these views would set himself in stark opposition to the Council of Trent. (Fr. Scheeben, The Mysteries of Christianity)

Having said that, Duckbill, you are not too far from the mark when you intimate, as Fr. Scheeben taught, that “the sacred humanity of Christ is the organ whereby the Holy Spirit enters into the whole mystical body of Christ, and dwells in it with His supernatural power and activity.”

However, Fr. Scheeben parts company with you when he continues to say:

“The sacraments in their turn are the secondary organs whereby Christ's humanity, or rather the divine power emanating from it, is ordinarily directed toward us, and comes into contact with us.

Consequently we must regard the sacred humanity of Christ and the sacraments of the Church as the channels through which the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit reaches us in justification. Hence justification in its substance is accomplished not by an unfolding from within, but by an extraordinary influence and infusion from above and from without.

Fr. Scheeben is saying the same thing as Pope Leo XIII, who taught in Satis Cognitum:

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.

End.

MarianLibrarian wrote:"minimizing the miraculous" is an interesting phrase... don't those who insist that God would sanctify someone without baptism because of "impossible circumstances" ("through no fault of their own") minimize the miraculous? Rather than holding that God would provide a missionary through miraculous means (ex. Ven. Mary of Agreda or an angel as St. Thomas suggested at one point), they hold that God would just do it by ignoring the means He Himself established.

What's the point of establishing anything as necessary if it can be so easily bypassed?

Who said it can be so easily bypassed? Why do you exaggerate a teaching of the Church as if baptism of desire is some “ordinary” means of salvation? Do you think by mis-characterizing a position you do not agree with you can more easily expose its alleged fallacies? Does the fact that liberals abuse the doctrine all day long mean that the doctrine is false?

Let’s try this again:

Did God make the sacraments (the “ordinary and chief means of obtaining grace”; Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum) for man, or, as you seem to want to suggest, did He make man for the sacraments; such that by simple necessity God has bound his power solely to the instrumental, ordinary and chief means of grace?

When the Church teaches that “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments”, why do you doubt her?

The Catechism of the Council of Trent, in its section on the definition of Baptism, teaches:

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.

In confirmation of this teaching on the sacraments being the ordinary and chief means of obtaining grace, the same Roman Catechism teaches:

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.

Is your response one that suggests that the Church has been tasked by our Lord to teach to the universal Faithful (through Roman Catechisms and magisterial documents) purely speculative “theological constructs” about which the Church says “The Church has always held [these doctrines of baptism of blood/baptism of blood with] firm conviction”?

That doesn't make much sense, does it?

If God is omnipotent (and He is) then there are no "impossible" circumstances.

columba wrote:MRyan, For curiosity sake, If 1259 and 1260 in the CCC had been omitted
1259 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.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

would you still hold baptism of desire as a doctrine binding on all or would you consider a speculation only?

Careful with your word “binding”; for “binding” is normally associated with “binding” matters of faith, which presupposes binding matters of defined (revealed or not revealed; the latter being a “definitive act") or revealed truth. I believe the doctrine of baptism of blood/baptism of desire is infallible in the sense that the Church is infallible and cannot be stained with error; but you don’t have to take my word for it and I am not going to “bind” you to it.

The real issue, as was spelled out in the Commentary of the CDF (and elsewhere), is whether baptism of blood/baptism of desire (as I maintain) represent authentic teachings of the ordinary magisterium. If so, they require the religious submission of the mind and will.

One’s assent is based on one’s trust and “faith” that the teachings of the magisterium are the sure and authentic teachings of the divinely appointed Church - it is that simple. As Canon George Smith put it in his article “Must I Believe It”:

…whether her teaching is guaranteed by infallibility or not, the Church is always the divinely appointed teacher and guardian of revealed truth, and consequently the supreme authority of the Church, even when it does not intervene to make an infallible and definitive decision on matters of faith or morals, has the right, in virtue of the divine commission, to command the obedient assent of the faithful. In the absence of infallibility the assent thus demanded cannot be that of faith, whether Catholic or ecclesiastical; it will be an assent of a lower order proportioned to its ground or motive. But whatever name be given to it - for the present we may call it belief - it is obligatory; obligatory not because the teaching is infallible - it is not - but because it is the teaching of the divinely appointed Church. It is the duty of the Church, as Franzelin has pointed out, not only to teach revealed doctrine but also to protect it, and therefore the Holy See "may prescribe as to be followed or proscribe as to be avoided theological opinions or opinions connected with theology, not only with the intention of infallibly deciding the truth by a definitive pronouncement, but also - without any such intention - merely for the purpose of safeguarding the security of Catholic doctrine." If it is the duty of the Church, even though non-infallibly, to "prescribe or proscribe" doctrines to this end, then it is evidently also the duty of the faithful to accept them or reject them accordingly.

I point this out to you because, in your reply to Elisa, you once again said that “This is my whole contention, that baptism of desire is not a binding doctrine of the faith.”

And who said it was a binding doctrine of the faith? No one said that you have to take St. Liguori’s word for it, least of all the Church. How many times must we go over this? Or, like you said, this might be just too much for you to comprehend and you will never understand the difference between binding matters of faith and submission to non-defined teachings of the authentic and ordinary magisterium.

But I wonder how anyone can be so vociferous in their complaints against a doctrine of the Church when they do not even understand basic principles governing the types of required assent.

I’ll satisfy your curiosity and tell you that as far as I’m concerned, baptism of desire, while still a “common doctrine” of the Church, stopped being “speculation” at the Council of Trent, especially with the promulgation of its Roman Catechism and its treatment of the case of the catechumen who, if water baptism is impossible, is assured of his salvation provided he possesses the right dispositions. The Church has taught the same doctrine ever since (while first and always affirming the absolute necessity of the sacrament of baptism "as it is written"); even so far as to finally explicate on cases of invincible ignorance (pope Pius IX) and how these too might be saved (by the divine light of grace) provided they respond to grace and possess the necessary dispositions; with the Church still confirming the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

While liberals have run roughshod over this doctrine, Feeneyites have done the same with their tortuous explanations of the words of Pope Pius IX, words he repeated on at least three official occasions (by way of Allocution and Encyclical).

We can probably thank the Protestants and their fixation on “Justification” for Trent's dogmatic definition and explication on Justification, as prior to this Justification was not exactly a household word in the Catholic lexicon; though the “baptisms” of desire and blood certainly were.

Asking me what my position would be if the CCC did not have the noted passages is simply not realistic; though it probably would not have changed. If the Church did not include these passages, she may have been somewhat derelict in her duties since the doctrines have been taught on a universal scale for quite some time and were already included in other magisterial texts and in local catechisms long before the Second Vatican Council and the promulgation of the CCC.

MarianLibrarian wrote:If God is omnipotent (and He is) then there are no "impossible" circumstances.

Quite so; but that is not what the Catechism of Trent is talking about when it speaks of the "impossibility" of baptism in certain cases.

As an old protagonist from my Feeneyite AQ days (“Savonarola”, who taught me a few things I would only later come to fully appreciate) once said, when I tried to force the same argument (the citations may not be exact):

You're using the logical fallacy of petitio principii, and also confusing predestination with determinism. If God arranges events in time the way He elects souls to salvation, He would ipso facto be responsible for all the evil in the world.

You might have a point only IF God Himself absolutely needs baptism by water to save a soul. If He does not have an absolute need of it, then your point falls apart: you're assuming the conclusion in the premise.

Predestination involves God's arranging or foreordaining of all the graces that lead to salvation and constitute salvation. Nothing can hinder God in this respect. However, predestination does not involve the arrangement of temporal events in life, such as the vehicles that are the instrumental causes of those graces.

Well said, don't you think?

I realize that you believe that God "binds" Himself to the sacrament in each and every case of salvation; but the Church says that He does not have to for reasons already given. The "theology" behind this doctrine supports the Church's contention.

You are mistaken, MRyan. I agree that God is not bound by the sacrament of Baptism.

It is not God who is bound by baptism, it is us. WE are bound to receive the Sacrament of Baptism... it is commanded of us by God. Since God does not command the impossible, we must conclude that He would provide a way for a soul who desires Baptism, to actually receive it. That is what I mean in pointing out that God is omnipotent. This does not do violence to Predestination or Divine Providence, on the contrary, it supports it and flows from these two truths.

Ah, then that is one mistake, MarianLibrarian, I am happy to retract. We are not too far apart, but I must admit that I do not follow your rather circular logic.

Are you suggesting that it is His own divine precept (which is obligatory on all men) that compels God in each and every case to provide the Sacrament of regeneration; and thus, that He will even order the temporal events in life so that He will fulfill His own precept; a precept to which He is not bound; but, He has determined that the ordinary and chief means of sanctification is the only instrument of sanctification that will satisfy His own precept?

Why 'must' He do so if the soul He will save will die immediately upon his sanctification and will have no need of the other sacraments, or of being united to the visible body of the Church?

Then why does He not bind Himself to providing the sacrament of Penance in each and every case when someone falls into mortal sin? Will He reorder temporal events in each and every case to ensure a priest is always available?

Why not, if He does not command impossibilities? The sacrament of Penance is the same necessity of means as Baptism when one falls into mortal sin such that no one can be have their sins remitted without the sacrament, or the desire thereof.

Will you now suggest that the Church’s law on baptism does not allow for the same provision as Penance?

I do not think we are so far apart as you sometimes seem to think, MRyan. However, it appears to me that you yourself do the very thing you accuse others of doing-- viewing things one way.

I understand the theological opinion of baptism of desire. I am not obliged to hold it, though you disagree (I am aware you think the theological opinion to be de fide).

You assume that because I said God would provide Baptism that I thus think He is compelled. This is not the case. God is not compelled, but I argue that He would provide the sacrament of Baptism nonetheless in His Divine Providence and omnipotence.

God is constant, not arbitrary. We rest assured in Him.

As to your concerns regarding the sacrament of Penance... the case is different. The soul has already been marked by the sacrament of Baptism and the stain of Original Sin removed from the soul; and an act of perfect charity suffices to reconcile a Christian soul to God if God sees fit to provide the grace and there is a cooperation with that grace. The Church has never remarked that Original Sin can remitted by any other means except the sacrament of Baptism, since the promulgation of the Gospel.

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.

MRyan can you tell me who this "unforeseen accident" is unforseen by? Is it unforeseen by the all-seeing, all-knowing God? This is where I have the greatest problem in all the arguments for baptism of desire. Considering too that the Lord has ordained that over 70% of the earth be covered in water and that each person is in need of water each day for physical survival and must at least have water near at hand and that even a pagan can baptise in a case of necessity, It doesn't seem that such a great miracle is required by God to permit sacramental baptism to a well disposed soul.

This is not a theological argument against baptism of desire that I'm presenting above. It is rather an obviously commonsensical approach that if I were a catechumen and knew the necessity of baptism, I would carry with me everywhere I went at least enough water that a few drops could be dripped over my head in the case of an emergency. Thanks be to God I have been baptised but I stiil carry with me a small flat bottle of holy water in my pocket just in case it''s ever required. If a catechumen where to neglect this little practical initiative he/she would either be putting full trust in God's providence (as St Vincent de Sales remarked, "The greater trust one shows in providence the greater provindence works in that soul) or this great desire for Baptism would seem to be lacking.

As I said before, for all we know (and I include the Pope) the non reception of Baptism before death could just as easily be a sign of God's rejection (who reads all hearts) as a cause for hope in His Having administered baptism of desire.

Just some practical thoughts on the matter. The law of faith and reason I call it. The former supercedes the latter but doesn't contradict it.

MarianLibrarian wrote:
I do not think we are so far apart as you sometimes seem to think, MRyan.

I hope not; but I'm not sure we're moving any closer.

MarianLibrarian wrote:
However, it appears to me that you yourself do the very thing you accuse others of doing-- viewing things one way.

I understand the theological opinion of baptism of desire. I am not obliged to hold it, though you disagree (I am aware you think the theological opinion to be de fide).

First, when you say that you are “not obliged to hold it”; you seem to want to skirt the real issue: The requirement of religious assent to the authority of the Church when presenting non-revealed doctrines which are related directly to a correct understanding on the dogma of baptism.

You have yet to explain to anyone how a constant teaching of the Church, one which she repeats with unambiguous certitude in her Roman Catechisms (half a millennium apart), and in other magisterial documents, a Papal Allocution, Canon Law, etc., does not represent an authentic “doctrine” of the Church, but is instead a “theological construct” she just throws into her Catechisms as if she expects anyone might actually believe her - if they have the inclination to accept these teachings; but leaves it up for grabs.

Is that how the Church presents the teachings of the Church to the faithful; she presents truths she “has always held” as “theological constructs” we are free to accept or reject depending (if the latter) on whether we believe these “theological constructions” stand in opposition to, or cannot be reconciled with, a dogma of the Faith?

When I present numerous sources from the magisterium on the required religious submission of the mind and will to the "third category" of teachings such that baptism of desire represents, I hear ... crickets, and responses which seem to suggest that the teachings of the Church on baptism of blood/baptism of desire are not presented as "sure" or "true" non-defined teachings of the authentic magisterium; they are not "truths" at all!

Second, you say you are aware that I “think the theological opinion [of baptism of blood/baptism of desire] to be de fide”, when what I actually said was that I believe it is infallible in the same sense as the general infallibility of the Church which cannot be stained with error. Furthermore, that which I said is actually de fide, are the dogmatic teachings of the Council of Trent on the definition of Justification and how it is effected, all of the dogmatic Canons, as well as the dogmatic teaching that anyone who dies in a state of justification has fulfilled the law and shall in fact be saved.

MarianLibrarian wrote:
You assume that because I said God would provide Baptism that I thus think He is compelled. This is not the case. God is not compelled, but I argue that He would provide the sacrament of Baptism nonetheless in His Divine Providence and omnipotence.

God is constant, not arbitrary. We rest assured in Him.

Now you lost me. God is not bound to provide the sacrament, you say; but He will so provide in each and every case, not because He is compelled by any necessity like His own divine precept, not because He must or has some need to; but because; well, because He can .. He can after all Provide for all and is omnipotent.

That’s your argument - an argument you place on equal footing; apparently, with the Church who states that when the sacrament is “impossible” to receive, God will provide the means of salvation through “the desire thereof” (faith/charity/intention)?

MarianLibrarian wrote:
As to your concerns regarding the sacrament of Penance... the case is different. The soul has already been marked by the sacrament of Baptism and the stain of Original Sin removed from the soul; and an act of perfect charity suffices to reconcile a Christian soul to God if God sees fit to provide the grace and there is a cooperation with that grace. The Church has never remarked that Original Sin can remitted by any other means except the sacrament of Baptism, since the promulgation of the Gospel.

Again, you lost me (perhaps I'm just a bit slow). First you say that God is not compelled to provide the sacrament by any necessity, but only because He can; now you suggest that He is in fact compelled by the fact that the “Church has never remarked that Original Sin can remitted by any other means except the sacrament of Baptism.”

If that is not a compelling reason, I do not know what is. But the fact is that the Church teaches that one may be given the grace to enter into a state of justification “by the desire thereof”; a desire for the sacrament (to include supernatural faith and charity), which means that original sin must be remitted in each and every case of justification - or there can be no sanctification. Sanctifying grace expels mortal and original sin - they cannot co-exist.

Your argument boils down to this: That God has no need or compelling reason to bind Himself to the sacrament, but He will provide it in each and every case because He can, and because the Church knows of no means other than baptism that can assure salvation (the Church teaches the same doctrine); and, apparently, neither does God! Not that this little fact would compel Him to provide the sacrament or anything.

Sorry for that bit of sarcasm; but honestly, I cannot follow your logic.

MRyan wrote:
Now you lost me. God is not bound to provide the sacrament, you say; but He will so provide in each and every case, not because He is compelled by any necessity like His own divine precept, not because He must or has some need to; but because; well, because He can .. He can after all Provide for all and is omnipotent.

That’s your argument - an argument you place on equal footing; apparently, with the Church who states that when the sacrament is “impossible” to receive, God will provide the means of salvation through “the desire thereof” (faith/charity/intention)?

Actually, MarianLibrarian, that’s not quite the case, is it? It is not a case of equal footing, but of your opinion (which the Church allows you to hold, btw) supplanting the teaching of the Church since, you say, she presents nothing more than a “theological construct” and the Church can make no demands on you with respect to submission to her teaching authority in all such matters of “theological speculation”.

If that is not correct, I look forward to your correction.

I do not have the time to respond to the entirety of your post, but I wanted to touch on this point:

MRyan wrote:When I present numerous sources from the magisterium on the required religious submission of the mind and will to the "third category" of teachings such that baptism of desire represents, I hear ... crickets, and responses which seem to suggest that the teachings of the Church on baptism of blood/baptism of desire are not presented as "sure" or "true" non-defined teachings of the authentic magisterium; they are not "truths" at all!

I have spoken to a Canon Lawyer on the matter (after your mention of the issue in Canon Law on Pascendi's quite a while ago), and while he does not wish to discuss the particulars (he's a busy guy)... he has said that I am not wrong in identifying 'baptism of desire' as a theological opinion, nor am I bound to hold it. His words, regarding the Catechism were, "it's a reference book," not something that creates doctrine. He holds to the opinion of 'baptism of desire'; he knows my understanding of the matter and has not seen fit to correct me, as would be his duty, even though I see him on a near daily basis.

So we have Peter Vere who has provided a letter of support to the position of the St. Benedict Center, and I have a trustworthy Canon Lawyer here... what are your credentials, MRyan, for demanding that everyone give religious submission of the mind and will to 'baptism of desire'? You keep accusing others here of being "arm-chair theologians"... what makes you different?

From what I can see, we have a stand-off.

MRyan says there is a long tradition of baptism of desire.

Marianlibrarian says there is an equally well established tradition of Baptism is necessary for membership in the Church.

Both are saying there is No Salvation outside the Church.

baptism of desire says Baptism isn't necessary, so there seems to be a conflict in "traditions"

Imho, I think this conflict was not apparent to almost anyone for centuries. Heck would we be discussing it, if the tradition of just the catechumens was still the only opinion? It was such a small percentage of people. But it became more apparent, even to me, when I was taught in Catholic school "all you have to be is good to go to heaven". While my Protestant friends said "you need to take Jesus as Lord and
Savior" seemed to keep their Faith, ALL ( I mean ALL!) of my Catholic friends from Catholic school left the Church (one just recently became Jewish) , as I did myself for awhile, because who needed the Church, if all I needed was to be"good"?

MarianLibrarian wrote:I do not have the time to respond to the entirety of your post, but I wanted to touch on this point:

MRyan wrote:When I present numerous sources from the magisterium on the required religious submission of the mind and will to the "third category" of teachings such that baptism of desire represents, I hear ... crickets, and responses which seem to suggest that the teachings of the Church on baptism of blood/baptism of desire are not presented as "sure" or "true" non-defined teachings of the authentic magisterium; they are not "truths" at all!

I have spoken to a Canon Lawyer on the matter (after your mention of the issue in Canon Law on Pascendi's quite a while ago), and while he does not wish to discuss the particulars (he's a busy guy)... he has said that I am not wrong in identifying 'baptism of desire' as a theological opinion, nor am I bound to hold it. His words, regarding the Catechism were, "it's a reference book," not something that creates doctrine. He holds to the opinion of 'baptism of desire'; he knows my understanding of the matter and has not seen fit to correct me, as would be his duty, even though I see him on a near daily basis.

So we have Peter Vere who has provided a letter of support to the position of the St. Benedict Center, and I have a trustworthy Canon Lawyer here... what are your credentials, MRyan, for demanding that everyone give religious submission of the mind and will to 'baptism of desire'? You keep accusing others here of being "arm-chair theologians"... what makes you different?

Very good; the gauntlet has been thrown down for me to “prove” that when the Church presents to the Faithful a “theological opinion” by way of authentic and ordinary teachings (through Roman Catechisms and other magisterial documents), Catholics are not free to “reject” and to “deny” this “theological opinion” (if you read the old Pascendi’s forum, you would know this is the real issue) and have an obligation to submit to the authority of the Church teaching on all such matters of faith, especially those directly related to forming a correct understanding on the dogma of baptism.

I present the authority of Cardinal Raztinger and the CDF, the authority of a dogmatic declaration of VCI and the authority of a Papal Encyclical, each of which tells us in no uncertain terms what a Catholic’s obligation is with respect to submission to Peter (and I don't mean Peter Vere) and the Church, even if that submission is to non-defined teachings of the authentic magisterium; and you present the authority of Pete Vere (who denies none of what I said) and some other canon lawyer who supposedly said that the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church (“an organic presentation of the Catholic faith” and “an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals” - CCC) is not exactly what Pope JPII said it was (“a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine; “I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith” and “ a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine”); no, it is a “reference work” (a sure and authentic one at that) that “does not create doctrine” (no, its only “a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine”).

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.”

So the charge is that MRyan is trying to “create” a doctrine that does not exist in any magisterial document, not even in the “sure and authentic” reference text called the CCC (“a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine”); a reference work that does not “create doctrines”; and that he is trying to “demand” that “everyone give religious submission of the mind and will” to the non-existent doctrines of baptism of blood and baptism of desire.

Actually, I am not placing demands on anyone; I am simply presenting what I believe are authentic expressions of the Magisterium, as well as the Church’s teaching on the level of required submission to these same authentic expressions. To that end, my purpose is to stimulate a discussion as to why, it is alleged, that the doctrines of baptism of desire/baptism of desire are not authentic expressions and teachings of the Magisterium, but are only “theological opinions” we are free to deny and reject.

Now let’s frame this issue in it’s a proper context so I don’t have to keep battling straw-man arguments I never made.

Here’s the issue: I never said that one is obliged to “hold” the positions of baptism of desire/baptism of desire in the sense that one must believe that God saves souls without the sacrament of baptism. I also happen to believe that He will provide the sacrament in each and every case - in His own time and in the manner of His choosing. In fact, if one chooses not to “hold” these teachings as the Church presents them; that’s fine too; the real issue, however, is whether this resistance is one of disobedience to the Church teaching, or one of a legitimate withholding of assent due to a mental reservation on the teaching itself.

It is the difference, in other words, between “rejecting” the "authentic expressions" of "the Roman Pontiff" in the documents of VCII, for example, and submitting with docility to the Church’s authority over her own doctrines, while seeking and waiting for a clarification on those particular teachings that one finds problematic or difficult to reconcile with tradition. Btw, this is precisely what Cardinal Ratzinger told (scolded) AB Lefevre, when he wrote to him:

"You may not, however, affirm that the conciliar texts, which are magisterial texts, are incompatible with the Magisterium and with Tradition." (Cardinal Ratzinger letter to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on July 20, 1983)

But, I imagine you will say, the CCC is not a “magisterial” text on the same level with a Council. No, it is not on the same level of the Council but it is still “magisterial” and it is still an "authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff".

And, I might add, Lumen Gentium #25 presents the same teaching on "This religious submission of mind and will" which "must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra".

The position of “deny and reject”, it seems to me, is one of rebellion and an accusation of “error” against he magisterium; while the position which seeks submission to the authority of the Church teaching (while making a mental reservation) may still represent a true submission of the mind and will (intention) to the Church’s authority (that the Holy See cannot be stained with error, and has the divine commission to teach), while waiting until a more formal declaration is forthcoming on a problematic point of doctrine (in this case a problem that did not exist until 1952).

If there is room for legitimate dissent, in other words, it must not be in the form of “rejection” of authentic Church teaching (by alleging that the authentic expression of the Magisterium cannot be one than teaches so-called “theological opinions” requiring religious submission to these “non-existent doctrines”); but, this “dissent” should be one of reservation with respect to a difficulty in determining the “degree of adherence” to teachings “set forth by the authentic ordinary Magisterium in a non-definitive way, which require 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.”

This is important, so let me say it again. Is there room here for a legitimate reservation if one believes that the Church’s authentic expressions on baptism of blood/baptism of desire are difficult to reconcile with what one believes are the more authentic expressions of truth? I’m sure there is, but is there room at the same time for the accusation of “error” against the Church for teaching a false “theological opinion”; and thus, is there room for “denial” and “rejection”? I say no; and the forum members can say whatever they want.

In other words, MarianLibrarian, what the “arm-chair theologians” have presented on this forum is a position that rejects outright the “authentic expressions of the Magisterium” by denying that they are “expressions” (they don’t exist as authentic expressions of truth), by denying they are “authentic” and by denying that the expressions are magisterial. I obviously take issue with that "position".

You seem to take the same line by suggesting that the Church, in the CCC (or anywhere else), is not teaching authentic expressions of doctrine when she declares that “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”; no, you say, these are not “doctrines” at all and the CCC has no authority “to create doctrines” (the latter being one of the lamest red herrings I have ever heard).

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).

Let’s get to the issue of precisely what Br. Andre was seeking from Pete Vere, and what the latter told him:

Br. Andre Marie to Pete Vere: “I'm wondering if you are able to put in writing something testifying to the lawfulness of holding Father Feeney's position as a Catholic in good standing with the Church.”

Pete Vere: “In our discussions with the Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith] it seemed rather clear that proponents of a strict interpretation of the doctrine should be given the same latitude for teaching and discussion as those who would hold more liberal views. [MRyan ... like the Pope and the Magisterium]

On that note, the evidence is clear: while the position held by Fr. Feeney and his spiritual descendants may be controversial, holding these positions does not, in itself, place one outside of the Catholic Church. In short, it is clear from the Church’s current pastoral and canonical practice that the Church considers this an internal controversy, and that she acknowledges the good standing of most of those who uphold a restrictive interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, baptism of blood and baptism of desire.”

So tell me, MarianLibrarian, where I ever suggested that it is “unlawful” to hold the more “restrictive interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, baptism of blood and baptism of desire”? Tell me where I suggested that “holding these positions … place one outside of the Catholic Church”.

Can you?

I suspect that this “Pete Vere” argument is simply one more straw-man used to dodge the real issue that I’ve tried to bring to light (and if I am wrong, show me), but one that keeps getting buried beneath these non-sequiturs, irrelevancies, detours and false arguments.

The St. Benedict Center and anyone else can “hold” their opinions on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the absolute necessity of the sacrament; I have absolutely no problem with that. In fact, I have no problem with those who hold that the merit of our Lord’s passion cannot be transmitted without actual sacramental ablution. My only problem is with the non-Catholic attitude expressed on this forum and elsewhere that suggests that the Church has erred in her authentic expressions of Magisterial truth (baptism of blood/baptism of desire) and that we are free to deny and to reject those same “errors” because they are not authentic expressions of the Magisterium - they do not represent authentic truths, they are theological speculations that have never been “defined”; and Catholics are thus free to determine for themselves what the true and authentic expressions of the Magisterium really are, because the Church cannot “create doctrines”.

A dangerous position; indeed.

That’s my “arm-chair” opinion, and I am free to hold and defend it.

I’m still waiting for a legitimate argument that defends the notion that the Church’s authentic teachings on baptism of desire/baptism of blood are not “expressions of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff” that form a apart of “a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine” (the CCC).

Half-truths about the CCC like “it's a reference book"; and irrelevancies which say that the CCC is “not something that creates doctrine” are not valid arguments that even begin to address the real issue -- they are evasions and non-sequiturs.

But that’s OK; I’m used to it.

cowboy wrote:From what I can see, we have a stand-off.

MRyan says there is a long tradition of baptism of desire.

Marianlibrarian says there is an equally well established tradition of Baptism is necessary for membership in the Church.

And why do believe that the former position is somehow opposed to the latter? Remember, only those who believe that baptism of blood/baptism of desire are throw-away opinions of theologians actually believe that these same doctrines are somehow opposed to the definition of Church membership; a definition of membership in the visible Church.

I see only two possible answers:

1. These doctrines are not opposed because the Church never meant to exclude the very real possibility of an invisible unity with our Lord (and the Church) through the vivifying bonds of faith and charity … which is why she has taught baptism of blood/baptism of desire for these many centuries (and recognized it, in the “desire” for the sacraments, in her dogmatic teachings of Trent), to include the authentic expressions of the Magisterium one finds in the CCC and elsewhere.

2. The Church is in error and is opposed to her own dogmatic teaching on Church membership and Baptism.

Stand-off? Not hardly; only if the Church can be stained with error.

But, you tell me.

OK, I went back and re-read my rather lengthy reply to ML, and was somewhat "amazed" (embarrassed) by my ability to construct some of the longest sentences in forum history.

Not counting the periods closing each paragraph, in my first five paragraphs, some of which are quite lengthy, there is exactly ONE period.

So call me the king of the semi-colon. Sorry, to those who might actually read my posts, for not providing room to pause and catch your breath (or laugh, or roll your eyes, or swear).

I now have a New Year’s resolution.

I’ll never live up to it.

In fact, I have no problem with those who hold that the merit of our Lord’s passion cannot be transmitted without actual sacramental ablution.

While "I" do not have a problem with that, either, I wonder how one can reconcile the view that the Church cannot teach error on a doctrine so intimately related to salvation (the Church's business) as the ways of justification with the view that "the merit of our Lord's passion cannot be transmitted without actual sacramental ablution" - since the Church teaches that one can be justified without it.

If the Church's teaching is not error, the other view is.

In short, I think truth has a problem with one or the other position, and I can't think the problem lies with the Magisterium in this instance and on this subject, because, well, it can't.

Which is why the issue of the Church's permission for a "stricter" view is interesting, to say the least. What exactly is the Church permitting? That's a good place to start. Because if it's permitting a view that is inconsistent with it's well-established Magisterial teaching on baptism of desire, we (or at least I) have a big problem.

I think what is "permitted" is the view that no one (in fact) achieves the Beatific Vision without being washed in the waters of baptism, while conceding that God not only can, but that He might, do that, i.e. justify and save without it - but with "permission," believing that He doesn't.

tornpage

MRyan wrote:Very good; the gauntlet has been thrown down for me to “prove” that when the Church presents to the Faithful a “theological opinion” by way of authentic and ordinary teachings (through Roman Catechisms and other magisterial documents), Catholics are not free to “reject” and to “deny” this “theological opinion” (if you read the old Pascendi’s forum, you would know this is the real issue) and have an obligation to submit to the authority of the Church teaching on all such matters of faith, especially those directly related to forming a correct understanding on the dogma of baptism.

MRyan, the following is from the Dimond brothers. They apparently make a very good case in refuting your position that a Catholic must assent to the opinions of recent theologians as part of todays ordinary teachings. They claim that a Catholic does not need to accept such teachings if those teachings have not always been held as Universal and Constant throughout the Church's 2000 yr history.......

Baptism of Desire vs. The Universal and Constant teaching of Theologians


Recently, an article was published by Fr. Anthony Cekada called Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles. Fr. Cekada is a “traditionalist” priest who rightly rejects Vatican II but yet holds the heresy common to almost all today: that those who die as non-Catholics can be saved. Fr. Cekada is, therefore, a person who rejects the Catholic dogma that the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation. Not surprisingly, Fr. Cekada is also a fierce advocate of baptism of desire (although, as I just said, Fr. Cekada holds that members of false religions who don’t even desire baptism can be saved). When I asked him via e-mail whether he agreed with the common teaching of heretical, 20th century pre-Vatican II theologians (see the “Heresy before Vatican II Section”) that souls can be saved “outside the Church” by “invincible ignorance,” he conveniently chose not to respond. That is simply because he does believe that those who die in non-Catholic religions can be saved and he rejects the defined dogma which declares that they cannot.



In his article, Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles, Fr. Cekada attempts to prove that Catholics are bound by the “common” teaching of theologians, according to Pope Pius IX in Tuas Libenter. He further argues that baptism of desire was the “common” teaching of theologians before Vatican II; and he concludes that Catholics are, therefore, bound to believe in baptism of desire under pain of mortal sin. Since his article has had some influence on traditional Catholics, and the subject matter ties in directly to a central point under discussion in this document (namely, the universal and constant teaching on the necessity of rebirth of water and the Spirit based on John 3:5), I feel it necessary to show how Fr. Cekada has completely perverted the very principles he applies, has misled his readership and is contradicted by the authorities he quotes.



TUAS LIBENTER AND THE SO-CALLED “COMMON” CONSENT OF THEOLOGIANS


In his letter to the Archbishop of Munich (Tuas Libenter), upon which Fr. Cekada bases his argument, Pope Pius IX says that Catholic writers are bound by those matters which, though not taught by express decree of the Roman See, are nevertheless taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium as divinely revealed and held by theologians in universal and constant agreement.



Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter, Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, Dec. 21, 1863:

“For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and constant [universali et constanti] consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.”[cdlxxv]



As referenced at the beginning of this document, it was defined as a dogma by the First Vatican Council that the ordinary and universal magisterium is infallible. In his letter to the Archbishop of Munich, Pope Pius IX teaches that Catholic writers are bound by those matters which “are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.” Notice, the obligation to the opinion of the theologians only arises from the fact that these matters were already taught as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the Church and therefore also held by universal and constant agreement. In his application of this teaching in his article, Fr. Cekada conveniently skips over the “universal” requirement. Fr. Cekada also uses the word “common” instead of the properly translated, “universal and constant.”



Fr. Anthony Cekada, Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles, 1. General Principle: “All Catholics are obliged to adhere to a teaching if Catholic theologians hold it by common consent, or hold it as de fide, or Catholic doctrine, or theologically certain.”



Notice how Fr. Cekada conveniently ignores the requirement stipulated by Pope Pius IX that the theologians must be in “universal and constant agreement”! If he had faithfully applied the “universal” part of it throughout his article, the attentive and sincere reader would easily have picked up the flaw in his feeble argumentation. And is baptism of desire something that has been held by universal and constant agreement? Most certainly not; in fact, it is just the opposite.



Fr. William Jurgens: “If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”[cdlxxvi]



As we can see, exactly the opposite of baptism of desire is what is taught in universal and constant agreement! It is the universal and constant teaching of Catholic Fathers and theologians since the beginning that absolutely no one can be saved without water baptism. Thus, the very principle that Fr. Cekada attempts to apply in favor of baptism of desire is used against it.



Fr. Anthony Cekada, Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles, 2. Particular Fact: “But, Catholic theologians do hold the teaching on baptism of desire and baptism of blood by common consent, or hold it as de fide, or Catholic doctrine, or theologically certain. 3. Conclusion (1 + 2): Therefore, all Catholics are obliged to adhere to the teaching on baptism of desire and baptism of blood.”



The fact that baptism of desire did become a common and almost unanimous error among 20th century “theologians” means nothing, which is why Pope Pius IX included that important word “universal” in Tuas Libenter, which Fr. Cekada conveniently ignores.



The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 9, “Limbo,” p. 257: “After enjoying several centuries of undisputed supremacy, St. Augustine’s teaching on original sin was first successfully challenged by St. Anselm, who maintained that it was not concupiscence, but the privation of original justice, that constituted the essence of inherited sin. On the special question, however, of the punishment of original sin after death, St. Anselm was at one with St. Augustine in holding that unbaptized infants share in the positive sufferings of the damned; and Abelard was the first to rebel against the severity of the Augustinian tradition on this point.”[cdlxxvii]



The Catholic Encyclopedia is saying here that basically from the time of Augustine (4th century) to Abelard (12th century) it was the common and almost unanimous teaching of theologians that unbaptized infants suffer the fires of Hell after death, a position that was later condemned by Pope Pius VI. This proves that the “common” error of one period (or even for hundreds of years) is not the universal and constant teaching of the Church from the beginning. This point alone totally blows Fr. Cekada’s thesis away.



Furthermore, the heresy that one can be saved “outside” the Church by “invincible ignorance” was also the common and almost unanimous teaching at the beginning of the 20th Century, thus proving again that the common teaching (or common error) at any particular time does not replace the universal and constant teaching of all Catholic theologians throughout history on the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation.



Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”[cdlxxviii]



Notice here that the Catechism of Trent is inculcating that the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation is the unanimous teaching of theologians. But that is the very position which Fr. Cekada’s article – in the name of the “common” consent of theologians – says is a mortal sin to hold! One can easily see from these facts that Fr. Cekada has erred in a major way and is actually completely wrong: the universal and constant teaching of theologians, as Fr. Jurgens and the Catechism of Trent say, is the very position he is condemning! And his error stems from his false conclusion that the “common” errors of one time (a time of widespread heresy and modernism and apostasy leading up to Vatican II: the period between approx. 1880 and 1960) constitute the universal and constant teaching of Catholic theologians of all times, which is clearly false. In fact, it is ridiculous. And this is why in his discussion of this issue he conveniently dropped the word “universal” from the requirement, which would have made his invalid reasoning all the more easy to detect.



Archbishop Patrick Kenrick (19th Century), Treatise on Baptism: “Hence, all the illustrious writers of antiquity proclaimed in unqualified terms its (Baptism’s) absolute necessity.”[cdlxxix]



In fact, if the “common” error of theologians at a particular time constituted a teaching of the Church that one is bound to follow, then all Catholics would be bound by the heresy of religious liberty (besides all the others) taught at Vatican II, since this has been accepted by “common” consent of the so-called “Catholic theologians” since Vatican II. And this is why Fr. Cekada offers the following pitiful response to that very objection to his quite obviously false thesis.



Fr. Anthony Cekada, Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles, Answering the Objection about Vatican II – D. Theologians and Vatican II: “The group of European modernist theologians primarily responsible for the Vatican II errors were enemies of traditional scholastic theology and had been censured or silenced by church authority: Murray, Schillebeeckx, Congar, de Lubac, Teilhard, etc. When the strictures were removed under John XXIII, they were able to spread their errors freely. If anything, the fact that they had been previously silenced demonstrates the Church’s vigilance against error in the writings of her theologians.”



Oh, I see, because Fr. Cekada deems that the “theologians” who were “primarily responsible” for Vatican II were “European Modernists” and “enemies of traditional scholastic theology,” he is free to dump his entire thesis that a Catholic is bound to follow the “common” consent of theologians under pain of mortal sin. How convenient! The reader should easily see that by such a statement Fr. Cekada is arguing hypocritically and completely refuting himself. Fr. Cekada must be quite dedicated to his heresy to argue in such a contradictory fashion. Furthermore, his claim that because a few of the more radical of the Vatican II theologians were silenced, he is therefore free to reject the common consent of “theologians” after Vatican II, is a hopeless argument; for the fact remains that the “common” consent of purported “Catholic” theologians since Vatican II was to endorse Vatican II’s heretical documents, even if a few of the more radical ones were timidly “silenced” before Vatican II.



Hence, as anyone with eyes to see can see, if one is free to reject the “common” consent of Vatican II theologians because one deems them “enemies of traditional scholastic theology,” then one can just as well dump the fallible, contradictory teaching of the pre-Vatican II theologians on baptism of desire, since it is patently contrary to “traditional dogmatic theology” (viz., the defined dogma on the necessity of rebirth of water and the Spirit), not to mention the universal Tradition of the Church from the beginning on John 3:5.



Furthermore, if a Catholic were bound to follow the “common” teaching of theologians at a particular time, and had lived during the Arian period in the 4th century, then one would have been bound by the Arian heresy (the denial of the Divinity of Jesus Christ), since this was not only the “common” teaching of alleged “Catholic” theologians and Bishops at the time, but almost the unanimous teaching.



Fr. William Jurgens: “At one point in the Church’s history, only a few years before Gregory’s [Nazianz] present preaching (+380 A.D.), perhaps the number of Catholic bishops in possession of sees, as opposed to Arian bishops in possession of sees, was no greater than something between 1% and 3% of the total. Had doctrine been determined by popularity, today we should all be deniers of Christ and opponents of the Spirit.”[cdlxxx]



Fr. William Jurgens: “In the time of the Emperor Valens (4th century), Basil was virtually the only orthodox Bishop in all the East who succeeded in retaining charge of his see… If it has no other importance for modern man, a knowledge of the history of Arianism should demonstrate at least that the Catholic Church takes no account of popularity and numbers in shaping and maintaining doctrine: else, we should long since have had to abandon Basil and Hilary and Athanasius and Liberius and Ossius and call ourselves after Arius.”[cdlxxxi]



Fr. Cekada’s argument, in fact, would rule out the possibility of a Great Apostasy, and would render Our Lord’s words in Luke 18:8 (When the Son of Man returns do you think He will find faith on earth?) impossible, since all Catholics would always be bound to follow what the majority of “Catholic” theologians say, no matter how heretical it is. Needless to say, Fr. Cekada’s argument is completely absurd, as is obvious to the sincere Catholic with common sense.



Fr. Anthony Cekada, Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles, B. Proof of the Thesis. “1. Major Premise. The consent of theologians in matters of faith and morals is so intimately connected with the teaching Church that an error in the consensus of theologians would necessarily lead the whole Church into error. 2. Minor Premise. But the whole Church cannot err in faith and morals. (The Church is infallible) 3. Conclusion. The consensus of theologians in matters of faith and morals is a certain criteria of divine Tradition.”



We have seen how this claim of Fr. Cekada, in his attempt to apply it to “baptism of desire,” is false, illogical, historically ridiculous and easily refuted. I will quote Pope Pius XII again, who himself contradicts the above assertion.



Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: “This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.’”[cdlxxxii]



And what is ironic and very important is that the fallible theologians Fr. Cekada references in his article not only disagree among themselves about whether this so-called “baptism of desire” is of the Faith or merely close to the Faith, but the “theologians” he cites actually prove the position of those who reject the false doctrine of baptism of desire.







THE VERY “THEOLOGIANS” HE BRINGS FORWARD ALSO DISPROVE HIS POSITION



One of the 25 pre-Vatican II theologians that Fr. Cekada references in his article on Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles is the German theologian Dr. Ludwig Ott, whose book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is somewhat popular in traditional Catholic circles. Dr. Ott was a modernist heretic who believed in baptism of desire and salvation “outside” the Church, as is stated clearly in his book (See the “Heresy Before Vatican II Section”). But despite this, in his quarter-million-word compendium (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma), Dr. Ott is forced to admit the following based on the overwhelming testimony of Catholic Tradition and defined dogma.



Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, The Necessity of Baptism, p. 354: “1. Necessity of Baptism for Salvation- Baptism by water (Baptismus Fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception, for salvation. (de fide.)”[cdlxxxiii]



Excuse me, but this de fide (i.e., of the Faith) teaching of the Catholic Church on the absolute necessity of water baptism for all without exception for salvation is precisely why Catholics must reject the false doctrine of “baptism of desire”! Baptism of desire is directly contrary to the above de fide teaching of the Church: baptism of desire is the idea that baptism of water is not necessary for all men without exception for salvation!



But Fr. Cekada, the illogical heretic, would have us believe that based on the testimony of Ludwig Ott (and others) we are supposed to accept baptism of desire under pain of mortal sin, when Dr. Ludwig Ott himself is affirming that the absolute necessity of water baptism for all without exception is de fide – the very truth which compels one to reject baptism of desire! Thus, Fr. Cekada is simply refuted and condemned by the testimony of the very authorities he brings forward.



The fact that Dr. Ludwig Ott immediately proceeds to contradict the above statement on the absolute necessity of water baptism without exception in his book, and proceeds to teach baptism of desire and blood on the very same page – which ideas he interestingly does not term de fide (of the Faith) but close to the Faith – simply shows that the common error of baptism of desire, that became almost unanimous among “theologians” such as Ott in the late 19th and early 20th century, is simply not in harmony with the universal, constant (and de fide) teaching of the Church on the absolute necessity of water baptism without exception for salvation.



Another example would be the famous book, The Catechism Explained, by Fr. Spirago and Fr. Clarke. Like Dr. Ott’s book, The Catechism Explained taught baptism of desire and that there is salvation “outside” the Church. Yet despite this fact, these “theologians” (Frs. Spirago and Clarke) were compelled to admit the following truth, which is confessed universally by all purported Catholic theologians.



Fr. Francis Spirago and Fr. Richard Clarke, The Catechism Explained, 1899, Baptism: “3. BAPTISM IS INDISPENSABLY NECESSARY TO SALVATION. Hence children who die unbaptized cannot enter heaven. Our Lord says: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven’ (John 3:5). He makes no exception, not even in the case of infants… Baptism is no less indispensable in the spiritual order than water in the natural order…”[cdlxxxiv]



This shows, again, how the universal teaching of theologians is that baptism of water is absolutely necessary for salvation, and that Our Lord’s words in John 3:5 have no exceptions. The fact that Frs. Spirago and Clarke proceed to contradict this statement and teach baptism of desire (and the heresy of salvation “outside” the Church) just shows their own inconsistency – and the inconsistency of all who favor baptism of desire.



Fr. Francis Spirago and Fr. Richard Clarke, The Catechism Explained, 1899, Baptism: “… for adults the simple desire is sufficient, if actual baptism is impossible.”[cdlxxxv]



How can water baptism be indispensably necessary for salvation (as they just told us), if the simple desire for it is sufficient in its place? That is a direct contradiction. And anyone who says that it is not simply denies the law of non-contradiction. One cannot say that:



Water Baptism is indispensably necessary for salvation


And at the same time….



Water Baptism is not indispensably necessary for salvation (desire can replace it)


These two statements are contradictory, but this is exactly what people were being taught all over the world in catechisms since the late 1800’s. They were being taught the truth (1st proposition), while simultaneously they were taught the opposite of that truth (2nd proposition). This shows that even in the time of growing apostasy, heresy and modernism that was the period from approximately 1850 to 1950, all theologians and catechisms still affirmed the universally taught truth on the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation, even though they did not remain consistent with it.



THEOLOGIANS ARE ALSO UNANIMOUS THAT ONLY THE WATER BAPTIZED ARE PART OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!



Additionally devastating to Fr. Cekada’s article is the fact that even the theologians that he references in favor of baptism of desire affirm that it is of the Faith that only the water baptized are part of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. I quote Dr. Ludwig Ott again, in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.



Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Membership in the Church, p. 309: “3. Among the members of the Church are not to be counted: a) The unbaptized… The so-called blood Baptism and the Baptism of desire, it is true, replace Baptism by water (sic) in so far as the communication of grace is concerned, but do not effect incorporation into the Church… Catechumens are not to be counted among the members of the Church… The Church claims no jurisdiction over them (D 895). The Fathers draw a sharp line of separation between Catechumens and ‘the faithful.’”[cdlxxxvi]



Here we see Dr. Ludwig Ott, one of the “theologians” cited by Fr. Cekada to “prove” baptism of desire, clearly affirming the universal Catholic teaching that only water baptized persons are inside the Church. Dr. Ott has no problem admitting this since he believes in salvation “outside” the Church (see “Heresy Before Vatican II Section”).



But there are three very important admissions here by Dr. Ott, each relating, ironically, to the three most famous dogmatic definitions on Outside the Church There is No Salvation.



1) The most expansive definition on Outside the Church There is No Salvation was from Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence. In this definition, Pope Eugene IV defined infallibly that it is necessary to be inside the unity of the ecclesiastical body, which means that it is necessary to be incorporated into the ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis).



Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics and schismatics can become participants in eternal life, but they will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25], unless before the end of life they have been added to the flock; and that the unity of this ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) is so strong that only for those who abide in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fasts, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of a Christian soldier produce eternal rewards. No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”[cdlxxxvii]



Please focus on the necessity of incorporation into the ecclesiastici corporis (the ecclesiastical body). Then notice that in the quotation above from Dr. Ott, he admits that “baptism of desire” and “baptism of blood” do not effect incorporation – that is to say, they do not bring one into the Mystici Corporis (the Mystical Body)!



Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Membership in the Church, p. 309: “3. The so-called blood Baptism and the Baptism of desire, it is true, replace Baptism by water (sic) in so far as the communication of grace is concerned, but do not effect incorporation into the Church…’”[cdlxxxviii]



By this statement, Dr. Ott is admitting that “baptism of desire” and “baptism of blood” are not compatible with Pope Eugene IV’s infallible definition on the absolute necessity of incorporation into the ecclesiastical Body (ecclesiastici corporis) for salvation. Thus, Dr. Ott proves that baptism of desire/blood cannot be true and is actually contrary to dogma.



2) The second infallible definition on Outside the Church There is No Salvation was from Pope Boniface VIII in the Bull Unam Sanctam. In this definition, Pope Boniface VIII defined infallibly that it is necessary for every human creature to be entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff (and therefore the Catholic Church) for salvation.



Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:

“Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”[cdlxxxix]



I pointed out the fact that without water baptism no one is a subject of the Church or the Roman Pontiff. I quoted the Council of Trent to prove the point.



Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, On the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Sess. 14, Chap. 2, ex cathedra: “… the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism. For what have I to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle. It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body’ (1 Cor. 12:13).”[cdxc] (Denz. 895)



Now, notice how Dr. Ott admits that “baptism of desire” and “baptism of blood” neither make one a subject nor place one under the jurisdiction of the Church!



Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Membership in the Church, p. 309: “3. Among the members of the Church are not to be counted: a) The unbaptized… Catechumens are not to be counted among the members of the Church… The Church claims no jurisdiction over them (D 895).’”[cdxci]



By this statement, Dr. Ott is admitting that “baptism of desire” and “baptism of blood” are not compatible with Pope Boniface VIII’s infallible definition on the absolute necessity of subjection to the Church and the Roman Pontiff for salvation! Dr. Ott is showing us that baptism of desire/blood cannot be true (and that it is, in fact, contrary to dogma), and he is even referencing the very decree that I referenced (D. 895 from Trent) to prove the point!



3) The first infallible definition on Outside the Church There is No Salvation was from Pope Innocent III at the Fourth Lateran Council. In this definition, Pope Innocent III defined infallibly that the Catholic Church is a Church of “the faithful” and that outside of this “faithful” no one at all is saved.



Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved…”[cdxcii]



I pointed out how Catholic Tradition, Catholic Liturgy and all of the fathers teach that only the water baptized are part of the faithful. Now, notice how in the quotation cited above from Dr. Ott, he admits that “baptism of desire” and “baptism of blood” do not make one part of the faithful! I quote it again:



Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Membership in the Church, p. 309: “3. Catechumens are not to be counted among the members of the Church… The Church claims no jurisdiction over them (D 895). The Fathers draw a sharp line of separation between Catechumens and ‘the faithful.’”[cdxciii]



By this statement, Dr. Ott is admitting that “baptism of desire” and “baptism of blood” are not compatible with Pope Innocent III’s infallible definition on the absolute necessity of belonging to “the faithful” for salvation!



Therefore, in just one paragraph, Dr. Ott makes at least three admissions, based on defined Catholic dogma, which show that baptism of desire and baptism of blood are not compatible with Catholic teaching; and he makes these admissions on points that are central to the three most famous infallible definitions on Outside the Church There is No Salvation!



And this rather crucial series of admissions by Dr. Ott – quite devastating to the theory of baptism of desire – brings me to my next point: the theologians, based on the testimony of Tradition and Catholic teaching, all define the Catholic Church the same way – a union of faith and sacraments.

THEOLOGIANS UNANIMOUSLY DEFINE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS A UNION OF SACRAMENTS – THE TESTIMONY OF ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE, ST. FRANCIS DE SALES, THE CATECHISM OF TRENT AND ALL THEOLOGIANS



Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, has given a famous definition of the Catholic Church. St. Robert Bellarmine’s formula is recognized by many as the most precise scholastic definition of the Church to this day.



St. Robert Bellarmine (16th century):"The Church is one, not twofold, and this one true [Catholic] Church is the assembly of men united in the profession of the same Christian faith and in the communion of the same sacraments, under the rule of legitimate pastors, and in particular, that of the one Vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman Pontiff. The first part excludes all infidels, those who were never in the Church such as Jews, Turks, and pagans, or those who once were in it and later fell away, like the heretics and apostates. The second part excludes the catechumens and excommunicated, since the former are not admitted to the sacraments and the latter are excluded from them…"[cdxciv]



Here we see the definition of the Church which is accepted by all theologians: a union of faith and sacraments. According to this definition of the Church, there can be no baptism of desire because those who have not received any of the sacraments (the unbaptized, including unbaptized catechumens) don’t share in the unity of the sacraments and therefore are not part of the Catholic Church. Could anything be more simple and clear?



But it is a fact, which may surprise some, that St. Robert Bellarmine did not remain consistent with his definition of the Church above. He actually adopted the false idea of baptism of desire, which became somewhat widespread among theologians in the late middle ages, as I discussed in the section on the history of baptism of desire. But in adopting the false idea of baptism of desire, St. Robert simply failed to remain consistent with his own definition of the Church above, as well as the unanimous definition of theologians on the Church.



But this was not the only issue on which St. Robert did not remain entirely consistent; he failed to remain consistent in his struggle with the true teaching on Limbo, as The Catholic Encyclopedia points out.



The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 9, 1910, “Limbo,” p. 258: “It is clear that Bellarmine found the situation [on Limbo] embarrassing, being unwilling, as he was, to admit that St. Thomas and the Schoolmen generally were in conflict with what St. Augustine and other Fathers considered to be de fide [on Limbo], and what the Council of Florence seemed to have taught definitively.”[cdxcv]



Here we see again that the fathers, doctors and saints, including Robert Bellarmine, actually contradicted themselves on Limbo, even what some of them held to be de fide. This again shows us why Catholics don’t form definite doctrinal conclusions from the teaching of saints, including St. Robert Bellarmine. Catholics form definite doctrinal conclusions from Catholic dogma, and the teaching of saints only when it is in line with dogma. And St. Robert Bellarmine’s definition of the Church above, which excludes all unbaptized persons from the Catholic Church, is consistent with dogma; his statements on baptism of desire are not.



Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: “… the one mystical body … And in this, ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5). Certainly Noe had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church… outside which we read that all living things on the earth were destroyed… which body he called the ‘Only one’ namely, the Church, because of the unity of the spouse, the faith, the sacraments, and the charity of the Church. ”[cdxcvi]



Here we see that Pope Boniface VIII defined as a dogma that the Church is a union of sacraments. The Catholic Church is infallibly defined as a union of sacraments also by Pope Eugene IV.



Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims… that the unity of this ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) is so strong that only for those who abide in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fasts, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of a Christian soldier produce eternal rewards. No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”[cdxcvii]



The obvious meaning and sense of this dogmatic text is that the Catholic Church is an ecclesiastical Body and a union of sacraments, a union “so strong.” This is the truth confessed by all theologians. St. Francis De Sales teaches the exact same truth.



St. Francis De Sales, Doctor of the Church: “The Church is a holy university or general company of men united and collected together in the profession of one same Christian faith; in the participation of the same sacraments…”[cdxcviii]



Here we see that St. Francis De Sales repeats the same truth and defines the Church the same way. This is how everybody defines the Church! The Catechism of the Council of Trent affirms the same teaching:



Catechism of the Council of Trent, The Members of the Church Militant, pp. 99-100: “The Church militant is composed of two classes of persons, the good and the bad, both professing the same faith and partaking of the same sacraments…”[cdxcix]



Is any teaching more consistent? The Catechism of Trent concludes:



Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. 159: “In the character impressed by Baptism, both effects are exemplified. By it we are qualified to receive the other Sacraments, and the Christian is distinguished from those who do not profess the faith.”[d]



So again, we see how baptism of desire advocates, such as Fr. Cekada, are completely wrong and actually pervert the truth when they assert that the teaching of theologians binds one to “baptism of desire.” It is exactly the opposite. The unanimous teaching of theologians contradicts the false doctrine of baptism of desire, by defining the Church as only those who have received the sacraments, which definition is also a dogma (Eugene IV; Boniface VIII, de fide). Catholics are not bound, and in fact must reject, the fallible statements and speculations of men, however great, such as St. Robert Bellarmine, when they are not in harmony with Catholic dogma, not to mention when they contradict the very principles they elsewhere affirm.



And this is precisely why St. Robert Bellarmine was at a complete loss to cogently explain the idea of “baptism of desire” when he had already defined the Catholic Church as a body excluding all the unbaptized. He failed miserably in attempting to explain how catechumens can be saved when only baptized persons are part of the Catholic Church.



St. Robert Bellarmine, De Ecclesia Militante: “Concerning catechumens there is a greater difficulty, because they are faithful [have the faith] and can be saved if they die in this state, and yet outside the Church no one is saved… the catechumens are in the Church, though not in actual fact, yet at least in resolution, therefore they can be saved…”[di]



Notice the difficulty St. Robert encounters in trying to explain baptism of desire; he immediately has to compromise and contradict his own definition of the Church.



St. Robert Bellarmine (16th century): "The Church is one, not twofold, and this one true [Catholic] Church is the assembly of men united in the profession of the same Christian faith and in the communion of the same sacraments, under the rule of legitimate pastors, and in particular, that of the one Vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman Pontiff. First part excludes all infidels, those who were never in the Church such as Jews, Turks, and pagans, or those who once were in it and later fell away, like the heretics and apostates. The second part excludes the catechumens and excommunicated, since the former are not admitted to the sacraments and the latter are excluded from them…"[dii]



First, St. Robert’s “difficulty” in attempting to explain his (fallible) position that catechumens can be saved, when catechumens are excluded from the Church by his own definition, is simply because the idea that an unbaptized person can be part of the Church is found nowhere in any council or statement from the Papal Magisterium. The Catholic Church has exclusively held and taught that only those who have received the Sacrament of Baptism are part of the Church and no dogmatic decree has ever taught anything else.



And this is why St. Robert is constrained to admit that catechumens are not actually inside the Church, but he argues that they can be saved by being in it in resolution, but not in fact. (Note: St. Robert was only applying this idea to catechumens, not pagans, heretics and schismatics, as our Modernists today love to assert). But contrary to St. Robert’s fallible and false assertion that catechumens can be saved by being in the Church “not in actual fact, yet at least in resolution,” it is defined that one must be in actual fact part of the Church. It is defined that one must be “in the bosom and unity” (Eugene IV); that one must be incorporated into the “ecclesiastical body” (Eugene IV); that one must be “entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff” (Boniface VIII); that one must be in the union of “sacraments” and “the faithful” (Eugene VI; Boniface VIII; Innocent III). And these things only come with water baptism, as attested to by St. Robert’s own definition of the Church. But in trying to explain the unexplainable (how baptism of desire is compatible with Catholic dogma), and in trying to defend the indefensible (how unbaptized catechumens can be in a Church which is defined by a union of sacraments), St. Robert contradicted these principles and made a mistake.



Second, in attempting to substantiate his erroneous belief in baptism of desire, St. Robert says that catechumens are “faithful.” This is contrary to the fathers and the teaching of Traditional Catholic Liturgy since apostolic times, which excluded catechumens from “the faithful” (as discussed in the Section on “The One Church of the Faithful”). It is also contrary to the ready admissions of baptism of desire advocates such as Ludwig Ott, which I’ve already quoted.



Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Membership in the Church, p. 309: “3. Catechumens are not to be counted among the members of the Church… The Church claims no jurisdiction over them (D 895). The Fathers draw a sharp line of separation between Catechumens and ‘the faithful.’”[diii]



By now the reader should again be discovering the theme which I’ve been showing throughout this extensive examination of the history of the baptism of desire issue: that baptism of desire is a fallible, erroneous tradition of man, which has never been taught by the Papal Magisterium, which has gained momentum based on the fallible and flawed passages of some nevertheless great men, who contradicted themselves and violated their own principles in trying to explain it, while almost always making other errors in the same documents.



In fact, St. Robert’s statement that catechumens are “faithful” also contradicts the Catechism of the Council of Trent.



Catechism of the Council of Trent, Communion of Sacraments, p. 110: “The fruit of all the sacraments is common to all the faithful, and these sacraments, particularly baptism, the door, as it were, by which we are admitted into the Church, are so many sacred bonds which bind them and unite them to Christ.”[div]



This means that those who haven’t received the sacraments are not part of the “faithful,” again contrary to what Bellarmine asserted in his admittedly “difficult” attempt to reconcile the false idea of baptism of desire with his own definition of the Catholic Church, which excluded all the unbaptized. When saints enter into “difficult” attempts to explain speculative things that are not clearly taught by the Church they are bound to make mistakes. And so Catholics must not follow St. Robert in this “difficult” (or rather, impossible) attempt to explain baptism of desire, but rather they should follow St. Gregory Nazianz (Doctor of the Church), who stated regarding the idea that one can reckon as baptized him who desired baptism but did not receive it, “I cannot see it.”[dv]



St. Robert indeed erred on the subject of baptism of desire, just as he did on Limbo; but what is most important to remember, as stated already, is this: while the principle of Papal infallibility was always believed in the Church (expressed from the earliest times by such phrases as in the apostolic see the Catholic religion has always been preserved untainted and holy doctrine celebrated), there is no doubt that after the definition of Papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council in 1870 there is much more clarity about which documents are infallible and which are not. St. Robert Bellarmine and others who lived before 1870 did not necessarily have this degree of clarity, which caused many of them to lessen the distinction, in certain cases, between the infallible decrees of popes and the fallible teaching of theologians. It also caused them to not look quite as literally at what the dogma actually declares, but rather at what they thought the dogma might mean in light of the opinion of popular theologians of the time.



Catholics who live today can say that they understand more about Papal Infallibility than the theologians and doctors in the middle ages all the way down to 1870, and that they possess an advantage in evaluating this issue not only because they live after the definition of Papal Infallibility, but also because they can review the entire history of papal pronouncements of the Church on this issue and see the harmony among them on the absolute necessity of water baptism.



UNIVERSAL TRADITION ON BAPTISM AFFIRMED EVEN BY HERETICAL MODERN CATECHISMS



To further illustrate the point that the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation is the universal and constant teaching of all theologians even during the time of the apostasy and even by those same persons who proceeded to deny this truth, let’s take, for example, a recent edition of the Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism attributed to Pope St. Pius X.



The New St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism, No. 2, Q. 320- “Why is Baptism necessary for the salvation of all men? A. Baptism is necessary for the salvation of all men because Christ has said: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’”[dvi]



Notice how this edition of the Baltimore Catechism, which taught the error of baptism of desire to multitudes (as we will see), reiterates the universal and constant teaching of the Catholic Church, based on the words of Jesus Christ in John 3:5, that Baptism of water is necessary for the salvation of all men. The Baltimore Catechism, therefore, teaches the exact same truth of Faith that has been a constant echo in Catholic Tradition since the beginning.



Hermas, 140 A.D., quoting Jesus in John 3:5: “They had need to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God.”[dvii]



St. Justin the Martyr, 155 A.D.: “… they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn… in the name of God… they receive the washing of water. For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ The reason for doing this we have learned from the apostles.”[dviii]



So, contrary to popular belief, those who reject “baptism of desire” actually follow the teaching of the Baltimore Catechism on the absolute necessity of water baptism. They don’t, however, follow the teaching of the fallible Baltimore Catechism when it proceeds to contradict this truth on the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation and teach baptism of desire.



The New St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism, No. 2, Q. 321- “How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have not received the Sacrament of Baptism. A. Those who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what is called baptism of blood or baptism of desire.”[dix]



This statement blatantly contradicts the truth taught in Q. 320, that baptism of water is absolutely necessary for all men to be saved. In the Baltimore Catechism the people have been taught two directly contradictory notions one after the other:



Baptism of water is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all;
and…

Baptism of water is not absolutely necessary for the salvation of all.


Can both be true at the same time? No, they cannot. As a Catholic, one must follow the first statement, which is in accord with defined dogma and the universal Tradition since the beginning of the Church, and is based on the declaration of Christ Himself.



Furthermore, the edition of the Baltimore Catechism from which I’m quoting also makes the same devastating admissions which Dr. Ott was compelled to make in his discussion of what the so-called “baptism of desire” is not.



The New St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism, No. 2, Q. 321- “However, only baptism of water actually makes a person a member of the Church. It (baptism of blood/desire) might be compared to a ladder up which one climbs into the Bark of Peter, as the Church is often called. Baptism of blood or desire makes a person a member of the Church in desire. These are the two lifelines trailing from the sides of the Church to save those who are outside the Church through no fault of their own.”[dx]



Here we see this edition of the Baltimore Catechism teaching that: 1) Baptism of desire doesn’t make one a member of the Church; 2) Baptism of desire does make one a member of the Church in desire; 3) there is salvation outside the Church by baptism of desire and blood.



The first two statements contradict each other, while the third is direct heresy against the dogma that Outside the Church no one at all is saved (Pope Innocent III, de fide). Thus, this edition of the Baltimore Catechism’s explanation of “baptism of desire” is not only fallible, but directly heretical.



Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”[dxi]



But having taught that baptism of desire “saves” people “outside” the Church, this version of the Baltimore Catechism proves the point again that baptism of desire is incompatible with defined dogma – not to mention its own teaching on the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation.



THE CATECHISM ATTRIBUTED TO ST. PIUS X



The Catechism attributed to Pope St. Pius X repeats for us the same de fide teaching of the Catholic Church on the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation.



The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments, “Baptism,” Q. 16: “Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation? A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for Our Lord has expressly said: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.’”[dxii]



So, contrary to popular belief, those who reject “baptism of desire” actually follow the teaching of the Catechism attributed to Pope St. Pius X on the absolute necessity of water baptism. They don’t follow, however, the teaching of this fallible Catechism when it proceeds to contradict this truth on the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation.



The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments, “Baptism,” Q. 17: “Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.”[dxiii]



This again is a total contradiction to what is stated in Question 16. It should be noted that this catechism, while attributed to Pope St. Pius X, did not come from his pen and was not solemnly promulgated by him. There is no Papal Bull from him promulgating the catechism, so it is just a fallible catechism that went out during his reign and was given his name. But, even if St. Pius X had himself authored the above words (which he didn’t), it wouldn’t make a bit of difference to the points I’ve made. This is because a pope is only infallible when speaking magisterially. This catechism is not infallible because it wasn’t promulgated solemnly from the Chair of Peter or even specifically by the pope. Further, this catechism is proven not to be infallible by the fact that it teaches the abominable heresy that there is salvation “outside” the Church (as I will show)!



But I will first quote where the catechism affirms the dogma.



The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Apostles’ Creed, “The Church in Particular,” Q. 27: “Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church? A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.”[dxiv]



Here the Catechism attributed to Pope St. Pius X reaffirms the defined dogma. But it proceeds to deny this dogma just two questions later!



The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Apostles’ Creed, “The Church in Particular,” Q. 29: “Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved? A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best as he can, such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.”[dxv]



Here we see this fallible Catechism word for word denying the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation! It teaches that there can be salvation “outside” the Church, which directly denies the truth it taught to the people in Question 27. This statement is so heretical, in fact, that it would be repudiated even by most of the crafty heretics of our day, who know that they cannot say that people are saved “outside,” so they argue that non-Catholics are not “outside” but are “inside” somehow. So even those crafty heretics who reject the true meaning of Outside the Church There is No Salvation would have to admit that the above statement is heretical!



Further, notice that the catechism attributed to St. Pius X teaches the heresy that persons can be united to the “Soul” of the Church, but not the Body. As proven already, the Catholic Church is a Mystical Body. Those who are not part of the Body are no part at all.



Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.”[dxvi]



This discussion on the catechisms should demonstrate to the reader how the rampant denial of Outside the Church There is No Salvation and the necessity of Water Baptism has been perpetuated through fallible texts with imprimaturs and why it has been imbibed today by almost all who profess to be Catholic. It has been perpetuated by fallible documents and texts which contradict themselves, which contradict defined dogma, and which teach heresy, and which – all the while – elsewhere affirm the immutable truths of the absolute necessity of the Catholic Church and water baptism for salvation. And this is why Catholics are bound to adhere to infallibly defined dogma, not fallible catechisms or theologians.



Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadem: “For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains, ‘we shall see God as He is’ (1 John 3:2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is ‘one God, one faith, one baptism’ [Eph. 4]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.”[dxvii]



Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”[dxviii

I think I need to put some sort of limit on how long posts can be like other forums do. I have my doubts that anyone is taking the time to read these extremely long posts that people are posting.

I would be more worried about letting Forum members copy and paste entire tracts from a notorious sede website whose primary function is to "prove" that we have no pope or valid hierarchy and that the visible Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon.

Catholic_Truth wrote:

MRyan wrote:Very good; the gauntlet has been thrown down for me to “prove” that when the Church presents to the Faithful a “theological opinion” by way of authentic and ordinary teachings (through Roman Catechisms and other magisterial documents), Catholics are not free to “reject” and to “deny” this “theological opinion” (if you read the old Pascendi’s forum, you would know this is the real issue) and have an obligation to submit to the authority of the Church teaching on all such matters of faith, especially those directly related to forming a correct understanding on the dogma of baptism.

MRyan, the following is from the Dimond brothers. They apparently make a very good case in refuting your position that a Catholic must assent to the opinions of recent theologians as part of todays ordinary teachings. They claim that a Catholic does not need to accept such teachings if those teachings have not always been held as Universal and Constant throughout the Church's 2000 yr history.......

So my position is that Catholic’s must “assent to the opinions of recent theologians”; is that right?

Wrong.

Frankly, you do not even know what my position is; but thanks for wasting everyone’s time with that “quality” propaganda piece of misinformation.

MRyan wrote:I would be more worried about letting Forum members copy and paste entire tracts from a notorious sede website whose primary function is to "prove" that we have no pope or valid hierarchy and that the visible Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon.

I would agree that forum members keep their posts a reasonable length as this would benefit the poster as well as the other members who may not be able to give a thorough reply. I don't agree that pro-sede material should be banned. There is already a heading under which this an be debated.
Hell.. if there's Chicken gods running around churches it's best to hear everyones angle on things.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:I would be more worried about letting Forum members copy and paste entire tracts from a notorious sede website whose primary function is to "prove" that we have no pope or valid hierarchy and that the visible Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon.

I would agree that forum members keep their posts a reasonable length as this would benefit the poster as well as the other members who may not be able to give a thorough reply. I don't agree that pro-sede material should be banned. There is already a heading under which this an be debated.

That's right, meaning those lengthy copy and paste jobs which are in fact "exercises in sophistry, fallacious arguments, non-sequiturs, exaggerations, factual errors, and tendentious distortions" should not be permitted outside of the designated sede heading where sede's can copy and paste to their heart's content.

MRyan,

So what makes one a theologian, rather than an "arm-chair" theologian?

PS- thanks for clearing things up... I still think you are giving too much weight to the CCC (I know you disagree!). I think I better understand where our differences lie.

I will formulate a better response after I get off work. It's been a busy week.

MarianLibrarian,

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.

An “arm-chair theologian” in this instance is someone with no theological training whatsoever who proposes that the magisterial texts (and the magisterial authority behind the text), as well as the universal moral consensus of theologians, are in error; that they must be in error because the magisterial teaching is opposed to a dogmatic definition and/or an alleged “ex cathedra” pronouncement. In other words, the “once declared” dogma is understood by the Church as the arm-chair theologian understands it, and there can be no recession in meaning from the arm-chair theologian’s understanding -- end of argument.

An arm-chair theologian is a magisterium unto himself whose rule of faith is governed by the hierarchy of truths model which makes one's acceptance or rejection of a particular magisterial teaching dependent upon its standing in the model. To the arm-chair theologian the “light” by which dogmas must be read is not the light of the "fallible" authentic, living and permanent Magisterium, it is a personal “light” that gives him the right to accept or reject magisterial teaching (usually by denying that they are "authentic" teachings of the Church) and to re-“interpret” dogmas as they were “once declared”, as if the Church’s understanding of her own dogmas can be false, and his correct.

His is a constricting straight-jacket of ever-tightening circular logic which cuts-off oxygen to the sensus fidelium, when the faith must be grounded in the liberating wisdom of the Magisterium, the mother of all truth.

I look forward to your explanation for why you believe that I am giving too much “weight” to the CCC.

MRyan,

I asked what makes someone a theologian ... and you explained what makes someone an "arm-chair theologian"... ? That's not quite the same.

I thought the question was more rhetorical than anything else (how could you not know what a theologian is?), so I took the liberty of focusing on what makes an “arm-chair theologian", rather than a real theologian. That's much more interesting ... and relevant to this discussion.

But, OK, I'll play along.

What makes someone a theologian? Well, how about bona fide credentials?

MRyan said:
What makes someone a theologian? Well, how about bona fide credentials?

Hans Kung had those.

"It is an absolutely unique success of the church community to have introduced such an epoch-making change, in just a few years, without having a serious division."
Hans Kung

I wonder did he ever take a peek at a typical Catholic Forums.

BTW MR, your new years resolution is holding out really well despite provocation.

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. Therefore, the "consensus" is not Universal and Constant , but instead only falls under that of the "ordinary consensus". A Catholic is not to adhere to the ordinary teachings of the Church unless it is Universal and Constant, of which baptism of desire is not.
Besides, even if you are correct, then regardless of what the great doctors and saints thought and taught - no matter that there were a million of them that all taught the same thing - one infallible declaration from one pope, will, can and has squashed them all.
The Pope, when he speaks ex cathedra, does so for a specific purpose, namely to repeat what has already been infallibly declared, to settle the issue for all time and remove even the remotest possibility of ambiguity for all time, that is why it is called a *Defined* dogma. One might even call it a statement that is ipso facto explained clearly. It comes to us pre-interpreted so as to be sure there is no room for the Holy Ghost to mis-communicate to us .

God can neither deceive nor be deceived. Ex cathedra declarations mean that the Holy Ghost assures the faithful that He will not allow any shadow of error or otherwise ambiguous statement to escape the lips of the Pope.

Nor does the Pope need anyone's approval, his ex cathedra pronouncement is the final say regardless of what a council full of bishops and cardinals might say, regardless of what doctors of the Church or saints might have said or taught, regardless of what MRyan says - His declaration (as long as it is ex cathedra) comes pre-defined so that *anyone* who attempts to re-interpret will only achieve reformulating the declaration into a meaningless formula like it is today. Plus, because ex cathedra pronouncements come from God the Holy Ghost (through the pope), they mean exactly what they say - forever.

Ex cathedra pronouncements are there to protect the faithful, not leave one wondering "what does *that* mean" so that MRyan can come along and enlighten us all to its true meaning in the name of a more profound understanding.
Whoever believes the Holy Ghost would allow a Pope to declare an ex cathedra dogma that does not mean *exactly* what it says, is open to re-interpretation or is otherwise unclear and does not mean exactly what it says, then they must admit their own error and examine their own thinking because they are accusing God of universal and intentional deception - or they are accusing God of incompetence.

From the First Vatican Council:
Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding .

Do you seriously think that were the Pope to once again infallibly define the sacred dogma that he could say anything different than that which has already been infallibly defined?

MRyan wrote:I thought the question was more rhetorical than anything else (how could you not know what a theologian is?), so I took the liberty of focusing on what makes an “arm-chair theologian", rather than a real theologian. That's much more interesting ... and relevant to this discussion.

But, OK, I'll play along.

What makes someone a theologian? Well, how about bona fide credentials?

It wasn't rhetorical. After years on Catholic forums, I've learned it's best not to make assumptions about how people define terms. I was just curious, since you kept painting everyone here as an arm-chair theologian without really knowing the background/education of everyone posting. Does one need a doctorate in theology alongside the graces of priestly ordination and a listing of published articles/books to be a real theologian? It does not really matter to the discussion here, I was just curious since your "arm-chair" comments came across as intended insults of sorts...

Sorry, MarianLibriarian, but I’m not buying it.

My “arm-chair theologian” comments had a specific context that you seem to want to ignore. When someone challenges the “theology” of a universal moral consensus of Doctors and theologians on a doctrinal matter that the Church just so happens to accept and to teach as her own doctrine, and without embarrassment declares on his own authority, or the authority of a couple of notorious internet apologists, that these Doctors and the universal consensus of theologians are wrong and that neither they nor the Church understands her own dogmas in the proper sense as it was “once declared”, especially when it is clear that these same internet apologists have no theological training whatsoever, that is an “arm-chair theologian”.

As another example, see my last post on the matter of Fr. Harrison and the Holy Office Letter where I said that Fr. Harrison’s evidence and solid testimony (he can actually read the Latin directive) will not “slow down the ‘arm-chair’ experts in ecclesiology and canon law” from continuing to voice their “expert” opinion that the Letter is “formally defective”; even to accuse Fr. Harrison of “willful deception” when it is clear that these people are not competent in such matters as determining what is and what is not an “official” intervention of the Holy Office.

You also said that I paint “everyone here as an arm-chair theologian without really knowing the background/education of everyone posting”; when that is clearly not the case. My comments were directed at a relatively small number of people and it does not take a rocket-scientist to know that these same people, by the way they present their arguments, have no theological training, but they do have a lot of moxy. So I can only take your perception that my comments were “intended insults of sorts” with a grain of salt. You will read into my comments whatever you want.

Btw, it is not necessarily an “insult” to be called an arm-chair theologian, I am one as well -- but at least I know my limits and attempt to understand the teachings of the Doctors and approved theologians; especially on a matter where the Church teaches the same doctrine. Theologians are not infallible, but that does not give anyone the right to sweep their universal testimony off the table as if it was a pile of trash when the only thing they can offer in rebuttal is theological junk food.

Whatever your problem with my so-called "intended insults", I hope you can get over it and get back to addressing the arguments you said you would attend to when you have the time.