The Compendium of the Catholic Church on BOD

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:Popes can err. Even the present Pope, in his most recent book, stated that. As I said, the CCC is not the first edition, but the second. Compare the two sometime and judge for yourself. I did not agree with Pope Benedict's comments here recently on the use of condoms, and I am thankful that the CDF clarified his remarks. IMHO, not far enough, but it's a start. So, traditional Catholics can hope for a third edition of the Catechism, until then, the Roman Catechism is just fine (even the section on Baptism of Desire.)

No one said that a pope cannot “err”; but you have accused the Pope and the CCC of teaching formal heresy.

I’m sorry, but I must have missed where his “condoms” comments ended up in the authentic and ordinary teaching document called the CCC.

It’s amazing that you don’t know the difference between error and “formal heresy”. Let us know when the third edition comes out which will surely “correct” the “formal heresy” of St. Thomas Aquinas on the “implicit desire” for the sacrament. Until then, the CCC is just fine, but should be "rejected" by all traditional Catholics for teaching “formal heresy”.

Now that you’ve been found out, would you care to formally retract your charge of “formal heresy” since you now say that the CCC is just fine?

You can’t have it both ways.

I do not know when one crosses the line separating theological error into the realm of formal heresy. I have stated, explicitly, that only the Church can make such a judgment. If you look at the case of Pope John XXII, his ideas of the Beatific Vision were not judged as being formal heresy right from the start. He preached his ideas for years, and only later on, as Pope, did the Church come to recognize that what he was teaching was formal heresy. His successor corrected the matter, once and for all.

The same is true of the CCC. The article that you posted from the St. Benedict Center went a long away, I admit, towards changing my view of the CCC. One reason that I am taking a break from the forum is to read some more of the literature which Rasha has emailed me.

I admit that I am not a theologian, but unlike many (or, perhaps, most) of them, I do not believe in gay sex, so I consider myself way ahead of them. But, yes, I am still learning, aren't we all?

As for the "formal charge," I do not know that I made one. I did use the word "perhaps."

Then take some time to study-up; Lord knows we all need to and that it is a never-ending process, and I can attest to that.

You did say “perhaps” there are errors and even formal heresies in the CCC, but then gave a specific example of what IS in fact "formal heresy":

Traditional Catholics should reject the CCC because it contains, at a minimum, theological errors, perhaps even formal heresies. Applying baptism of desire to those who do not have an explicit vow to receive it is a formal heresy. The Council of Florence forever nipped in the bud that one.

I'll let it go.

I’m not sure what Rasha sent you, and I’m almost afraid to ask.

MRyan wrote:Then take some time to study-up; Lord knows we all need to and that it is a never-ending process, and I can attest to that.

You did say “perhaps” there are errors and even formal heresies in the CCC, but then gave a specific example of what IS in fact "formal heresy":

Traditional Catholics should reject the CCC because it contains, at a minimum, theological errors, perhaps even formal heresies. Applying baptism of desire to those who do not have an explicit vow to receive it is a formal heresy. The Council of Florence forever nipped in the bud that one.

I'll let it go.

I’m not sure what Rasha sent you, and I’m almost afraid to ask.

Paragraph 1261, but that has been resolved to my satisfaction. As for Saint Thomas, his notion of "implicit desire for Baptism," would always, eventually (and probably, soon), translate into a vow for Baptism for the individual in question. BTW, I consider the August 8, 1949 letter to have contained some formal heresies, which were dropped in the documents of Vatican II. But, we can discuss that next time. Until then...

Jehanne,

Until then...

I was going to say your mouse has more lives than a cat.

And when you come back . . . make sure it's a Church mouse.

Happy reading, Jehanne. I look forward to some insights.

God be with you,

tornpage

Jehanne wrote: BTW, I consider the August 8, 1949 letter to have contained some formal heresies, which were dropped in the documents of Vatican II. But, we can discuss that next time. Until then...

And I will be happy to correct such misguided notions upon your return.

God speed.

Jehanne,

Give this from the great Leo XIII some thought:

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.

tornpage

tornpage wrote:Jehanne,

Give this from the great Leo XIII some thought:

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.

tornpage

Hmm, I read this quote over and over.

It’s true that graces come to us all the time outside of the sacraments as in using sacramentals such as the Rosary, Scapular, Miraculous Medal, Holy Water etc. and just by praying and doing good works for the love of God. However to grow in Sanctifying Grace one needs first to be baptized. That’s the starting point. Once you become a child of God, you have certain rights that the heathen doesn’t.

Does baptism of desire entitle one to receive Holy Communion or even Penance?

God gives actual graces all the time to bring people to the Faith which of itself is freely given.

Rasha, if you read it over and over again, it should be clear to you that Pope Leo XIII is not in this instance referring to sacramentals like the Rosary; he is quite specific when he teaches “but the ordinary and chief means of obtaining grace are external: that is to say, the sacraments.”

He is clearly saying that there is both an internal and an external (the ordinary and chief means) of obtaining heavenly (sanctifying) grace. And this fits perfectly with the Church understanding of “baptism and the desire thereof”.

Furthermore, when he says that "nothing is more internal than heavenly grace which begets sanctity"; the sacramentals are not "heavenly grace which beget sanctity", they are external devotions and instruments which beget an increase in (not the obtainment of) sanctity.

MarianLibrarian wrote:

MRyan wrote:

MarianLibrarian wrote:
Papal Encyclicals and Ecumenical Councils are more authoritative than any catechisms.

Now there's a rash and inaccurate statement.

How so?

Papal Encyclicals and Ecumenical Councils cannot be revised. Catechisms are revised all the time. Besides, as RashaLampa has quoted so often: "The individual doctrines which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess." Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 26. (I own this book, have verified the quote... and read through the book in its entirety since it's pretty short)

I find it slightly odd that you would cite Cardinal Ratzinger on the weight given to individual teachings of the CCC, when he said the exact same thing about the weight given to individuals teachings of VCII.

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

Disciplines and laws, as well as explications on faith and morals which are non-revealed, non-definitive teachings; are reformable, and thus, are subject to revision.

In fact, a teaching within a particular Encyclical may have no more weight, and even a lesser weight, than a teaching found within the CCC. Again, whether a teaching is presented within the CCC or an Encyclical, each serves as an authentic organ or vehicle of the Ordinary Magisterium which may “set forth … in a non-definitive way” teachings that “receive no other weight than that which they already possess” and “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.”

Btw, this even applies to the individual non-defined/non-definitive teachings of VCII, as is clearly articulated by the famous Nota Previa of November 16, 1964, which, citing the conclusion of the Doctrinal Commission, March 6, 1964, said:

Taking into account Conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present council, the sacred synod defined as binding on the Church only those matters of faith and morals which it has expressly put forward as such.

Whatever else it proposes as the teaching of the supreme Magisterium of the Church is to be acknowledge and accepted by each and every member of the faithful according to the mind of the Council, which is clear form the subject matter and its formulation, following the norms of theological interpretation.

So, it is certainly true that General Councils are, but their very Supreme nature, generally more authoritative than a Papal Encyclical (Encyclicals may also be an organ of the Supreme Magisterium); and, Encyclicals in general tend to be more "authoritative” than the CCC by the simple fact that they tend to settle various matters in a more authoritative manner.

However, when it comes to the actual presentation or explication of non-revealed and non-definitive individual Catholic doctrines, the "weight" of each proposal, whatever the chosen authentic organ of transmission, may vary as the required adherence is “differentiated according to the mind and the will manifested”.

Now, let me ask you a question. Do you believe that the weight given to a particular established teaching presented within the CCC or a Papal Allocution can be “zero”? Isn’t that the weight you suggest should be given to the “theological opinion” called baptism of desire?

Hi Everyone,

Still not done reading my materials, but I'll jump in here briefly:

1) Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, as presented in the CCC, can be fully reconciled with the teachings of Father Feeney. Within Feeneyism, both ideas would constitute null sets, that is, while being theological hypotheticals, they will never occur in reality. Yes, the One and Triune God is not bound by His Sacraments, but he is bound by His Word, so he will never, ever bring someone to eternal life except through Baptism of Water. In His absolute sovereignty over His Creation, He does not need Baptism of Desire and/or Baptism of Blood.

2) Vatican II never taught the salvation of non-Catholics as non-Catholics, so the Council is fully reconcilable with the Council of Florence.

More later. Should be back in a week or two.

Hi Jehanne,

I don’t think the Church is in the business of teaching “null sets”. While there is nothing wrong with saying that baptism of blood/baptism of desire may never occur in reality, there is a problem when you suggest that God’s Word binds Him exclusively to the sacrament for regeneration and eternal life (He does bind Himself to the sacrament in the sense that no one can be saved without its essential effect and that regeneration cannot occur without at least the desire for it).

The Church is the sole authority for determining what the Word of God means, and that includes John 3:5; so it is a bit rash to tell us what the words mean to God when the Church teaches otherwise.

Actually the Church has bound heaven and earth to the doctrine that no adult can be initially justified without the sacrament of baptism, or the desire for it.

See you in a week or two.