BOD in the Magisterium

For those who hold 'baptism of desire' to be a doctrine of the Church as opposed to a theological opinion... is there another doctrine of the Church in which the Magisterium has not used the phrase explicitly in any Papal or Conciliar document?

Secondly, BOD has an undefined meaning even for its holders. Some hold BOD only for catechumens or those with explicit faith and intention to receive the Sacrament. Others hold BOD for practically everyone in hopes of a kind of 'universal salvation'. Is there another doctrine of the Church so ambiguously taught?

I am not trying to be rhetorical, I am looking for a frame of reference.

For those who hold 'baptism of desire' to be a doctrine of the Church as opposed to a theological opinion... is there another doctrine of the Church in which the Magisterium has not used the phrase explicitly in any Papal or Conciliar document?

I don't know offhand, but so what? BOD is a shorthand for what is undeniably "said" in Trent, Session VI, Chapter IV, and that's Conciliar. But even if you were right, what conclusion are you trying to draw from that? The Magisterial authority for BOD is overwhelming.

tornpage

Trent actually taught against BoD. I'm amazed how many so called "traditional" catholics misreads what Trent actually said.

Also, to believe in BoD is essentially the same as believing in the Protestant heresy of "Faith Alone" apart from works. So those who hold to BoD are essentially holding to a Protestant heretical teaching which began with Luther.

tornpage wrote:

For those who hold 'baptism of desire' to be a doctrine of the Church as opposed to a theological opinion... is there another doctrine of the Church in which the Magisterium has not used the phrase explicitly in any Papal or Conciliar document?

I don't know offhand, but so what? BOD is a shorthand for what is undeniably "said" in Trent, Session VI, Chapter IV, and that's Conciliar. But even if you were right, what conclusion are you trying to draw from that? The Magisterial authority for BOD is overwhelming.

As I said above, I'm trying to get a frame of reference. You know, to say, "Well, BOD is like [such and such] doctrine of the Church" as far as explicit references and explanations are concerned. Right now it's like, "believe all these explicitly laid out teachings, oh, and this one which has no clear outline and a title which has never been used in a Papal Encyclical or Conciliar document" :?:

The Council of Trent is not at all clear on BOD. The phrase "or the desire thereof" explains nothing. Says nothing about charity, faith, or ignorance, etc. It seems more likely to me at this point that the Council was speaking against forced baptisms (a practice which has been explicitly condemned by multiple Popes).

The phrase "or the desire thereof" explains nothing.

You can't avoid that it is a phrase, and has meaning. And that meaning has been elucidated by the Magisterium, and many saints and theologians. Indeed, even elucidated by the Catechism which shortly followed after Trent. To say it "explains nothing" is an attempt at avoidance.

What does it mean? Are you going to tell me that the "or" actually means "and"? Go ahead. Tell us what it does "mean," since you throw out the elucidation of the Magisterium and the saints like St. Alphonsus.

Catholic_Truth wrote:Trent actually taught against BoD. I'm amazed how many so called "traditional" catholics misreads what Trent actually said.

Now that is one of the most infamous gratuitous falsehoods ever perpetuated by the arm-chair non-Latinists and non-theologians who cannot support this fable with a single credible fact. Not one.

Instead, by way of example, we have some guy who does not know Latin (and an agenda to push his novel theory) to “read Trent” for us and then sends the Latin text of Session 6, Ch. 4 to some non-Catholic secular Latin professor who does not understand the context, let alone the actual teaching, and who replied, “well sure, I guess it could mean ‘or’ or ‘and’; it would depend on the intention of the author” (or something to that effect.) Aha, proof positive that the Church and every single pope, saint, theologian, doctor, school, official commentary and Roman and local Catechism ever to comment and/or present the Church’s universal understanding and teaching on this passage is wrong (you, know; popes, scholastics and approved theologians who were/are actually fluent in ecclesiastical Latin), and that some pontificating internet guru is right!

What more proof do we need that the Church hi-jacked Trent and suppressed the “true teaching”? Why, it’s a giant conspiracy against the “truth” that was set in motion immediately after Trent! I mean, the conspirators were even on the Trent Catechism commission! Look, those “traditional” Catholics who got sucked into this Church sponsored BoD conspiracy don’t even understand the “obvious” meaning of the Canons of Trent!

Forget "The Da Vinci Code"; "The Aquinas Code" will reveal the true meaning of Trent (coming soon to a theater near you).

Also, to believe in BoD is essentially the same as believing in the Protestant heresy of "Faith Alone" apart from works. So those who hold to BoD are essentially holding to a Protestant heretical teaching which began with Luther.

No, it is not “essentially” the same thing; not even close. In fact, the difference is what sets us apart from Protestants and the heretical doctrines Trent condemned.

Sigh.

Hey “Catholic_truth”; did you know that the sede guys you are always defending and promoting condemn you as a non-Catholic manifest heretic? Did you know that? So go ahead, keep pushing their junk.

MRyan,

I was hoping you'd jump in this thread... but moreso hoping you'd answer the OP since you seem to have a more solid grasp of BOD.

tornpage wrote:

The phrase "or the desire thereof" explains nothing.

You can't avoid that it is a phrase, and has meaning. And that meaning has been elucidated by the Magisterium, and many saints and theologians. Indeed, even elucidated by the Catechism which shortly followed after Trent. To say it "explains nothing" is an attempt at avoidance.

GREAT! So show me the Magisterial statements where the meaning of 'or the desire thereof' is so clearly eludidated by the Magisterium. Why didn't you provide these texts in your first response to this thread?

tornpage wrote:What does it mean? Are you going to tell me that the "or" actually means "and"? Go ahead. Tell us what it does "mean," since you throw out the elucidation of the Magisterium and the saints like St. Alphonsus.

No need for sarcasm. I'm asking questions... I'm trying to learn. You assume too much by pretending that I throw out "the elucidation of the Magisterium"... that's exactly what I've been asking for since the OP!!!

MRyan wrote:

Catholic_Truth wrote:Trent actually taught against BoD. I'm amazed how many so called "traditional" catholics misreads what Trent actually said.

Now that is one of the most infamous gratuitous falsehoods ever perpetuated by the arm-chair non-Latinists and non-theologians who cannot support this fable with a single credible fact. Not one.

The Council of Trent (Sess, IV, cap, vi) justification can not be obtained, since the
promulgation of the Gospel, without the washing of regeneration or the desire thereof

TO SAY THAT SOMETHING CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT “X” OR “X” IS NOT NECESSARILY TO SAY THAT SOMETHING CAN TAKE PLACE WITH EITHER “X” OR “X”,... no man can be saved without at least the desire/vow for the waters of baptism. If a man was Baptized with Water, but had no desire for it, then his Baptism is null and void as though it never happened. Therefore all who submit to the required Water Baptismal Sacrament must also have a desire to receive it.

The Council of Trent defines as a dogma that the Sacrament of Baptism (Baptism of Water) is necessary for salvation. This must be confessed by all Catholics, and all who deny it are anathematized. All baptism of desire advocates do not hold that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.

Ask any Catholic Priest if baptism of desire is considered a "sacrament" and he will say "NO". Only WATER BAPTISM is taught by the Catholic Church to be the only "Sacramental" Baptism.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, 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.”

Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are heretical teachings which the Novus Ordo Vatican II liberal modernist use as a way to convince the faithful that those "OUTSIDE THE CHURCH" can receive salvation.

here below is the Infallible dogmatic teaching which a "TRUE TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC" must accept...
"There is no salvation outside the church"

Modernists claim that Vatican II brought a new enlightenment, a deeper understanding of past dogmas

"Vatican I" says that we are to believe in dogmatic teachings as they were originally taught and "Vatican I" condemns any attempt to re-invent Church teachings in the name of a "deeper understanding"

Why didn't you provide these texts in your first response to this thread?

Listen, it was mostly a matter of time.

Yet when I was a rabid Feeneyite I had read the Catechism of Trent, Father Mueller, Bishop Hay, St. Alphonsus, the annotation of the Rheims NT of 1500 whatever it was, the current Catechism, the Compendium, the Holy Office Letter, the Catechism of Pius X, etc. etc. I dismissed them and disagreed with them, and argued against them, when I insisted that baptism was necessary for salvation, but I knew them. I took the position that they "weren't infallible," therefore I could ignore them or "reject" them.

Do you not know these authorities and yet pontificate about BOD? That would be pretty irresponsible.

Do you claim these authorities do not speak for the Magisterium or that they can be ignored because they are not infallible? If the latter, what authority or deference do you owe them, my fellow Catholic?

tornpage

Marian,

You might just not know them - i.e. the authorities of which I speak - and then I apologize, and note that I have pointed you in a good direction.

But I find it a bit hard to assume "ignorance" of the sources and a pure thirst for knowledge and the gleaning of a foundation for an opinion in someone who says this:"It seems more likely to me at this point that the Council was speaking against forced baptisms (a practice which has been explicitly condemned by multiple Popes)."

That doesn't sound like someone whose shy about taking a stance while they see what the Church has to say. You imply that you know enough to say "it seems likely . . . " There's certainly nothing in the text of the Trent passage which mentions desire to suggest "forced" baptisms.

tornpage

tornpage,

Where have I "pontificated about BOD"?

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.. I have been reading (and re-reading) as many Papal encyclicals, letters, etc. searching for a similar account as regards BOD that leaves no manner of being interpreted otherwise. I am not an encyclopedia, so I am asking those here that support BOD as a doctrine rather than a theological opinion to point me to sources that clearly outline BOD in the Magisterium. Is BOD 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?

I have a strong Marian devotion. When someone asks me about Mary as Co-Redemptrix, a doctrine of our Blessed Mother not yet defined dogmatically, I can point to multiple places where Popes have used the title, and multiple places where Popes and Councils have explicitly laid out this role of Our Lady and what is meant by the title Co-Redemptrix.

I am asking for the same regarding BOD. Where is this doctrine clearly laid out in the Magisterium? How can groups like the Benedictines in Still River, and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart in Richmond be in union and communion with their local bishop and still continue to teach EENS as Fr. Feeney understood it if BOD is more than a theological opinion?

I acknowledge BOD to be a theological opinion, I am trying here to understand why/how BOD is considered to be Catholic doctrine?

BOD is a theological opinion. Trent never defined it. If that Council had defined it, the Council Fathers would have made the dogma absolutely clear:

Canon ?: If anyone says that the vow for Baptism is not sufficient for salvation for the catechumen only who, through no fault of his own, is unable to receive sacramental Baptism, let him be anathema.

Like Limbo, BoB/BoD are theological opinions. If is de fide that infants and children before the age of reason who die without sacramental Baptism do not attain Heaven, the Beatific Vision. Where they end-up is squarely in the realm of theological opinion. The same is true of catechumens (and only catechumens, not pagans, Jews, infidels, etc.) who die without Baptism. Since Saint Thomas, Limbo has been widely held as a theological opinion, yet it has never been defined.

MarianLibrarian wrote:MRyan,

I was hoping you'd jump in this thread... but moreso hoping you'd answer the OP since you seem to have a more solid grasp of BOD.

Hi Marian,

I don't know about the "solid grasp", but I'll give it a shot.

In reference to your other post, I own the book as well, and I’m sure you are familiar with this part:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June 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.

And didn’t you suggest elsewhere that, as “theological constructions”, BoD and BoB do not represent authentic teachings of the Church’s Magisterium?

Let’s try this again; please tell us why the following teachings within the CCC are not what JPII called “statement[s] of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium”:

1258 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.

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.

Are you going to suggest that these teachings, presented by the Church to the universal faithful within the same CCC, are in fact pure theological speculations; and thus, they are not statements of the Church's faith, and they are not catholic doctrines attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium?

I have yet to receive a reply to this very basic and fundamental question, except from certain Feeneyites who reject theses teachings outright and reject the CCC as having any authority except that which they choose to give it. That’s seems a rather radical stance when we consider that John Hagan, for example, past rector of the Irish College in Rome and the author of A Compendium of Catechetical Instruction, is cited in the Introduction to my edition of The Catechism of the Council of Trent as saying:

“The Roman Catechism is a work of exceptional authority … it is an authoritative exposition of Catholic doctrine given forth, and guaranteed to be orthodox by the Catholic Church and her supreme head on earth … Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de fide”.

The CCC has the same authority as the Catechism of the Council of Trent. No?

Moving on, in reference to your Intro to the Catechism citation, it is also true that “the individual doctrines which Papal Encyclicals and Ecumenical Councils present receive no other weight than that which they already possess”. There is no automatic superior “weight” given to an individual teaching within a papal Encyclical, for example, that cannot be of the same or even of a lesser weight than a teaching in the Roman Catechism.

Whether the teaching is proposed or explicated in an Encyclical, a document of a Council or a Roman Catechism, the ultimate authority is the same - the supreme teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff. It is true that a Council may enjoy a greater degree of protection from error due to its universal and collegial nature, but its individual teachings are only as authoritative as that intended by the supreme teacher (in union with the college of Bishops).

The teachings within Papal Encyclicals and Ecumenical Councils that are not part of revelation or are not “definitive”, are, by their very nature, reformable; and thus, subject to revision. So your statement that “Papal Encyclicals and Ecumenical Councils cannot be revised” is simply false. Note that I did not say they are reformable because they might be “erroneous”, though the theoretical possibility still exists due to poor translations, mistakes in editing, or simply an unintentional misstatement.

The same is true for universal Roman Catechisms, whose individual teachings may carry the same authority as teachings within Encyclicals and Councils. The authority for each individual teaching is only as authoritative as that intended by the supreme teacher; however, all such authority requires, at the minimum, submission of the mind and will:

DOCTRINAL COMMENTARY ON THE CONCLUDING FORMULA OF THE PROFESSIO FIDEI, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [This commentary was issued coincident with the promulgation of "Ad tuendam fidem" by Pope John Paul II, modifying the Oriental and Latin codes of canon law]

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

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.[39]

Again “I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings …the Roman Pontiff … enunciate[s]” in the exercise of his “authentic Magisterium … 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”[/quote]

Now, compare the two:

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church … 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”

Are we making any progress?

MRyan,

I was moreso hoping you'd respond to the OP...

1. Whether there is another doctrine taught by the Church which is not explicitly mentioned in any Papal or Conciliar document?
or
2. Whether there is another doctrine so ambiguously taught?

I do not 'reject' the CCC. The inclusion of BOD is the inclusion of a theological opinion (which does not demand the assent of faith)... otherwise, wouldn't there be a more defined idea of what BOD actually consists of? Whether perfect charity and/or explicit faith are necessary? ... Some who hold BOD teach that both are necessary (saying an 'invincibly ignorant' person would be supernaturally enlightened before the moment of their death). Others who hold BOD present it as a kind of universal salvation where very little is needed to 'qualify' for BOD. So which is it? Where is this 'doctrine' clearly laid out as to what it is, what it consists of, what is necessary, etc.?

Theological opinions are not necessarily 'evil' things as seems to be the picture painted of them. When I took a Mariology class in college, our professor was of the opinion that Our Lady suffered death as a kind of perfect discipleship before her assumption; other students were furious at this idea and insisted that she did not and could not suffer death without violating the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and her Assumption (death would make these graces "less perfect" etc.). We had some good debates about it. I can see both sides of the coin, and I am not bound to make an assent of faith to either opinion, so long as it remains theological opinion.

Trent said one can be justified by the desire for baptism:

Council of Trent

CHAPTER IV.
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being 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. 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.

This is infallible, which means it is true and cannot be contradicted. Even when I supported the necessity of baptism for salvation I recognized that; however, I argued that the Latin "aut" meant "or" in a conjunctive sense, like "you can't make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich without peanut butter or jelly." Which makes sense as an English construction, but it's a bit ridiculous when you consider how the Church - and almost every saint and theologian who has addressed it - has interpreted it, with their knowledge of Latin.

The laver and the desire are either like peanut butter and jelly in a PBJ sandwich or separate and alternate routes to justification. You have to make a credible argument for that "aut" meaning "or" in a conjunctive sense to claim that the Church has never authoritatively and infallibly indicated that a desire for baptism (BOD) can justify. If you can't, you have to give up your position that it is impossible for there to be justification and salvation without the sacrament of baptism if you're a reasonable man or woman.

It's that simple.

tornpage

Not with me. Given JP II's and Benedict's statements on infant Baptism (as well as other statements), I have my doubts if they are even Catholic. However, even if that is the case, Pope Benedict is probably still the Pope even if he has excommunicated himself, at least until a quorum of traditional Catholic bishops declare him to be a heretic and elect a new Pope.

Jehanne wrote:Not with me. Given JP II's and Benedict's statements on infant Baptism (as well as other statements), I have my doubts if they are even Catholic. However, even if that is the case, Pope Benedict is probably still the Pope even if he has excommunicated himself, at least until a quorum of traditional Catholic bishops declare him to be a heretic and elect a new Pope.

Hey! Don't muddy my thread with off topic stuff! Make your own thread!

MarianLibrarian wrote:

Jehanne wrote:Not with me. Given JP II's and Benedict's statements on infant Baptism (as well as other statements), I have my doubts if they are even Catholic. However, even if that is the case, Pope Benedict is probably still the Pope even if he has excommunicated himself, at least until a quorum of traditional Catholic bishops declare him to be a heretic and elect a new Pope.

Hey! Don't muddy my thread with off topic stuff! Make your own thread!

I am not sure why you think that I am "mudding" your thread. They are, IMHO, making a valid point. If you accept Popes JP II and Benedict as being, unquestionably, valid, reigning Popes, then, yes, should accept their teachings. If that is, indeed, the case, then the other posters in this thread are correct, and you are wrong.

You cannot have your (theological) cake and eat it, too! I am not arguing for the sede position; I am just saying that it is a possibility.

Jehanne wrote:

MarianLibrarian wrote:

Jehanne wrote:Not with me. Given JP II's and Benedict's statements on infant Baptism (as well as other statements), I have my doubts if they are even Catholic. However, even if that is the case, Pope Benedict is probably still the Pope even if he has excommunicated himself, at least until a quorum of traditional Catholic bishops declare him to be a heretic and elect a new Pope.

Hey! Don't muddy my thread with off topic stuff! Make your own thread!

I am not sure why you think that I am "mudding" your thread. They are, IMHO, making a valid point. If you accept Popes JP II and Benedict as being, unquestionably, valid, reigning Popes, then, yes, should accept their teachings. If that is, indeed, the case, then the other posters in this thread are correct, and you are wrong.

You cannot have your (theological) cake and eat it, too! I am not arguing for the sede position; I am just saying that it is a possibility.

All right then, so where do either Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI use the phrase "baptism of desire" in a Papal Encyclical, Apostolic Constitution, Exhortation, etc?

We have a sedevacantism debate thread you know.

The CCC is authoritative. I see that you are now a moderator, so I say this with respect, but the other posters have provided explicit evidence as to the authoritative nature of the CCC and your assent to the teachings contained therein. If it's in the Catechism (and it is), therefore, it is an explicit, authoritative expression of the Catholic faith. My problem with the CCC is that it, IMHO, contains manifestly and objectively heretical teachings.

Remember, however, as I have pointed out, that the CCC is in its second edition. The first edition got revised after JP II tried to introduce some of his more blatantly heretical teachings on the death penalty. He backed-off of those but not on much of his other modernistic nonsense.

MarianLibrarian wrote:MRyan,

I do not 'reject' the CCC. The inclusion of BOD is the inclusion of a theological opinion (which does not demand the assent of faith)... otherwise, wouldn't there be a more defined idea of what BOD actually consists of?

I like to get to the point. Did you read my response? Did I suggest anywhere that BoD demanded the assent of faith?

I did not, but I provided plenty of evidence from the teaching authority of the Church that BoD/BoB are authentic doctrines requiring the religious submission of the mind and will.

It would seem you are skirting the real issue. In light of the authority of the CCC, and in light of The third proposition of the Professio fidei, I am suggesting that the teachings on BoD and BoB, as they are presented in the CCC (see previous post) are authentic teachings of the Church, and as such, they require the religious submission of the mind and will because of (from the Professio fide):

1) The authoritative nature of the CCC
2) By the frequent repetition of the same doctrine (tradition and other official Church documents)
3) By the tenor of the verbal expres​sion(such as "The Church has always held the firm conviction....")

If you do not believe that these teaching are authentic doctrinal expressions of the Church, then it is up to you to demonstrate why they are not, and why the Church is in error. I am not concerned with "mental reservations"; I am trying to focus on what the Church teaches - and our obligation to submit to her teaching authority.

I will respond to your original question in due time, but I think this is more important.

RashaLampa wrote: We have a sedevacantism debate thread you know.

I am not advancing the sede position!! Please, take my word on this. I am just saying that the other posters in this thread are correct in their theology. As for me, I am an "agnostic" when it comes to the sede position. I am, however, not here in this forum to promote it.

Jehanne wrote: I see that you are now a moderator, so I say this with respect,

Don't worry, the forum rules apply no matter who is moderator. This is not CAF, sedevacantism discussions are allowed here the main concern is that we stay on topic and that people do not sling personal insults at each other.

Jehanne wrote:I am just saying that the other posters in this thread are correct in their theology.

Peter Vere, a Canon Lawyer, does not agree with this. Can't accuse him of being an "armchair theologian".

MRyan,

I did read your post. Can you clarify what you mean/what the religious respect ('submission') of mind and will entails and how this is separate from the assent of faith?

You have not sufficiently demonstrated that BOD is more than theological opinion (this is what my OP is effectively asking which you have said you will respond to in due time).

Jehanne wrote:The CCC is authoritative. I see that you are now a moderator, so I say this with respect, but the other posters have provided explicit evidence as to the authoritative nature of the CCC and your assent to the teachings contained therein.

No worries, I have no intention of letting the power go to my head.

As stated previously, I do not reject the CCC. I recognize BOD as a theological opinion, this very thread is about where the Church has defined BOD as more than that in some Papal or Conciliar document.

I think we all need some help here.

I'm having a big problem with BOD as merely "theological opinion" when the Council of Trent authoritatively proclaimed that one can be justified by the desire for the laver. Now, it is conceded that it did not define what that desire is, but it did say that desire can suffice for justification, if leaving the precise elaboration or definition of that desire for later - or it simply was satisfied that it would be interpreted as St. Thomas and others have understood it.

In any event, I do not accept the "or desire thereof" of Trent's Session VI, Chapter IV as mere opinion.

MarianLibrarian wrote:MRyan,

I did read your post. Can you clarify what you mean/what the religious respect ('submission') of mind and will entails and how this is separate from the assent of faith?

You have not sufficiently demonstrated that BOD is more than theological opinion (this is what my OP is effectively asking which you have said you will respond to in due time).

Marian,

When the Church presents (in her universal Catechism) an authentic universal teaching to the faithful, especially one carrying such a universal moral consensus and pedigree as BoB/BoD, she is not presenting a "theological speculation" that you are free to accept or reject, she is presenting Catholic truth. If you have a problem with that TRUTH, you might have some options, none of which entail "rejection".

I will clarify the distinctions - when I can. Have to run.

tornpage wrote:Trent said one can be justified by the desire for baptism:

Council of Trent

CHAPTER IV.
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being 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. 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.

This is infallible, which means it is true and cannot be contradicted. Even when I supported the necessity of baptism for salvation I recognized that; however, I argued that the Latin "aut" meant "or" in a conjunctive sense, like "you can't make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich without peanut butter or jelly." Which makes sense as an English construction, but it's a bit ridiculous when you consider how the Church - and almost every saint and theologian who has addressed it - has interpreted it, with their knowledge of Latin.

The laver and the desire are either like peanut butter and jelly in a PBJ sandwich or separate and alternate routes to justification. You have to make a credible argument for that "aut" meaning "or" in a conjunctive sense to claim that the Church has never authoritatively and infallibly indicated that a desire for baptism (BOD) can justify. If you can't, you have to give up your position that it is impossible for there to be justification and salvation without the sacrament of baptism if you're a reasonable man or woman.

It's that simple.

tornpage

I'm interested in this point, "..Or the desire thereof," as these are the only few words on the subject of BoD in the whole of Church teaching that can be presented as being binding on the faithful; yet the very words presented as proof of BoD by some can be used with equal force to refute it (as was pointed out in an earlier post) by others.

How is this possible?
It would be such an easy matter to hold the same meaning as you do if it weren't for those "spoil sport" infallible pronouncements which contradict this meaning.
Baptism can't be both necessary and unnecessary at the same time!
There is absolutely no way round this. If ,"or the desire thereof" means that sacramental baptism is not totally necessary, then the Council of Trent has contradicted itself.

If, on the other hand, it holds the meaning as outlined by MarianLibrarian, then the whole issue is resolved and everyone can rest easy in the knowledge that the Church cannot contradict her own dogmatic declarations.

tornpage wrote:In any event, I do not accept the "or desire thereof" of Trent's Session VI, Chapter IV as mere opinion.

Neither do I. The phrase can easily apply to the condemnation of forced conversions/baptisms as was condemned both before and after Trent explicitly by the Popes.

Pope Innocent III "Assuredly, it is contrary to the Christian faith that one who is unwilling and totally opposed to [being baptized] be constrained to adopt and observe Christianity. For this reason, some make a distinction, which is valid, between those who are unwilling and those who are constrained. It is thus that he who is led to Christianity by violence, by fear, and by torture, and who receives the sacrament of baptism to avoid harm (even as he who comes falsely to baptism), receives indeed the stamp of Christianity and can be obliged to observe the Christian faith, even as he who expresses a conditional will, although in absolute terms he is unwilling... Thus, then the sacramental operation impresses the sign, when it does not meet the resisting obstacle of a contrary will." (Denzinger 411)

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi #104 "Though We desire this unceasing prayer to rise to God from the whole Mystical Body in common, that all the straying sheep may hasten to enter the one fold of Jesus Christ, yet We recognize that this must be done of their own free will; for no one believes unless he wills to believe. Hence they are most certainly not genuine Christians who against their belief are forced to go into a church, to approach the altar and to receive the Sacraments; for the "faith without which it is impossible to please God" is an entirely free "submission of intellect and will. Therefore, whenever it happens, despite the constant teaching of this Apostolic See, that anyone is compelled to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, Our sense of duty demands that We condemn the act."

MRyan wrote:I will clarify the distinctions - when I can. Have to run.

No problem. Get back to me when you can.

RashaLampa wrote:

Jehanne wrote:I am just saying that the other posters in this thread are correct in their theology.

Peter Vere, a Canon Lawyer, does not agree with this. Can't accuse him of being an "armchair theologian".

The CDF, clearly, "outranks" him. It is their opinion that is authoritative, being a Papal arm of the Magisterium.

Jehanne wrote:

RashaLampa wrote:

Jehanne wrote:I am just saying that the other posters in this thread are correct in their theology.

Peter Vere, a Canon Lawyer, does not agree with this. Can't accuse him of being an "armchair theologian".

The CDF, clearly, "outranks" him. It is their opinion that is authoritative, being a Papal arm of the Magisterium.

... What is a "Papal arm of the Magisterium"?

The CDF, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the successor to the Roman Inquisition, has a Papal mandate to make authoritative pronouncements on Catholic doctrine. Here is a recent example:

http://www.sspx.org/news/a_note_from_congregation_of_doctrine_of_faith_re_popes_comments.htm

Jehanne wrote:The CDF, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the successor to the Roman Inquisition, has a Papal mandate to make authoritative pronouncements on Catholic doctrine. Here is a recent example:

http://www.sspx.org/news/a_note_from_congregation_of_doctrine_of_faith_re_popes_comments.htm

I know what the CDF is, I wanted to know what you meant by the phrase "papal arm of the Magisterium" since I'd never heard it before.

Columba,

I'm interested in this point, "..Or the desire thereof," as these are the only few words on the subject of BoD in the whole of Church teaching that can be presented as being binding on the faithful; yet the very words presented as proof of BoD by some can be used with equal force to refute it (as was pointed out in an earlier post) by others.

If you think they can be used with "equal force" to "refute" BOD you've been reading an argument presented somewhere other than here, because no argument of "equal force" has been presented, and there's been no "refutation." Equal force? Refutation? Do tell me you're kidding.

It would be such an easy matter to hold the same meaning as you do if it weren't for those "spoil sport" infallible pronouncements which contradict this meaning.

Their are no infallible pronouncements which contradict this meaning.

Baptism can't be both necessary and unnecessary at the same time!

It is not both necessary and unnecessary at the same time, i.e. for the same person, since we are dealing with people when we speak of salvation. It is not necessary to the person who hasn't heard the gospel. Yet it is necessary for the person who has heard it, and done nothing to enter the Church.

Show me where the Church - not some theologian - has said that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation.

Oh, and while you're at it, show me where the Council of Trent contradicted itself if I'm right (no, actually, if (imagine saying that, if) the Church is right) and "or the desire thereof" means that one might be justified by the desire for baptism.

tornpage

tornpage wrote:Show me where the Church - not some theologian - has said that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent , Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, 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.”

Does the Catholic Church say that BoD is a Sacrament? No it does NOT
Does the Catholic Church say that BoB is a Sacrament? No it does NOT

Therefore the Council of Trent clearly teaches that ONLY through the SACRAMENT of WATER baptism can one receive the gift of Salvation,...all who deny this are anathema.

Marian,

The phrase can easily apply to the condemnation of forced conversions/baptisms as was condemned both before and after Trent explicitly by the Popes.

Let me get this right. So "this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof" means that one cannot be justified by a forced baptism? So you can be justified by x or y actually means you can't be justified by z?

Trent is telling us how people are justified since the promulgation of the gospel, and it is by baptism "or the desire thereof": that is the whole purpose of the section, not condemning forced baptisms.

tornpage

CT,

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent , Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, 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.”

That's it? This is your proof? No wonder you're confused.

You also see the word "optional" in this passage translated as "free." What is being referenced here? If anyone says that baptism is "free," which is glossed as, i.e., "not necessary unto salvation," let him be anathema. Here's my sense: if anyone says that baptism is "free" in the sense of voluntary, i.e. one might forgo it as not necessary, then one is anathema. To persevere in the justification wrought before the sacrament (when and where it happens) one must go on and be baptized in due course unless prevented by some contingency like death. Receiving baptism is not free or voluntary, and I don't know of a single BOD advocate who holds to the Church's teachings that says that. To recognize that BOD can justify or save without the sacrament in some circumstances is not saying baptism is "free" or "not necessary for salvation." The only way you get your reading of this passage is if you take "free" out, which is ridiculous, since the "not necessary for salvation" language is a gloss ("free [or optional], that is, not necessary") on that very word, "free."

The Latin for the word "free" here is "liberum." Interestingly, this word is used in the phrase "free will" in Latin, as in Trent: Sess. VI, cap. i: "Liberum arbitrium minime extinctum, viribus licet attenuatum et inclinatum"). That context highlights what is at play here. Baptism is not voluntary, as in one cannot exercise their "free will" or choice and decide they don't need it. One may be justified by BOD, but baptism remains a necessity in the sense that you cannot decide, freely, to dispense with it.

Your "proof" text doesn't help you at all.

tornpage

tornpage wrote:

Baptism can't be both necessary and unnecessary at the same time!

It is not both necessary and unnecessary at the same time, i.e. for the same person, since we are dealing with people when we speak of salvation. It is not necessary to the person who hasn't heard the gospel. Yet it is necessary for the person who has heard it, and done nothing to enter the Church.

Show me where the Church - not some theologian - has said that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation.

I’m sorry Tornpage, let’s try this again:

Baptism is necessary for salvation to all men without exception. It is a divine precept binding on all men as a necessity of both precept and means. Objectively, the obligation can never become “unnecessary” because we can never know if someone can obtain an invisible sanctification (with the exception of the canonized martyrs).

Of course, our Lord is not bound by the sacrament and may choose to effect the same end, so in that sense, and in that sense only, does the sacrament become “unnecessary” for a soul who has already been translated and entered into the beatific vision by “desire” (only a theoretical possibility - but the Church says is can happen, and teaches this same doctrine).

Your old friend St. Thomas Aquinas:

Question 65, Article 4. Whether all the sacraments are necessary for salvation?

I answer that, Necessity of end, of which we speak now, is twofold. First, a thing may be necessary so that without it the end cannot be attained; thus food is necessary for human life. And this is simple necessity of end.

Secondly, a thing is said to be necessary, if, without it, the end cannot be attained so becomingly: thus a horse is necessary for a journey. But this is not simple necessity of end.

In the first way, three sacraments are necessary for salvation. Two of them are necessary to the individual; Baptism, simply and absolutely; Penance, in the case of mortal sin committed after Baptism; while the sacrament of order is necessary to the Church, since "where there is no governor the people shall fall" (Proverbs 11:14).

One would think he was the first "Feeneyite"!

St. Thomas

First, a thing may be necessary so that without it the end cannot be attained; thus food is necessary for human life. And this is simple necessity of end.

Catechism of Trent

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

I'm sorry, Mike, but if the intention and determination to receive Baptism of catechumen who do not receive baptism because of some unforeseen accident "avail[s] them to grace and righteousness," then the end has been achieved without baptism, and the sacrament does not have a "simple necessity of end."

I hold that baptism is "not optional" or "free," and thus "necessary" in exactly the sense that Trent tells us it's necessary.

As you said elsewhere, in the ordinary v. extraordinary means thread, "Pope Pius XII clearly does not believe that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary as an intrinsic necessity of means for salvation (without which salvation cannot be)." Ok, and St. Thomas says that baptism is of a "simple necessity," such that "without it the end cannot be obtained." Hmmm. I agree with Pius XII, and say to call something that is not something without which salvation cannot be, while calling it at the same time something without which the end (salvation) cannot be obtained, is intellectually fractured and bent.

As the Catechism says:

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.

Of course, I affirm the same necessity.

I'll follow the bouncing ball as far as I have to. When it hits a wall, and I'm not required to go through it . . . I'm going around. See you on the other side.

tornpage

This whole debate is silly and moot. Within the canons of Trent, BoD was never defined, at least explicitly, and if it was defined, it was defined only to catechumens and absolutely no one else. The Latin word for "desire" which was used at Trent is, of course, votum, which means "vow."

Traditional Catholics should reject the CCC because it contains, at a minimum, theological errors, perhaps even formal heresies. Applying BoD 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.

So, what are we arguing about here? If you say that the CCC is authoritative, fine; I say that it is authoritative but erroneous, which is why it should be rejected.

MarianLibrarian, lets take a look at what Pope Benedict says about the Catechsim of the Church shall we......

"The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess. The weight of the Catechism itself lies in the whole. Since it transmits what the Church teaches, whoever rejects it as a whole separates himself beyond question from the faith and teaching of the Church [pp. 25-27]."

I obviously agree with the Pope and do not reject the Catechism as a whole. If I did reject the Catechism as a whole, then I would be separating myself from the faith since some parts contained in the Catchism are from infallible teachings. However, if one rejects only certian parts of the Catechism whose teachings are derived from fallible sources(which promulgate BoD and BoB), then one is not rejecting the entire Catechism as a whole and thereby not separating themselves from the faith.

"Thus the Catechism presents the teaching of the Church without elevating the doctrinal status of those teachings beyond what they otherwise have. Consequently, one must look to other documents and to the tradition of the Church to establish the doctrinal weight of any particular point in the Catechism. Since the Catechism treats many things that not only have not been taught infallibly but which also have been proposed in the most tentative of fashions, there remains due liberty for theologians when they encounter something that has been proposed only tentatively ."

Hence, one is to look to the already established dogmatic traditional teachings of the Church and the infallible documents thereof since the Pope himself admits that much of what is taught in the Catechism is not infallible.

The already established infallible dogmatic teaching of the Church clearly teaches that all must be Sacramentally Water baptized. Also, the Church infallibly condemns/anathematizes anyone who claims Water Baptism is not necessary.

Where is the infallible teaching on BoD? There is none
Where is the infallible teaching on BoB? There is none

MRyan wrote:Of course, our Lord is not bound by the sacrament and may choose to effect the same end, so in that sense, and in that sense only, does the sacrament become “unnecessary” for a soul who has already been translated and entered into the beatific vision by “desire”

So our Lord, Jesus Christ, lied to Peter when he said, "What you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven"? So the Holy Spirit(who is God) says infallibly through the Pope and Councils that "X" is necessary to enter the Church and attain salvation, and therefore binds us all on Earth to that teaching, but Heaven is not bound to that teaching?

Catholic_Truth wrote:

MRyan wrote:Of course, our Lord is not bound by the sacrament and may choose to effect the same end, so in that sense, and in that sense only, does the sacrament become “unnecessary” for a soul who has already been translated and entered into the beatific vision by “desire”

So our Lord, Jesus Christ, lied to Peter when he said, "What you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven"? So the Holy Spirit(who is God) says infallibly through the Pope and Councils that "X" is necessary to enter the Church and attain salvation, and therefore binds us all on Earth to that teaching, but Heaven is not bound to that teaching?

Sure, He “lied” to Peter. He must have been having an off day, what can I say? Haven’t you ever had an off day? Golly; He said a lot of things he didn’t really mean, like: “But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren”, and crazy stuff like that.

He also said, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. ...”

Wait, perhaps when the Church “binds” and "looses", it is understood precisely how the Church, and our Lord, understands it. The only ones who can't seem to grasp it are the Feeneyite Pharisees who alone are responsible for the interpretation of the divine and ecclesiastical law of baptism.

And yes, as even St. Thomas Aquinas affirmed, baptism is necessary to enter heaven as a necessity of means, simply, and absolutely. How do you like them apples?

The disagreement between tornpage and MRyan is sort of the point of my second question in the OP. How can BOD be a doctrine, rather than theological opinion, when there is no clear outline of what precisely BOD is/what one is required to believe about BOD?

"baptism is not absolutely necessary"
"Our Lord is not bound by baptism and only in that sense is baptism unnecessary"
"baptism is not free [optional]" (whatever that means... I still can't figure it out, perhaps you could elaborate a bit more, tornpage?)
"baptism is a simple necessity"
"baptism is not necessary as an intrinsic means"
etc., etc., etc.

Just what exactly is one bound to believe about Baptism? Just what exactly IS baptism of desire-- what does it consist of? How does it relate to the Sacrament of Baptism?

Since no one has tackled the first question in the OP, may we go ahead and conclude that BOD is the only (supposed) 'doctrine' of the Church not explicitly mentioned in any Papal or Conciliar document?

MRyan wrote:

Catholic_Truth wrote:

MRyan wrote:Of course, our Lord is not bound by the sacrament and may choose to effect the same end, so in that sense, and in that sense only, does the sacrament become “unnecessary” for a soul who has already been translated and entered into the beatific vision by “desire”

So our Lord, Jesus Christ, lied to Peter when he said, "What you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven"? So the Holy Spirit(who is God) says infallibly through the Pope and Councils that "X" is necessary to enter the Church and attain salvation, and therefore binds us all on Earth to that teaching, but Heaven is not bound to that teaching?

Sure, He “lied” to Peter. He must have been having an off day, what can I say? Haven’t you ever had an off day? Golly; He said a lot of things he didn’t really mean, like: “But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren”, and crazy stuff like that.

He also said, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. ...”

Wait, perhaps when the Church “binds” and "looses", it is understood precisely how the Church, and our Lord, understands it. The only ones who can't seem to grasp it are the Feeneyite Pharisees who alone are responsible for the interpretation of the divine and ecclesiastical law of baptism.

And yes, as even St. Thomas Aquinas affirmed, baptism is necessary to enter heaven as a necessity of means, simply, and absolutely. How do you like them apples?

Read this:

http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/laisneyism.html

When Father Feeney was reconciled to the Church, why was he not forced to recant his "errors"? Why are several groups of his followers, unlike the SSPX, enjoying regularized, canonical status within the Catholic Church?