Invincible ignorance/material heresy

[AnneElliot]

This was addressed to Tradycja, not AnneElliot. As stated elsewhere, it is absolutely futile for me to submit over and over again the many documents that were presented in the several threads that you are active in. You ignore them all.

But let Fr. Muller of Feeneyite affiliation make a statement that you agree with, and he is elevated to an infallibility above the Church, pope, catechisms, or council teachings as being more correct.

I know your post was addressed to Tradycja, however; you claimed there were “proofs” for BOD. No thread has submitted a papal or conciliar document with the phrase “baptism of desire”. If I have overlooked it, please correct me and produce it here.

 

[ncjohn]

I know your post was addressed to Tradycja, however; you claimed there were “proofs” for BOD. No thread has submitted a papal or conciliar document with the phrase “baptism of desire”. If I have overlooked it, please correct me and produce it here.

And yet it has been the consistent teaching of the Church through its catechisms going back at least to Trent, which has been presented several times. If it was doctrinally unsound it could not appear there, especially over such an extended period. There are things that may not have levels of infallibility within the catechisms but there cannot be things that are doctrinally incorrect since the catechisms, being promulgated by the Pope, are protected from teaching error.

The fact that the documents you present don’t address BOD doesn’t mean it excludes the idea. It simply means they were dealing with the necessity of baptism without going into the details of how it is achieved. How it is achieved is dealt with in such things as the catechisms.

There have been numerous papal documents submitted, including Popes before and after Vatican II. You simply have decided that the ones you prefer have a level of infallibility but the ones you don’t like, or that don’t agree with your position, are not infallible enough for you.

I’ll ask you and Tradycja the direct question again: Do you believe the Church is teaching heresy in teaching the possibility of salvation through BOD or BOB? Just a simple yes or no will do.

 

[AnneElliot]

And yet it has been the consistent teaching of the Church through its catechisms going back at least to Trent, which has been presented several times. If it was doctrinally unsound it could not appear there, especially over such an extended period. There are things that may not have levels of infallibility within the catechisms but there cannot be things that are doctrinally incorrect since the catechisms, being promulgated by the Pope, are protected from teaching error.

This is not what the diocesan Chancellor told me. He said the Catechism is “reference book” and I was correct in attributing infalliblity only to those places where the Catechism quoted infallible documents/dogma.

How can Catechisms be “protected from teaching error” if they issue corrections/modifications to them?

The Council of Trent was 500 years ago… a remark in a catechism 500 years ago that’s repeated in another catechism is not a “constant” teaching of a Church that’s over 2000 years old.

The fact that the documents you present don’t address BOD doesn’t mean it excludes the idea. It simply means they were dealing with the necessity of baptism without going into the details of how it is achieved. How it is achieved is dealt with in such things as the catechisms.

I’m not going to accept something based on an argument from silence. The Church does teach something implicitly based on what an explicit teaching does not exclude… can you think of another teaching of the Church taught in such a way?

There have been numerous papal documents submitted, including Popes before and after Vatican II. You simply have decided that the ones you prefer have a level of infallibility but the ones you don’t like, or that don’t agree with your position, are not infallible enough for you.

I have done no such thing… as my posts bare witness.

Which papal document have I missed that includes the phrase “baptism of desire”? If it has be posted already, it will be no trouble to go back and find it.

I’ll ask you and Tradycja the direct question again: Do you believe the Church is teaching heresy in teaching the possibility of salvation through BOD or BOB? Just a simple yes or no will do.

I do not believe the Church actually teaches BOD/BOB. The Church cannot teach heresy. That is why… if you can find me a papal or conciliar document that includes the phrase “baptism of desire” and defines its salvific power, I would recant.

There is no papal document nor a conciliar document that mentions the phrase “baptism of desire” simply because it’s not an official teaching of the Church.

 

[ncjohn]

This is not what the diocesan Chancellor told me. He said the Catechism is “reference book” and I was correct in attributing infalliblity only to those places where the Catechism quoted infallible documents/dogma.

It is indeed true that not everything in the Catechism is infallible teaching. But as a teaching document, promulgated by the Pope, it CANNOT teach error in matters of faith and morals. There is a difference between possibly not containing the completeness of truth and being in error. That is clear and constant teaching of the Church. Also, something does not have to have an official statement of infallibility to be doctrine. For instance the ban on ABC or the existence of purgatory has no statement of infallibility but is still doctrine.

How can Catechisms be “protected from teaching error” if they issue corrections/modifications to them

This has been asked and answered man times before. There are not “corrections” made to any statement of doctrine. There may be wording clarifications, or changes to non-doctrinal statements, but not to the doctrine itself. The typical example given is a change that was made to the definition of “lying”. That wording change was for clarification and did not change any statement of doctrine whatsoever. If changes in wording were excluded a subssequent catechism could never be created.

The Council of Trent was 500 years ago… a remark in a catechism 500 years ago that’s repeated in another catechism is not a “constant” teaching of a Church that’s over 2000 years old.

It most certainly is. By virtue of being in the catechism from Trent, it is protected from being in error and stands as is. Showing up in the current catechism, like any restatement of doctrine, shows the consistency of teaching.

I fail to understand this objection at all. By taking that logic I could say that any of the documents you have produced, since they are hundreds of years ago and have other documents that differ from them, are not in any way constant.

Which papal document have I missed that includes the phrase “baptism of desire”? If it has be posted already, it will be no trouble to go back and find it.

There have been several, including one from Pius IX, which you just write off as not being infallible. All of them however repeat the same teaching as the catechism of Trent, again further reaffirming that it has been a constant teaching. And again, they do not have to rise to a level of infallible statement to be doctrine.

I do not believe the Church actually teaches BOD/BOB. The Church cannot teach heresy. That is why… if you can find me a papal or conciliar document that includes the phrase “baptism of desire” and defines its salvific power, I would recant.

But the Church is unquestionably teaching it,as it did in the catechism from Trent. So I ask again, given that they ARE teaching it, are you saying that they are teaching error? Are you saying that Pius IX was teaching error when he wrote it?

 

[Sirach2]

AnneElliott,
1258 Catechism:

**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.

Please note the words, “always held” – not just lately. Rather than consult an EENS proponent, please write to Rome or consult a bishop to clear up your thinking.

You were given examples today of perfect contrition, which is a form of BOD, and has “always” been held and taught by the Church, as well.

Pope JPII’s Apostolic Letter in the CCC:

With today’s promulgation of the Latin typical edition, therefore, the task of composing the Catechism, begun in 1986, is brought to a close and the desire of the aforementioned Extraordinary Synod of Bishops is happily fulfilled. The Church now has at her disposal this new, authoritative exposition of the one and perennial apostolic faith, and it will serve as a “valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion” and as a “sure norm for teaching the faith,” as well as a “sure and authentic reference text” for preparing local catechisms (cf. Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, no. 4).

From the second edition, CCC. You’ll note that there was absolutely NO modification to preceding teachings regarding BOD in the first edition.

This is not what the diocesan Chancellor told me. He said the Catechism is “reference book” and I was correct in attributing infalliblity only to those places where the Catechism quoted infallible documents/dogma.

For someone who professes assent to the Pope, do you honestly believe he would solemnly authorize a “sure norm” for the faithful, if it was known to be full of errors, or simply a nice reference book that has no real content of truth? If so, then you are seriously misguided and unloyal to the Church. Once again is another example where you accept fully the word of a Chancellor (which typically may have been misinterpreted by you) rather than the Church herself, teaching through her Popes.

 

[AnneElliot]

Also, something does not have to have an official statement of infallibility to be doctrine. For instance the ban on ABC or the existence of purgatory has no statement of infallibility but is still doctrine.

For purgatory:
“The souls of those who depart this life with true repentence and in the love of God, before they have rendered satisfaction for their trespasses and negligences by the worthy fruits of penance, are purified after death with the punishments of purification.” - Council of Lyons
“It has likewise defined, that, if those truly penitent have departed in the love of God, before they have made satisfaction by worthy fruits of penance for sins of commission and omission, the souls of these are cleansed after death by purgatorial punishments…” - Council of Florence
etc.

For artificial birth control:
“W]e must once again **declare **that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth. Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” - Pope Paul VI *Humanae Vitae *#14

This has been asked and answered man times before. There are not “corrections” made to any statement of doctrine. There may be wording clarifications, or changes to non-doctrinal statements, but not to the doctrine itself. The typical example given is a change that was made to the definition of “lying”. That wording change was for clarification and did not change any statement of doctrine whatsoever. If changes in wording were excluded a subssequent catechism could never be created.

The USCCB put out a catechism (as the CCC directs), in 2004. It said that God’s covenant with Moses was “eternally valid” for the Jews. It was corrected in 2009 to read that while God still cares for the Jews, Christ fulfilled all the covenants of the Old Testament. So, for five years… because it was in a catechism, were we supposed to believe that God’s covenant was “eternally valid” for the Jews?

It most certainly is. By virtue of being in the catechism from Trent, it is protected from being in error and stands as is. Showing up in the current catechism, like any restatement of doctrine, shows the consistency of teaching.

The Catechism from the Council of Trent, is not the same as the Conciliar texts of Trent. Catechisms explain, they do not define. The definitions of doctrine are found outside of catechetical texts.

I fail to understand this objection at all. By taking that logic I could say that any of the documents you have produced, since they are hundreds of years ago and have other documents that differ from them, are not in any way constant.

My contention is that the teachings have remained the same, and that these “new” opinions (‘new’ in the big picture of things) are inconsistent with the teaching of the Church.

Other documents “differ from them”… are you saying the teachings of the Church have changed?

You are providing me with catechisms… which can, and are, changed to meet the times. BOD is a theological opinion, not a doctrine of the Church. IF BOD was a doctrine of the Church it would be taught outside of a catechism. The catechism is not a source for doctrine, it is a reference book.

There have been several, including one from Pius IX, which you just write off as not being infallible. All of them however repeat the same teaching as the catechism of Trent, again further reaffirming that it has been a constant teaching. And again, they do not have to rise to a level of infallible statement to be doctrine.

Pope Pius IX has never used the phrase ‘baptism of desire’. Please show me where I “wrote off” a statement of Pope Pius IX’s as being infallible?

Do you think that a doctrine can only be found in the catechism and not in any papal or conciliar text and still be doctrine? Can you demonstrate this by way of an example of a teaching which is doctrine, but found ONLY in a catechism and not in another source?

But the Church is unquestionably teaching it,as it did in the catechism from Trent. So I ask again, given that they ARE teaching it, are you saying that they are teaching error? Are you saying that Pius IX was teaching error when he wrote it?

Catechisms are teaching tools, not sources. They are only infallible where they reference the infallible sources themselves.

Pius IX did not write the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

Do you consider Ludwig Ott’s book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma as a generally trustworthy source? He mentions BOD/BOB and classifies them as sententia fidei proxima, which is only regarded by theologians as a teaching proximate to the faith which has NOT been promulgated as such by the Magisterium.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not using Ott as a infallible source for my understanding of BOD/BOB… However, I have never in my studies come across “baptism of desire”/“baptism of blood” in ANY papal or conciliar document that defines doctrine.

There are no doctrines of the faith that have not been mentioned by any pope or Council and is only to be found in catechisms or various theologians.

 

[AnneElliot]

Sirach2:

For someone who professes assent to the Pope, do you honestly believe he would solemnly authorize a “sure norm” for the faithful, if it was known to be full of errors, or simply a nice reference book that has no real content of truth? If so, then you are seriously misguided and unloyal to the Church. Once again is another example where you accept fully the word of a Chancellor (which typically may have been misinterpreted by you) rather than the Church herself, teaching through her Popes.

Where did I claim the Catechism was “full of errors” or “simply a nice reference book that has no real content of truth”?

Promulgating a Catechism as a “sure norm” for teaching the faith is not a stamp of infallibility.

 

[Sirach2]

Do you not see how you evade and wiggle out of the question?

Do you profess therefore that the teaching #1258 above is not “always held” by the Church, and can be disregarded as not a “sure norm?”

Furthermore, do you see why nobody wishes to discuss anything with you and post over and over again? You ignore, distort, twist, explain away, evade, everything that comes to your attention. I believe it is a very concerted effort that keeps you in tunnel vision.

 

[ncjohn]

AnneElliot;6735860<:

snip>
Do you think that a doctrine can only be found in the catechism and not in any papal or conciliar text and still be doctrine? Can you demonstrate this by way of an example of a teaching which is doctrine, but found ONLY in a catechism and not in another source?

I’ll not waste any more time with you as you clearly do not accept the Church’s position that there can be no error regarding doctrine or teaching in the catechisms, even if that was the only place BOD is mentioned, which it clearly is not. You clearly also either do not understand or do not accept that there does not have to be a definitive statement of infallibility, which is not given in either of the examples you tried to insert, for something to be doctrine.

As noted in the quote from CCC 1258, the Church “has always held the conviction…” that Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire exist and that it brings about the fruits of baptism without the physical sacrament. The Church is clearly teaching this without equivocation.

So I’ll ask one more time: Given that the Church says this is true, are you saying the Church is teaching error? PLEASE, just a simple yes or no rather than continuing to dance around the question.

 

[AnneElliot]

Do you not see how you evade and wiggle out of the question?

Do you profess therefore that the teaching #1258 above is not “always held” by the Church, and can be disregarded as not a “sure norm?”

Demonstrate to me that BOD/BOB were “always held” by the Church. Actually, I take that back… one papal or conciliar text that mentions ‘baptism of desire’ would suffice to demonstrate to me that the Church teaches BOD.

The language of the Catechism in those few paragraphs is sloppy, as evidenced by the fact that there are no references, either in footnotes or in the Companion to the Catechism of the Catholic Church which support such a statement.

The Catechism, as a whole, is a sure norm. That does not mean there cannot be parts of it which are in need of clarification/moderation.

 

[AnneElliot]

I’ll not waste any more time with you as you clearly do not accept the Church’s position that there can be no error regarding doctrine or teaching in the catechisms, even if that was the only place BOD is mentioned, which it clearly is not. You clearly also either do not understand or do not accept that there does not have to be a definitive statement of infallibility, which is not given in either of the examples you tried to insert, for something to be doctrine.

What do you mean about the examples I gave you regarding the infallibility of purgatory and artificial contraception? One was an Ecumenical Council and the other was a papal encyclical…

Irregardless, you and everyone else here is UNABLE to find just ONE… ONE… papal or conciliar text that mentions the phrase ‘baptism of desire’. Do you honestly contend that this “teaching” is ONLY mentioned officially in catechisms?

As noted in the quote from CCC 1258, the Church “has always held the conviction…” that Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire exist and that it brings about the fruits of baptism without the physical sacrament. The Church is clearly teaching this without equivocation.

The Catechism does not define or create doctrine… do you agree or disagree with that?

So I’ll ask one more time: Given that the Church says this is true, are you saying the Church is teaching error? PLEASE, just a simple yes or no rather than continuing to dance around the question.

You have not demonstrated that the Church teaches BOD. You cannot even find ONE papal document, or ONE conciliar text that merely mentions the phrase ‘baptism of desire’.

You brought up that purgatory and the condemnation of artificial contraception are not taught with infallible statements (I disagree, and gave you evidence of where both are taught OUTSIDE the Catechism)… yet, you cannot do this for BOD. Why is that?

What other teaching of the Church is there that is never mentioned by a Pope or Council by exists in a Catechism?

 

[AnneElliot]

Let’s solve this entire issue once and for all…

Provide ONE (1) Papal OR Conciliar text that mentions the phrase "baptism of desire"

… I’ve been accused of ignoring and evading issues countless times… yet how many times do I have to ask for a reference before one is provided? NO ONE in this thread, or any other can provide a document from ANY Pope or a document from ANY Ecumenical Council that mentions specifically “baptism of desire”.

EDITED to add:
Even the supporters of a fifth and final Marian dogma (of which I am one), can point to you places where previous Popes, etc. have used the various titles (i.e., Co-Redemptrix) to refer to Our Lady. There is *explicit *mention, not only of Our Lady’s role as Co-Redemptrix, but even use of that very specific title by Popes on more than one occasion. There is a looong list of demonstrations to show Mary is taught by the Church as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate.

If BOD is truly taught by the Church, then you should easily be able to provide a papal or conciliar statement that mentions the teaching explicitly.

 

[ncjohn]

You have not demonstrated that the Church teaches BOD. You cannot even find ONE papal document, or ONE conciliar text that merely mentions the phrase ‘baptism of desire’.

For one example alone, Pius IX’s encyclical has been posted numerous times.

And for whatever your belief, which is totally incomprehensible to me, the Catechism is THE teaching tool of the Church. The fact that it says clearly that they have always been held would be all the evidence necessary to prove that it is being taught, even without previous catechisms and encyclicals. Your leap of logic in claiming it isnt being taught when it clearly is being taught in the Church’s teaching tool is totally baffling.

And clearly you are going to continue to dance around the very basic question that has been asked, apparently by erroneously claiming it isn’t being taught. That’s ok though; in refusing to answer it you have answered it loud and clear.

Good luck and peace be with you.

 

[AnneElliot]

For one example alone, Pius IX’s encyclical has been posted numerous times.

Can you re-post it, please?

 

[Sirach2]

Venerable Pope Pius IX
Singulari quadam

   It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the

apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark
of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood.
**On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance,
are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord. **

Venerable Pope Pius IX
Quanto conficiamur moerore

          We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance

with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the
natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life,** can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace.** For God, Who reads comprehensively in every detail the minds and souls, the thoughts and habits of all men, will not permit, in accordance with His infinite goodness and mercy, anyone who is not guilty of a voluntary fault to suffer eternal
torments (suppliciis).

Pope St. Pius X
Catechism of Christian Doctrine, para. 132

 A person outside the Church by his own fault, and who dies without perfect contrition, will not be saved.  But he who finds himself outside without fault of his own, and who lives a good life, can be saved by the love called charity, which unites unto God, and in a spiritual way also to the Church, that is, to the soul of the Church.

Pope Pius XII
Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis

  For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church.  (Para. 103)
   
   What practical conclusions do we draw from this doctrine?  Fr. E. Hugueney, O.P., in a 1933 article, "La opinion traditionnelle sur la nombre des Elus" [The Traditional Opinion on the Number of the Elect], in La Revue Thomiste [The Thomistic Review] wrote on the practical danger of remaining outside the Church in this way:

 "Of those who are members of the Church, the elect will greatly outnumber the damned; and if we include as members of the Church all those who are hers in spirit by baptism of desire, this immense number of elect will be very great indeed.

For the Fathers, St. Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1787) sums up the Catholic understanding of this doctrine “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” by saying (De Baptismo, cap. 1): ** "It is de fide [of the faith and required to be believed by all Catholics] that there are some men saved also by the baptism of the Spirit desire**, by the grace of the Holy Spirit]. In this he expresses the teaching of all the Fathers, Doctors, popes, and theologians, including St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae, IIIa, Q. 68, A.2), St.
Peter Canisius, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent
III, and Pope St. Pius X.

Specifically, the Council of Trent dogmatically recognized the
doctrine of Baptism of Desire when it defined:

Translatio ab eo statu, in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae, in statum
gratiae … post evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis AUT EIUS
VOTO fieri not potest. [The translation from that state in which man is born
a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace … cannot, since the
promulgation of the gospel, be effected except through the laver of
regeneration [COLOR=“Red”]OR ITS DESIRE.] (Sessio Sexta de Iustificatione, Caput IV: Insinuatur Descriptio Iustificationis Impii, et Modus Eius in Statu Gratiae)

St. Alphonsus Liguori in Book 6 of his Theologia Moralis, quotes this passage and comments: “Therefore, it is de fide [dogmatic] that men are also saved by Baptism of desire.” This dogma was confirmed by the Council of Trent in the following Canon: [See above]

 

[Matorin]

If you all don’t mind for one second, might we look to (ironically) Paul’s letter to the Romans in chapter 2, specifically verses 12 to 16?

For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

 

[AnneElliot]

Sirach2,

I asked for a papal/conciliar document that specifically mentions ‘baptism of desire’. The sections you quoted from Singulari Quidem, the other encyclicals, and even the Council of Trent, don’t say anything about ‘baptism of desire’.

Also, shouldn’t you cite the source when you cut-n-paste from the web?

 

[diggerdomer]

“Proofs”!?!

Provide ONE Papal or Conciliar document that mentions the phrase “baptism of desire” and I will submit immediately to its being an authentic teaching of the Catholic Church. Just one will suffice.

Does the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X count?

ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.htm#Sacraments

 

[Sirach2]

Anne,

:bigyikes: I really think you have a mental block, whether deliberate, naiveté, or contentious, I don’t know. You may bury your head in the sand if you choose to do so. If the Church’s 1. documents, 2. saints and Doctors of the Church, 3. catechisms, AND 4. scriptures do not convince you, then go ahead and believe that all of these invincibly ignorant souls are going to hell without God’s merciful justification for salvation. God will judge you, not I.

Problem is, you want the cliché “baptism of desire” spelled out in clear exact abc’s or you refuse to believe. The theology and teaching of the Church is clearly implicit, even though the exact wording you demand is not used in all of the documents. This is akin to heresy for you to denounce what has been taught for many centuries merely because the words to describe BOD do not suit you.

These four sources have been presented to you ad nauseum, and all four are denied by you. This conversation is permanently ended! If you want more info, write to Rome, but they too will probably be denounced.

 

[Sirach2]

Matorin,

Thanks, that is a good scripture reference. We have also given her Romans 2:14-15, but Anne found yet another loophole and denied it, as well. Nothing will suffice with this girl.

Diggerdomer,

We gave her FOUR catechisms, including yours, Trent, and Baltimore, besides the CCC. None were good enough, as she explains them all away.