Neo-conservatives

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Aug 12 2004, 08:05 PM'] Just to add, I do not wish to limit the Church's authority and power in any way. In fact, I actually believe what the Church teaches, namely that it is necessary not only to be baptized and to be a Catholic, but it is also necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation (Pope Boniface VIII, [i]Unam Sanctam[/i]). [/quote]
Since you accept that you must be subject to the Roman Pontiff, and seeing that the present Roman Pontiff has issued the [u]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/u] as a sure norm for teaching the Catholic faith, you must submit and accept the present Roman Pontiff's teaching on baptism as it is contained it that catechism.

God bless,
Todd

[amarkich]

I accept even the prudential judgment of any Church official as long as it does not contradict tradition (or Tradition). The CCC is by no means an infallible document, and, because it contradicts tradition (or Tradition), I must disregard the parts which constitute as rejections of this (EENS, death penalty, etc). God bless.

Edit: One is still subject to the Roman Pontiff if he disagrees in matters which are not of necessity, although it is a holy thing to submit even in these matters so long as they do not contradict tradition or personal conscience (if this conscience is properly formed).

Edited August 13, 2004 by amarkich

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Aug 12 2004, 08:10 PM'] Like I said, I have to check with my Pastor or a proper text on the matter. I cannot just take the word or opinion of an un-authoritative source. In any event, premise 1 still holds as does 3 (even if you are correct). I think the biggest issue is with premise 1. Without being able to prove that a negative automatically indicates the opposite positive, it is impossible to claim that Trent taught any kind of "Baptism" of desire. God bless. [/quote]
The Council of Trent is clearly authoritative, and not to belittle your "pastor," but he is not the Magisterium. The desire for baptism, although not itself a sacrament, has the same effect as the Sacrament of Baptism, and this teaching is [i]de fide[/i] based on the [u]Decree on Justification[/u] issued by the Tridentine Fathers, and so all Catholics must submit to the teaching of Trent on this issue.

God bless,
Todd

[amarkich]

It seems there is a problem here. The Church says that there are four requirements for a [i]De Fide [/i]decree:

1) The Pope must be functioning as Pastor and supreme Doctor. It is not his teaching as a private or particular Doctor that is in question.

2) He must be dealing with matters of faith or morals, and it is only the proposed doctrine - not the adjoining considerations - the 'obiter dicta' that is guaranteed by infallibility.

3) He must intend to define; his teaching must be given with authority and with the intent that it be believed by the entire Church.

4) He must manifest his intention to bind all Catholics.

At best, the first three could be accepted concerning the quote from Trent (if you make the negative into a positive), but the fourth cannot be true. The Council does not make a Canon which would recognize or teach "Baptism" of desire in any definitive or authoritative way. How can this be fulfilled if there is no manifest intention to bind all Catholics (as is true in a Canon or in a [i]positive[/i] or anathematizing statement)?

[Aloysius]

those are the requirements for a papal ex-cathedra statement


when all the Bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome conveine and teach a matter of faith/morals it is also infallible.

[amarkich]

I see, but how has this been done expressly regarding multiple Baptisms, and how do the multiple Baptisms not contradict Canon II on Baptism: "If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema." Thank you. God bless.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Aug 12 2004, 08:27 PM'] I see, but how has this been done expressly regarding multiple Baptisms, and how do the multiple Baptisms not contradict Canon II on Baptism: "If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema." Thank you. God bless. [/quote]
What are you talking about? There is no such thing as multiple baptisms. The desire for baptism, is not a sacrament, but as the Tridentine Fathers teach, it has the effect of baptism. There is only one Sacrament of Baptism. As the Catechism states, ". . . [i]Baptism of blood[/i], like the [i]desire for Baptism[/i], brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament." [[u]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/u], no. 1258]

Edited August 13, 2004 by Apotheoun

[amarkich]

How can this be reconciled with Canon V then? Canon V: "If anyone saith that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism; let him be anathema."

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Aug 12 2004, 08:42 PM'] How can this be reconciled with Canon V then? Canon V: "If anyone saith that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism; let him be anathema." [/quote]
I don't know how many more times I can say this, but the desire for baptism is not a sacrament. It has the effect of the sacrament of baptism, without being a sacrament, and that is the teaching of the Fathers of Trent. It is vital to remember the following important doctrinal truth; the Church is bound by the sacraments, but God is not, for He is free to bestow His grace through either the ordinary means instituted by Christ (i.e., the sacraments), or through extraordinary means of His own choosing. In other words, God cannot be limited.

God bless,
Todd

Edited August 13, 2004 by Apotheoun

[amarkich]

I did not say that Canon V was talking only about the Sacrament of Baptism; it could very well be speaking of 'baptism' as a concept (desire and blood included). The issue is that, no matter how one reads Canons II and V, it is impossible to reconcile them with "Baptisms" of blood and desire. We see in Canon II that water is necessary for Baptism (anything else is a metaphor and wresting the words of Our Lord). In response to this, one might say "Canon II is only referring to the Sacrament, not to the extraordinary means (desire and blood)." If this is to be accepted as true, all the Canons on Baptism must be speaking specifically of the Sacrament, i.e., the Canons do not make regulations concerning desire and blood, only concerning the Sacrament of Baptism itself. The problem here is that Canon V says that Baptism is necessary for salvation. If this is true (and the Canons are only speaking of sacramental Baptism), then sacramental Baptism is necessary for salvation. If the opposite is true, that "baptism" is actually speaking of the concept in general, not just the Sacrament, then the problem arises with Canon II which states that water is necessary for the concept of Baptism. They cannot have different meanings without distinction. Our Lord has already given us the directives for salvation and Baptism: "Unless a man is born again of [b]water[/b] and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Such an explicit command by God Himself cannot be lightly ignored and turned into some metaphor in which things other than water (desire, blood) can suffice for Baptism. I have typed out the entire Canons each time while citing them in a previous thread, but I must go to bed and do not have time to do that here. I will bring up the old thread and copy and paste the argument (which is articulated better) if you wish. God bless.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Aug 12 2004, 08:57 PM'] I did not say that Canon V was talking only about the Sacrament of Baptism; it could very well be speaking of 'baptism' as a concept (desire and blood included). The issue is that, no matter how one reads Canons II and V, it is impossible to reconcile them with "Baptisms" of blood and desire. We see in Canon II that water is necessary for Baptism (anything else is a metaphor and wresting the words of Our Lord). In response to this, one might say "Canon II is only referring to the Sacrament, not to the extraordinary means (desire and blood)." If this is to be accepted as true, all the Canons on Baptism must be speaking specifically of the Sacrament, i.e., the Canons do not make regulations concerning desire and blood, only concerning the Sacrament of Baptism itself. The problem here is that Canon V says that Baptism is necessary for salvation. If this is true (and the Canons are only speaking of sacramental Baptism), then sacramental Baptism is necessary for salvation. If the opposite is true, that "baptism" is actually speaking of the concept in general, not just the Sacrament, then the problem arises with Canon II which states that water is necessary for the concept of Baptism. They cannot have different meanings without distinction. Our Lord has already given us the directives for salvation and Baptism: "Unless a man is born again of [b]water[/b] and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Such an explicit command by God Himself cannot be lightly ignored and turned into some metaphor in which things other than water (desire, blood) can suffice for Baptism. I have typed out the entire Canons each time while citing them in a previous thread, but I must go to bed and do not have time to do that here. I will bring up the old thread and copy and paste the argument (which is articulated better) if you wish. God bless. [/quote]
It is only impossible for those in dissent from the Church's Magisterium to reconcile the concepts of "baptism" of blood, and "baptism" of desire. I accept all the teachings of the Magisterium, including the teachings indicated in the [u]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/u] on baptism, and the "Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston," which also speaks of the desire for baptism, either implicit or explicit.

Only the Magisterium can interpret its own documents, and so your inability to reconcile canons II and V of the Council of Trent with the teaching of the Magisterium, is a problem for you, not for the Church.

God bless,
Todd

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

amarkich,
I think I see the misunderstanding here...

Would I be correct in saying that Baptism of Desire (which has the effect of the Sacrament without being one) is only valid if the person doesn't have access to Sacramental Baptism?
As in: If a Catechumen died, at the point of death he would be "Baptized by Desire". But if he doesn't die, he doesn't actually have Baptism of Desire, even if he desires to be baptized. He would have to go through to Sacramental Baptism to be actually baptized.
In other words, the Catechumen is not Baptized by Desire, until he dies without Sacramental Baptism.

I use "Catechumen" in place of anyone who desires to be a member of the Catholic Church.

Edited August 13, 2004 by thedude

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='thedude' date='Aug 13 2004, 05:38 AM'] amarkich,
I think I see the misunderstanding here...

Would I be correct in saying that Baptism of Desire (which has the effect of the Sacrament without being one) is only valid if the person doesn't have access to Sacramental Baptism?
As in: If a Catechumen died, at the point of death he would be "Baptized by Desire".  But if he doesn't die, he doesn't actually have Baptism of Desire, even if he desires to be baptized.  He would have to go through to Sacramental Baptism to be actually baptized.
In other words, the Catechumen is not Baptized by Desire, until he dies without Sacramental Baptism.

I use "Catechumen" in place of anyone who desires to be a member of the Catholic Church. [/quote]
The 1949 [u]Letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing[/u] clarifies the nature of the desire necessary:

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

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, "On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ" (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.

Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."

Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, "Singulari quadam", in Denzinger, n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, "Quanto conficiamur moerore", in Denzinger, n. 1677).

But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6).  The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): "Faith is the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children" (Denzinger, n. 801). [[u]Letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing[/u], 8 Aug. 1949][/quote]

Edited August 13, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
8/13 - Sts. Pontian and Hippolytus

BTW, let's not turn tradition into something that is unbreakable - only Tradition is unable to be broken. The Church can break with every tradition she desires, so long as she does not break with Tradition; i.e., according to tradition, men in the Roman Rite were forbidden orders if they did not have a forefinger and a thumb with which to hold the sacred host. Priests who lost these were forbidden to say Mass. In fact, St. Issac Jogues had to get a special indult to say Mass after the American Indians cut off his thumbs and forefingers (this was a favorite torture for the American Indians, since they knew that priests couldn't say Mass without them). This tradition was done away with in the 19th century (I believe).

Also, tradition in the Roman Rite dictates that a curtain be pulled around the altar during the Eucharistic anaphora - this was done up through the 6th century, but this tradition, too, was cast out.

[i]Nota bene[/i], though, that I'm not dictating hard-and-fast rules as to what are and are not matters of Tradition; I'm just giving two examples of matters of tradition.

[kateri05]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Aug 12 2004, 02:27 PM'] I dislike the application of political terms like "liberal" and "conservative" to the Church. They only muddy up and trivialize Church issues.
I'm familiar with the term "Neoconservative" used to refer to largely Jewish ex-Democrat Republicans who favor big government and hawkish foreign policy. This does not seem to have much relation to how this word is being used here. Presumably it is a word used by "Traditionalists" (e.g. schismatics) to refer to Catholics loyal to Rome.

I say "Traditionalists" should stop calling themselves that, and call themselves "Neo-Protestants." They really are not much different from the original Protestants such as Luther. Rejecting the current Church in Rome as corrupt, heretical, and apostate, they have no authority but their own to guide them. Whereas the original Protestants have "Sola Scriptura" using their own interpretations of of Scripture passages to justify their dissent, "Rad-Trad" Neo-Protestants use their own interpretation of Scripture and selected past Church documents, often pulled out of context, to justify dissent against current Church authority. In both cases, one rejects the authority and guidance of the Pope and Magisterium, and is left ultimately only with one's own opinion as one's guide. [/quote]
Amen!!