Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: "Believers" in Baptism of Desire and Being "Gay"  (Read 426 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Last Tradhican

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2926
  • Reputation: +1617/-955
  • Gender: Male
"Believers" in Baptism of Desire and Being "Gay"
« on: August 13, 2019, 01:12:08 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Big Problem with false baptism of desire debates.  

    Baptism of desire always meant explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen, just like gay meant merry. Today, when Catholics say that they believe in baptism of desire, in 99% of the cases, it means that they believe that anyone can be saved outside of the Church, and that is as dishonest as the sodomites today calling themselves gay. That's a big problem. (P.S. - Implicit Baptism of Desire meant the same as Baptism of desire above, but for not yet catechumens who wanted to be a Catholic, and in both cases they required belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity.)

    If the Implicit Faith er's were honest and go straight to the real point, 90% of the postings on CI would have been avoided. The plain and simple fact is that they spend 90% of their time quoting authorities that taught the real baptism of desire, explicit and implicit, like St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri, while they totally reject those authorities by their real belief in salvation without any desire to be baptized, to be a Catholic, or belief in the Incarnation or the Holy Trinity
    . If they want to be honest with themselves, if they have real conviction, they should not hide behind baptism of desire and start by stating that they believe in salvation by implicit faith or by belief in a god that rewards, or salvation for people in the whole of humanity.
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2926
    • Reputation: +1617/-955
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Believers" in Baptism of Desire and Being "Gay"
    « Reply #1 on: August 13, 2019, 01:23:41 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here is an example of an Implicit Faith-er stating the belief:

    On page 74 of +ABL's book "Open Letter to Confused Catholics"., it reads:

    "The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows amongst Protestants, Muslim, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this they become part of the Church".
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17593
    • Reputation: +9869/-4293
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Believers" in Baptism of Desire and Being "Gay"
    « Reply #2 on: August 13, 2019, 08:39:39 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, I've said for years that we need to avoid letting them drag us into the Baptism of Desire debates.  Honestly, it's not something that, when held in a proper Catholic sense, really has that much of an impact on the faith.  I don't believe in it, but then St. Thomas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus, etc. did.  So I'm never going to condemn a Catholic who holds that opinion as a heretic ... not until the Church explicitly condemns it.  At this time, however, I see it as merely a disagreement among Catholics.

    But of all of the dozens and dozens of BoDers on this forum, we have run into maybe two or thee who limited BoD to the case of someone who had explicit Catholic faith and intended to join the Church.  And I have had no theological issues with them.  One poster, Arvinger, who happened to believe in BoD, was actually ON OUR SIDE of the EENS debate, and I considered him an ally.

    Yet 99% of BoDers have a hidden agenda.  They are not concerned about the extremely rare case of a catechumen who happened to die before Baptism.  They would not spend so much energy on this position if that's all there was to it.  No, their concern is to find exceptions to EENS ... because they find the EENS doctrine unpleasant.  Whether it's because they have family members who died outside the faith, or because they have an emotional reaction against the loss of so many souls (cf. Father Cekada's admission), they cling to this idea that there's a way around EENS.

    But, historically, NO CHURCH FATHER ever considered the notion of BoD as applicable to anyone other than a formal catechumen.  Even Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner admitted this.  At least Rahner had intellectual honesty ... which many Traditional Catholics lack; some of these Trad Catholics promote the lie that the Church Fathers were universally in favor of BoD.

    Quote
    “. . . we have to admit . . . that the testimony of the Fathers, with regard to the possibility of salvation for someone outside the Church, is very weak. Certainly even the ancient Church knew that the grace of God can be found also outside the Church and even before Faith. But the view that such divine grace can lead man to his final salvation without leading him first into the visible Church, is something, at any rate, which met with very little approval in the ancient Church. For, with reference to the optimistic views on the salvation of catechumens as found in many of the Fathers, it must be noted that such a candidate for baptism was regarded in some sense or other as already ‘Christianus,’ and also that certain Fathers, such as Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa deny altogether the justifying power of love or of the desire for baptism. Hence it will be impossible to speak of a consensus dogmaticus in the early Church regarding the possibility of salvation for the non-baptized, and especially for someone who is not even a catechumen. In fact, even St. Augustine, in his last (anti-pelagian) period, no longer maintained the possibility of a baptism by desire.” (Rahner, Karl, Theological Investigations, Volume II, Man in the Church, translated by Karl H. Kruger, pp.40, 41, 57)

    This notion that any non-catechumens could be saved was anathema to them, and especially repugnant and heretical was the idea that infidels could be saved.

    Even St. Robert Bellarmine, who is cited in favor of BoD, strictly limited the possibility to formal catechumens.  His question (in Thomistic format) was "whether catechumens [who die before receiving the Sacrament of Baptism] can be saved."  NOT, whether a Hindu in Tibet can be saved.

    Now, at some point, this theory slightly shifted to include not merely formal catechumens but also anyone with explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation.  With this belief, then, the desire to receive Baptism could be considered as implicitly present in the will to obey God in all things.

    Then in the year 1600, the Jesuit innovators introduced the idea that people could be saved just by believing in a Rewarder God.  They concocted this theory in order to allow all manner of pagans to be saved.

    As this theory gradually gained momentum, the slide towards Vatican II became inevitable.

    Since no one could deny the dogma ... since it has been defined explicitly several times in no uncertain terms ... that there can be no salvation outside the Church, the only way to claim that pagans could be saved was to find a way to include them in the Church and therefore effectively redefine the Church.  As an end-around to EENS, then, since you can't say there's salvation outside the Church, they went and redefined the criteria by which people could be inside the Church ... completely overturning Tridentine ecclesiology which dogmatically taught that the Church is a visible society with external visible criteria for membership.

    See what that does to Catholic ecclesiology?  It turns it into the subsistence ecclesiology of Vatican II, that not only do you have a visible core of Catholics who are in the Church, but you also have these satellite members who although materially and visibly separated from this subsistent core, are nevertheless within the Church.  So the fullness of belonging to the Church now admits of degrees.  We have the notion of "separated brethren" who are formally united to us while materially divided.

    ALL OF VATICAN II flows directly from this new ecclesiology developed in order to undermine EENS.  EENS is absolutely, without a doubt, the core theological issue of this day ... even though some ... like Matthew here on CI ... claim that it doesn't matter.  Nonsense.  Nothing matters more.  Without this new ecclesiology built on EENS-denial, there is no Vatican II crisis.  Period.  Yet so few Traditional Catholics understand this.  They continue to condemn Vatican II ecclesiology on one side of their mouth, but then promote it on the other without even knowing it.

    So those BoDers who insist that infidels can be saved, DISHONESTLY fling out pro-BoD quotes they claim prove that pagans can be saved, when they in fact do no such thing.  In fact, there was no bigger proponent of Tridentine visible-society ecclesiology than one St. Robert Bellarmine, and they would attribute to him support for the exact opposite Vatican II ecclesiology.  These folks are not honest.

    But we who defend Traditional ecclesiology, need to resist the urge to fight them on the BoD issue, since they use it to distract us and run away from the broader ecclesiological and soteriological issue.

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2926
    • Reputation: +1617/-955
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Believers" in Baptism of Desire and Being "Gay"
    « Reply #3 on: August 13, 2019, 09:44:14 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Those that have eyes to see, let them see.
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4434
    • Reputation: +2708/-1249
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Believers" in Baptism of Desire and Being "Gay"
    « Reply #4 on: August 13, 2019, 10:07:56 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • The other problem is that people (for a variety of reasons) falsely define "implicit desire of baptism" to mean "implicit desire for God/faith".  Explicit vs implicit desire just means
    .
    1) Explicit - the desire for baptism is openly communicated.  A person tells a priest or friend "I want to become a catholic and to be baptized."
    2) Implicit - the desire for baptism is indirect or implied.  A person is attending catechism classes, is asking questions about the Faith, is attending mass to learn.  They haven't told anyone they want to become catholic but it's implied by their actions that they are VERY interested.
    .
    When St Alphonsus talked about implicit desire, he was referring to this.  Implicit desire does not mean "I desire to get to heaven."  Or, "I desire to love God."  This has nothing to do with Catholicism, therefore it has nothing to do with baptism, therefore it can not help one be saved.  These are all examples of "implicit faith" which is heretical and not sufficient for heaven.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17593
    • Reputation: +9869/-4293
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Believers" in Baptism of Desire and Being "Gay"
    « Reply #5 on: August 13, 2019, 11:37:08 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, the degrees of implicitness (of desire) have come to be a many steps removed.  Now ... I'll make a separate post on the difference between desire and intention later.

    EXPLICIT:  I believe in what the Church teaches and want to be baptized.

    IMPLICIT 1:  I believe in what the Church teaches and I want to become a Catholic (implicit that I want to be baptized).

    IMPLICIT 2:  I believe in what the Church teaches and I want do do whatever God wants me to do (implicit that I want to become a Catholic which in turn is implicit that I want to be baptized).

    THESE FIRST TWO involve explicit faith with an implicit desire to be baptized.  In the next level, we're moving onto implicit faith.  While some of the scholastic theologians (e.g. St. Alphonsus) speak of an implicit desire for Baptism, none of them support the notion of implicit faith.  When the BoDers quote people like St. Alphonsus on implicit BoD, his quotes actually apply to #1 and #2 above, but they pretend that they support the scenarios below (implicit faith)

    IMPLICIT 3:  I want to believe in whatever God teaches (therefore implicitly believe what the Church teaches) and I want to do whatever God wants me to do (pointing back up to #2)

    IMPLICIT 4:  I'm a nice guy trying to do my best, and that means that if I came to be persuaded of something as the truth, then I WOULD believe it, and I WOULD believe in the teachings of the Church and I WOULD do whatever God wants me to do (right up to Baptism).

    So many BoDers have slid into Scenario #4, the salvation of the nice guy.  Really, since he's a nice guy, then he WOULD believe and do whatever he were persuaded of to be true and good.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17593
    • Reputation: +9869/-4293
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Believers" in Baptism of Desire and Being "Gay"
    « Reply #6 on: August 13, 2019, 11:56:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Now, of course, everyone keeps talking about "desire", but the Latin word usually translated as "desire" is votum, which derives from the verb meaning "to will".  So it's not just a desire but a will and an intention to receive it.  Our English word "vow" derives from it.

    There's a huge difference between a desire and a vow.

    Let's take an engaged couple.  Both of them "desire" to get married.  Are they marred yet?  They could even start paying for the wedding, hire people, and set the date.  Are they married then?  If 10 seconds before they go up there to publicly pronounce their vows, one of them gets cold feet and backs out, then they were never married and none of their prior desire or action meant anything.

    Similarly, BoD should be renamed Baptism of Vow.  Vow is a very strong word, analogous to those wedding vows above.  It should not be considered analogous to the prior "desire" I described above.  In other words, it's more like the couple pronouncing their vows than it is the desire of the couple to get married prior to that point.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4434
    • Reputation: +2708/-1249
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Believers" in Baptism of Desire and Being "Gay"
    « Reply #7 on: August 13, 2019, 12:09:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Great points.  Also, the problem with Implicit #3 and #4 is that such desires/vows are non-specific.  Trent (and St Thomas and St Alphonsus) speak of a desire/vow FOR THE SACRAMENT, not just "what God wants".  If someone doesn't yet know that "God wants" = Catholicism/Baptism, then they can't have the proper desire/vow.  You can't desire what you don't know.
    .
    To answer this objection, these liberals then insert the argument for "ignorance" and that the person has "good will" because they want to do the "right thing".  Therefore, BOD in their eyes DOES apply to the IMPLICIT #3 and #4 due to "invincible ignorance" which Trent never speaks of, but the catechism does.
    .
    As Last Tradhican points out, the Modernists won the debate when they inserted error/confusion into the catechism.  If even Trent had utterly condemned BOD, the fact that it's mentioned in the catechism is enough for most people, who can't follow the theology enough to see the problems in all of this.


    Offline Matto

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5563
    • Reputation: +3041/-139
    • Gender: Male
    • Love God and Play, Do Good Work and Pray
      • Julian Moore
    Re: "Believers" in Baptism of Desire and Being "Gay"
    « Reply #8 on: August 13, 2019, 12:13:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Now, of course, everyone keeps talking about "desire", but the Latin word usually translated as "desire" is votum, which derives from the verb meaning "to will".  So it's not just a desire but a will and an intention to receive it.  Our English word "vow" derives from it.

    There's a huge difference between a desire and a vow.

    Let's take an engaged couple.  Both of them "desire" to get married.  Are they marred yet?  They could even start paying for the wedding, hire people, and set the date.  Are they married then?  If 10 seconds before they go up there to publicly pronounce their vows, one of them gets cold feet and backs out, then they were never married and none of their prior desire or action meant anything.

    Similarly, BoD should be renamed Baptism of Vow.  Vow is a very strong word, analogous to those wedding vows above.  It should not be considered analogous to the prior "desire" I described above.  In other words, it's more like the couple pronouncing their vows than it is the desire of the couple to get married prior to that point.
    Good Post  :)
    I Love Watching Butterflies . . ..

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 430
    • Reputation: +90/-29
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Believers" in Baptism of Desire and Being "Gay"
    « Reply #9 on: August 13, 2019, 05:01:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, the degrees of implicitness (of desire) have come to be a many steps removed.  Now ... I'll make a separate post on the difference between desire and intention later.

    EXPLICIT:  I believe in what the Church teaches and want to be baptized.

    IMPLICIT 1:  I believe in what the Church teaches and I want to become a Catholic (implicit that I want to be baptized).

    IMPLICIT 2:  I believe in what the Church teaches and I want do do whatever God wants me to do (implicit that I want to become a Catholic which in turn is implicit that I want to be baptized).

    THESE FIRST TWO involve explicit faith with an implicit desire to be baptized.  In the next level, we're moving onto implicit faith.  While some of the scholastic theologians (e.g. St. Alphonsus) speak of an implicit desire for Baptism, none of them support the notion of implicit faith.  When the BoDers quote people like St. Alphonsus on implicit BoD, his quotes actually apply to #1 and #2 above, but they pretend that they support the scenarios below (implicit faith)

    IMPLICIT 3:  I want to believe in whatever God teaches (therefore implicitly believe what the Church teaches) and I want to do whatever God wants me to do (pointing back up to #2)

    IMPLICIT 4:  I'm a nice guy trying to do my best, and that means that if I came to be persuaded of something as the truth, then I WOULD believe it, and I WOULD believe in the teachings of the Church and I WOULD do whatever God wants me to do (right up to Baptism).

    So many BoDers have slid into Scenario #4, the salvation of the nice guy.  Really, since he's a nice guy, then he WOULD believe and do whatever he were persuaded of to be true and good.
    Hmmmmmm so would you see "implicit #1 and #2" as fallling under the same basic principle, while "implicit #3 and implicit #4" fall under the same basic principle?  That seems like what you're getting at here.

    Yet, I'm inclined to accept "Implicit #3" as theoretically possible, but #4 seems not to be (though I realize some BOD advocates would take it that far.)

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2926
    • Reputation: +1617/-955
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Believers" in Baptism of Desire and Being "Gay"
    « Reply #10 on: August 13, 2019, 11:15:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • As Last Tradhican points out, the Modernists won the debate when they inserted error/confusion into the catechism.  If even Trent had utterly condemned BOD, the fact that it's mentioned in the catechism is enough for most people, who can't follow the theology enough to see the problems in all of this.
    I never said "the Modernists won the debate when they inserted error/confusion into the catechism (of Trent)", you have me mixed up with someone else. 

    I did say that the catechism of Trent nowhere mentions baptism of desire and on the contrary it reaffirms the Council of Trent's teaching on the absolute necessity of the sacrament of baptism for salvation:

    https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/fr-jenkins-refutes-feeneyism/msg662855/#msg662855


    Quote
    I watched the first minutes where he says that the Catechism of Trent (COT) teaches baptism of desire, that's all I needed to here,  for nowhere does the Catechism of Trent mention the phrase baptism of desire, moreover, the quote that he mentions does not say that a person can be saved without baptism. The Catechism of Trent does clearly teach that one must be baptized to be saved and that there is no sanctifying grace to be had any other way than through the sacraments, and many other teachings that contradict the teachings of those that teach that Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhist, Jews.... can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards, what 99% of promoters of BOD really believe.



    The quote from the COT that Fr. Jenkins says teaches baptism of desire
    Catechism of the Council of Trent, Ordinarily They Are Not Baptized At Once, p. 179: “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.”


    Many other COT quotes that contradict the teachings of those that teach that Mohamedans, Hindus, Buddhist, Jews.... can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards, what 99% of promoters of BOD really believe.

     
    Catechism of the Council of Trent, Tan Books, p. 243: “For the Eucharist is the end of all the Sacraments, and the symbol of unity and brotherhood in the Church, outside of which none can attain grace.”

     

    Catechism of the Council of Trent, Tan Books, p. 320 The Sacrament of Holy Orders - Requirements in Candidates for Orders - Right Intention:  Thus they offer Sacrifice for themselves and for all the people; they explain God's law and exhort and form the faithful to observe it promptly and cheerfully; they administer the Sacraments of Christ our Lord by means of which all grace is conferred and increased; and, in a word, they are separated from the rest of the people to fill by far the greatest and noblest of all ministries.

                              
    Catechism of the Council of Trent, Comparisons among the Sacraments, p. 154: “Though all the Sacraments possess a divine and admirable efficacy, it is well worthy of special remark that all are not of equal necessity or of equal dignity, nor is the signification of all the same.     “Among them three are said to be necessary beyond the rest, although in all three this necessity is not of the same kind. The universal and absolute necessity of Baptism our Savior has declared in these words: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5).”

     

    Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism – Necessity of Baptism, pp. 176-177: “If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that THE LAW OF BAPTISM, AS ESTABLISHED BY OUR LORD, EXTENDS TO ALL, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction.  Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5).”

     

    Catechism of the Council of Trent, Definition of Baptism, p. 163: “Unless, says our Lord, a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5); and, speaking of the Church, the Apostle says, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life (Eph. 5:26).  Thus it follows that Baptism may be rightly and accurately defined: The Sacrament of regeneration by water in the word.”

     

    Catechism of the Council of Trent, In Case of Necessity Adults May Be Baptized At Once, p. 180: “Sometimes, however, when there exists a just and necessary cause, as in the case of imminent danger of death, Baptism is not to be deferred, particularly if the person to be baptized is well instructed in the mysteries of faith.”

     

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

     

    Catechism of the Council of Trent, Matter of Baptism - Fitness, p. 165: “Upon this subject pastors can teach in the first place that water, which is always at hand and within the reach of all, was the fittest matter of a Sacrament which is necessary to all for salvation.”

     

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




    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24


    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2926
    • Reputation: +1617/-955
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Believers" in Baptism of Desire and Being "Gay"
    « Reply #11 on: August 13, 2019, 11:30:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Hmmmmmm so would you see "implicit #1 and #2" as fallling under the same basic principle, while "implicit #3 and implicit #4" fall under the same basic principle?  That seems like what you're getting at here.

    Yet, I'm inclined to accept "Implicit #3" as theoretically possible, but #4 seems not to be (though I realize some BOD advocates would take it that far.)
    The writer is  "inclined" to accept #3, but says #4 "seems" not to be? No, the writer is poisoned, and one drop of strychnine kills the same as a whole bottle.

    Ladislaus is just pointing out what St. Thomas and St. A. Ligouri taught, points #1 and #2 and that the other two points are rejected by them, and not taught by any council, saints, or anyone but nobodies. Moreover, #3 and #4 contradict too many dogmas to list them all here. In order to believe what the writer already believes,  one has to ignore all the dogmas, which is drinking Strychnine by the gulps.

    Imagine a God that gives an infidel actual grace to will to do whatever God asks, and yet does not give him the actual grace to leave his false religion and become a Catholic? That is what #3 is teaching and forget about #4. That is what the writer believes. The writer gives too much credit to man's involvement in his own salvation. Were it not for God's Grace, not a person would die a baptized Catholic in a state of sanctifying grace. And here we have the writer believing in a God  that gives someone actual grace to desire whatever God asks but God does not give him the grace to become a Catholic or put him in a place and a century when  there are Catholics around to baptize him. His god is so inept and cruel that the writer has to invent his own ways of saving men, he has to rationalize it all. 
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17593
    • Reputation: +9869/-4293
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Believers" in Baptism of Desire and Being "Gay"
    « Reply #12 on: August 14, 2019, 07:12:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • People universally read more into the Roman Catechism passage than what it's actually saying.

    It's saying that infants should be baptized without undue delay, since there's a danger that they might die without the Sacrament and be lost.

    On the contrary, for adults, their proper dispositions to receive the Sacrament will avail them to grace.  All this is saying is that God will grant their desires (seek and you shall find) ... and prevent them from being cut off by some misfortune from receiving the grace they desired, i.e. justification through Baptism.  This does NOT state that if they died at that moment they would be saved.

    Now the confusion comes from that phrase "should any unforeseen misfortune ..." actually has the sense in Latin of "lest any unforseen accident".

    St. Rufinus, a Church Father, used this exact language (at least in translation, since I don't have the Latin), when he said that a man's confession of the faith will avail him to justification ... and then added the phrase, so that he would be ensured of receiving Baptism.  In other words, the meaning there ... and this passage in Trent clearly echos St. Rufinus ... was that once you have the proper dispositions for Baptism, God will MAKE SURE YOU GET IT.

    It's similar to the speculations of St. Ambrose that are universally misinterpreted as an endorsement of BoD.  St. Ambrose said that Valentinian received the grace that he sought.  Ask and you shall receive.  Whatever it is that he desired and sought, he received.  Could he have been given an emergency Baptism?  Either that, or he received what he asked for, the implication being that if he did not receive Baptism, it was because he did not properly will to receive it.  That's all St. Ambrose was saying there, and all that the Roman Catechism is saying here, and what St. Rufinus explicitly taught.  This passage falls short of an endorsement of BoD, although it does leave the question open.  St. Ambrose, in other writings, explicitly rejects the possibility that a catechumen who dies before Baptism can be saved.  So it would not make sense to read the Valentinian passage as a sudden about-face endorsement of BoD.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4434
    • Reputation: +2708/-1249
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Believers" in Baptism of Desire and Being "Gay"
    « Reply #13 on: August 14, 2019, 08:37:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    I never said "the Modernists won the debate when they inserted error/confusion into the catechism (of Trent)", you have me mixed up with someone else. 

    I was speaking of your thread on the catechism of Pius X, which shows a faulty translation.  In my opinion, this was done by the Modernists and they "won" the debate (in the minds of most liberal catholics) who can point to a catechism and say "See, it mentions BOD.  Are you more catholic than St Pius X?"  It's really hard to debate that point with people who want BOD to be true or those who don't have the aptitude to study all the background facts.  Those that are open to the truth will see this "evidence" as shady.  Most will use it as an excuse to continue on in their errors.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16