I was once sent the below link by someone who does not believe in BOD or BOB.

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/the_catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php

Although it was long and painful to read his nonsensical rantings and ramblings I did and thought I'd put up some sort of rebutle below.  :nunchaku:

I cannot agree with his arguments and I will give you my reasons for my beliefs.

Br. Diamond repeatedly argues that the Church’s teaching, that no one can attain salvation without being baptised, actually rejects both baptism of desire and baptism of blood.
This is not the case, as there is nothing in any of the quotes that Br. Dimond uses to argue his point or in the Church’s teachings, that actually says that Baptism cannot be received through martyrdom or the pure intention of the desire for baptism.

We have to remember that when we refer to Baptism of desire, we are referring to a situation which would happen very rarely and it is not as Br. Dimond seems to imply, a modern teaching based on the “ecuмenical” heresies that all religions are more or less equal and salvation can be obtained through any of them.
The teaching of Baptism of desire pertains to an individual that has accepted the teachings of the Church and has perfect contrition of heart and a charity which contains, at least implicitly, a desire of baptism.

I believe the only argument of Br. Dimond’s which appears (in the way that he presents it) to have some credibility, is his quotation of Pope Eugene IV’s bull Cantate Domino.

 “No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

It is interesting to note the Br. Dimond has inserted this quote into his writings without revealing its actual context. I must admit it does appear to support his argument if you read it separately to its context.

This is the actual full quote from Cantate Domino.

“It (the Catholic Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jєωs and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings,
almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

At the start of the quote you may see that the writer is actually
referring to pagans, Jєωs, heretics, and schismatics.
In other words it is referring to those who have rejected the Catholic Faith, whereas those who fall in the category of Baptism of desire and blood have actually fully accepted the Catholic Faith and its teachings and have a pure desire of Baptism.
There is a great difference between the two. One openly and persistently rejects Our Lord and His teachings and the other openly and persistently embraces Our Lord and His teachings.
Now that the context of the quote that Br. Dimond uses is revealed, it is easier to see what the quote actually means.
“no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

A protestant or other heretic or schismatic may believe that he is
shedding his blood for the name of Christ, though in fact he is not, because in embracing Protestantism or some other heresy, he has rejected Our Lord.
Therefore I believe that those who fall into the category of Baptism of desire or blood do not fall into the category referred to in Pope Eugene IV’s Cantate Domino.

Some other statements of Br. Dimonds give me good reason for concern.

One of my biggest issues with his writings is that Br. Dimond constantly tries to discredit the teachings of the Doctors and Saints of the Church.

The list of Saints that taught Baptism of Blood is not a short one.
Without doing further research and in just reading Br. Dimonds quotes; the Saints that taught or believed in Baptism of Blood were:

St. Cyprian: Br. Dimond tries to tarnish St. Cyprian’s credibility by drawing attention to something else that St. Cyprian taught that was incorrect. I do not think that defaming an individual is the honest way to argue against them. Yes saints are human and can make mistakes.
Though I do not believe that because they make a mistake, we have to discredit everything they say.

 St. Augustine: Br. Dimond tries to discredit St. Augustine by saying that because St. Augustine refers to St. Cyprian’s teachings on Baptism of Blood, therefore St. Augustine is also wrong. I would have thought that if two great Saints taught this, then maybe there may be some truth in it. So far I have not seen any evidence from Br. Dimond to support his teachings. I am more inclined to believe that Br. Dimond discredits
them not on any solid evidence, but rather because they don’t agree with his beliefs.

St. Cyril: Br. Dimond does not have any argument to counteract St. Cyril’s support of Baptism of Blood. His only argument is to say that St. Cyril taught Baptism of Blood but rejected Baptism of desire. Again Br. Dimond has no evidence for this statement and in fact it only stands to reason that if one received Baptism of Blood then he also would have Baptism of desire. For in shedding one’s blood for Christ, one would have a desire for Baptism. Therefore it is not reasonable that one would
accept Baptism of Blood and reject Baptism of desire. In Baptism of Blood the two are inseparable.

St. Fulgence: Br. Dimond uses the same argument to counteract St. Fulgence’s support of Baptism of Desire as he uses against St. Cyril.
Again this is no argument as it is evident that Br. Dimond cannot see that if one shed his blood for Christ, then it is reasonable and logical that the person would desire Baptism.

St. John Chrysostom: Br. Dimond uses a quote of St. John Chrysostom to reach his conclusion, when in fact the quote clearly does not say what Br. Dimond says it does.

St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And plainly must we grieve for our own catechumens, should they, either through their own unbelief or through their own neglect, depart this life without the saving grace of baptism.”

Br. Dimond writes immediately following this quote:

“This statement clearly rejects the concept of baptism of desire.”

If you follow what St. Chrysostom is writing, you will see that he is talking about those who do not receive Baptism as a direct result of their unbelief and neglect.
Someone who has Baptism of desire or blood does not fall into this category as it can be clearly seen that someone who desires Baptism would in no way neglect or disbelieve the Faith, but would do everything in his power to receive Baptism. The case of Desire or Blood is completely different to the case that St. John Chrysostom refers to and anyone who neglected his Baptism or disbelieved would not receive Baptism of Desire or Blood.  

Therefore I believe that the conclusion that Br. Dimond draws from this quote is incorrect.  

Many great Saints such as St. John Damascene, St. Bernard, Pope Innocent III, St. Ambrose, St. Thomas Aquinas and the above mentioned Saints all believed in Baptism of Desire and Blood, though throughout his writings, Br. Dimond repeatedly tries to discredit them.

I consider it to be more prudent to follow the teachings of the holy doctors and Saints due to their virtue and understanding and closeness to God rather than Br. Dimond whose credibility has yet to be proven.  

This then leads me to raise another objection to what I believe is Br. Dimond’s gravest and most glaring error.

The Catechism of The Council of Trent teaches that:
 “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.”

Br. Dimond’s answer to this Dogmatic statement of the Catholic Church is:

“The Catechism of the Council of Trent is not infallible.”

Br. Dimond is very daring in this statement as the Catechism of the Council of Trent is the most concise and authoritative summary of Dogmatic and Moral Doctrine.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent is the only officially promulgated Catechism of the Catholic Church, being the summary of the dogmatic teachings of the Council of Trent.
If the Catechism teaches baptism of desire then logically it can be assumed that the teaching comes from none other than the Council of Trent itself.

This leads to Session 6, Chapter 4 of the Council of Trent.
“In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it,
as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy
Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”

Br. Dimond’s argument against this passage is that the phrase “laver of regeneration or a desire for it” actually means, “laver of regeneration and a desire for it.”

No matter how much Br. Dimond tries to twist the meaning of this
passage, it will always mean exactly what it says.

AND and OR are mutually exclusive and will never mean the same thing.
The word OR, has never and will never mean AND.

I believe that in this argument, Br. Dimond has only revealed his
intellectual dishonesty.

It is very interesting to note that the dogmatic teachings of The
Council of Trent and its Catechism both teach Baptism of desire. Though if you follow the manner in which Br. Dimond refutes both the Council and the Catechism, you will notice that he refutes them with two totally different arguments.

Br. Dimond argues that the Catechism of the Council of Trent is not infallible. Therefore it can be reasonably assumed that he believes that the Catechism is incorrect on this point.

Br. Dimond does not directly refute the Council of Trent in its teaching of Baptism of Desire, but instead he twists the meaning of the otherwise straight forward teaching, to mean something completely different.
Perhaps Br. Dimond realises that he cannot argue against the Council of Tent and therefore he must twist its meaning to suit his argument.

Doesn’t Br. Dimond realise that the teaching of the Catechism comes straight from the Dogmatic Council?   This begs the question: If there are “discrepancies” between the Council and its Catechism, why in almost 500 years is Br. Dimond the only person who has seen the “discrepancies”?
Why does he not use the same argument to refute both the Council and the Catechism?
As both the Council and its Catechism teach the same thing, and as the Catechism proceeds from the Council; I believe that if Br. Dimond’s argument was sound, he could use the same argument to refute both the Council and it Catechism.

My conclusion as a result of this is that Br. Dimond does not hold the sound judgement or intellectual honesty that is needed to conduct such a theological study as this, and as the Church has already spoken on this issue, his arguments only serve to reveal his Non Serviam disposition.

We have to remember that when we refer to Baptism of desire, we are referring to a situation which would happen very rarely and it is not as Br. Dimond seems to imply, a modern teaching based on the “ecuмenical” heresies that all religions are more or less equal and salvation can be obtained through any of them.
The teaching of Baptism of desire pertains to an individual that has accepted the teachings of the Church and has perfect contrition of heart and a charity which contains, at least implicitly, a desire of baptism.I believe the only argument of Br. Dimond’s which appears (in the way that he presents it) to have some credibility, is his quotation of Pope Eugene IV’s bull Cantate Domino.

 “No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

It is interesting to note the Br. Dimond has inserted this quote into his writings without revealing its actual context. I must admit it does appear to support his argument if you read it separately to its context.

This is the actual full quote from Cantate Domino.

“It (the Catholic Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jєωs and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings,
almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

At the start of the quote you may see that the writer is actually
referring to pagans, Jєωs, heretics, and schismatics.
In other words it is referring to those who have rejected the Catholic Faith, whereas those who fall in the category of Baptism of desire and blood have actually fully accepted the Catholic Faith and its teachings and have a pure desire of Baptism.
There is a great difference between the two. One openly and persistently rejects Our Lord and His teachings and the other openly and persistently embraces Our Lord and His teachings.

The problem is that that is NOT what the traditionalist Priests teach.    The say that even Jєωs who reject Christ can be saved by BOD.

For real? This again?

I don't say "use the search tool" much, but any BoD/BoB nonsense requires it.

I don't want to hear that people who actively reject the faith, mock it, and our Lord Jesus Christ are saved.  That is contrary to truth and to any sense of reality, both in this world and divine. God DOES NOT contradict Himself.

EVER.

 :light-saber:

A citation, according to a friend, of what Bp. McKenna wrote to the Dimond Brothers:

"Fr. Fahey in these words is in fact recognizing Baptism of Desire. I repeat them, emphasizing what you ignorantly overlook, with (in parentheses) his implications: 'The Jєωs, as a nation, are objectively aiming at giving society a direction which is in complete opposition to the order God wants. It is possible that (subjectively) a member of the Jєωιѕн Nation, who (objectively) rejects Our Lord, may (subjectively) have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul (Sanctifying Grace), and so be good with the goodness God wants, but objectively, the direction he is seeking to give to the world is opposed to God and to that life, and therefore is not (objectively) good. If a Jєω who rejects Our Lord is (subjectively) good in the way God demands (and therefore, by Baptism of Desire, in the State of Grace), it is in spite of the movement in which (objectively) he and his nation are engaged.' I could not agree more with what Fr. Fahey says . . ."

This is contrary to all of Catholic Tradition, which states that at least some explicit faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation.  Here are a few of many examples:

"After grace had been revealed, both learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above (Question 1, Article 8). As to other minute points in reference to the articles of the Incarnation, men have been bound to believe them more or less explicitly according to each one's state and office." (Summa Theologica, II II, Q.2, A.7)

"It is impossible to believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ, without faith in the Trinity, since the mystery of Christ includes that the Son of God took flesh; that He renewed the world through the grace of the Holy Ghost; and again, that He was conceived by the Holy Ghost. Wherefore just as, before Christ, the mystery of Christ was believed explicitly by the learned, but implicitly and under a veil, so to speak, by the simple, so too was it with the mystery of the Trinity. And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity: and all who are born again in Christ, have this bestowed on them by the invocation of the Trinity, according to Matthew 28:19: "Going therefore teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." (Summa Theologica, II II, Q.2, A.8)

"Explicit faith in those two things was necessary at all times and for all people: but it was not sufficient at all times and for all people." (Summa Theologica, II II, Q.2, A.8)

Of course, we see this in the Athanasian Creed, infallibly declared at the Council of Florence and reaffirmed again at the Council of Trent:

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;

40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42. and shall give account of their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
 
Fr. Fahey is fully modernist, as, apparently, are you.  You  both might as well accept all of Vatican II, which, by the way, never made (at least explicitly) any of the claims that you are making:

http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/CenterReview/3_2005_Vatican2.pdf

My apologies.  They certainly cling to their own heresies.

Zenith --

That statement of Fr. Fahey is found in The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jєωιѕн Nation, Christian Book Club of America, Palmdale, CA, first printed Jan. 1953, reprinted March 1987, reprinted July 1993, in Chapter IV, under the head, "The Struggle of the Jєωιѕн Nation against the True Messias", and the subhead, "Jєωιѕн Naturalism", on page 52, second paragraph.

Quote from: Zenith

..... St. Augustine: Br. Dimond tries to discredit St. Augustine by saying that because St. Augustine refers to St. Cyprian’s teachings on Baptism of Blood, therefore St. Augustine is also wrong. I would have thought that if two great Saints taught this, then maybe there may be some truth in it. So far I have not seen any evidence from Br. Dimond to support his teachings. I am more inclined to believe that Br. Dimond discredits
them not on any solid evidence, but rather because they don’t agree with his beliefs. ...

What did St. Augustine mean by this statement?...

St. Augustine (426): “Consequently both those who have not heard the gospel and those who, having heard it, and having been changed for the better, did not receive perseverance… none of these are separated from that lump which is known to be damned, as all are going… into condemnation.”

 

It means that baptism of desire is a myth.

St. Augustine (+428): “… God foreknew that if they had lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard it without belief.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.”

Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905:
“And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’”

Pope Benedict XIV, cuм Religiosi (# 4), June 26, 1754:
“See to it that every minister performs carefully the measures laid down by the holy Council of Trent… that confessors should perform this part of their duty whenever anyone stands at their tribunal who does not know what he must by necessity of means know to be saved…”

2 Corinthians 4:3: “And if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of this world [Satan] hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.”

This is why every Doctor of the Church held that no adult could be saved without knowledge of the Trinity and the Incarnation. It is why the Doctors of the Church who believed in baptism of desire (although they were wrong about this) only extended it to unbaptized catechumens who believed in the Trinity and Incarnation.

Spiritual Information You Must Know About to be Saved

Zenith said:

The say that even Jєωs who reject Christ can be saved by BOD.

I would disagree with that idea taught by Father Fahey.  Father Fahey is not a Doctor of the Church, he's just an American priest.

If you reject Christ openly, how can you have invincible ignorance?

However, it's hard to say that this is heresy, since the parameters of invincible ignorance have never been established.  Some think that just growing up in an environment prejudicial to Catholicism constitutes invincible ignorance, and that is possible, there is some justification for that theory in Christ asking for forgiveness for those who were killing Him.  

My understanding is that, when you reach the age of reason, you're obligated to find the truth, if possible -- and if it is possible, you don't have "invincible" ignorance, it is entirely vincible...  But others see invincible ignorance differently, and so far, their opinion is not condemned.  As Pius IX made clear, no one knows just how far invincible ignorance extends.