Author Topic: "Br." Dimond errors on BOB and BOD (Read 61069 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #720 on:** April 05, 2011, 01:28:17 PM »

Quote from: umblehay anmay

BTW.... it was more like 10 hours... now its been a couple days... am I allowed to repost a question since no one responded to it the first time? It should be an easy question to answer for those who hold that St. Thomas knew the Dogma.

Ok, St. Thomas Aquinas was born in 1225 or 1227 and died in 1274 per The Catholic Encyclopedia

In 1215 The 4th Lateran Council defined: There is one Universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation......

The same council also states: But the sacrament of baptism, which by the invocation of each Person of the Trinity, namely of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is effected in water, duly conferred on children and adults in the form prescribed by the Church by anyone whatsoever, leads to salvation. And should anyone after the reception of baptism have fallen into sin, by true repentance he can always be restored. Not only virgins and those practicing chastity, but also those united in marriage, through the right faith and through works pleasing to God, can merit eternal salvation.

St. Thomas Aquinas agrees with The 4th Lateran Council teachings as he obviously believed that baptism of desire and blood are not sacraments at all and that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation, here he writes:

Objection 2. Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above (65, 1). Now none but Baptism of Water is a sacrament. Therefore we should not reckon two other Baptisms.

Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (60, 1), a sacrament is a kind of sign. The other two, however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not sacraments." (Summa, pt. 3, q. 66, a. 11.)

Men are bound to those things without which they cannot attain salvation… Consequently, it is clear that everyone is bound to be baptized, and that without baptism there is no salvation for men." (Summa, pt. 3, q. 68, a. 1.)

I do not understand why you asked about this umblehay anmay.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #721 on:** April 05, 2011, 02:07:37 PM »

Heitanen, you are a heretic who is only interested in condemning people. It isn't your responsibility to judge a person's soul. I am not bad-willed, if I was I would not be posting on a Traditional Catholic forum. You are extremely stubborn. I'm not going to debate with you anymore. There's no point in it. I will pray that God shows you that when you searched for Traditional Catholicism, you went too far. In the mean time, don't bother responding to me. I'm not going to reply, unless it's about a subject other than this one.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #722 on:** April 05, 2011, 02:10:32 PM »

Quote from: umblehay anmay

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Quote from: umblehay anmay
Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
1.- No, LeFebvre did not clearly say that people could be saved while still practicing false religions. He said that they could be saved if they eventually converted to Catholicism! ...

Ok .. one more time... IF this quote is accurate (and I would like to see the entire address if it is available)... SS, How can you say ABL did not say people could be saved practicing thier false religion?......

Bishop Lefebvre, Address given at Rennes, France: “If men are saved in Protestantism, Buddhism or Islam, they are saved by the Catholic Church, by the grace of Our Lord, by the prayers of those in the Church, by the blood of Our Lord as individuals, perhaps through the practice of their religion, perhaps of what they understand in their religion, but not by their religion…”

umblehay, please keep that nonsense to your self. This is an SSPX forum. I don't have a problem with constructive criticism of the SSPX, because they are not perfect and neither was LeFebvre. However, without LeFebvre there would be no SSPX, no FSSP, no SSPV. The TLM would be almost non-existent. LeFebvre is a saint and he did not mean what you thought he did. So again, please stop the criticism of him. I have no interest in reading it. I'm a Traditional Catholic who is working on his salvation, not an extremist like Heitanen who goes around condemning everybody.

I agree the Archbishop was a defender of the true Mass. But to worship his every word and raise his voice to the level of infalliblity is just as wrong as raising St. Thomas to that level. He was simply wrong on these points (mainly due to the fact the he was indoctrinated in these errors in his Priestly formation). A great man made a mistake, why can't you just accept that?

Umblehay, I don't worship Archbishop LeFebvre, nor do I think he was perfect. That is an absurd accusation. There were a few things that I disagreed with him on, one in particular being that at first, he went along with the Vatican II docuмents apparently (although he later admitted it was a mistake). If I thought he literally meant that people could be saved while still practicing false religions, I would disagree with him on that as well. But there is no way that's what he meant.

Hietanen · « **Reply #723 on:** April 05, 2011, 03:24:47 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Heitanen, you are a heretic who is only interested in condemning people. It isn't your responsibility to judge a person's soul. I am not bad-willed, if I was I would not be posting on a Traditional Catholic forum. You are extremely stubborn. I'm not going to debate with you anymore. There's no point in it. I will pray that God shows you that when you searched for Traditional Catholicism, you went too far. In the mean time, don't bother responding to me. I'm not going to reply, unless it's about a subject other than this one.

It's not heresy to condemn sin and heresy, as you falsely imply. You have already admitted that you deny the baptism dogma, and that you deny the dogma that a heretic cannot be pope, or that heretics cannot even be Catholics or inside the Church. You also deny that NFP is a mortal sin and heresy against the natural law. You also deny the dogma that Catholics are forbidden to be in communion with heretics and schismatics, etc, etc.

I can prove that you are a heretic from your own words. You cannot point out however, that I have rejected obstinately a single dogma. If you could do that, I would be happy, for then you would help me to come out of error. That's the difference between you and me. I am searching for the true Catholic Faith, and are ready to accept it. You, however, deny the true Faith whenever it is presented to you, for you seem to be happy where you are already, you are happy with the heretical schismatical sect you belong to, and with the heresies you believe in, and you don't seem to want to be involved in the changes which embracing the true Catholic faith would inevitably lead you into, strife with family, strife with friends and companions, etc. Is this what is keeping you from embracing the true Faith, because the changes seem to impossible to embrace? You are afraid of loosing the little you have in life, the little feeling of security?

umblehay anmay · « **Reply #724 on:** April 06, 2011, 07:29:33 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: umblehay anmay

BTW.... it was more like 10 hours... now its been a couple days... am I allowed to repost a question since no one responded to it the first time? It should be an easy question to answer for those who hold that St. Thomas knew the Dogma.

Ok, St. Thomas Aquinas was born in 1225 or 1227 and died in 1274 per The Catholic Encyclopedia

In 1215 The 4th Lateran Council defined: There is one Universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation......

The same council also states: But the sacrament of baptism, which by the invocation of each Person of the Trinity, namely of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is effected in water, duly conferred on children and adults in the form prescribed by the Church by anyone whatsoever, leads to salvation. And should anyone after the reception of baptism have fallen into sin, by true repentance he can always be restored. Not only virgins and those practicing chastity, but also those united in marriage, through the right faith and through works pleasing to God, can merit eternal salvation.

St. Thomas Aquinas agrees with The 4th Lateran Council teachings as he obviously believed that baptism of desire and blood are not sacraments at all and that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation, here he writes:

Objection 2. Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above (65, 1). Now none but Baptism of Water is a sacrament. Therefore we should not reckon two other Baptisms.

Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (60, 1), a sacrament is a kind of sign. The other two, however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not sacraments." (Summa, pt. 3, q. 66, a. 11.)

Men are bound to those things without which they cannot attain salvation… Consequently, it is clear that everyone is bound to be baptized, and that without baptism there is no salvation for men." (Summa, pt. 3, q. 68, a. 1.)

I do not understand why you asked about this umblehay anmay.

First of all, thank you for that information Stuborn.

To answer your question about why I was asking, it is because elsewhere in the Summa St. Thomas also wrote about BOD/BOB. This is one of the key points that BOD advocates point to in order to support thier case.

Jehanne · « **Reply #725 on:** April 06, 2011, 08:12:02 AM »

Saint Thomas teaches that BoD/BoB are possible for an individual when he or she is unable, through no fault of his own, to obtain Sacramental Baptism in Water. I do not believe that such a situation happens, ever. For starters, the One and Triune God, who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, could see to it that such an individual was sacramentally baptized in his or her infancy, so this would the "rejoinder" to any scenarios that the SSPX or anyone else would propose as to why BoD/BoB must happen.

Stubborn · « **Reply #726 on:** April 06, 2011, 08:31:57 AM »

Your Welcome.

I thought that might be what you were asking about and yes, he did contradict himself stating:

.....Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly......... (Summa, pt. 3, q. 68. a. 2.)

The fact that he, St. Augustine and St. Alphonsus contradicted themselves is, IMO, proof positive as to why we must rely only on defined dogma in this matter.

Until such a time that BOB/BOD is specifically defined or condemned infallibly, it seems prudent to stick with what has already been defined infallibly, which is the one baptism (Eph 4:5) with water as being absolutely necessary.

Jehanne · « **Reply #727 on:** April 06, 2011, 09:47:56 AM »

It should pointed out that Saint Augustine, when he died, was working on a second Retractions.

umblehay anmay · « **Reply #728 on:** April 09, 2011, 11:01:54 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

....The fact that he, St. Augustine and St. Alphonsus contradicted themselves is, IMO, proof positive as to why we must rely only on defined dogma in this matter.....

You do realize you have commited high treason in the eyes of many on here...LOL...

umblehay anmay · « **Reply #729 on:** April 09, 2011, 11:06:18 AM »

Here is another interesting quote from a Pope prior to the man made doctrine of BOD. Even though it is not ex cathedra ( there see, I do know that there is more to understanding the faith than JUST dogmatic statements ) ....

Pope St. Siricius, 385, [Concerning the necessity of baptism] “Therefore just as we declare that respect for the Easter sacrifice [Paschal time] should not be lessened in the case of any person, in like manner we wish help to be brought with all speed to children who because of their age cannot yet speak, and to those who in any emergency are in need of the water of holy baptism, lest it should lead to the destruction of our souls if, by refusing the water of salvation to those who desire it, each of them, when taking leave of this world, should lose both the kingdom and life. Indeed whoever suffers the peril of shipwreck, an enemy attack, the danger of siege or desperation resulting from some bodily infirmity, and so asks for what in their faith is their only help, let them receive at the moment of their request the reward of regeneration that they beg for. This much should suffice for my digression on this subject; now let all priests who do not wish to be wrenched from the firmly-fixed rock of the apostles, on which Christ built his universal church, hold fast to the aforesaid rule.” (Latin found in Denzinger-Schonmetzer, Latin Edition, 1962, no. 184; an English Translation found in The Christian Faith, Sixth Revised and Enlarged Edition, Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1996, p. 540.)

Emerentiana · « **Reply #730 on:** April 09, 2011, 01:14:45 PM »

Quote from: umblehay anmay

Here is another interesting quote from a Pope prior to the man made doctrine of BOD. Even though it is not ex cathedra ( there see, I do know that there is more to understanding the faith than JUST dogmatic statements ) ....

Pope St. Siricius, 385, [Concerning the necessity of baptism] “Therefore just as we declare that respect for the Easter sacrifice [Paschal time] should not be lessened in the case of any person, in like manner we wish help to be brought with all speed to children who because of their age cannot yet speak, and to those who in any emergency are in need of the water of holy baptism, lest it should lead to the destruction of our souls if, by refusing the water of salvation to those who desire it, each of them, when taking leave of this world, should lose both the kingdom and life. Indeed whoever suffers the peril of shipwreck, an enemy attack, the danger of siege or desperation resulting from some bodily infirmity, and so asks for what in their faith is their only help, let them receive at the moment of their request the reward of regeneration that they beg for. This much should suffice for my digression on this subject; now let all priests who do not wish to be wrenched from the firmly-fixed rock of the apostles, on which Christ built his universal church, hold fast to the aforesaid rule.” (Latin found in Denzinger-Schonmetzer, Latin Edition, 1962, no. 184; an English Translation found in The Christian Faith, Sixth Revised and Enlarged Edition, Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1996, p. 540.)

The key words UNBLE are those who desire it.
The Church has always taught Baptism of desire.

My saint, St Emerentiana, DESIRED Baptism. She was a catechumen when she was martyered for the faith. The Church made her a saint. She is on the calender, and she is remembered in the Roman Breviary.

Darcy · « **Reply #731 on:** April 09, 2011, 02:55:50 PM »

I do not remember any controversy over BOD/BOB when I was growing up in the Catholic Church preV2.

Was there controversy about it in the hierarchy at that time?

I see statements by Doctors of the church pro and con but it seems that in those statements they are not arguing about the existence of B/B but those statements are in context of other issues they are talking about.
(:heretic: where applicable.)

I am probably missing something. :reading:

But

1. Am I missing something?

and

2. Was the Church EVER divided on this issue preV2?

Hietanen · « **Reply #732 on:** April 09, 2011, 03:13:05 PM »

Quote from: Emerentiana

Quote from: umblehay anmay
Here is another interesting quote from a Pope prior to the man made doctrine of BOD. Even though it is not ex cathedra ( there see, I do know that there is more to understanding the faith than JUST dogmatic statements ) ....

Pope St. Siricius, 385, [Concerning the necessity of baptism] “Therefore just as we declare that respect for the Easter sacrifice [Paschal time] should not be lessened in the case of any person, in like manner we wish help to be brought with all speed to children who because of their age cannot yet speak, and to those who in any emergency are in need of the water of holy baptism, lest it should lead to the destruction of our souls if, by refusing the water of salvation to those who desire it, each of them, when taking leave of this world, should lose both the kingdom and life. Indeed whoever suffers the peril of shipwreck, an enemy attack, the danger of siege or desperation resulting from some bodily infirmity, and so asks for what in their faith is their only help, let them receive at the moment of their request the reward of regeneration that they beg for. This much should suffice for my digression on this subject; now let all priests who do not wish to be wrenched from the firmly-fixed rock of the apostles, on which Christ built his universal church, hold fast to the aforesaid rule.” (Latin found in Denzinger-Schonmetzer, Latin Edition, 1962, no. 184; an English Translation found in The Christian Faith, Sixth Revised and Enlarged Edition, Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1996, p. 540.)

The key words UNBLE are those who desire it.
The Church has always taught Baptism of desire.

My saint, St Emerentiana, DESIRED Baptism. She was a catechumen when she was martyered for the faith. The Church made her a saint. She is on the calender, and she is remembered in the Roman Breviary.

You can't read very well. The Pope said that they must receive baptism to be Saved, even if they had desired baptism prior. The pope said that even those who desire baptism risks loosing salvation unless they actually receive the water-baptism. That was what he defined, that we should baptize those who desire baptism in emergencies or danger of death.

Adults must both desire baptism, and receive baptism, to be saved, that is why the Pope mentioned desire.

St Emerentiana, was baptized, since she is a saint. I have already proved that to you, but you just couldn't care.

No one can be saved without baptism, so for you to obstinately assert that St. Emerentiana was unbaptized, is a mortal sin of heresy on your part, since you know the dogmas but willingly reject them.

Quote

Council of Braga, 572, Canon xvii: “Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.”

Quote

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

Quote

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

Quote

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “But the sacrament of baptism is consecrated in water at the invocation of the undivided Trinity – namely, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – and brings salvation to both children and adults when it is correctly carried out by anyone in the form laid down by the Church.”

Quote

Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (# 15), Dec. 11, 1925 : “Indeed this kingdom is presented in the Gospels as such, into which men prepare to enter by doing penance; moreover, they cannot enter it except through faith and baptism, which, although an external rite, yet signifies and effects an interior regeneration.”

Jehanne · « **Reply #733 on:** April 09, 2011, 03:38:02 PM »

Quote from: Emerentiana

Quote from: umblehay anmay
Here is another interesting quote from a Pope prior to the man made doctrine of BOD. Even though it is not ex cathedra ( there see, I do know that there is more to understanding the faith than JUST dogmatic statements ) ....

Pope St. Siricius, 385, [Concerning the necessity of baptism] “Therefore just as we declare that respect for the Easter sacrifice [Paschal time] should not be lessened in the case of any person, in like manner we wish help to be brought with all speed to children who because of their age cannot yet speak, and to those who in any emergency are in need of the water of holy baptism, lest it should lead to the destruction of our souls if, by refusing the water of salvation to those who desire it, each of them, when taking leave of this world, should lose both the kingdom and life. Indeed whoever suffers the peril of shipwreck, an enemy attack, the danger of siege or desperation resulting from some bodily infirmity, and so asks for what in their faith is their only help, let them receive at the moment of their request the reward of regeneration that they beg for. This much should suffice for my digression on this subject; now let all priests who do not wish to be wrenched from the firmly-fixed rock of the apostles, on which Christ built his universal church, hold fast to the aforesaid rule.” (Latin found in Denzinger-Schonmetzer, Latin Edition, 1962, no. 184; an English Translation found in The Christian Faith, Sixth Revised and Enlarged Edition, Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1996, p. 540.)

The key words UNBLE are those who desire it.
The Church has always taught Baptism of desire.

My saint, St Emerentiana, DESIRED Baptism. She was a catechumen when she was martyered for the faith. The Church made her a saint. She is on the calender, and she is remembered in the Roman Breviary.

She could have been validly baptized in her infancy; impossible to prove that such did not happen.

umblehay anmay · « **Reply #734 on:** April 09, 2011, 05:21:34 PM »

Quote from: Emerentiana

My saint, St Emerentiana, DESIRED Baptism. She was a catechumen when she was martyered for the faith. The Church made her a saint. She is on the calender, and she is remembered in the Roman Breviary.[/b]

Another thing to consider Emerentiana is that people were still considered catechumens even AFTER they recieved sacramental Baptism because they were still in the need of learning more about the faith. This is something that I only recently became aware of. So, while your Saint may be recorded as having been a catechumen when she was martyred, it didn't necessarily mean she was not baptized.