Author Topic: A reflection on the 1949 Holy Office Letter. (Read 4554 times)

Ambrose · « **Reply #30 on:** October 30, 2014, 11:50:35 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose

But I have defended what the Church has taught. You are not the Church. Your job is to submit and obey, not protest the teachings.

Go to the library on this site and you will find many of the approved works that I have scanned on this subject.

Have you ever just thought, just for a minute, to learn from your betters and just realize that you are an untrained layman? Btw, when I say betters, I don't mean myself, I mean the countless trained and comissioned theologians whose works were approved by the Church authorities for centuries who all stand against the ideas of your tiny sect.

I just cannot grasp why you and some others on here can't see this pride in yourselves. I am the first to admit that I am an ant next to an elephant in comparison to the great Doctors of the Church and theologians. It amazes me to see people who call themselves Catholics think they are smarter or more knowledgable than men thousands of times greater than them.

You have not defended, you have denied what the Church teaches - proof of this is your incapability to defend what the Church defends - the necessity of the sacraments for salvation. We've been over this many times over the past year.

The Church teaches: If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;.........[let him be anathema.] - you demonstrate repeatedly that you deny this dogma since you post obsessively and repeatedly all over CI - including the library - that the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation, which is in direct contradiction to this dogma. You know Trent anathematizes you for this yet you show no signs of repenting.

But this is the part that most explicitly condemns your preaching that the Church teaches salvation via a BOD, which we all know is No Sacrament At All:

"and [if anyone saith] that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

As for the rest of your post, you have continued to weasel out of the question and I can say there is no end to your weaseling. Your standard non-answer to clear challenges are the same tired old Novus Ordo inspired canned replies.

If you honestly believed the church teaches a BOD then you would jump to the chance to defend a BOD in that video - you would use it as an explicit example of what a BOD is - but even YOU know better but refuse to admit and profess the truth.

But I have defended the necessity of the sacraments as taught by the Church. I reject your straw men which only confuse this issue.

BoD is explained by the Church and does not include the example you cited in your video. The fact that you think it does, only shows me that this subject is over your head.

BOD explained by the Church requires holding the Catholic Faith necessary for justification. Therefore, if ever possible, it cannot apply to a Jєω, Muslim, Hindu, etc that dies in ignorance of the Faith.

Now we are finally getting somewhere.

Yes, supernatural Faith is necessary for salvation.

The only question left open on this matter is the minimum amount of Faith necessary to fulfill the act of Faith. That matter remains unresolved by the magisterium, and the theologians do not have a consensus, only a majority and minority opinion.

tdrev123 · « **Reply #31 on:** October 31, 2014, 02:07:21 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose

But I have defended what the Church has taught. You are not the Church. Your job is to submit and obey, not protest the teachings.

Go to the library on this site and you will find many of the approved works that I have scanned on this subject.

Have you ever just thought, just for a minute, to learn from your betters and just realize that you are an untrained layman? Btw, when I say betters, I don't mean myself, I mean the countless trained and comissioned theologians whose works were approved by the Church authorities for centuries who all stand against the ideas of your tiny sect.

I just cannot grasp why you and some others on here can't see this pride in yourselves. I am the first to admit that I am an ant next to an elephant in comparison to the great Doctors of the Church and theologians. It amazes me to see people who call themselves Catholics think they are smarter or more knowledgable than men thousands of times greater than them.

You have not defended, you have denied what the Church teaches - proof of this is your incapability to defend what the Church defends - the necessity of the sacraments for salvation. We've been over this many times over the past year.

The Church teaches: If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;.........[let him be anathema.] - you demonstrate repeatedly that you deny this dogma since you post obsessively and repeatedly all over CI - including the library - that the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation, which is in direct contradiction to this dogma. You know Trent anathematizes you for this yet you show no signs of repenting.

But this is the part that most explicitly condemns your preaching that the Church teaches salvation via a BOD, which we all know is No Sacrament At All:

"and [if anyone saith] that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

As for the rest of your post, you have continued to weasel out of the question and I can say there is no end to your weaseling. Your standard non-answer to clear challenges are the same tired old Novus Ordo inspired canned replies.

If you honestly believed the church teaches a BOD then you would jump to the chance to defend a BOD in that video - you would use it as an explicit example of what a BOD is - but even YOU know better but refuse to admit and profess the truth.

But I have defended the necessity of the sacraments as taught by the Church. I reject your straw men which only confuse this issue.

BoD is explained by the Church and does not include the example you cited in your video. The fact that you think it does, only shows me that this subject is over your head.

BOD explained by the Church requires holding the Catholic Faith necessary for justification. Therefore, if ever possible, it cannot apply to a Jєω, Muslim, Hindu, etc that dies in ignorance of the Faith.

Now we are finally getting somewhere.

Yes, supernatural Faith is necessary for salvation.

The only question left open on this matter is the minimum amount of Faith necessary to fulfill the act of Faith. That matter remains unresolved by the magisterium, and the theologians do not have a consensus, only a majority and minority opinion.

The only Supernatural Faith is the Catholic FAITH!

"Those who die as infidels are damned" - some stupid Feeneyite said that.....no.....It was the greatest Pope in the past 300 years, St. Pope Pius X.

Do you think you are smarter than St. Pope Pius X?

Cantarella · « **Reply #32 on:** October 31, 2014, 02:42:57 AM »

Quote from: tdrev123

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose

But I have defended what the Church has taught. You are not the Church. Your job is to submit and obey, not protest the teachings.

Go to the library on this site and you will find many of the approved works that I have scanned on this subject.

Have you ever just thought, just for a minute, to learn from your betters and just realize that you are an untrained layman? Btw, when I say betters, I don't mean myself, I mean the countless trained and comissioned theologians whose works were approved by the Church authorities for centuries who all stand against the ideas of your tiny sect.

I just cannot grasp why you and some others on here can't see this pride in yourselves. I am the first to admit that I am an ant next to an elephant in comparison to the great Doctors of the Church and theologians. It amazes me to see people who call themselves Catholics think they are smarter or more knowledgable than men thousands of times greater than them.

You have not defended, you have denied what the Church teaches - proof of this is your incapability to defend what the Church defends - the necessity of the sacraments for salvation. We've been over this many times over the past year.

The Church teaches: If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;.........[let him be anathema.] - you demonstrate repeatedly that you deny this dogma since you post obsessively and repeatedly all over CI - including the library - that the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation, which is in direct contradiction to this dogma. You know Trent anathematizes you for this yet you show no signs of repenting.

But this is the part that most explicitly condemns your preaching that the Church teaches salvation via a BOD, which we all know is No Sacrament At All:

"and [if anyone saith] that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

As for the rest of your post, you have continued to weasel out of the question and I can say there is no end to your weaseling. Your standard non-answer to clear challenges are the same tired old Novus Ordo inspired canned replies.

If you honestly believed the church teaches a BOD then you would jump to the chance to defend a BOD in that video - you would use it as an explicit example of what a BOD is - but even YOU know better but refuse to admit and profess the truth.

But I have defended the necessity of the sacraments as taught by the Church. I reject your straw men which only confuse this issue.

BoD is explained by the Church and does not include the example you cited in your video. The fact that you think it does, only shows me that this subject is over your head.

BOD explained by the Church requires holding the Catholic Faith necessary for justification. Therefore, if ever possible, it cannot apply to a Jєω, Muslim, Hindu, etc that dies in ignorance of the Faith.

Now we are finally getting somewhere.

Yes, supernatural Faith is necessary for salvation.

The only question left open on this matter is the minimum amount of Faith necessary to fulfill the act of Faith. That matter remains unresolved by the magisterium, and the theologians do not have a consensus, only a majority and minority opinion.

The only Supernatural Faith is the Catholic FAITH!

"Those who die as infidels are damned" - some stupid Feeneyite said that.....no.....It was the greatest Pope in the past 300 years, St. Pope Pius X.

Do you think you are smarter than St. Pope Pius X?

CMRI Ambrose goes so far to deny that there MUST be a belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation, which contradicts all Catholic dogmas AND even speculations ever made by theologians. As said before, not even the conciliar Popes have gone that far of declaring BOD a dogma of Faith as these CMRI sedevacantists do repeatedly.

Stubborn · « **Reply #33 on:** October 31, 2014, 03:03:06 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

But I have defended the necessity of the sacraments as taught by the Church. I reject your straw men which only confuse this issue.

BoD is explained by the Church and does not include the example you cited in your video. The fact that you think it does, only shows me that this subject is over your head.

You have denied the necessity of the sacraments, you reject their necessity because you preach salvation is attainable without them.

Trent anathematizes you because you have offered indisputable evidence for the last year at least to prove that you are the "anyone" they mention: "and [if anyone saith] that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

Your constant cult like inspired mantra of "I teach what the Church teaches" while wholeheartedly and emphatically denying what the Church explicitly teaches is beyond ludicrous and only those suffering with a severe case of a reading comprehension impediment could possibly agree with you.

The proof that the video precisely demonstrates your version of BOD is that like your version of a BOD, the video version is prot, both versions are completely identical - and in your dishonesty, all you offer once again is a non-answer to the challenge of demonstrating how the video BOD differs from your version, which only serves to prove you either have no idea wth you have been talking about this last year or you purposely preach error - can you be honest enough for just a moment to at least agree with that?

Ambrose · « **Reply #34 on:** November 02, 2014, 10:59:18 AM »

Quote from: tdrev123

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose

But I have defended what the Church has taught. You are not the Church. Your job is to submit and obey, not protest the teachings.

Go to the library on this site and you will find many of the approved works that I have scanned on this subject.

Have you ever just thought, just for a minute, to learn from your betters and just realize that you are an untrained layman? Btw, when I say betters, I don't mean myself, I mean the countless trained and comissioned theologians whose works were approved by the Church authorities for centuries who all stand against the ideas of your tiny sect.

I just cannot grasp why you and some others on here can't see this pride in yourselves. I am the first to admit that I am an ant next to an elephant in comparison to the great Doctors of the Church and theologians. It amazes me to see people who call themselves Catholics think they are smarter or more knowledgable than men thousands of times greater than them.

You have not defended, you have denied what the Church teaches - proof of this is your incapability to defend what the Church defends - the necessity of the sacraments for salvation. We've been over this many times over the past year.

The Church teaches: If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;.........[let him be anathema.] - you demonstrate repeatedly that you deny this dogma since you post obsessively and repeatedly all over CI - including the library - that the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation, which is in direct contradiction to this dogma. You know Trent anathematizes you for this yet you show no signs of repenting.

But this is the part that most explicitly condemns your preaching that the Church teaches salvation via a BOD, which we all know is No Sacrament At All:

"and [if anyone saith] that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

As for the rest of your post, you have continued to weasel out of the question and I can say there is no end to your weaseling. Your standard non-answer to clear challenges are the same tired old Novus Ordo inspired canned replies.

If you honestly believed the church teaches a BOD then you would jump to the chance to defend a BOD in that video - you would use it as an explicit example of what a BOD is - but even YOU know better but refuse to admit and profess the truth.

But I have defended the necessity of the sacraments as taught by the Church. I reject your straw men which only confuse this issue.

BoD is explained by the Church and does not include the example you cited in your video. The fact that you think it does, only shows me that this subject is over your head.

BOD explained by the Church requires holding the Catholic Faith necessary for justification. Therefore, if ever possible, it cannot apply to a Jєω, Muslim, Hindu, etc that dies in ignorance of the Faith.

Now we are finally getting somewhere.

Yes, supernatural Faith is necessary for salvation.

The only question left open on this matter is the minimum amount of Faith necessary to fulfill the act of Faith. That matter remains unresolved by the magisterium, and the theologians do not have a consensus, only a majority and minority opinion.

The only Supernatural Faith is the Catholic FAITH!

True

"Those who die as infidels are damned" - some stupid Feeneyite said that.....no.....It was the greatest Pope in the past 300 years, St. Pope Pius X.

Do you think you are smarter than St. Pope Pius X?

No

Ambrose · « **Reply #35 on:** November 02, 2014, 11:05:35 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Ambrose

But I have defended the necessity of the sacraments as taught by the Church. I reject your straw men which only confuse this issue.

BoD is explained by the Church and does not include the example you cited in your video. The fact that you think it does, only shows me that this subject is over your head.

You have denied the necessity of the sacraments, you reject their necessity because you preach salvation is attainable without them.

Trent anathematizes you because you have offered indisputable evidence for the last year at least to prove that you are the "anyone" they mention: "and [if anyone saith] that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

Your constant cult like inspired mantra of "I teach what the Church teaches" while wholeheartedly and emphatically denying what the Church explicitly teaches is beyond ludicrous and only those suffering with a severe case of a reading comprehension impediment could possibly agree with you.

The proof that the video precisely demonstrates your version of BOD is that like your version of a BOD, the video version is prot, both versions are completely identical - and in your dishonesty, all you offer once again is a non-answer to the challenge of demonstrating how the video BOD differs from your version, which only serves to prove you either have no idea wth you have been talking about this last year or you purposely preach error - can you be honest enough for just a moment to at least agree with that?

You can tell me I deny the sacraments until the end of time, but that does not make it true. I believe in the necessity of the sacraments as the Church teaches me to believe. That is where you and I differ.

I learn from the Church, while you rely on private judgment.

Don't think I havn't noticed you and all of those like you who would not answer my challenge from months ago.

You have no support for your ideas, and all Catholic sources stand against you, but you just keep digging in, and falsely claiming that I am the one denying a Teaching of the Church, ignoring the obvious fact that it is you and all like you who reject Baotism of Desire and Baptism of Blood that are rejecting the Catholic Faith.

Stubborn · « **Reply #36 on:** November 03, 2014, 04:53:55 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

You can tell me I deny the sacraments until the end of time, but that does not make it true. I believe in the necessity of the sacraments as the Church teaches me to believe. That is where you and I differ.

You defend nothing except salvation via No Sacrament At All - this is how you defend the necessity of the sacraments - by defending salvation is attainable without them (for others they are not necessary, as for you, they are a necessity).

Your church may teach this, but the Catholic Church teaches that whoever says the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation is anathema.

Quote from: Ambrose

I learn from the Church, while you rely on private judgment.

Don't think I havn't noticed you and all of those like you who would not answer my challenge from months ago.

You have no support for your ideas, and all Catholic sources stand against you, but you just keep digging in, and falsely claiming that I am the one denying a Teaching of the Church, ignoring the obvious fact that it is you and all like you who reject Baotism of Desire and Baptism of Blood that are rejecting the Catholic Faith.

You presented a challenge? What was it - to see how long people can withstand your Novus Ordo prot teaching on a Traditional Catholic Forum?

Your entire prot teaching of salvation via NSAA is summed up perfectly in that one minute video - even YOU agree with that - the problem is that is prot teaching, not a teaching of the Church.

Ambrose · « **Reply #37 on:** November 03, 2014, 05:56:06 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Ambrose

You can tell me I deny the sacraments until the end of time, but that does not make it true. I believe in the necessity of the sacraments as the Church teaches me to believe. That is where you and I differ.

You defend nothing except salvation via No Sacrament At All - this is how you defend the necessity of the sacraments - by defending salvation is attainable without them (for others they are not necessary, as for you, they are a necessity).

Your church may teach this, but the Catholic Church teaches that whoever says the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation is anathema.

Quote from: Ambrose

I learn from the Church, while you rely on private judgment.

Don't think I havn't noticed you and all of those like you who would not answer my challenge from months ago.

You have no support for your ideas, and all Catholic sources stand against you, but you just keep digging in, and falsely claiming that I am the one denying a Teaching of the Church, ignoring the obvious fact that it is you and all like you who reject Baotism of Desire and Baptism of Blood that are rejecting the Catholic Faith.

You presented a challenge? What was it - to see how long people can withstand your Novus Ordo prot teaching on a Traditional Catholic Forum?

Your entire prot teaching of salvation via NSAA is summed up perfectly in that one minute video - even YOU agree with that - the problem is that is prot teaching, not a teaching of the Church.

The necessity is fulfilled through the sacrament or the desire for it, as the Catholic Church teaches.

You reject this teaching. I fear for your soul. I find you a very annoying person, but I truly do not want you to go to Hell. You should pray, reflect, and ask God for the grace to help you get out of this heresy.

There is always time so long as God gives it to you to repent.

Stubborn · « **Reply #38 on:** November 03, 2014, 07:32:44 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose

You can tell me I deny the sacraments until the end of time, but that does not make it true. I believe in the necessity of the sacraments as the Church teaches me to believe. That is where you and I differ.

You defend nothing except salvation via No Sacrament At All - this is how you defend the necessity of the sacraments - by defending salvation is attainable without them (for others they are not necessary, as for you, they are a necessity).

Your church may teach this, but the Catholic Church teaches that whoever says the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation is anathema.

Quote from: Ambrose

I learn from the Church, while you rely on private judgment.

Don't think I havn't noticed you and all of those like you who would not answer my challenge from months ago.

You have no support for your ideas, and all Catholic sources stand against you, but you just keep digging in, and falsely claiming that I am the one denying a Teaching of the Church, ignoring the obvious fact that it is you and all like you who reject Baotism of Desire and Baptism of Blood that are rejecting the Catholic Faith.

You presented a challenge? What was it - to see how long people can withstand your Novus Ordo prot teaching on a Traditional Catholic Forum?

Your entire prot teaching of salvation via NSAA is summed up perfectly in that one minute video - even YOU agree with that - the problem is that is prot teaching, not a teaching of the Church.

The necessity is fulfilled through the sacrament or the desire for it, as the Catholic Church teaches.

Yet the Church teaches that whoever says what you just said is anathema - so which church is it that taught you one could make it to heaven without them? The CMRI one? Is that where you get that heresy from?

The Catholic Church teaches that WHOEVER SAYS that without the sacraments, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification, let him be anathema.

Your anathema should be upgraded since you bypass justification entirely and go straight to salvation - without the sacrament.

You really should repeat the teaching of Trent 500,000 times a day until you believe it.

Now, hows about you talk yourself into another ditch and explain how your BOD is different than the video's BOD?

Ambrose · « **Reply #39 on:** November 03, 2014, 07:43:55 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Ambrose

You can tell me I deny the sacraments until the end of time, but that does not make it true. I believe in the necessity of the sacraments as the Church teaches me to believe. That is where you and I differ.

You defend nothing except salvation via No Sacrament At All - this is how you defend the necessity of the sacraments - by defending salvation is attainable without them (for others they are not necessary, as for you, they are a necessity).

Your church may teach this, but the Catholic Church teaches that whoever says the sacraments are not necessary unto salvation is anathema.

Quote from: Ambrose

I learn from the Church, while you rely on private judgment.

Don't think I havn't noticed you and all of those like you who would not answer my challenge from months ago.

You have no support for your ideas, and all Catholic sources stand against you, but you just keep digging in, and falsely claiming that I am the one denying a Teaching of the Church, ignoring the obvious fact that it is you and all like you who reject Baotism of Desire and Baptism of Blood that are rejecting the Catholic Faith.

You presented a challenge? What was it - to see how long people can withstand your Novus Ordo prot teaching on a Traditional Catholic Forum?

Your entire prot teaching of salvation via NSAA is summed up perfectly in that one minute video - even YOU agree with that - the problem is that is prot teaching, not a teaching of the Church.

The necessity is fulfilled through the sacrament or the desire for it, as the Catholic Church teaches.

Yet the Church teaches that whoever says what you just said is anathema - so which church is it that taught you one could make it to heaven without them? The CMRI one? Is that where you get that heresy from?

The Catholic Church teaches that WHOEVER SAYS that without the sacraments, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification, let him be anathema.

Your anathema should be upgraded since you bypass justification entirely and go straight to salvation - without the sacrament.

You really should repeat the teaching of Trent 500,000 times a day until you believe it.

Now, hows about you talk yourself into another ditch and explain how your BOD is different than the video's BOD?

No, the Church of Stubborn says I am anathema, not the Catholic Church which teaches exactly what I keep telling you, but you keep rejecting.

Baptism of Desire is de fide, to deny it is heresy.

Baptism of Blood is certain, to deny it is the mortal sin of temerity.

You and I do not share the same Faith. I am sticking with the Catholic Church, I hope for your sake you do also and recant.

Stubborn · « **Reply #40 on:** November 03, 2014, 08:11:15 AM »

LOL

Who are you trying to kid?

Your church is shown in the video, it's easy to see because you've done a great job of describing it umpteen times.

Cantarella · « **Reply #41 on:** November 03, 2014, 11:11:14 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Baptism of Desire is de fide, to deny it is heresy.

Baptism of Blood is certain, to deny it is the mortal sin of temerity.

Who said that? It must be someone even more modernist than Pope Paul VI, Pope John XXIII, Pope JJII, and Pope Francis for sure, as not even they have gone this far.

Stubborn · « **Reply #42 on:** November 03, 2014, 11:47:46 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Ambrose

Baptism of Desire is de fide, to deny it is heresy.

Baptism of Blood is certain, to deny it is the mortal sin of temerity.

Who said that? It must be someone even more modernist than Pope Paul VI, Pope John XXIII, Pope JJII, and Pope Francis for sure, as not even they have gone this far.

It doesn't really matter Cantarella because there is no prying the truth out of a determined hypocrite.

He was baptized but preaches others can make it to heaven without it.
He goes to Mass but figures others don't really need to.
He receives the Bread of Life but believes others don't really need it.
And on and on it goes.

He saw two different videos - one a Catholic example of a BOD and the other a prot example of a BOD.

He chooses the prot example as if that one were truth (but he is afraid to admit it).

He made his choice, he knows better and he will answer for it.

Ambrose · « **Reply #43 on:** November 03, 2014, 12:05:19 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

LOL

Who are you trying to kid?

Your church is shown in the video, it's easy to see because you've done a great job of describing it umpteen times.

No, my Church is called the Catholic Church, and it was not in your video.

Ambrose · « **Reply #44 on:** November 03, 2014, 12:07:30 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Ambrose

Baptism of Desire is de fide, to deny it is heresy.

Baptism of Blood is certain, to deny it is the mortal sin of temerity.

Who said that? It must be someone even more modernist than Pope Paul VI, Pope John XXIII, Pope JJII, and Pope Francis for sure, as not even they have gone this far.

It doesn't really matter Cantarella because there is no prying the truth out of a determined hypocrite.

He was baptized but preaches others can make it to heaven without it.
He goes to Mass but figures others don't really need to.
He receives the Bread of Life but believes others don't really need it.
And on and on it goes.

He saw two different videos - one a Catholic example of a BOD and the other a prot example of a BOD.

He chooses the prot example as if that one were truth (but he is afraid to admit it).

He made his choice, he knows better and he will answer for it.

I am not interested in your videos. The Catholic Church through her Doctors, catechsims, and theologians has taught and explained Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.

For you that is not good enough, you rely on your private judgment and reject these sacred teachings.

You do so at your own peril.