Author Topic: Apparently some reject BoB and BoD? (Read 50824 times)

AnthonyPadua · « **Reply #60 on:** February 09, 2024, 07:54:48 PM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on February 09, 2024, 07:50:51 PM

I think for all practical intents and purposes a baptism performed at the resurrection of the dead would count as BOD, but fair enough. I misunderstood your position a bit
I think both sides Deal with some version or variant of the “constraining God” problem. God could make sure everyone who is elect is water baptized, but he also COULD provide the graces of the sacrament without any physical administration. Neither possibility violates any law of logic, the question between both sides is what God does do not what he could

The problem with this is that God Himself instituted the sacrament and said it was required to enter heaven. And His Church alsk affirms the sacrament requires purr and natural water, hot or cold.

Without the actual water you cannot know if a person is actually baptised, because the physical part is also a visible sign of the invisible Spiritual things that occur.

I also ask you this, can God flood the earth again to destroy all flesh?

JoeZ · « **Reply #61 on:** February 09, 2024, 08:15:47 PM »

2:The BOD adherent has taken a universal Catholic dogmatic proposition out of context in order to claim a different meaning from what is plainly written. (This is part 2 of my reply above)

A: The Fifth Session of Trent deals with "not only new, but even old, dissensions touching original sin, and the remedy thereof " and yet in it there is no mention of any remedy except sacramental baptism. The BOD adherent must invent something that isn't there and further pretend the Fathers at Trent neglected to discuss it.

B: The third chapter, which I quoted in full, is a two part proposition with immediate scriptural support for each, the second being
"As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ.". The third chapter also restricts the definition of baptized so narrow that BOD becomes impossible so the BOD adherent must deny the logic of the scriptural support (only the baptized participate in Christ's merit).

C: The remedy for Original Sin spoken of in chapter 3 is clearly singular and no change is indicated as the chapter progresses from one proposition to the next.

D: When you read the word baptism it isn't enough to understand it as just that sacrament where they pour water. When coupled with all the dogmatic statements requiring baptism for salvation and coupling water to baptism and the absolute necessity of baptismal character, that was explained above, a Catholic can only come to the right conclusion. The word baptism has a meaning only the Catholic can properly understand and it is the context of chapter three that makes any other reading of it anathema.

Please allow an example.
If I say Brenda is my beautiful wife that actually means something different to you Catholics depending on who I am. If I am a Protestant, the Catholic will wonder if she is my first wife or not because if not she may well not be my wife at all. If I am a Mormon I may think she is my wife but because I have three others as well, you Catholics know full well she is in fact not my wife. To the Catholic the word baptism means that unique and necessary sacrament where Christ redeems us and imprints His character. Baptism has an inseparable bond between the water and the Holy Ghost, as Christ said and Trent warned us against treating it as a metaphor. The word sacrament means those vehicles God gave us to transmit Christ's life to us, there are no other ways. That's the Catholic understanding and it clearly precludes all other possibilities.

I pray I've helped,
JoeZ

JoeZ · « **Reply #62 on:** February 09, 2024, 08:19:06 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 09, 2024, 05:45:35 PM

Having put aside the absurd distraction and (deliberate?) waste of time regarding Dismas, can any BoDer refute what I wrote above? Conclusion, no Patristic consensus whatsoever in favor of BoD, and in fact, near-unanimous consensus AGAINST it.

bump for Lads post,

sorry to pile on past this.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #63 on:** February 09, 2024, 08:39:36 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 09, 2024, 05:45:35 PM

Having put aside the absurd distraction and (deliberate?) waste of time regarding Dismas, can any BoDer refute what I wrote above? Conclusion, no Patristic consensus whatsoever in favor of BoD, and in fact, near-unanimous consensus AGAINST it.

I already said I wasn't going to revisit the BoD issue here. I came in on St. Dismas because you posted a Dimond video that you said was "great," and which began with the claim that Dismas didn't enter heaven, as if that were settled and "proof" against any relevance of his situation to a BoD position.

I noted the Scriptural use of "paradise," where Christ said Dismas would be with him "this day," and questioned the Dimond assertion. That questioning of the Dimond claim is supported by Haydock, St. Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Jerusalem - in addition to the rather clear testimony of Scripture in its 3 uses of the term "paradise."

What is ironic is your attempt at mockery as follows in this post which you edited after I quoted it in my reply (quoted in my reply #50):

Quote

So I guess that Dismas was waiting already in Heaven before Our Lord, St. Joseph, or St. John the Baptist got there, waiting to greet them. So Dismas, according to Decem, was the first soul in Heaven. That's how sad it gets when he's desperate to attack the Dimond Brothers.

This is rich: the claim that Dismas preceded Our Lord in His humanity into heaven (which I did'nt make btw) was made by none other than the great Catholic Biblical Scholar Cornelius Lapide:

Quote

Ver. 43.—And Jesus said unto him. Verily I say unto thee, This day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise. That is, in a place of pleasure where thou mayest be in the beatitude and beatific vision of God, i.e. To-day I will make thee for ever happy; I will make thee a king reigning in the kingdom of glory with me this day. So S. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechet. Lect. c. 13); S. Chrysostom (Hom. ii. de Cruce et Latrone); S. Gregory of Nyssa (Serm. on the Resurrection); S. Augustine (Tract. 111 on John). He explains paradise by heaven, that is celestial beatitude. It is certain that Christ on the day on which He died, did not go up to heaven with the thief, but went down into the Limbus Patrum (S. Augustine Lib. ii. de Genese ad litt. chap. 34; and Maldonatus by paradise here understand Abraham’s bosom), and imparted to them the vision of His Godhead and thus made them blest, changing the order of things; for He then made limbus to be paradise, and the lower parts the upper, so that hell should be heaven. For where Christ is, there is paradise; where, the vision and beatitude of God, there, heaven. For, as to what Euthymius and other Greeks say, denying that the souls of the saints see God before the judgment and are happy: by paradise they understand an earthly place; that to which Enoch was carried. But it cannot be so—for it is of the faith that Christ, shortly after His death went down in infernum—that is, the limbus of the Fathers, but He did not go into any earthly paradise. It is, moreover, uncertain whether, after the Deluge, there be any earthly paradise remaining. But grant that there be such, it is the happy and joyful habitation, not of souls, but of bodies only. Hence it is plain from this passage, against the Greeks, Calvin, and the other innovators, that the souls of the saints, when thoroughly purged from sin, do not sleep till the day of judgment, but there behold God, and are beatified by a vision of Him.

Yes, Lad, there is a message here regarding "desperation," here exhibited by your use of mockery in defense of the Dimond's against my challenge to their "proof" about St. Dismas.

Sorry, that was too delicious an irony to pass up . . .

Now you can go debate BoD, and post Dimond videos, to your heart's content.

JoeZ · « **Reply #64 on:** February 09, 2024, 11:19:07 PM »

Quote from: AnthonyPadua on February 09, 2024, 07:36:57 PM

They claim BoD has the effect of the sacrament but without the actual water.

I fully understand what the BOD adherent will do which is why I lead with the argument from the declaration on original sin. The Cushingite is forced to appeal to logic to defeat me there (and they did) but it is a trap because now with their own insistence on a strictly logical reading of the dogmas, I can hang them with their own rope. Here is the syllogism they must now adhere to.

Council of Trent: Session Seven
Canon II; Baptism is necessary for salvation per Trent. (No ifs ands or buts.)
Canon V; Water is necessary for baptism per Trent. (No ifs ands or buts.)
Therefore, water is necessary for salvation. That is the strictly logical reading of the canons II and V in the decree on baptism in the Seventh Session of the Council of Trent.

Case closed.
Deo Gracias
JoeZ

AnthonyPadua · « **Reply #65 on:** February 10, 2024, 12:38:38 AM »

Quote from: JoeZ on February 09, 2024, 11:19:07 PM

I fully understand what the BOD adherent will do which is why I lead with the argument from the declaration on original sin. The Cushingite is forced to appeal to logic to defeat me there (and they did) but it is a trap because now with their own insistence on a strictly logical reading of the dogmas, I can hang them with their own rope. Here is the syllogism they must now adhere to.

Council of Trent: Session Seven
Canon II; Baptism is necessary for salvation per Trent. (No ifs ands or buts.)
Canon V; Water is necessary for baptism per Trent. (No ifs ands or buts.)
Therefore, water is necessary for salvation. That is the strictly logical reading of the canons II and V in the decree on baptism in the Seventh Session of the Council of Trent.

Case closed.
Deo Gracias
JoeZ

They usually say BoD still uses the graces from the water, just applied differently.

Marulus Fidelis · « **Reply #66 on:** February 10, 2024, 04:30:38 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on February 09, 2024, 08:39:36 PM

It is certain that Christ on the day on which He died, did not go up to heaven with the thief, but went down into the Limbus Patrum (S. Augustine Lib. ii. de Genese ad litt. chap. 34; and Maldonatus by paradise here understand Abraham’s bosom), and imparted to them the vision of His Godhead and thus made them blest, changing the order of things; for He then made limbus to be paradise, and the lower parts the upper, so that hell should be heaven.

The bolded could be understood to mean, as you seem to understand it, that the thief went alone to heaven, but it could also be understood rightly, in context, to mean that neither Christ nor the thief went immediately to heaven. That is why the sentence continues to immediately explain how the thief experienced paradise in the Limbus Patrum.

Your reading comprehension is lacking, Lapide agrees with us and the Dimonds.

Stubborn · « **Reply #67 on:** February 10, 2024, 05:12:07 AM »

Quote from: AnthonyPadua on February 09, 2024, 07:54:48 PM

The problem with this is that God Himself instituted the sacrament and said it was required to enter heaven. And His Church also affirms the sacrament requires pure and natural water, hot or cold.

Without the actual water you cannot know if a person is actually baptised, because the physical part is also a visible sign of the invisible Spiritual things that occur.

I also ask you this, can God flood the earth again to destroy all flesh?

Good post.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #68 on:** February 10, 2024, 05:23:40 AM »

Quote from: Marulus Fidelis on February 10, 2024, 04:30:38 AM

The bolded could be understood to mean, as you seem to understand it, that the thief went alone to heaven, but it could also be understood rightly, in context, to mean that neither Christ nor the thief went immediately to heaven. That is why the sentence continues to immediately explain how the thief experienced paradise in the Limbus Patrum.

Your reading comprehension is lacking, Lapide agrees with us and the Dimonds.

Marulus,

This says it all about the mindset of the cult.I've screenshot this classic. Unbelievable. This is probably the most . . . wow.

Just wow.

I'm very sorry for you.

Try hypnotism maybe . . . but you have to want it.

Wow.

2Vermont · « **Reply #69 on:** February 10, 2024, 07:01:05 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on February 09, 2024, 07:43:24 AM

Link to this article? I know the Dimond Brothers speak of it, but I have never seen the contents. I did find this post in a very old thread. The title ("Baptism of Desire and of Blood") of the article does not appear to be the one the DB's used ("The Salvation of Those Outside the Church"). It also appears that they never post any of the content:

CMRI priest confirms their belief in salvation for non-Catholics - page 4 - The Feeneyism Ghetto - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com)

Reading more in the above linked thread, I see that former member Myrna (RIP) posted scans of the article in the library, but for some reason those links are no longer accessible. I'm assuming because the post was made so long ago.

It sure would be nice to actually read what Fr Barbara wrote and not just go off a title. Outside Myrna's post, any time I search for the article on CI, the only thing I find are posters copying and pasting what the DB's post on their site (which only includes the name of the publication, Reign of Mary, and the few issues/numbers and years published).

Emile · « **Reply #70 on:** February 10, 2024, 08:15:37 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on February 10, 2024, 07:01:05 AM

Reading more in the above linked thread, I see that former member Myrna (RIP) posted scans of the article in the library, but for some reason those links are no longer accessible. I'm assuming because the post was made so long ago.

It sure would be nice to actually read what Fr Barbara wrote and not just go off a title. Outside Myrna's post, any time I search for the article on CI, the only thing I find are posters copying and pasting what the DB's post on their site (which only includes the name of the publication, Reign of Mary, and the few issues/numbers and years published).

I think this is it, 2V:
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/the-salvation-of-those-outside-the-church/msg403803/#msg403803

Ladislaus · « **Reply #71 on:** February 10, 2024, 08:56:49 AM »

Still going on about the Dismas distraction?

Dimond Brothers: Dismas is no proof for Baptism of Desire.
Decem: Yes, he is, because he went to Heaven that day.

Decem has to prove not only that Dismas went to Heaven that day (rather than to the Bosom of Abraham, e.g. Limbus Patrum, which is also referred to as "paradise") AND that Dismas wasn't baptized before he went to Heaven "that day", neither of which can be proven.

Move along now.

AnthonyPadua · « **Reply #72 on:** February 10, 2024, 09:17:09 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 10, 2024, 08:56:49 AM

Still going on about the Dismas distraction?

Dimond Brothers: Dismas is no proof for Baptism of Desire.
Decem: Yes, he is, because he went to Heaven that day.

Decem has to prove not only that Dismas went to Heaven that day (rather than to the Bosom of Abraham, e.g. Limbus Patrum, which is also referred to as "paradise") AND that Dismas wasn't baptized before he went to Heaven "that day", neither of which can be proven.

Move along now.

Also he died under the old law so it's a moot point.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #73 on:** February 10, 2024, 09:46:10 AM »

Quote from: AnthonyPadua on February 10, 2024, 09:17:09 AM

Also he died under the old law so it's a moot point.

Right. It's a moot point with regard to the larger question of BoD. It's only relevant to the position that some Church Fathers appeared to hold that the OT Just were baptized before they entered Heaven. Even IF one claims (though it's unproven and unprovable) that Dismas entered Heaven on Good Friday, that STILL doesn't prevent him from having been baptized first (as some Church Fathers believed happened). It's one of the most absurd lines of argument I've seen here in a long time.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #74 on:** February 10, 2024, 09:48:44 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 10, 2024, 08:56:49 AM

Still going on about the Dismas distraction?

Dimond Brothers: Dismas is no proof for Baptism of Desire.
Decem: Yes, he is, because he went to Heaven that day.

Decem has to prove not only that Dismas went to Heaven that day (rather than to the Bosom of Abraham, e.g. Limbus Patrum, which is also referred to as "paradise") AND that Dismas wasn't baptized before he went to Heaven "that day", neither of which can be proven.

Move along now.

As will be apparent to anyone who has read this thread, I never entered the discussion to support BoD, or used St. Dismas for such. I said exactly why I did -

https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/apparently-some-reject-bob-and-bod/msg927102/#msg927102

Now go blunder into laughing at someone else like Cornelius Lapide.

Author Topic: Apparently some reject BoB and BoD? (Read 50824 times)

AnthonyPadua

Re: Apparently some reject BoB and BoD?

JoeZ

Re: Apparently some reject BoB and BoD?

JoeZ

Re: Apparently some reject BoB and BoD?

DecemRationis

Re: Apparently some reject BoB and BoD?

JoeZ

Re: Apparently some reject BoB and BoD?

AnthonyPadua

Re: Apparently some reject BoB and BoD?

Marulus Fidelis

Re: Apparently some reject BoB and BoD?

Stubborn

Re: Apparently some reject BoB and BoD?

DecemRationis

Re: Apparently some reject BoB and BoD?

2Vermont

Re: Apparently some reject BoB and BoD?

Emile

Re: Apparently some reject BoB and BoD?

Ladislaus

Re: Apparently some reject BoB and BoD?

AnthonyPadua

Re: Apparently some reject BoB and BoD?

Ladislaus

Re: Apparently some reject BoB and BoD?

DecemRationis

Re: Apparently some reject BoB and BoD?