Author Topic: Baptism of Blood IS REAL!!!!!! (Read 23630 times)

Vladimir · « **Reply #25 on:** July 20, 2009, 11:28:43 AM »

Vatican II is a "counter-syllabus" as Benedict XVI put it. It was meant to be in direct opposition to Tradition.

CM · « **Reply #26 on:** July 20, 2009, 02:04:42 PM »

Dogmas are to be understood according to the OBJECTIVE SENSE of the text, as they have once been DECLARED, not as they have been once, twice or thrice explained. How is it that the explanations of dogmas can change? This is exactly what has been happening over time, especially with EENS.

Obviously, if someone believes them or explains them contrary to their OBJECTIVE SENSE, then they are believing or explaining them contrary to the Mind of the Church, which is the Mind of God the Holy Ghost.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 4, #14: "Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."

Pope Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22: "The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself." - Condemned.

CMMM · « **Reply #27 on:** July 20, 2009, 04:24:33 PM »

If the meaning of Sacred Dogma is ever to be maintained, and the church has always consistently defended baptism by blood or desire, though not applying it as liberally as the present, should we not understand the dogma to take into account these?

Caraffa · « **Reply #28 on:** July 20, 2009, 04:29:28 PM »

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

Excuse me Caraffa, but you are taking my words out of context, and you are making an unproved assumption by saying people outside the Church receive supernatural faith through grace. In another thread

,

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

...The necessary dogmas are contained in the Athanasian Creed, and their necessity is testified to by Pope Eugence IV, when he asserts the following:

"This is the Catholic Faith. Unless a person believes it faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."

So a person who does not believe the Catholic Faith cannot be saved, neither is this person Catholic. A person who believes, but is not baptized has natural faith, which may be a gift of prevenient grace from God, insofar as it disposes him to seek baptism, but it cannot save him without this sacrament.

A natural faith you say CM? How did one arrive at such faith? By reason alone without grace?

Decree on Justification - (Session 6, Chapter 4):
"In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the 'adoption of the Sons' (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).

CM · « **Reply #29 on:** July 20, 2009, 11:27:45 PM »

This is THE ONE AND ONLY infallible decree that baptism of desire adherents are ever going to bring forward, and as we will see, this decree actually teaches CONTRARY to their heresy. Read this carefully, it's laid right out in black and white, and if you still believe in baptism of desire after this, it's because you WANT to.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, 1547, Decree on Justification, Chapter IV, ex cathedra: "And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. (St. John 3:5)"

The problem here for baptism of desire and baptism of blood is twofold. First in order to believe in baptism of desire one has to falsely understand this decree in a manner, which necessarily involves denying the Canons on baptism, when the correct understanding does not necessitate this: The translation (to the state of grace) cannot take place without the laver of regeneration (water baptism) or the desire thereof, in the same sense as a man cannot sail a boat without a body of water upon which to sail, or the will to do so. Absence of either one renders the desired result impossible, until the absence is remedied. In this interpretation, no dogmas are denied, thus it is the correct interpretation.

This is further attested to by understanding the rules of logic when dealing with statements worded in this manner. This is the important section of the decree to pay attention to: "...cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof..."

We are dealing with the negation of a compound statement. We are talking about something that CANNOT take place without this or that. In other words we are stating the circuмstances , which are necessary to exist for this event to be incapable of taking place: the absence of only one of the two above elements, the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof. Only one has to be missing. Things would be entirely different if the disjunction were changed to a conjunction, that is if the word "or" was switched to the word "and", OR if the "cannot be effected, without" were switched to "can be effected with". Either one of these changes would completely alter the meaning of the phrase, whereas if both changes took place, there would be no change in the meaning whatsoever.

Here is a further breakdown of the rules of logic involved in the negation of a compound statement, as can be shown by this website:

Negating a Conjunction (and) and a Disjunction (or):

If we were dealing with a conjunction:
"This translation to the state of justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration and the desire thereof."

The above statement would mean that BOTH must be missing for the translation the the state of justification to be impossible. Since BOTH have to be missing, this means that the presence of only one is sufficient to effect justification. Baptism of desire adherents would like it if the decree used a conjunction, but this is not the way it was decreed. The council used not a conjunction, but a disjunction:

Disjunction:
"This translation to the state of justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration OR the desire thereof."

If the translation to the state of justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof, then it cannot be effected if EITHER one is missing. So it can be said that "This translation to the state of justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration" and "This translation to the state of justification cannot be effected without the desire thereof."

Now that we see this is the only way to understand this decree, it behooves us to examine ta common he one seemingly legitimate objection, namely that infants, since they have not attained the use of reason, cannot actively desire the sacrament of baptism. It is clear that the God would not decree something that is impossible, so it is clear that He means that in those receiving the sacrament, who have the use of reason, and are thus capable of desiring, it is necessary that the desire for the sacrament not be missing. Otherwise one would have to assert that baptism on infants is never valid. And the context of this session of the Council of Trent is
further attested to by Chapter 5 of the same session:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Chapter V, On the necessity, in adults, of preparation for Justification, and whence it proceeds, AD 1547, ex cathedra: "The Synod furthermore declares, that IN ADULTS, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ..."

Second, if the Council had purposed to teach baptism of desire, which would have been an exception to the dogmatic canons stating that water baptism is necessary, it certainly would have done so explicitly in the Canons on baptism, as would be fitting, rather than in the Decree on Justification. In fact, this Council did exactly that with regard to making an explicit exception in the decree on original sin, when it stated the following at the end of the same decree:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session V, Decree Concerning Original Sin, 1546, ex cathedra: "This same holy Synod doth nevertheless declare, that it is not its intention to include in this decree, where original sin is treated of, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, the mother of God; but that the constitutions of Pope Sixtus IV., of happy memory, are to be observed, under the pains contained in the said constitutions, which it renews."

And just for anecdotal purposes, don't you think, Caraffa, that if the decree were meant to teach baptism of desire, it would have said thins instead, which would not then appear to be contradictory:

Hypothetical decree with the Scripture verse that would have more likely been used to teach baptism of desire (as if the God the Holy Ghost could contradict Himself in these decrees!) "And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, can be effected, with the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; The Spirit breatheth where he will; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he cometh, and whither he goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. (John 3:8)"

Food for thought.