Yes, I do. Why?
If Baptism by Blood or Desire is false, what have we accomplished?
We've ascertained the truth, which cannot ever contradict the truth. Anyone who believes that infallible decrees can contradict one another, truly does not have Divine and Catholic Faith.
We've proved every church father was a heretic.
Wrong. Heresy is the denial of a dogma. A dogma is something the Church proposes for belief as Divinely revealed either in her solemn Magisterium or in her Ordinary and universal Magisterium. The Church Fathers were not infallible, although it is understood to be infallible when ALL the Church Fathers who taught on a matter taught the same thing with no dissenting opinions. Baptism of desire and baptism of blood are part of neither Magisterium, since there have been dissenting opinions on both sides prior to the infallible decrees, which make it clear that only baptism of water cleanses original sin and makes one a member of the Church.
And this is exactly why St. Peter and his successors were given the gift of infallibility, so that by the exercise of his office, he could put an end to any lawful debates on doctrinal issues by declaring an infallible dogmatic decree.
We've proved that constant church teaching, although never infallibly defined, has changed.
Truths of Faith never change. Dogmas never change. Human knowledge of dogmas progresses over time, however. Moses and the prophets knew comparatively little about God, whereas if they were to have had a chat with a Christian from the future, even a lay person, they would be astounded at the treasury of the knowledge of God, which has been bestowed upon us in the fullness of time.
We've proved that every doctor of the church was a heretic.
Again, not so. Aquinas, who taught baptism of desire, died before the Council Vienne, which ended any lawful debate on whether a person could be cleansed from original sin in this manner. Alphonsus, on the other hand, was aware of the teachings of Trent, and yet baptism of desire is attributed to his writings. See argument below.
We've proved many a saint, although canonized, can not actually be in heaven.
How have we done that? Have you ever heard of tampering? Or retractions? Or material heresy? Or loss of the use of reason (ie; senility)? These are all possible explanations for why saints are indeed saints, who have been canonized and yet have heresies
attributed to them. And if it should turn out that a canonization was in fact erroneous (and neither your nor I have the right to presume to state as much), it must be remembered that canonizations are not Truths proposed as Divinely revealed, are based upon fallible evidence and human testimony, and so are not infallible to begin with.
We've proved all aborted infants are burning in hell for the sin of being born to parents without the will to do their duty as parents.
Wrong. We've come to the understanding that they are damned for the inherited guilt of original sin.
We've proved that every Native American who lived in North America, or every Aboriginal who lived in Australia, or Aztec, etc, etc, prior to Catholicism crossing the ocean, is burning in hell for the sin of being predestined by God to be born where they could never become Catholic.
And why would that be the case do you suppose? Has it ever occurred to you to read the Old Testament? God suffered ALL THE WORLD except the Israelites to be delivered up to idolatry, and therefore to be damned. This is indeed a just punishment for original sin, and for multiplying sins against His Majesty.
Now consider the peoples you have listed. Which group among them are NOT idolaters?
It all seems overly fishy to me. God's justice is supreme for sure,but that is along with his mercy, his love, and his forgiveness.
I used to feel the way you do now. And you are right to say that God's justice is supreme. God gives all His creatures what is their due. But He doesn't OWE anybody His mercy. It is appointed for a man once to die, and that is the just wages of sin. The fact that God has deigned to give us a Redeemer in Jesus Christ, who mercifully preached to us that sublime and narrow way to salvation is a gratuitous act of mercy, as is the gift of grace that He gives to all those who will embark upon that path.
We've proved that the breviary is also filled with error, as it lists 3 saints who received Baptism by Blood.
I don't know anything about this, though I have heard arguments about certain saints, such as Emerantiana and Genesius, but the fact is that there is not any proof that they never received baptism. In fact Augustine believes that Genesius did receive baptism validly while on the stage, and it is rather a strange notion to believe that Emerantiana would have been out and about, praying in public as an unbaptized Catechumen during a bitter persecution. Anyway, suffice it to say that the breviary is not an ex cathedra decree.
What if Peter infallibly defined the idea of Baptism by Blood or Desire, we just have no record of it? It was passed on as sacred tradition, and that is why all the fathers preach it, all teh doctors preach it, saint's are justified by it, yet we deny it?
Are you turning Gnostic on me? I want nothing to do with Gnostics and their secrets.
It makes no sense. That is why I feel it must be right.
That's because you are building to yourself a graven image, a false jesus christ, who's teachings do not resemble those of the Creator God-man Jesus Christ, the King of all creation. Sadly, your religion is fraught with contradiction until you recognize the truth in the many authoritative statements of the Church, and God Himself, which state that unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he CANNOT (not can not, but cannot) enter the kingdom of heaven.
Alright, my rant done. Now, explain to me why you feel they must be wrong.
God simply does not contradict Himself. Your position demands that you say He does. Or that you say God the Holy Ghost truly does not speak in ex cathedra decrees. Or that St. Peter and his successors do not the perform the office of Vicar of Jesus Christ.
Please understand that denying baptism of desire is not a popular position to hold, and I know this. Yet it is the correct position. The proof of this is in the dogmatic decrees of Holy Mother Church, not in what theologians and other fallible men and women may say.
The Catholic Faith is glorious, unchanging and perfect, just like it's Divine Founder, yet belief in baptism of desire and baptism of blood poke holes in God's credibility and His consistency, destroys the coherence of dogmatic statements of the popes and encourages a person to believe in salvation outside the Church, and indeed the fruits of these heresies are manifest today throughout the world.
For example, we have people like Bishop Sanborn (whom I was frighteningly close to following, before God gave me the grace to reject him and baptism of desire) who believes pagans and idolaters can be saved while they are still pagans and idolaters.
Rejecting baptism of blood and baptism of desire, and the opposition and persecution it may bring, are simply necessary to be Catholic. A person cannot, without sin, pretend it isn't heresy, just because most people of the age don't believe it is.
Is it enough to just believe in God for salvation?
St. Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned."
No. He who believes
and is baptized shall be saved. But even being one who is baptized, yet does not believe, as the Lord says, leads to condemnation. I take it you're baptized? Good. Start believing. Be saved.
Finally, I would like to pass along a part of an email I received from someone today who has recognized the truth in the matter of baptism of desire:
I just wanted you to know I have not run away, still around. I am currently reading a book that "######" sent. Funny thing in this book about Feeney. There is a most excellant description of the American Martyrs. HMMM, Fr. Jean de Brébeuf had been teaching the Indians, they were ready for Baptism. If Fr. de Brébeuf had believed in BOD (surely by this point as he was walking through pure hell to get back to the Indians to baptize them, so they were ready), he would have stayed where he was at and not risked the Iroquois who were on a rampage. If he believed in BOD then he would have thought it is good enough, and the Indians had the desire to be baptized and so all would be well. But, no. He did not believe, clearly as he went back had such horrendous torture and finally ended with his heart ripped out of his beating chest. Clearly he had never heard of BOD or "close enough is good enough."
Now go look yourself in the mirror and see if you can utter this sentence without lying:
"I BELIEVE ALL OF GOD'S WORDS EXACTLY AS THEY ARE DECLARED IN THE INFALLIBLE SOLEMN MAGISTERIUM."
Topic: Baptism of Blood IS REAL!!!!!! (Read 27167 times)