Ordinary Law vs Extraordinary Law

ut baptism of desire is a baptism, or else it would not be called Baptism of desire, now would it?

Who here said it wasn't a baptism?  Or is that just your way to sound like you know what you are talking about?

Quote

ut baptism of desire is a baptism, or else it would not be called Baptism of desire, now would it?

Who here said it wasn't a baptism?  Or is that just your way to sound like you know what you are talking about?

I find it funny how you appear to be getting agitated over this discussion. If you can't handle this discussion you're free to not post. Do you always get upset when people don't agree with you?

Anyways...

Now, to answer your question, no one said it wasn't a baptism. I was making the point that it is (or at least, you are, necessarily, saying that it is) a baptism by asking that question. If BoD is really a baptism, and natural water is necessary for baptism, how is baptism of desire supposed to work? Trent does say that natural water is necessary for baptism. You can get as irritated as you want, but I'm not leaving this alone until I get answers that actually make sense.

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Daegus

But baptism of desire is a baptism, or else it would not be called Baptism of desire, now would it?

It's been explained, you just don't want to accept it. BOD is not a Sacrament.

Absolute rubbish. You're not in any way contributing to the discussion by posting this nonsense. You say that BoD is a baptism. I say: well if it's a baptism that does not involve water, what do we make of Trent that says that water is necessary for baptism? It being a sacrament or not is not relevant.

Maybe if you people would stop equivocating the discussion would be a lot smoother.

Your first post on this thread is a lie. You're not here to understand, you're here to teach your own doctrine.

Without getting to[sic] into this, I want to know what you think.

Quote from: Daegus

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Daegus

But baptism of desire is a baptism, or else it would not be called Baptism of desire, now would it?

It's been explained, you just don't want to accept it. BOD is not a Sacrament.

Absolute rubbish. You're not in any way contributing to the discussion by posting this nonsense. You say that BoD is a baptism. I say: well if it's a baptism that does not involve water, what do we make of Trent that says that water is necessary for baptism? It being a sacrament or not is not relevant.

Maybe if you people would stop equivocating the discussion would be a lot smoother.

Your first post on this thread is a lie. You're not here to understand, you're here to teach your own doctrine.

Quote from: Dogus

Without getting to[sic] into this, I want to know what you think.

How does your rubbish somehow prove that I lied? I wanted to know what you think, and it's obvious YOU don't think much of anything because you haven't contributed in any way. Then you say that I'm here to "teach [my] own doctrine", which is an absolute lie and is calumny against me. I want to understand how BoD can be reconciled with dogmatic Church teaching, and for some reason it seems as though you can never cease to equivocate and give me a clear answer. Instead of using clear arguments and definitions you people whine endlessly about fallible opinions of Church Doctors and other saints and you try to get me to believe your point by leading the discussion astray with irrelevancies.

Quite frankly, I find you to be a pernicious liar whose perfidy knows no constraint. You're actually willing to sit here, accuse me and tell lies about me, all the while lying yourself.

Did you know that I'm still waiting for an answer to my 2 questions which NONE OF YOU bothered to answer in a way that made any sense? I have to keep telling you people to answer my posts or else you'll keep dwelling on irrelevancies like geocentrism and Fr. Feeney and so on. Here are my 2 questions which have not been properly answered by anyone. Instead of trying to help me, your bad will has led you to attack me and calumniate me. I know that you're getting frustrated that you can't provide valid answers to my questions, but that's no excuse for you to lie about me.

I'm still waiting:

What I would like to know is whether or not natural water is absolutely necessary for a person to be baptized, and whether or not baptism (with water) is absolutely necessary for salvation.

I'd like to know if those who have not received the Sacrament of baptism can be considered inside of the Church? Can we say that those who are "baptised by desire" are apart of the faithful?

Why are you people not answering my questions?

maybe this will tide you over

http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_baptisms.htm

Quote from: Hermenegild

Quote from: Exilenomore

Quote from: St. Alphonsus, Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7

Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water ["fluminis"], of desire ["flaminis" = wind] and of blood.

We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de ####o non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved "without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it".

Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality ["non ita stricte"] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from Baptism of blood – translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.

It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ.

(Translated by John Daly)




St. Alphonsus is a Saint and Doctor of the Church. One should not make caricatures of the salutary doctrine of the Church, pulling definitions out of their proper context.

Other canonized Doctors actually rejected what St. Alphonsus teaches here.

How do we reconcile this?

By submitting to the Holy Office which condemned the errors of Leonard Feeney during the reign of Pope Pius XII.

Any docuмents calling Fr Feeney to Rome or ex-comming him because he failed to comply are Fraudulent.

I have read Gary Potter but not Laisney.