Author Topic: Baptism of Desire and Blood: The Teaching of the Church (Read 16193 times)

Ambrose · « **Reply #15 on:** January 20, 2014, 11:31:02 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

I'll dismiss 12-21 as nothing but mindless repetition by various modernist-influenced Jesuits (for the most part) and as irrelevant in establishing the dogmatic nature of this opinion.

I'll get back to 1-11 (which involve a hodge-podge of misinterpreted / misunderstood quotations) ... tonight when/as I have time.

You'll notice that the derivative / source "authorities" are always Augustine and Ambrose. Augustine proposed the idea in very tentative language (never "taught" it) and then later rejected the idea, unbeknownst to his medieval followers, while St. Ambrose clearly did not teach BoD (his oration about Valentinian has been misinterpreted). Meanwhile you have other Fathers (lesser authorities?) who openly reject the idea but are lesser known because they're Greek Fathers.

I'll trace everything in coherent logical order to show that there's ZERO evidence for the existence of BoD anywhere other than in the realm of speculative theology.

PS -- you have the key to the correct understanding of Trent right there in your St. Thomas quote but don't have enough sincerity and good will to see it.

You readily admit to dismissing the teaching of the theologians. Do you have any comprehension of what you are saying?

It is always a mortal sin to reject the teaching of the theologians when they are in consensus. In this case, the teaching, however is of a higher note, as Trent taught it, it is de fide.

Btw, this is not my work, the link to the source is at the bottom. This collection of teaching is only the tip of the iceberg. There are many more Doctors, theologians, catechisms and approved writers who teach the same.

Stubborn · « **Reply #16 on:** January 21, 2014, 05:07:35 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Stubborn
I forgot to add that this is another post trivializing the sacrament from one who despises the sacraments.

Perhaps one day Ambrose or SJB or LoT will do the Catholic thing and start a thread defending the holy sacraments instituted by Our Holy Lord for the good of our souls and for the hope of our salvation, until then, the anti-Catholic threads preaching against the necessity of the sacraments which, as Trent teaches, are necessary unto salvation, will reign as their lex credendi.

To believe in Catholic Doctrine does not trivialize the sacraments. It keep telling you. But you will not hear it: As a Catholic, you must believe in Baptism of Desire. It is not optional. It is part of the Deposit of Faith, and to deny it is heresy.

....."and [if anyone shall say] that although all [the sacraments] are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them through faith alone [aka a "BOD"] men obtain from God the grace of justiflcation; let him be anathema.”

If there is a doctrine on a BOD, Trent clearly condemns it above.

The whole idea is protestant in that falls into the same category as the Protestant form of confession, the confession of one's sins "directly to Christ."

As it is stated, it may sound pious and adequate, but God says it is insufficient, because He forgives sins through the Church only, and one must submit oneself to the Church to receive this forgiveness. What the Protestant is saying is: I refuse to make this submission, and I require that God forgive me on my terms, because I find the Sacrament of Penance very repugnant and humiliating; and my minister has taught me that I do not have to humiliate myself in this way to obtain God's forgiveness. And I won't do it.

The BOD recipient can be saved without the Catholic Church, without the teaching, without the moral code, without the authority, without the priesthood, and without the Sacraments of the Church. In a word, you can and will be saved through no other instrumentality than your own stubborn insistence that you believe that Christ has already saved you.

There is your "doctrine" in a nutshell. It is a protestant doctrine at it's roots and is most assuredly anti-Catholic through and through.

clare · « **Reply #17 on:** January 21, 2014, 05:48:49 AM »

I've yet to see any magisterial statement condemning belief in Baptism of Desire as heretical. It's not like theologians haven't taught it for centuries, before Vatican II, without censure.

If it were an erroneous interpretation of the teaching on Baptism, there would have been a clear condemnation of it, explicitly. The Church had ample opportunity to muster up a condemnation before Vatican II happened.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #18 on:** January 21, 2014, 06:39:15 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

You readily admit to dismissing the teaching of the theologians. Do you have any comprehension of what you are saying?

It is always a mortal sin to reject the teaching of the theologians when they are in consensus. In this case, the teaching, however is of a higher note, as Trent taught it, it is de fide.

Shameless Hypocrite! As a sedevacantist, you commit the mortal sin of rejecting the teaching of all the Church's bishops gathered in Council at Vatican II and universally teaching Religious Liberty, Ecuмenism, etc.

Stubborn · « **Reply #19 on:** January 21, 2014, 07:02:42 AM »

Quote from: clare

I've yet to see any magisterial statement condemning belief in Baptism of Desire as heretical. It's not like theologians haven't taught it for centuries, before Vatican II, without censure.

If it were an erroneous interpretation of the teaching on Baptism, there would have been a clear condemnation of it, explicitly. The Church had ample opportunity to muster up a condemnation before Vatican II happened.

Pure speculation on your part.

Did the Church explicitly condemn the teaching that Our Lady was conceived with original sin or did the Church, without regard to the teaching or persons teaching that error, simply declare the infallible truth?

Likewise the Church did not need to explicitly condemn a BOD when She infallibly declared the sacraments are a necessity for salvation - that decree alone is enough to condemn a BOD, combine that with her numerous other infallible decrees on the necessity of the sacrament, and only the fool continues to insist the Church did not mean what she infallibly and clearly declared.