CathInfo.com

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.

Also, from the time of Augustine (4th century) to Abelard (12th century) it was the common and almost unanimous teaching of theologians that unbaptized infants suffer the fires of Hell after death, a position that was later condemned by Pope Pius VI. This proves that the “common” error of one period (or even for hundreds of years) is not the universal and constant teaching of the Church from the beginning.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 9, “Limbo,” p. 257: “After enjoying several
centuries of undisputed supremacy, St. Augustine’s teaching on original sin was first successfully challenged by St. Anselm, who maintained that it was not concupiscence, but the privation of original justice, that constituted the essence of inherited sin. On the special question, however, of the punishment of original sin after death, St. Anselm was at one with St. Augustine in holding that unbaptized infants share in the positive sufferings of the damned; and Abelard was the first to rebel against the severity of the Augustinian tradition on this point.”

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?

That teaching was defined clearly 150-odd years ago, and no one in the Church has been teaching anything other than it. I am sure that, if anyone were (at least before Vatican II), they would not have gone uncensured.

BOD has been taught by saints and theologians for centuries, and not a squeak of condemnation.

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.

Well, she would if, as you maintain, her theologians and saints were teaching error. But she left that error uncorrected, and uncensured.

Ambros seeks teachers according to his own desires

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:  And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth"

The copy and pasted quotes below from Ambros have been altered to appear to teach what Ambrose wants to believe. I won't waste time on them since this has been said many times here on CI to Ambro, so I write in red my quicK observations. Bottom line is that Ambros is not to be trusted for he is a shamesless liar:

Baptism of Blood and of Desire

From the teachings of the Popes, the Council of Trent, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the Roman Martyrology, the Fathers, Doctors and Theologians of the Church

1. COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1563)
Canons on the Sacraments in General (Canon 4):

“If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justiflcation; let him be anathema.” ( this canon is not talking about baptism alone, it is about the Sacraments in general. Can I desire to be marry or to be a priests? Of course not, but why? Because if you go to the section on baptism is says you must be sacramentally baptized to be saved, and nowhere mentions desire as a substitute. Almost as important, this quote from Trent has been cropped to exclude the part that specifically rejects BOD. This shows clearly that subterfuge is at work here)

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 layer of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto[/i]) 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).” (this translation is purposely changed to give the impression of BOD. This translation was made by Karl Rahner. Trent does not say "except through", again another subterfuge. That is why it makes no sense with the ending quote from John 3:15)

2. ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI (1691-1787)
Moral Theology (Bk. 6):

“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 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.” (I made a whole thread about this canard of defide, see "Justification by BOD and Being Born Again". Everyone has shown Ambro innumerable times that this quote contains many errors, yet he continues to use it . Moreover, he cuts out the ending in which St AL teaches the heresy that unbaptized children can be saved by baptism of blood. Again I made a thread explaining this, see "St. Alphonsus BOD Defide Canard" , yet Amdro continues his tactic of cutting out that part, as well as other parts too!)

3. 1917 CODE OF CANON LAW On Ecclesiastical Burial (Canon 1239. 2)

“Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized.” — The Sacred Canons
by Rev. John A. Abbo. St.T.L., J.C.D., and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D.
Commentary on the Code:
“The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of desire.” (this canon dies not mean anything. It is  fallible. If anyone thinks that it means anything, then I ask them to consider what the opposite side that the Church for 1917 years forbid Christian burial for catechumens! So for 1917 years not even the catechumen was thought to "have met death united to Christ through Baptism of desire". Again, this has been shown to Ambro innumerable times, yet he continues to parrot it)

4. POPE INNOCENT III
Apostolicam:

To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine’s City of God where among other things it is written, “Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.” Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned (Denzinger 388).
(it has been shown to Ambro that this lketter is a forgery
Debitum pastoralis officii, August 28, 1206:

You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water while saying: “I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”
We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: “Go baptize all nations in the name etc.” (cf. Matt. 28:19), the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another... If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed off to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith (Denzinger 413). (First of all, there is no such thing as a priest who has not been baptized. This problem alone demonstrates that the above statement is ludicrous. Secondly, the date of this docuмent is unknown, the author is unknown, it is by no means clear that it was Innocent II,  and the person to whom it is addressed is unknown! Could such a docuмent ever prove anything? No. It remains a mystery why a docuмent of such doubtful authenticity found its way into Denzinger, a handbook of dogmatic statements. This is probably because Denzinger was edited by Karl Rahner, a notorious heretic, whose heretical bias caused him to present this clearly
non-magisterial statement as Magisterial, for he is a believer in baptism of desire. Now Ambros has been told this innumerable times, yet he continues to post this lie)


5. POPE ST. PIUS V (1566-1572) (this quote has been shown elsewhere to be irrelevant)
Ex omnibus afflictionibus, October 1, 1567

Condemned the following erroneous propositions of Michael du Bay:

Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a “pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned” (1 Tim. 1:5) can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins.

That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins.

A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of Baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained.

6. ST. AMBROSE

“I hear you express grief because he [Valentinian] did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism. Tell me, what else is there in us except the will and petition? But he had long desired to be initiated... and expressed his intention to be baptized... Surely, he received [it] because he asked [for it].”( It has been shown innumerable times to Ambro that this eulogy is not clear. Here he cuts out all the parts that prove my point. It has been shown innumerable times to him where St.Ambrose clearly teaches that even a catechumen can't be saved by desire, with direct clear quotes from St. Ambrose. In other words, it has been shown to Amdro that St. Ambrose is actually a foundational source that agrees 100% with the so-called "Feeneyites." Yet he continues to butcher the Valentinian oration to that one line, in his desperate search for "teachers according to his own desires")



7. ST. AUGUSTINE, City of God (Again, It has been shown innumerable times to him where St.Ambrose Augustine clearly teaches that even a catechumen can't be saved by desire, with direct clear quotes from St. AmbroseAugustine. In other words, it has been shown to Amdro that St. Ambrose Augustine is actually a foundational source that agrees 100% with the so-called "Feeneyites." Yet he continues to post these quotes from St. Augustine, in his desperate search for "teachers according to his own desires")

 I will leave it at that,  that should be enough to show that  Amdros is a bad willed obfuscator, and a shameless liar
[/size]