Author Topic: Baptism of Desire and Blood: The Teaching of the Church (Read 8246 times)

Binechi · « **Reply #30 on:** January 21, 2014, 01:19:26 PM »

Its all really very simple..

You either believe the words of Our Lord and Savior , or you don t .

He said in a very short and simple sentence, "Unless"

Unless you believe in my words, you cannot be with me in Heaven..

Unless is a very strong , definitive and "Final" word.

"[[b]i]Unless you be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, you shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven".[/b][/i]

The Alpha and Omega,,, The beginning and the end,, [/b]Baptism and Salvation.

There really is nothing else to discuss.

The choice is every individual s ..

Ladislaus · « **Reply #31 on:** January 21, 2014, 01:23:26 PM »

Yes, Director; that you for reminding us of what Our Lord said. It is very straightforward and simple. He didn't say of water OR ELSE the Holy Ghost.

Stubborn · « **Reply #32 on:** January 21, 2014, 01:26:09 PM »

Quote from: clare

I don't deny it can be taken too far.

But, in itself, it isn't an error.

I would expect a clear condemnation from the pre-V2 Church of "this pernicious error that goes by the name 'Baptism of Desire'" or something like that.

Again, when the Church infallibly declares that the sacrament is a necessity for salvation, that is what She means - there are no exceptions.

If there were exceptions, the Church is perfectly capable of adding them to the declaration, but because she did not explicitly condemn it is no reason to say: "the sacraments are necessary except in certain circuмstances" - and whoever says this, per Trent, is anathema.

The fact that a BOD is not in any magisterial declarations does not mean the Holy Ghost simply forgot to add it.

The nature of a BOD is such that those who adhere to it are forced to compromise the doctrine that infallibly teaches of the necessity of the sacrament, as such, even when a BOD is some day infallibly, irrevocably and clearly condemned, BODers will still not accept it even though it be explicitly condemned as you suggest.

No different than the "Thrice defined dogma EENS" - why did the Church need to infallibly declare three times that there is no salvation outside the Church - yet people STILL refuse to accept that truth - and so the same can be expected when a BOD is infallibly and explicitly condemned.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #33 on:** January 21, 2014, 01:26:12 PM »

And I've pointed out that Trent cited this very passage as an amplification of the "without water or the desire" passage.

So either Trent is saying that justification cannot happen without water or the desire for it (which Trent attributed to the work of the Holy Ghost), for unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit ...

Or else Trent is directly contradicting Our Lord ... if taken the way the BoDers would have it understood, as an EITHER ... OR.

Also, if it's an EITHER ... OR, you're saying that one can be justified by receiving the Sacrament of Baptism even if you don't have the will for it ... which is also patently false.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #34 on:** January 21, 2014, 01:43:06 PM »

Even if the saints of old did teach BOD, is there any sign that they used the term in a very loose manner as to include anyone?

Wouldn't it be more correct to say that EENS is dogma but Our Lord can make exceptions for those souls expressing BOD? This would be a sacred prerogative of Our Lord and not something to tell people out there for the sole purpose of building political alliances with non-Catholic and non-Christian religions.

I think BOD can very easily become presumption.

The concept of BOD could very well be tied to the binding/loosing that was given to St Peter by Our Lord and is passed on as oral tradition as a form of mercy, not that we think people who deny Our Lord will enter Heaven but that we hope the stupid are not denied Heaven. This is another way to look at it and not one that I actually embrace.

Stubborn · « **Reply #35 on:** January 21, 2014, 01:48:04 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

And I've pointed out that Trent cited this very passage as an amplification of the "without water or the desire" passage.

So either Trent is saying that justification cannot happen without water or the desire for it (which Trent attributed to the work of the Holy Ghost), for unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit ...

Or else Trent is directly contradicting Our Lord ... if taken the way the BoDers would have it understood, as an EITHER ... OR.

Also, if it's an EITHER ... OR, you're saying that one can be justified by receiving the Sacrament of Baptism even if you don't have the will for it ... which is also patently false.

Exactly. Well said.

Ambrose · « **Reply #36 on:** January 21, 2014, 02:42:08 PM »

Quote from: clare

I'm sure the saints and theologians who taught BOD were aware of all that. And I'm sure the Church was aware of what they were teaching.

Yet there works were not corrected.

Perhaps because they didn't actually contradict Church teaching.

Only in the last 50 or so years, it seems, have folks taken issue with them.

Clare, you are partially right, no one was ever corrected for teaching Baptism of Desire and Blood.

But, what you are missing is the reason that they were not corrected. Baptism of Desire and Blood are the teaching of the Church and they must be believed by Catholics.

Every Catholic believed in Baptism of Desire and Blood. No Catholics ever, except for a couple hundred fell for this sophistry from the 1940's when the heresy was born, until the 1990's when the internet age took off.

The SBC and its promoters along with the Dimonds have skillfully used the mass media, mass mailings, videos, the internet, YouTube, etc., to bring life to this almost vanquished heresy that was on life support.

This heresy is spreading and Catholics better wake up to this fact.

Matto · « **Reply #37 on:** January 21, 2014, 02:56:38 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Every Catholic believed in Baptism of Desire and Blood.

Okay, if this is true, tell me, how many of the church fathers believed in BOD. If as you say, every Catholic believed in BOD and BOB then all of the Church fathers must believe in it. Did all of the Church fathers teach BOD?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #38 on:** January 21, 2014, 03:24:35 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Ambrose
Every Catholic believed in Baptism of Desire and Blood.

Okay, if this is true, tell me, how many of the church fathers believed in BOD. If as you say, every Catholic believed in BOD and BOB then all of the Church fathers must believe in it. Did all of the Church fathers teach BOD?

Oooh. Oooh. May I answer?

No, on second thought, I'll wait for Ambrose to declare (without any evidence of course) that BoD is the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers.

bowler · « **Reply #39 on:** January 21, 2014, 03:48:31 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Matto
Quote from: Ambrose
Every Catholic believed in Baptism of Desire and Blood.

Okay, if this is true, tell me, how many of the church fathers believed in BOD. If as you say, every Catholic believed in BOD and BOB then all of the Church fathers must believe in it. Did all of the Church fathers teach BOD?

Oooh. Oooh. May I answer?

No, on second thought, I'll wait for Ambrose to declare (without any evidence of course) that BoD is the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers.

and that Christ taught it in scripture, and the Blessed Mother taught it at Fatima, and Bowler teaches it too.

Seriously, Amdro is just a pathological liar.

Cantarella · « **Reply #40 on:** January 21, 2014, 04:03:50 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Baptism of Desire and Blood are the teaching of the Church and they must be believed by Catholics.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #41 on:** January 21, 2014, 04:41:21 PM »

Answer to previous question.

Only ONE Father tentatively and temporarily floated the idea of BoD. That was St. Augustine. One can't even say that he "taught" it, certainly not with any authority behind it.

Quote from: St. Augustine

Considering this over and over again, I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply for that which is lacking by way of Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the Mystery of Baptism

Notice how he went back and forth and then qualified his remarks with "I find", making it clearly a speculative personal opinion and not a teaching regarding the Catholic faith ... an opinion which, oh by the way, he later retracted.

All subsequent BoD comes from later Medieval theologians reviving the works of St. Augustine and exaggerating his authority. St. Bernard and pseudo-Innocent II and many others attribute their opinion to the "authority" of St. Augustine. But in the original work, he wasn't even teaching with any kind of authority, just floating a speculative opinion.

So much had Medieval theologians come to inflate the authority of St. Augustine that the Church had to actually condemn the proposition that one may accept the opinion of Augustine regardless of what the Church teaches.

After that, just gratuitous repetition of the same piece of speculative theology ... by people who simply wanted to believe it, for no other reason than that they wanted to believe it.

As I have said numerous times, THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS BOD.

Matto · « **Reply #42 on:** January 21, 2014, 04:44:40 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Only ONE Father tentatively and temporarily floated the idea of BoD. That was St. Augustine.

That is what I thought.

Stubborn · « **Reply #43 on:** January 21, 2014, 05:10:03 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

As I have said numerous times, THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS BOD.

Don't forget the frying pan!

THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS BOD.

Alcuin · « **Reply #44 on:** January 21, 2014, 06:41:12 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

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.

Yes, I have asked this question many times before. Ambrose dismisses the teaching of approved theologians since Vatican II and its aftermath.

He cannot name an approved theologian who agrees with his position. By his own words he condemns himself!