Scripture is not for private interpretation, it is for the magisterium to explain for us. Baptism of Desire and Blood are also based on Scripture and Tradition, and do not conflict with John 3:5, as the Feeneyites/Dimondites pretend.
Just because you keep saying this, Ambrose, doesn't make it true. There's no evidence for BoD in Scripture or Tradition. We've pointed out myriad times that it all traces back to a temporary/tentative exercise in speculative theology on the part of St. Augustine, an opinion which he later retracted. BoD on the other hand is EXPLICITLY rejected by several other Church Fathers, including St. Gregory nαzιanzen, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Ambrose. One could make a SLIGHTLY better case for BoB, but most BoD advocates are not honest enough to point out (usually omitting by way of elipses) that a couple of the small handful of BoB Fathers in upholding BoB explicitly rule out BoD by saying that "martyrdom is the ONLY exception to the law of Baptism" (St. Cyril).
You guys are NOT honest and will not engage in any honest / rational discussion of the subject.
I am open to accepting BoD / BoB for catechumens in principle; so I don't even have any axe to grind on the subject. In fact, I USED to believe in it for catechumens, thinking that the Church taught it. Upon actually looking at the evidence, however, or, rather, the LACK of evidence for it, it's become obvious to me that BoD and BoB are nothing but speculative theology and have NEVER been taught by the Church, and that there's ZERO evidence that it has been revealed.
If God happens to save someone by this means, obviously who am I to argue? But there's no evidence whatsoever, i.e. He has not revealed it to us, that He does this. In fact, all the evidence is to the contrary.
Two dogmatic definitions are extremely difficult to reconcile with BoD.
1) That outside of the Church of the "faithful" there can be no salvation. Catechumens have always been considered EXPLICITLY by the Church NOT to be part of the faithful (cf. St. Augustine and several other Church Fathers who refer to them as Christians but not of the faithful, and the very notion that the catechumens were kicked out of church before the "Mass of the faithful".
2) That there's no salvation for anyone not subject to the Supreme Pontiff. Trent dogmatically taught that the unbaptized (referring speficially to catechumens) were NOT subject to the Supreme Pontiff due to their not having received Sacramental Baptism, i.e. that it's the character of Baptism which makes one subject to the Supreme Pontiff.
So looking rationally at all the evidence, the case AGAINST BoD is MUCH stronger than the case for it.
And I'm not even speaking of the "extended" or "heroin" BoD which absolutely guts the dogma EENS and leads to Vatican II ecclesiology. You cannot honestly be a Traditional Catholic and accept extended BoD, because extended BoD means that Vatican II ecclesiology and soteriology (the chief "errors" of Vatican II) are in fact perfectly Traditional.
As far as BoB, it traces back to St. Cyprian. A couple others follow St. Cyprian due to his eminence among the Fathers. But a couple more who are cited as supporting BoB are actually referring to it not as a substitute for Baptism but as a second Baptism (for known baptized Christians). And BoBers are fond of quoting St. Cyprian as having some eminent authority on the subject. Within a couple of paragraphs of floating the BoB idea, St. Cyprian teaches material heresy regarding Baptism, the rebaptism thing later rejected by the Church. So St. Cyprian clearly had a fundamentally flawed Sacramental theology in the same docuмent in which he floats BoB. Yet BoB/BoD advocates puff up the authority of St. Cyprian as if he were some quasi-infallible guide to Tradition. He was NOT. Several Church Fathers ended up becoming heretics (Tertullian, Origen, and St. Cyprian on this particular matter).
Topic: Baptism of Desire and Blood: The Teaching of the Church (Read 12471 times)