Author Topic: Baptism of Desire and Blood: The Teaching of the Church (Read 12247 times)

Ambrose · « **Reply #60 on:** January 22, 2014, 07:46:18 AM »

Matto,

If you have a few extra dollars, buy Fr. Rulleau's book, Baptism of Desire: A Patristic Commentary (Why Fr. Feeney Was Wrong).

Found [url=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0935952748/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0935952748&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20

Ambrose · « **Reply #61 on:** January 22, 2014, 07:49:55 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Ladislaus
It's AT LEAST offensive to pious ears to keep speaking of "Three Baptisms" when the Creed speaks specifically of ONE Baptism. Have the decency to at least speak of 3 WAYS or MODES in which the graces of Baptism can be received.

There is only one Baptism, the others are not sacraments, but substitute most of the effects. This is an old Feeneyite trick to use the Creed against BoD and BoB. This deception has been exposed over and over again.

The Creed is referring to rebaptism, not types. One can only receive on Baptism, and it cannot be repeated.

That's fine, but I'm talking about the many BoD advocates who keep talking about "Three Baptisms", that the very language is offensive to pious ears because it contradicts the solemn language of a Creed.

This language has been used in Catholic theology for at least 800 years or so, and it has never offended anyone. St. Thomas among many other greats spoke of the three Baptisms, and no Catholic has ever complained.

It was always understood that the other types of Baptism were not sacraments.

bowler · « **Reply #62 on:** January 22, 2014, 07:52:13 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Matto,

If you have a few extra dollars, buy Fr. Rulleau's book, Baptism of Desire: A Patristic Commentary (Why Fr. Feeney Was Wrong).

Found

The book which concludes that people can be saved in any religion even is they have no explicit desire to be Catholics or belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation. Just like all the SSPX priests were taught by Abp. Lefebvre. The same Fr. Rulleau and SSPX that will soon agree that Vatican II can be interpreted in light of tradition.

bowler · « **Reply #63 on:** January 22, 2014, 07:53:46 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

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?

Matto,

There are many who taught Baptism of Blood, which works under the same principle as Baptism of Desire. This link will demonstrate some examples HERE

St. Ambrose and St. Augustine both professed Baptism of Desire. I know the Feeneyites will downplay St. Augustine's teaching, but he most certainly did teach it, and Popes, Doctors and theologians all know and understand St. Augustine clearly for what he taught.

Pope Innocent III, frequently quoted for his explicit definition of EENS, also believed in BoD and cited St. Ambrose and St. Augustine as patristic sources for BoD.

There you go parroting the same lines:

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Ladislaus
And this article raises the same old tired false arguments that have been cited umpteen times on other threads. When unable to answer arguments, the BoDers simply spam another article onto the board.

That's about it.

Here's my response from another similar spammed article. Notice it's the same arguments:

Quote from: bowler
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:

Quote from: Ambrose
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. ~~Ambrose~~Augustine. 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]

Ambrose · « **Reply #64 on:** January 22, 2014, 07:57:52 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Ambrose
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).

Ladisllaus,

I will answer this point later today, I am out of time right now.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #65 on:** January 22, 2014, 08:02:19 AM »

Quote from: bowler

The same Fr. Rulleau and SSPX that will soon agree that Vatican II can be interpreted in light of tradition.

He'd actually be quite correct about this if in fact extended BoD is part of Tradition.

Binechi · « **Reply #66 on:** January 22, 2014, 08:24:24 AM »

For Ambrose....

Why do people defend something called Baptism of Desire ? .. Do they think that it is a way to Salvation .. ??

Ambrose · « **Reply #67 on:** January 22, 2014, 11:11:09 PM »

Quote from: Director

For Ambrose....

Why do people defend something called Baptism of Desire ? .. Do they think that it is a way to Salvation .. ??

Speaking for myself, I defend it as a Catholic is duty bound to believe and profess the Catholic Faith whole and entire. A Catholic is not permitted to deny even one point of the Faith.

I would defend each point of the Faith with the same intensity I am defending Baptism of Desire. All must be believed, and none denied.

Ambrose · « **Reply #68 on:** January 22, 2014, 11:57:23 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Ambrose
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).

Ladislaus,

The reason that you are having these difficulties is because you are not thinking like a Catholic. It is impossible for the Church to become the pillar of lies and error. The Church cannot lead the flock astray.

You need to stop privately judging the acts of the magisterium, by comparing the teaching of the Popes with the Church Fathers. That process will lead you to a form of Protestantism.

You must submit and believe all of the Popes, Pius IX, Pius XII, the Holy Office under Pius XII. You must also believe the catechisms as they are all in agreement on this point, as well as the consensus of the theologians.

You must learn to trust and submit your judgment to the magisterium, and learn to trust and learn from the Doctors and theologians. The Doctors of the Church are declared doctors because the popes are recognizing them as the best of the best and we are to learn from them, not think we know more than them.

You should stop overthinking these issues and take the path of trust, let go of your distrust and learn to believe what the Church's Doctors and expert theologians are teaching you. If you do this, you will stand strong. On the ground of orthodoxy and be free of your own private judgment which will most assuredly lead you astray.

Alcuin · « **Reply #69 on:** January 23, 2014, 12:16:21 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

You should stop overthinking these issues and take the path of trust, let go of your distrust and learn to believe what the Church's Doctors and expert theologians are teaching you.

You have made your distrust of the Church's theologians since the days of Vatican II onwards quite known here. Why don't you hold yourself to the same standard?

Ambrose · « **Reply #70 on:** January 23, 2014, 01:06:17 AM »

Quote from: Alcuin

Quote from: Ambrose
You should stop overthinking these issues and take the path of trust, let go of your distrust and learn to believe what the Church's Doctors and expert theologians are teaching you.

You have made your distrust of the Church's theologians since the days of Vatican II onwards quite known here. Why don't you hold yourself to the same standard?

Are you joking? Your argument makes no sense, as I learn from Catholic theologians, not those who have fallen away into heresy.

This argument would be a good one against one who accepts Vatican II, Paul VI, and therefore his authority, but it does not apply to me.

Binechi · « **Reply #71 on:** January 23, 2014, 07:01:26 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Director
For Ambrose....

Why do people defend something called Baptism of Desire ? .. Do they think that it is a way to Salvation .. ??

Speaking for myself, I defend it as a Catholic is duty bound to believe and profess the Catholic Faith whole and entire. A Catholic is not permitted to deny even one point of the Faith.

I would defend each point of the Faith with the same intensity I am defending Baptism of Desire. All must be believed, and none denied.

Other than Water Baptism, Do you see it as another way for Salvation ?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #72 on:** January 23, 2014, 07:57:30 AM »

Ambrose, as you know, I consider your sensus catholicus and your ecclesiology to be deeply flawed and self-contradictory. Nor has "The Church" ever taught BoD. That's the subject under discussion. Obviously if I believed that the Church taught BoD I would accept it, since my faith has as it's proximate norm the magisterium of the Church. Those very same theologians whom you cite as authorities on BoD are the same theologians you rejected in having brought us Vatican II. Pius XII appointed >90% of the Bishops who brought us Vatican II. If those bishops are not prevented a priori from having been able to err, then neither are the pre-Vatican II theologians, eh?

Do you REALLY believe that Church theologians right before Vatican II were not thoroughly corrupted with modernism? Already in his day, St. Pius X said that the Church, humanly speaking, was finished, so thoroughly had theologians IN HIS DAY been infected with modernism. Do you REALLY believe that everything was great in the Church and then in the blink of an eye suddenly turned bad? It doesn't happen that way. If the Church's state were so wonderful at that time, people would not have lapped up the Vatican II errors.

IN FACT, Ambrose, you can trace the origins of Vatican II DIRECTLY to the ecclesiology / soteriology that emerged as a direct result of exploiting this concept of Baptism of Desire to undermine EENS. You yourself, Ambrose, are guilty of the same error as Vatican II, and therefore by your own criteria are not Catholic.

If you were to hold, as EVERY ONE of those EARLY authorities you cited did, that BoD was a phenomenon restricted to catechumens or those with explicit Catholic faith, and that this was your opinion, then I would have no quarrel with you ... except by way of friendly disagreement. But when you extend BoD and therefore membership in the Church to those who are not Catholic, are not subject to the Supreme Pontiff, do not have explicit faith in the core supernatural mysteries of the faith, then you are THE SAME as the Vatican II modernists. In fact, if you were to convince me that this extension of BoD is correct and traditional, then I would have no choice but to accept Vatican II as substantially free from error.

Ambrose · « **Reply #73 on:** January 23, 2014, 10:55:42 AM »

Quote from: Director

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Director
For Ambrose....

Why do people defend something called Baptism of Desire ? .. Do they think that it is a way to Salvation .. ??

Speaking for myself, I defend it as a Catholic is duty bound to believe and profess the Catholic Faith whole and entire. A Catholic is not permitted to deny even one point of the Faith.

I would defend each point of the Faith with the same intensity I am defending Baptism of Desire. All must be believed, and none denied.

Other than Water Baptism, Do you see it as another way for Salvation ?

Yes,

Thats is what Baptism of Desire and Blood do, they are substitutes for the sacrament when the conditions are met.

Ambrose · « **Reply #74 on:** January 23, 2014, 11:02:37 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Ambrose, as you know, I consider your sensus catholicus and your ecclesiology to be deeply flawed and self-contradictory. Nor has "The Church" ever taught BoD. That's the subject under discussion. Obviously if I believed that the Church taught BoD I would accept it, since my faith has as it's proximate norm the magisterium of the Church. Those very same theologians whom you cite as authorities on BoD are the same theologians you rejected in having brought us Vatican II. Pius XII appointed >90% of the Bishops who brought us Vatican II. If those bishops are not prevented a priori from having been able to err, then neither are the pre-Vatican II theologians, eh?

Do you REALLY believe that Church theologians right before Vatican II were not thoroughly corrupted with modernism? Already in his day, St. Pius X said that the Church, humanly speaking, was finished, so thoroughly had theologians IN HIS DAY been infected with modernism. Do you REALLY believe that everything was great in the Church and then in the blink of an eye suddenly turned bad? It doesn't happen that way. If the Church's state were so wonderful at that time, people would not have lapped up the Vatican II errors.

IN FACT, Ambrose, you can trace the origins of Vatican II DIRECTLY to the ecclesiology / soteriology that emerged as a direct result of exploiting this concept of Baptism of Desire to undermine EENS. You yourself, Ambrose, are guilty of the same error as Vatican II, and therefore by your own criteria are not Catholic.

If you were to hold, as EVERY ONE of those EARLY authorities you cited did, that BoD was a phenomenon restricted to catechumens or those with explicit Catholic faith, and that this was your opinion, then I would have no quarrel with you ... except by way of friendly disagreement. But when you extend BoD and therefore membership in the Church to those who are not Catholic, are not subject to the Supreme Pontiff, do not have explicit faith in the core supernatural mysteries of the faith, then you are THE SAME as the Vatican II modernists. In fact, if you were to convince me that this extension of BoD is correct and traditional, then I would have no choice but to accept Vatican II as substantially free from error.

All of these points have been addressed and answered. I do not wish to go in circles with you. You will have to decide what path you will take. I hope that when the Pope comes again, you will not continue this with him, as it will lead to your excommunication.

I know I am right of this, as I have every authority in my side: Council of Trent, Popes, all approved catechisms, all of the Doctors of the Church, the theologians, and canon law.

On your side against all these authorities you have the SBC and the Dimonds and their private interpretations of Church docuмents and the Fathers.

This should be a no-brainer for any Catholic. I do not know why you can't see it, but I will leave it at that.