Author Topic: Baptism of Desire and Blood: The Teaching of the Church (Read 16299 times)

bowler · « **Reply #75 on:** January 23, 2014, 11:38:11 AM »

Quote

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.

There, that's more accurate.

crossbro · « **Reply #76 on:** January 23, 2014, 11:43:55 AM »

crossbro · « **Reply #77 on:** January 23, 2014, 11:46:34 AM »

Quote

I know I am right of this, as I have every authority in my side: JESUS.

There, that looks much better !

Thurifer · « **Reply #78 on:** January 23, 2014, 12:47:33 PM »

Today we commemorate St Emerentiana in the Divine Office.

Quote

Commemoration for St Emerentiana:

Emerentiana was a Roman maiden, and the foster-sister of the blessed Agnes. While she was still a Catechumen she was inspired by her faith and love to rebuke the fury of the idol-worshippers against the Christians, whereupon a mob assembled, and stoned her so severely that she was only able to drag herself to the grave of holy Agnes, where, while she prayed, she gave up her soul to God, being baptized, not in water, but in her own blood, so freely shed for Christ.

If the St. Benedict Center does not recognize her as a Catholic and a Saint, then I would say they have indeed lost their way in trying to defend their position. Not uncommon when you are being pulverized by just about everyone within and without and find yourself forced to dig yourself a hole or erect a rampart.

And I say this with sadness as I don't think we ever had better teachers of the Faith in our modern era. Right next door to Harvard University.

Why they just couldn't say, "If Baptism of Desire exists, it is most likely such an extreme rarity that it behooves all men to get to the Fount as quickly as possible." They could have gone on, "we will leave it up to the Magesterium to explain it, but we are very concerned that, in our opinion, the Church is presently inadvertently denying the need for Baptism and we trust this is an oversight and that for whatever reason the Church does not recognize the evil that can result from it."

Something along those lines.

So here we had the smartest and most holy people converting the elite of the children of the Enlightenment. But for some reason when push came to shove, they seemed to allow the sacrifice of the very good that was occurring because they could not have the perfect.

End result. Most people think of Baptism of Desire as another Sacrament that gives those who receive it the luxury of living your life without any restraints as long as your a good person and didn't hurt anyone else. This reminds me of a lot of hardcore trads.

SJB · « **Reply #79 on:** January 23, 2014, 01:24:24 PM »

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.

Ladislaus, nobody is extending actual membership to those who are clearly not members. It's a stupid argument you're making.