Author Topic: St. Alphonsus BOD Defide Canard (Read 5578 times)

SouthpawLink · « **Reply #30 on:** January 22, 2014, 12:10:28 PM »

"The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church" — Condemned (Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, n. 22).

I think I've found my signature! :smile:

bowler · « **Reply #31 on:** January 22, 2014, 01:03:42 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Nishant

Here it is for you, broken down as easy as it can be, in the form of a syllogism.

Major: Martyrs can be saved by baptism of blood (As proved by St. Emerentiana et al)
Minor: But infants can be true martyrs. (As proved by the Holy Innocents et al)
Conclusion: Therefore infants can be saved by baptism of blood.

The Holy Innocents died under the Old Law. The necessity to receive Baptism was not yet obligatory. This obligation came to effect only after Christ's Resurrection, as stated in Trent (obligatory after the promulgation of the Gospel which began at Pentecost). Given that the Holy Innocents died under the Law of the Old Covenant, this example does not prove Baptism of Blood. There cannot be exceptions to the necessity of water Baptism for salvation.

He rejects what you said, he's heard it many times. The truth is that we don't have to prove anything, the dogmas say it all. It is Nishant who has to prove that the dogmas are wrong.

Stubborn · « **Reply #32 on:** January 22, 2014, 02:14:06 PM »

Quote from: SouthpawLink

"The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church" — Condemned (Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, n. 22).

I think I've found my signature! :smile:

No one disputes the above is a condemned error.

When you can find in the sylllabus that it is error to reject teachings which contradict de fide teachings - let us know - until then, a BOD contradicts the dogma which teaches the sacraments are necessary unto salvation.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #33 on:** January 22, 2014, 03:51:35 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

The proofs from Trent in particular are decisive.

There are no proofs from Trent. As per usual, you just read it the way you want to.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #34 on:** January 22, 2014, 03:52:52 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Here it is for you, broken down as easy as it can be, in the form of a syllogism.

Major: Martyrs can be saved by baptism of blood (As proved by St. Emerentiana et al)
Minor: But infants can be true martyrs. (As proved by the Holy Innocents et al)
Conclusion: Therefore infants can be saved by baptism of blood.

This isn't close to being even a formally valid syllogism.

SouthpawLink · « **Reply #35 on:** January 22, 2014, 10:03:23 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: SouthpawLink
"The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church" — Condemned (Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, n. 22).

I think I've found my signature! :smile:

No one disputes the above is a condemned error.

When you can find in the sylllabus that it is error to reject teachings which contradict de fide teachings - let us know - until then, a BOD contradicts the dogma which teaches the sacraments are necessary unto salvation

Baptism of Desire doesn't contradict the dogma that the sacraments are necessary for salvation; I sure wish you guys would address the finer points of the argument (namely, the different kinds of necessity, which have been a part of Catholic theology for centuries, even before Trent).

"Again, in relation to the means necessary to salvation theologians divide necessity into necessity of means and necessity of precept. In the first case the means is so necessary to salvation that without it (absolute necessity) or its substitute (relative necessity), even if the omission is guiltless, the end cannot be reached. Thus faith and baptism of water are necessary by a necessity of means, the former absolutely, the latter relatively, for salvation. In the second case, necessity is based on a positive precept, commanding something the omission of which, unless culpable, does not absolutely prevent the reaching of the end" (CE, Necessity).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm

Cantarella · « **Reply #36 on:** January 22, 2014, 10:57:06 PM »

In Baptism, the necessity of both precept and means are based on the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself while He walked among us:

The necessity of precept is based upon the command of Our Lord found in St. Matthew, (28:19):

"Teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world".

The necessity of means is based upon Our Lord’s words found in St. Mark, (16:15):

"Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature; he that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned".

The necessity of means is also based on this statement made by Christ Our Lord (John 3:5)

"Amen, Amen, I say to you: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven".

God spoke so. God commanded so. Nor faith or good works ensure salvation unless it is accompanied by water Baptism. Neither desire or blood can be a substitute.

SouthpawLink · « **Reply #37 on:** January 23, 2014, 01:25:59 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

In Baptism, the necessity of both precept and means are based on the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself while He walked among us:

The necessity of precept is based upon the command of Our Lord found in St. Matthew, (28:19):

"Teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world".

The necessity of means is based upon Our Lord’s words found in St. Mark, (16:15):

"Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature; he that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned".

The necessity of means is also based on this statement made by Christ Our Lord (John 3:5)

"Amen, Amen, I say to you: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven".

God spoke so. God commanded so. Nor faith or good works ensure salvation unless it is accompanied by water Baptism. Neither desire or blood can be a substitute.

That settles it, then. All of these men are therefore wrong:

1. Pope Paul V, Roman Ritual, Part II, chap. I, par. 1
2. Pope Gregory XIII, Roman Martyrology – unbaptized saints proposed for veneration by the faithful (Ss. Emerentiana, Genesius of Arles, Alban of Verulam, Victor of Braga, and Rogatian)
3. Pope St. Pius X, 1917 Code of Canon Law, can. 737 §1; 1239 §2
4. Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives, 29 October 1951

5. St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Theologia Moralis, Lib. VI, Tr. 2, chap. 1, nn. 95-97 — Doctor
6. St. Robert Bellarmine, De Ecclesia militante, Lib. III, chap. 3 — Doctor

7. Cano, De Locis Theologicis, Lib. IV, chap. 2-3 (de Ecclesiae Catholicae Auctoritate).
8. Suarez, De Baptismo, disp. XXVII, sect. II, n. 5 (cited by Tanquerey).
9. Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, vol. III, sec. 694, pp. 224-226.
10. Pesch, Praelectiones Dogmaticae, t. VI (?), n. 423 (cited by Tanquerey).
11. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments: A Dogmatic Treatise, vol. I, pp. 243-248.
12. Tanquerey, Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae, vol. III, p. 362.
13. Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, q. VII, th. 14; De Ecclesiae Sacramentis, q. XXIV, th. 25, pp. 240-261; De Gratia Christi, th. 13, p. 197sqq.
14. Franzelin, De Ecclesia, pp. 414-423.
15. Wilhelm and Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, Based on Scheeben's 'Dogmatic', vol. II, Lib. VII, sec. 252, I, 2, a.
16. Garrigou-Lagrange, De Revelatione, pp. 613-615.
17. Herve, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae, vol. III, p. 562.
18. Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 356.
19. McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology: A Complete Course, vol. II, sec. 2662, pp. 631f.
20. Prümmer, Handbook of Moral Theology, sec. 551, p. 253; sec. 555, p. 254.

Seriously, you didn't make a case for the sacrament of baptism being an absolute necessity as opposed to a relative necessity.

Stubborn · « **Reply #38 on:** January 23, 2014, 03:42:44 AM »

Quote from: SouthpawLink

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: SouthpawLink
"The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church" — Condemned (Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, n. 22).

I think I've found my signature! :smile:

No one disputes the above is a condemned error.

When you can find in the sylllabus that it is error to reject teachings which contradict de fide teachings - let us know - until then, a BOD contradicts the dogma which teaches the sacraments are necessary unto salvation

Baptism of Desire doesn't contradict the dogma that the sacraments are necessary for salvation; I sure wish you guys would address the finer points of the argument (namely, the different kinds of necessity, which have been a part of Catholic theology for centuries, even before Trent).

"Again, in relation to the means necessary to salvation theologians divide necessity into necessity of means and necessity of precept. In the first case the means is so necessary to salvation that without it (absolute necessity) or its substitute (relative necessity), even if the omission is guiltless, the end cannot be reached. Thus faith and baptism of water are necessary by a necessity of means, the former absolutely, the latter relatively, for salvation. In the second case, necessity is based on a positive precept, commanding something the omission of which, unless culpable, does not absolutely prevent the reaching of the end" (CE, Necessity).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm

Whether one is damned by necessity of precept or means makes no difference, the unbaptized person is still damned because he died unbaptized.

Again, no one disputes the condemned error that "The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church.

But when the Church repeatedly and infallibly teaches that the sacrament is not optional for salvation and that the sacrament is necessary unto salvation - we are not obliged to believe anyone who teaches salvation without the sacrament and salvation via the desire for the sacrament because of the blatant contradiction to de fide teachings of the Church.

You cannot believe both. "No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."

Those who claim they believe there is no contradiction, as Trent's catechism teaches, despise the sacrament. Proof of this fact lies in the challenge repeatedly ignored for those who believe in a BOD, to do the Catholic thing and start a thread defending the Sacrament.

BODers will always be unable to get themselves to do that because it is not in their lex credendi. Rather, they continually start threads trivializing and belittling the sacrament of salvation - this is their lex orandi so to speak and it gets stronger every single time they post their contempt of the sacrament. No more proof than this is needed to demonstrate their detestation of their sacrament.

The challenge remains to all BODers everywhere to do the Catholic thing and start a thread defending the necessity of the sacraments for salvation.

Nishant · « **Reply #39 on:** January 23, 2014, 08:38:14 AM »

You're just being as ridiculous as usual, Bowler. As explained ad infinitum, Florence is talking about the means at the Church's disposal, no other remedy can be brought to infants by the Church other than the sacrament. Obviously the Church cannot martyr Her own children, so there is only one means at Her disposal.

But it is already proven from revelation itself that infants can be true martyrs, and that martyrs can be saved by baptism of blood, where God Himself infuses sanctifying grace into the soul. In despising and rejecting this you manifest great temerity against the Church and Her Doctors.

Quote from: St. Alphonsus

Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view is at least temerarious.

And you've said absolutely nothing about the proofs for the doctrine I gave you from Trent, from the Catechisms, from the magisterial teaching of so many Popes, and more.

bowler · « **Reply #40 on:** January 23, 2014, 08:53:41 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

... Florence is talking about the means at the Church's disposal, no other remedy can be brought to infants by the Church other than the sacrament. Obviously the Church cannot martyr Her own children, so there is only one means at Her disposal.

But it is already proven from revelation itself that infants can be true martyrs, and that martyrs can be saved by baptism of blood, where God Himself infuses sanctifying grace into the soul. In despising and rejecting this you manifest great temerity against the Church and Her Doctors.

Quote from: St. Alphonsus
Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view is at least temerarious.

And you've said absolutely nothing about the proofs for the doctrine I gave you from Trent, from the Catechisms, from the magisterial teaching of so many Popes, and more.

You explain away the dogmas. You have not shown any proof directly addressing BOB of Infants, not a one, just your own interpretation. You are denying dogma. Your quotes all talk about BOB for adults, and besides Trent teaches nothing about BOB. You are just throwing out a smoke screen by re-directing the discussion to BOB of the adults, we are not discussing that here.

Quote from: bowler

By denying these clear dogmatic decrees, Nishant is saying that the Catholic Church is not infallible, that it teaches heresy here in these quotes, and he is doing it by utilizing fallible insignificant docuмents: his own syllogism and an indirect quote from a ? (catechism?)

Quote from: bowler
Quote from: Nishant
Yes, of course I believe (that unbaptized) infants can be true martyrs (by baptism of blood), and that martyrdom produces the effects of baptism.

Infallible Dogmas on unbaptized Infants:

“Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, since no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the devil and adopted among the sons of God, [the sacrosanct Roman Church] advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, ... but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently…”
-Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, February 4, 1442

“If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,--whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
-Council of Trent, Session 5, Part 4

"The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death."
-Catechism of the Council of Trent; Issued by Pope Saint Pius V in 1547 AD

“Noticing that frequently by various Apostolic Constitutions the audacity and daring of most profligate men, who know no restraint, of sinning with license against the commandment "do not kill" was repressed; We who are placed by the Lord in the supreme throne of justice, being counseled by a most just reason, are in part renewing old laws and in part extending them in order to restrain with just punishment the monstrous and atrocious brutality of those who have no fear to kill most cruelly fetuses still hiding in the maternal viscera. Who will not detest such an abhorrent and evil act, by which are lost not only the bodies but also the SOULS?”
-Pope Sixtus V, Apostolic Constitution Effraenatam (against abortionists), 29 October 1588

bowler · « **Reply #41 on:** January 23, 2014, 09:24:43 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: SouthpawLink
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: SouthpawLink
"The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church" — Condemned (Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, n. 22).

I think I've found my signature! :smile:

No one disputes the above is a condemned error.

When you can find in the sylllabus that it is error to reject teachings which contradict de fide teachings - let us know - until then, a BOD contradicts the dogma which teaches the sacraments are necessary unto salvation

Baptism of Desire doesn't contradict the dogma that the sacraments are necessary for salvation; I sure wish you guys would address the finer points of the argument (namely, the different kinds of necessity, which have been a part of Catholic theology for centuries, even before Trent).

"Again, in relation to the means necessary to salvation theologians divide necessity into necessity of means and necessity of precept. In the first case the means is so necessary to salvation that without it (absolute necessity) or its substitute (relative necessity), even if the omission is guiltless, the end cannot be reached. Thus faith and baptism of water are necessary by a necessity of means, the former absolutely, the latter relatively, for salvation. In the second case, necessity is based on a positive precept, commanding something the omission of which, unless culpable, does not absolutely prevent the reaching of the end" (CE, Necessity).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm

Whether one is damned by necessity of precept or means makes no difference, the unbaptized person is still damned because he died unbaptized.

Again, no one disputes the condemned error that "The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church.

But when the Church repeatedly and infallibly teaches that the sacrament is not optional for salvation and that the sacrament is necessary unto salvation - we are not obliged to believe anyone who teaches salvation without the sacrament and salvation via the desire for the sacrament because of the blatant contradiction to de fide teachings of the Church.

You cannot believe both. "No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."

Those who claim they believe there is no contradiction, as Trent's catechism teaches, despise the sacrament. Proof of this fact lies in the challenge repeatedly ignored for those who believe in a BOD, to do the Catholic thing and start a thread defending the Sacrament.

BODers will always be unable to get themselves to do that because it is not in their lex credendi. Rather, they continually start threads trivializing and belittling the sacrament of salvation - this is their lex orandi so to speak and it gets stronger every single time they post their contempt of the sacrament. No more proof than this is needed to demonstrate their detestation of their sacrament.

The challenge remains to all BODers everywhere to do the Catholic thing and start a thread defending the necessity of the sacraments for salvation.

Dear Southpaw,

This point you are bringing up is directly addressed by my thread: "Justification by BOD and Being Born Again". I will copy and paste your point ( which I bolded above in your quote)over to there and the we can discuss it there.

bowler · « **Reply #42 on:** January 24, 2014, 09:21:35 AM »

Nishant,
You explain away the dogmas. You have not shown any proof directly addressing BOB of Infants, not a one, just your own interpretation. You are denying dogma. Your quotes all talk about BOB for adults, and besides Trent teaches nothing about BOB. You are just throwing out a smoke screen by re-directing the discussion to BOB of the adults, we are not discussing that here.

Quote from: bowler

By denying these clear dogmatic decrees, Nishant is saying that the Catholic Church is not infallible, that it teaches heresy here in these quotes, and he is doing it by utilizing fallible insignificant docuмents: his own syllogism and an indirect quote from a ? (catechism?)

Quote from: bowler
Quote from: Nishant
Yes, of course I believe (that unbaptized) infants can be true martyrs (by baptism of blood), and that martyrdom produces the effects of baptism.

Infallible Dogmas on unbaptized Infants:

“Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, since no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the devil and adopted among the sons of God, [the sacrosanct Roman Church] advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, ... but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently…”
-Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, February 4, 1442

“If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,--whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
-Council of Trent, Session 5, Part 4

"The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death."
-Catechism of the Council of Trent; Issued by Pope Saint Pius V in 1547 AD

“Noticing that frequently by various Apostolic Constitutions the audacity and daring of most profligate men, who know no restraint, of sinning with license against the commandment "do not kill" was repressed; We who are placed by the Lord in the supreme throne of justice, being counseled by a most just reason, are in part renewing old laws and in part extending them in order to restrain with just punishment the monstrous and atrocious brutality of those who have no fear to kill most cruelly fetuses still hiding in the maternal viscera. Who will not detest such an abhorrent and evil act, by which are lost not only the bodies but also the SOULS?”
-Pope Sixtus V, Apostolic Constitution Effraenatam (against abortionists), 29 October 1588

SJB · « **Reply #43 on:** January 24, 2014, 09:32:39 AM »

Quote from: bowler

This quote below is the continuation of the St. Alphonsus Ligouri quote that CI member Ambro keeps posting over and over to parrot ad-nauseum that BOD is "defide". Despite everyones patient efforts to correct him, he continues to post St. Alphonsus quote as if it was infallible. I noticed that Ambro left this part out, that contains the clear error that unbaptized infants can be saved by baptism of blood, and St. A.L even says that the opposing view is at least temerarious:

Quote
"Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality ['non ita stricte'] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from Baptism of blood – translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.

"It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ" (St. Alphonsus Liguori, Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7).

Bowler, what you said here is the very OPPOSITE of reality. Can't you read this "as-written?" You're either stupid or blind.

bowler · « **Reply #44 on:** January 24, 2014, 09:43:06 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from Baptism of blood – translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.

Bowler, what you said here is the very OPPOSITE of reality. Can't you read this "as-written?" You're either stupid or blind.

"Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from Baptism of blood – SJB] is at least temerarious [ reckless and rash- Bowler]".

St. Alphonsus is saying that the opposing view is to say that infants can't be saved by BOB, and that that view is considered reckless and rash.

This whole thread is about the error that St. Alphonsus teaches that infants can be saved by BOB, when the dogmas say there is no other way for infants but water baptism. It is you who does not understand that.