Author Topic: Baptism of Desire and Blood: The Teaching of the Church (Read 16207 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.