Shall we consult the Dimond's handbook - "For instance, in the case of St. Emerentiana – who was martyred while praying publicly at the tomb of St. Agnes during the persecution of Diocletian – one could point out that the account of her martyrdom provides a situation that, in itself, suggests she was already baptized; for she wouldn’t have endangered herself in that fashion during the persecution had she not been baptized.  Or even if she wasn’t baptized before she was attacked (which is highly unlikely), she certainly could have been baptized after the attack by her mother who accompanied her (according to accounts) to the tomb to pray." A lot of speculation if you ask me. But if all else fails you can always quote them on- " Besides, the Roman Martyrology is not infallible and contains historical errors."

Apart from your moronic emoticons, they're 100% correct on every point.  During times of persecution, the Church regularly mandated that all Catechumens be baptized, though they would continue to function as if they were catechumens until they completed their instruction, and there were a couple cases of those called "catechumen" who were know to have been baptized.  Nor has anyone formally canonized "St. Emerentiana", and severa Popes and Doctors expressed reservations regarding the Roman Martyrology, saying that it shouldn't be given too much authority lest various errors undermine the Church's credibility.  So are you now idiotically claming that the Roman Martyrology is infallible?

It really shows the state of your soul when you cannot make one counterargument without insults. I pity you, Lad.

Rather look what you claim. You are the ones that tear saints, theologians, canon laws, catechisms, roman martyrology. You are the ones that basically put blemish on popes for omissions, doctors for heresies as well as Holy Office who did not condemn “erroneous”  writings of all these saints when going through canonisation process. That’s your kinfolk Lad, not mine.

Still got nothing, eh?

You were the one who started out by mocking people who claim that Roman Martyrology is not infallible.  So, are you implying that it's infallible?  Answer the question or shut up with your idiotic comments.  It's pretty simple.  Either it is or it isn't.  If it isn't, then why are you mocking someone for stating the obvious?  If you claim that it is, then we can cite the evidence from Church authorities that it is not.

In terms of the Holy Office not condemning the errors, I've already stated that the Church has permitted the opinion.  So what?  That's not the same thing as saying it's right.  They've canonized numerous people who held conflicting opinions.  There is one opinion that the Holy Office condemned which St. Alphonsus wrongly stated was "probable" (obviously unaware of the HO decision that came before that time).

But you make these moronic/idiotic hit-and-run comments without the slightest bit of substance.

It can truly be said about feenyites: "And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead." (Lk 16, 31)

Prove to you what? Write to you what? This spiritual hardness is unlike other. There is no argument a proud heart like yours would receive. 
 
Permitted? By whom? Lad and NY bros permitted it?

As Father Cekada said,

Vatican I (Dz 1792) obliges you to believe by divine and Catholic faith those things:

1.      Contained in Scripture or Tradition, AND

2.      Proposed for belief as divinely revealed by the Church’s authority, either through:

(a) Solemn pronouncements (by ecuмenical councils, or popes ex cathedra) OR

(b) Universal ordinary magisterium (teaching of the bishops together with the pope, either in council, or spread throughout the world.)

B. Pius IX further specified (Tuas Libenter [1863], Dz 1683) that you must believe those teachings of the universal ordinary magisterium held by theologians to belong to the faith.

Now let's see the following:

Dogmatic Brevior, ART.IV, Section I,II - 1945 (1024-1)

  The Baptism of Desire. Contrition, or perfect charity, with at least an implicit desire for Baptism, supplies in adults the place of the baptism of water as respects the forgiveness of sins.
  This is certain.
  Explanation: a) An implicit desire for Baptism, that is, one that is included in a general purpose of keeping all the commandments of God is, as all agree, sufficient in one who is invincibly ignorant of the law of Baptism; likewise, according to the more common opinion, in one who knows the necessity of Baptism.
  b) Perfect charity, with a desire for Baptism, forgives original sin and actual sins, and therefore infuses sanctifying grace; but it does not imprint the Baptismal character and does not of itself remit the whole temporal punishment due for sin; whence, when the opportunity offers, the obligation remains on one who was sanctified in this manner of receiving the Baptism of water.

Fr. Dominic Prummer, O.P.

Moral Theology, 1949:
· "Baptism of Desire which is a perfect act of charity that includes at least implicitly the desire of Baptism by water";
· "Baptism of Blood which signifies martyrdom endured for Christ prior to the reception of Baptism by water";
· "Regarding the effects of Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire... both cause sanctifying grace. ...Baptism of Blood usually remits all venial and temporal punishment..."

Fr. Francis O'Connell

Outlines of Moral Theology - 1953:
  - "Baptism of Desire ... is an act of divine charity or perfect contrition..."
  - "These means (i.e. Baptism of Blood & Desire) presuppose in the recipient at least the implicit will to receive the sacrament."
  "...Even if an infant can gain the benefit of the Baptism of Blood if he is put to death by a person actuated by hatred for the Christian faith..."

Mgr. J. H. Hervé

Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Vol. III: chap. IV) - 1931
  II. On those for whom Baptism of water can be supplied:
  "The various baptisms: from the Council of Trent itself and from the things stated, it stands firm that Baptism is necessary, yet in fact or in desire; therefore in an extraordinary case it can be supplied. Further, according to the Catholic doctrine, there are two things by which the sacrament of Baptism can be supplied, namely an act of perfect charity with the desire of Baptism and the death as martyr. Since these two are a compensation for Baptism of water, they themselves are called Baptism, too, in order that they may be comprehended with it under one as it were generic name; so the act of love with desire for Baptism is called Baptismus flaminis (Baptism of the Spirit) and the martyrium (Baptism of Blood)."

Fr. H. Noldin, S.J. - Fr. A. Schmit, S.J.

Summa theologiae moralis (Vol. III de Sacramentis); Bk 2 Quaestio prima - 1929:
  "Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is perfect charity or contrition, in which the desire in fact to receive the sacrament of Baptism is included; perfect charity and perfect contrition however have the power to confer sanctifying grace."

Fr. Arthur Vermeersch, S.J.

Theologiae moralis (Vol. III, Tractatus II) - 1948:
  "The Baptism of spirit (flaminis) is an act of perfect charity or contrition, in so far as it contains at least a tacit desire of the Sacrament. Therefore it can be had only in adults. It does not imprint a character; ...but it takes away all mortal sin together with the sentence of eternal penalty, according to: 'He who loves me, is loved by my Father.' (John 14:21)"

Fr. Ludovico Billot, S.J.

De Ecclesiae Sacramentis (Vol. I); Quaestio LXVI; Thesis XXIV - 1931:
  "Baptism of spirit (flaminis), which is also called of repentance or of desire is nothing else than an act of charity or perfect contrition includeing a desire of the Sacrament, according to what has been said above, namely that, the heart of everyone is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe, and to love God, and to be sorry for his sins."

Fr. Eduardus Genicot, S.J.

Theologiae Moralis Institutiones (Vol II); Tractatus XII - 1902:
  "Baptism of the Spirit (flaminis) consists in an act of perfect charity or contrition, with which there is always an infusion of sanctifying grace connected...
  Both are called 'of desire' (in voto)...; perfect charity, because it has always connected the desire, at least the implicit one of receiving this sacrament, absolutely necessary for salvation."

Do you get it, you armchair self proclaimed theologian? There are countless others that said the same. Any manual of moral theology, any cathecism. You name it, it's there.

You reject the collective body of theologians who taught this in the past century prior to the council and therefore in direct breach of DZ 1683.

I dare any of you cult followers to produce me ONE SINGLE post tridentine statement which calls Bob/bod falsehood, nonsense, error or better yet a heresy as some of you audacious posters are allowing yourself to say, thinking NY bros' dispensation to do so will justify you before God. 

Typical behavior from this dishonest clown.

When refuted on some point (1917 Code of Canon Law) or a direct question is put to him ("Are you asserting that the Roman Martyrology is infallible?"), refuses to answer, but then changes the subject and spams in something different.

This is a clear sign of malice and bad will.  Probably time to ignore this unflushed turd.

This guy keeps going DOWN the list, in terms of theological certainty.

First, he strongly implied the Roman Martyrology was infallible (which it isn't).
Then, he quotes canon law (which also isn't infallible).
Now, he's quoting theologians (who are far, far, FAR from infallible).

Just keep throwing spit balls at the wall, dude.   

That approach doesn't work with dogma/theology.  It may work in political debates, but not with the Faith, which has clearly defined tiers of Truth.  BOD is part of the "non-dogma" tiers.

Keep your restless Dimondide minds at ease. Unlike you, I don’t relay solely on one source. All I am trying to demonstrate here is how many hoops you have to jump through and how ridiculous your stance is while doing so.

You jump the gun as if roman martyrology was the only thing I mentioned. Let’s tell saint Ambrose he was hallucinating. From catholic encyclopaedia (1917)-"However, St. Ambrose has no doubt about the salvation of Valentinian the Younger, who has asked for baptism, but had died before the saint could reach him ("De Obitu Valentini.", n. 51, P.L. XVI, 1374)." Hence the common teaching was that the defect of baptism might be supplied by desire.

How absurd was this saint, doesn't he know? If only he was told by some of the "learned" from here. Valentinian the Younger was not real! Jokes on him.

While we are at it, let’s warn people about “heresies” in 1917 catholic encyclopaedia as well. How dare they say this was common teaching.

What modernists are to doctrine, what recognise and resistors are to papacy, feenyites are to theologians, doctors, canon law, & catechisms..

Pax & Stubborn, at least you keep it civil so I have no problem continuing with you too. If the foul mouther wants to contribute, hopefully he will keep his tongue in check.

Pax- of course theologians can be fallible. But good grief you feenyites paint them as useful as of gargoyles. They are just there to sit and scare people out of Church with their errors. When they casually spill ink. Not much use.. Riiight.




Stubborn, now let’s try this again. See if you can read this paragraph slowly with comprehension. If you cannot, just read the bolded.

"For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith." Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter (1863),DZ 1683


As Fr. Joachim Salaverri states, “The consent of theologians in matters of faith and morals is so intimately connected with the teaching Church that an error in the consensus of theologians would necessarily lead the whole Church into error.”


But can you listen to the consent of theologians? Of course you cannot. 

And why not? Well, it would crumble your feenyite theology in a second. Dimonds wouldn't allow it. You have to bow down to their interpretations. Very clever, very slick.

Once all theologians are out of the way, the room is open for the self appointed theologians.


Here is a short cheatsheet for Feenyites:
Cite the doctor and Father of Church when you like what they say.
If you don't like what he says- he errs of course. Or tell others he only gives his own opinion.
Canon law - not infallible (don't forget Eastern Churches were not notified)
Catechisms- ohh, very faiilible. Who reads those to instruct the faithful?
-->Roman catechism- defer to delayed ensoulment section. Diminish, diminish, diminish...
-->Saint Pius X cathecism- tell everyone it was only promulgated in Italy and pope Pius X had no clue what was in it, he had better things to do.
Theologians - for goodness sake, throw them under the bus any time you can. Very very fallible creatures. You have better chance of winning a lotto than get them to agree on the correct doctrine.

And by far my favourite one. If a saint teaches BOB/BOD he is in tiny error, no biggie it happens to the best of them. (Bonus points cite Aquinas and Immaculate Conception)
But if a laymen cite their writings, do not lose a good opportunity to call them heretics who will burn in hell and lead others there too. 

Anonymous,
You can huff and puff all you want.  BOD is not taught by the Church with a 'certainty of faith' (i.e. it is not dogma).  No one has to believe BOD in order to get to heaven. 

I can point to many Church Fathers who disagree with St Athanasius, who disagree with St Thomas and also disagree with your interpretation of Trent.

BOD is still in the 'theological opinion' tier.  You can disagree with the Diamond Bros all you want, but their research (as well as Fr Feeney's and many others) show that this topic has just as many arguments for as against.

As Fr. Joachim Salaverri states, “The consent of theologians in matters of faith and morals is so intimately connected with the teaching Church that an error in the consensus of theologians would necessarily lead the whole Church into error.”


  There's not a "consent" of theologians on the matter.  That's the whole point of the Diamond's excellent book.  It's still a disputed topic.

In order for something to be a dogma of the Faith, the belief has to be shown to originate from Apostolic sources (i.e. Christ) either from Scripture or Tradition.
1.  BOD is not in Scripture; in fact, Scripture says many things contrary to BOD.
2.  BOD was not unanimously held by the Church Fathers (the fathers of Tradition); in fact, most Church Fathers spoke out against it.
3.  Baptism of blood is not BOD, so please don't mix-n-match these 2, separate terms.

You jump the gun as if roman martyrology was the only thing I mentioned. Let’s tell saint Ambrose he was hallucinating. From catholic encyclopaedia (1917)-"However, St. Ambrose has no doubt about the salvation of Valentinian the Younger, who has asked for baptism, but had died before the saint could reach him ("De Obitu Valentini.", n. 51, P.L. XVI, 1374)." Hence the common teaching was that the defect of baptism might be supplied by desire.

How absurd was this saint, doesn't he know? If only he was told by some of the "learned" from here. Valentinian the Younger was not real! Jokes on him.

You put on display again what a bad-willed imbecile you are.  St. Ambrose does not say that Valentinian entered the Kingdom.  He stated that his hope was that through his piety and zeal he may have attained the same status as an unbaptized martyrs, which St. Ambrose describes as having been "washed but not crowned".  This distinction between washing and crowning is precisely the distinction between the two effects of the Sacrament, the washing (remission of the punishment due to sin) and crowning (the character of Baptism), whereby one enters the KINGDOM of Heaven.  St. Ambrose was hereby actually teaching a justification but now salvation position for Valentinian.

This and a youthful speculation by St. Augustine (that he later retracted and rejected, after his anti-Pelagian era, issuing some of the most anti-BoD statements in existence) are all that the BoDers care about and have to cite.  They do so pretending that these represent some kind of consensus among the Fathers (even though they wrongly interpret both) ... and completely ignore the 7-8 Church Fathers who explicitly reject BoD.  Yet another display of their bad will and intellectual dishonesty.