Sure.

It is perfectly logical and not contradictory in the least to say that it is NECESSARY FOR SALVATION that you need to have water poured on you while the Trinitarian formula is recited, and then right away say that it is NOT necessary to have water poured on you or to recite the formula because desire sufices.

That's perfectly logical.

Again, way to twist my words to suit your gravely erroneous arguments to deny BOB/BOD! No Feeneyite can't imagine, I suppose, that someone on his way to baptism can suddenly die, either by accident or assassination, and still that person is saved, provided he truly wanted the Sacrament! I suppose then you call Archbishop Lefebvre a liberal, since he refused to baptize catechumens right away, because he said their desire sufficed.

No, your presumption is that there always must be a miraculous baptism. But then you see you make the saints liars who asserted many martyrs died so, even though they didn't receive water baptism! God isn't bound to water baptism to save men, though you and others denying BOD do so artificially. You might as well call St. John Vianney a liar too, since he specifically stated a converted Jew's mother died and was saved, despite apparently dying unrepentant, since the Mother of God personally interceded, without water baptism.

Sorry, hogwash. You just don't believe the Council of Trent when it states one must be baptized in fact or in desire to be saved. That's all there is to it! To state the Tridentine Catechism is wrong when it asserts catechumens are saved because their desire to receive baptism suffices is beyond chutpah to tell the truth!

The typical argument of "not enough data." More hogwash! There is enough data to know if a person martyred was or wasn't baptized. It seems to me you just joined this forum to spread the denial of even explicit BOD against the Council of Trent.

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

Sorry, hogwash. You just don't believe the Council of Trent when it states one must be baptized in fact or in desire to be saved. That's all there is to it! To state the Tridentine Catechism is wrong when it asserts catechumens are saved because their desire to receive baptism suffices is beyond chutpah to tell the truth!

The typical argument of "not enough data." More hogwash! There is enough data to know if a person martyred was or wasn't baptized. It seems to me you just joined this forum to spread the denial of even explicit BOD against the Council of Trent.

Go read my post in the other thread.

Posting quotes on the importance of baptism doesn't negate BOD, no matter how much you twist the words.

Careful not to start with the strawmen.

Pius IX taught:

"There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, no 7)."

Is he a heretic?  Or is there a secret, hidden meaning where he means something opposite of what he wrote?

Mith,
The quote from Pope Pius IX is always used by those who support BOD, invincible ignorance and whatever other mode of salvation outside the Church they are defending for the simple reason that, like they do with Trent, they take it *completely* out of context.
That particular quote is always singled out in favor of salvation via invincible ignorance - but is done so while completely disregarding that which PPIX said prior too -  and immediately after that quote.

Read the quote below from Quanto Conficiamur Moerore in context this time and see that it now agrees completely with the dogma without any contradiction whatsoever. Study it for a bit if necessary in order to understand what the pope was teaching.


[Emphasis mine]
"It is necessary once more to mention and censure a very serious error into which some Catholics have unhappily fallen. They tend to accept the opinion that men who live in error and are estranged from the true faith and Catholic unity can attain eternal life. This notion is in direct opposition to orthodox teaching."
"We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law which have been engraved by God in their hearts, and if they are disposed to obey God and lead good and upright lives, can be saved through divine light and grace, since God, Who sees, attends to, and penetrates the thoughts, yearnings, intentions, and dispositions of all men, would not, out of His supreme goodness and mercy allow anyone to suffer everlasting torments, who is innocent of all willful transgression."
'However, equally well-known is the Catholic dogma that no one whatsoever can be saved outside the Catholic Church, and those who perversely oppose the authority and teachings of that Church, and obstinately remain separated from the unity of the Church and from the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, to whom the care of the vineyard was appointed by our Savior, cannot obtain eternal salvation."'

 

As Fr. Wathen puts it:

"Incredible to say, it is the sentence which is printed in bold [italic] letters, which is used as proof that the Doctrine of Exclusive Salvation is not a Catholic dogma, and this, when it is sandwiched between two explicit affirmations of this truth. The sentence can be used to deny the dogma only if it is lifted out of its context between these two affirmations, and deliberately misunderstood or mistranslated. What then does the passage say?" . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In his book; Who Shall Ascend?, Fr. then goes on and gives a thorough (as usual) and exhaustive break down of what Pope Pius IX was saying which perfectly agrees with the dogma without the slightest doubt.

 

Father Wathen's book has been, IMHO, been totally refuted by Is Feeneyism Catholic?, so I really wonder why he is used as a reference?!

I'm with Bowler - you just clog up the thread with nonsense.

Quote from: saintbosco13

There is no contradiction. You need to understand that Baptism of water is the Sacrament, and Baptism of desire and blood are NOT the Sacraments....they only supply the grace of the Sacrament in rare cases.

Read this text from the article on Baptism in the Catholic Encyclopedia from early 1900s:

X. SUBSTITUTES FOR THE SACRAMENT
"The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood."

According to St. Thomas, “that is necessary without which something cannot be" Part III, Q. 68, A. 2, Obj. 3 (Metaph. V).

So the Code says that both the Sacrament of Baptism "or at least the desire for it" are necessary unto all for salvation. The two are mutually exclusive and cannot be both true at the same time.

If I say that salvation cannot be without the sacrament, then obviously salvation CANNOT BE without the sacrament! And what is BOD but salvation without the sacrament?


And yes i have already read the encyclopedia, you dont need to quote it. It is infected with modernism.

Looking in the preface of the Catholic Encyclopedia, you will see over 1500 people globally contributed to writing it in the early 1900s. Among those 1500 people were bishops, priests, professors at Catholic universities, Catholic authors etc, and there was a large board of editors reviewing everything before approval. The Catholic Encyclopedia is imprimatured as well. So we have 1500 educated Catholics authoring it, and the magisterium of the Church has never condemned it, or any part of it, since it was published in 1913. Yet Mortalium on cathinfo, exactly 100 years later, knows better and has condemned it for all of us! If the Catholic Encyclopedia were infected with modernism, the solemn magisterium would have certainly made it known since then. Thanks for being more learned than those 1500 Catholics, and saving us all, Mortalium.

Father Muller already refuted anything you may think you may have read into Pius IX's words well before you were even born.

No, you are the one accusing Pope Pius IX for teaching a heresy he never taught, just like Muller said.

I find it funny how you quote a Fr. Muller to support your opposition of BOD, as if anyone knows who he is, and as if what he says holds any weight next to all the quotes posted on baptismofdesire.com. FYI - The quotes supporting BOD/BOB on baptismofdesire.com span over 1800 years of the Church and are from the following:

Cyprian Epistle LXXII (3rd Century)
Church Father Cyprian (3rd Century)
Church Father Tertullian (3rd Century)
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (4th Century)
St. John Chrystostome (4th Century)
St. Ambrose, a Doctor of the Church (4th Century)
Pope Innocent III in letter "Apostolicam Sedem" to the Bishop of Cremona (12th Century)
St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica – 13th century)
St. Catherine of Sienna (14th Century)
Council of Trent (16th century)
Catechism of the Council of Trent (16th century)
St. Alphonsus Ligouri (Moral Theology Manual - 18th century)
Pope Pius IX (19th century)
Baltimore Catechism (19th century)
St. Pope Pius X (early 20th century)
St. Pope Pius X (early 20th century)
Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913): The Baptism of Desire
Canon Law (1917)
A Catholic Dictionary (1931-1951)
Pope Pius XII, Address to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives (1951)

Now you come along Mortalium, and give us quotes from Fr. Muller to try and oppose all of the above sources???? Talk about absurdity.

Think about it people; whenever we are all discussing other doctrinal issues in the Church, we are all typically content with a quote from a Pope or theologian to lay a matter to rest. However with BOB/BOD, quotes from the massive list of trustworthy Church references above is presented, and the Feeneyites look the other way for all of it, and remain obstinate to the end. There is no way any Feeneyite can claim innocence at their judgment for such blatant obstinacy.