Author Topic: Baptismofdesire.com (Read 97075 times)

saintbosco13 · « **Reply #25 on:** April 22, 2013, 03:58:15 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Using the same logic, it is easy to see how we should all be obedient to the Second Vatican Council because there is no finer example of the teachings of the ordinary and universal magisterium. - - - - but thankfully, it does not work that way.

The Second Vatican Council has teachings that oppose all teachings of the Catholic Church before it. By definition, that excludes it from being part of the solemn or ordinary magisterium.

Quote from: Stubborn

Please recall that V1 taught "For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine"...... BOD is a new doctrine, it is not of the Deposit of Faith, it is not of the Apostles, it is certainly not what Christ or the scriptures teach and since the necessity of the sacrament has been defined infallibly, the issue of whether BOD saves or not has already been defined that it does not save - so the matter has been authoritatively and infallibly settled for all time.

Interestingly, baptismofdesire.com quotes teachings on baptism of desire and baptism of blood spanning more than 1800 years of the Catholic Church without a single condemnation. And you call this a new doctrine???? That's not a new doctrine, that's a unanimous doctrine.

Incredulous · « **Reply #26 on:** April 22, 2013, 04:12:44 PM »

How about the Last Gospel of John for a vouchsafe that only Baptism by water will do?

The Last Gospel
St John unfolds the great mystery of the Incarnation.

1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2: He was in the beginning with God; 3: all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. 4: In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5: The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. 6: There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7: He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him. 8: He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light. 9: The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world. 10: He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not. 11: He came to his own home, and his own people received him not. 12: But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; 13: who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. 14: And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.

Jehanne · « **Reply #27 on:** April 22, 2013, 04:32:32 PM »

Quote from: saintbosco13

Interestingly, baptismofdesire.com quotes teachings on baptism of desire and baptism of blood spanning more than 1800 years of the Catholic Church without a single condemnation. And you call this a new doctrine???? That's not a new doctrine, that's a unanimous doctrine.

So, are you saying that if I go to a Mass of Christian of Burial for a catechumen who, allegedly, died without sacramental Baptism, that it is wrong, even sinful, for me to at least hope that the individual did, in fact, end his/her life with sacramental Baptism? After all, if that catechumen truly desired to be Baptized, then did not the Triune God desire that as well? And, if so, what's wrong with at least hoping that the individual catechumen and God Himself both achieved what they both desired?

Stubborn · « **Reply #28 on:** April 22, 2013, 04:52:43 PM »

Quote from: saintbosco13

Quote from: Stubborn
1) the person on the remote island is no catechumen yet you attempted to justify his salvation without the sacrament. This serves as an excellent example of how easily and how far from the truth BOD leads people.

How can a native on a remote island be a catechumen! The definition of a catechumen is "A non-baptized adult under instruction to be received into the Church"...

Quote from: Stubborn

2) Prior to the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the Church taught that "neither the commemoration of Sacrifice or the service of chanting is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism". - Council of Braga 6th century

I'm shocked that you used the quote from the Council of Braga against baptism of desire, when the Catholic Encyclopedia, under the article on Baptism, references the same quote in favor of it! Full context below. The same quote is used in favor of Baptism of desire since a "commemoration of sacrifice" is not needed for catechumens, since they are assumed baptized by desire. The article gives an example of this with the Emperor being assumed to have baptism of desire.

Note, only one paragraph after this one, in the same article on Baptism, there is the section called "Substitutes for the Sacrament" where it goes into all the proofs for baptism of desire and baptism of blood. Better scratch the quote from the Council of Braga from your arsenal!

Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism
"A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere. St. Ambrose may have done so for the soul of the catechumen Valentinian, but this would be a solitary instance, and it was done apparently because he believed that the emperor had had the baptism of desire. The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga: "Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without the redemption of baptism."

:confused1:

Stubborn · « **Reply #29 on:** April 22, 2013, 04:56:18 PM »

Quote from: saintbosco13

Interestingly, baptismofdesire.com quotes teachings on baptism of desire and baptism of blood spanning more than 1800 years of the Catholic Church without a single condemnation. And you call this a new doctrine???? That's not a new doctrine, that's a unanimous doctrine.

Why do you think I said it was full of errors and should be removed from the web?