Quote

 That was the most lame argument I have ever seen. I'm embarrassed for you Director. Talk about self interpretation. I guess over a dozen  Church Fathers, and a dozen Doctors of the Church, and half a dozen Popes must all be anathematized then. Give me a break

I am glad you embarrassed for me , because that means we are on two different sides of the fence.  

Now let me ask you as question ,, Has there ever been a "Unanimous consent of the fathers on something called Baptism of Desire or Blood.

the answer is yes or no ,,, We don t need all  you three page answers for a simple question as you do all all the other threads

Yes ,, or no ,,, which is it ????

Quote from: Director

Quote from: Emerentiana

On and on and one and on.  This stale subject never ends.
Director, are you keeping this alive at the Diamond's direction?  

Most Catholics dont agree with the Feenyite position, so you are wasting your time.  I guess you hope that some uneducated young posters will arrive for you to influence.

 :heretic:  

Me and a few others , who have the truth.  The Dimonds pay pretty good
Lol

How about you are you ready for the same question I asked MyranM ?

Director,
for the good of the souls on this forum, cease and desist .   I will not answer any questions you put to me, because I know you are just parroting the Diamond's ideas, and they are heretical.

Quote from: Director

No myranM I did not leave out the "Or", it was written the way it was written for a reason.  

 It  looks like you may fall under the Anathema of Canon 5 of the Council of Trent

Here it is...

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5

on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra:

“If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.

let me explain,, to hold to salvation by the theory of Bod , or BB, is to put one in that "Optional" position. It states , 'there are no Options to Salvation but thru the one sacramental water Baptism.

So much for the theory of Bap of desire /blood

 

That was the most lame argument I have ever seen. I'm embarrassed for you Director. Talk about self interpretation.

Quote from: saintbosco13

Quote from: bowler

You are in denial, stinking your head in the sand. Trent defined anything about what happens to a person who dies after being pre-justified but before being baptized. That is why you have to mix things up above to come up with an answer.

Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments.
On Baptism
Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

Now, it is curious how BODers explain away this clear infallible dogmatic decree (from the Holy Ghost) and all of the others like it, yet they insist on their interpretation of the few same unclear fallible docuмents that they bring up over and over, because they have such little evidence, like one line from Pius IX "invincible ignorance", and one quote from the Catechism of Pius X line. Meanwhile they deny the clear meaning of all the infallible dogmas on EENS, the infallible Athanasian Creed, God's revelation in John 3:5, which the Fathers and all Catholics understood literally etc.

Well, the Holy See, these two Doctors of the Church, and the Catholic Encyclopedia say that the  Council of Trent taught baptism of desire. I think I will trust their judgment over Bowler the self interpreter.


St. Robert Bellarmine: De Controversiis, “De Baptismo,” Lib. I, Cap. VI: "Thus also the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, says that Baptism is necessary in fact or in desire (in re vel in voto)”.

St. Alphonsus Liguori: Moral Theology, Book 6, Section II (About Baptism and Confirmation), Chapter 1 (On Baptism), page 310, no. 96: "Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de ####o non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'"

Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism: The Baptism of Desire: “This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice "except by the washing of regeneration or its desire" (voto).

Letter of the Holy Office, 1949: "This (Sacraments through desire) we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807)

Trent Session 6, Chapter 4 is talking about justification, and it says nothing about what happens to a person who dies justified before he gets baptized.



Besides St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus Ligouri  are saying that Trent teaches that explicit desire to be baptized, can replace the sacrament, HOWEVER, you believe that no explicit desire for baptism, nor desire to be a Catholic, nor knowledge of the Trinity and Christ are necessary for salvation. So why are you bringing up these quotes, when they have nothing to do with what you believe?

Actually I have more affinity with St. Robert Bellarmine  and St. Alphonsus Ligouri than you do, since my disagreement with them only involves a catechumen or someone like a catechumen, who explicitly desires to be baptized, or a Catholic. A trivial disagreement which involves numerically speaking practically no one. And who am I to tell someone that their family member who was a catechumen is in hell?

Yet you believe that anyone can be saved not just someone who explicitly desires to be a Catholic and baptized. You have lost the faith or your marbles.

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: bowler

Compare the above Baltimore catechism instruction with this explanation of a BOD hypocrite, with my notes in red:

Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Co., Feb. 18, 2006: “We know that there are two other baptisms, that of desire and that of blood. These produce an invisible but real link with Christ but do not produce all of the effects which are received in the baptism of water…(OK so far) And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church (this is opposed to the Athanasian Creed and NEVER taught by any Father, Doctor or Saint, so how could he say that "the Church has always taught"). We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church (united despite rejecting Christ and His Church! opposed to the Athanasian Creed and NEVER taught by any Father, Doctor or Saint). It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (conscience is now salvific for this trad bishop, no different than Pope Francis recent comment that had everyone on CI clamoring. This novel liberal teaching is opposed to the Athanasian Creed and NEVER taught by any Father, Doctor or Saint) (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)

Bower why do you post HERE what Bishop Bernard Fellay "said", (putting in quotes because you have been so mistaken so much ABOUT WHAT OTHERS BELIEVE).  If indeed he said it, why not post on a forum that is pro Fellay, most here will not defend Bishop Fellay, because if you have been reading HERE they are resisting him.  Why not address your notes to his supporters?  I doubt anyone here will defend his words anymore.    

The parts in red were written by me to compare what Fellay says with what St. Thomas and the Saints and the Athanasian Creed taught. What he says is clear it needs no explanation every word that is not in red is Bishop Fellay.

Who here cares about Bishop Fellay, except that he repent. (I posted his quote as an example of a BOD hypocrite, a traditionalist that believes in salvation by implicit faith in a God that rewards, the teaching that says that a person who has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or baptized, nor a belief in Christ, can be saved. I could have posted many other traditionalist priest and bishops from SSPV, CMRI and SSPX saying the same thing.  
You are focused on personalities (Bp. Fellay), while I am focused on doctrine only. Personally I like Bp. Fellay, I just don't agree with his doctrine)

Your response has nothing to do with my questions to you or your ilk.

How would you like it if I started posting that YOU, bower, do not believe anyone who dies in Sanctifying grace is united to God.   How would you like it if I posted that you believe God does not give everyone a chance AT LEAST ONCE for salvation, since you insist it is impossible for those outside the Church to enter even at the last moment of their life.  

I will not post that unless you say you believe it, I would expect the same from you, so STOP saying that we/I believe that everyone and anyone in any false religion, if they die in that state can save their soul.   That is a LIE.  That is not what the Church teaches, never did, except for Vatican II, but then Vatican II is not the Church, is it[color=red]???(total a feelings oriented response; This is why St. Paul said women should not teach men. You are incoherent. If you will notice, I do respond to you every time you write like a thinking person. When you write all mixed up like this, I don't bother with it. Don’t be surprised when I don't respond to you when you write like that). As soon as you write)[/color]