Author Topic: Is baptism optional? (Read 6947 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #60 on:** February 03, 2016, 03:21:05 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: McCork
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Lover of Truth

Anyone who needlessly puts of Baptism will be damned. Our souls are not a joke. I'm not sure if that is technically correct but that is my opinion. The Church frowns on needlessly putting it off that much I know. I think Constantine pulled that stunt. But he did get baptized. I do not think BOD applies to one who needlessly puts it off or hopes to get baptized last minute so he can assure himself of avoiding Purgatory.

You said a BOD is an infallible teaching - now you preface everything with "that is my opinion" and "I do not think"?

You said it is an infallible teaching, so, quote the infallible teaching - after all, this is not something anyone should be stuck guessing about.

I have already answered that, and you run from it. It is certainly infallible, otherwise the Church would not have approved of it, and if it were harmful to the faith, it would be impossible for generations to go by and for nobody to have noticed it.

BOB/D is an infallible teaching of the Church.

No, a BOD/B is *not* an infallible teaching of the Church. McNado runs from the truth saying a BOD is "Church approved", which in and of itself is an outright lie.

I posted a live demonstration of a BOD right Here - McNado says this live demonstration is Church approved - all we can say to that is that it is possible his church approved it, but we can rest assured with dogmatic certainty that the Catholic Church, through the Council of Trent, infallibly declared that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation - and per the infallible decree of Trent, whoever says the sacrament of baptism is not necessary for salvation is anathema.

Cantarella · « **Reply #61 on:** February 03, 2016, 04:04:03 PM »

Quote from: McCork

That is why the Feeneyites are heretics. Their position destroys the divinity of the Church, and they avoid like the plague this ramification of their belief.

Your last "true Pope" Pius XII never condemned Fr. Feeney as a heretic, and yet you dare to do so. The Church never deemed Fr. Feeney as a heretic. He was never accused of holding heresy, but only disobedience. Contrary to the public perception, it was not the Saint Benedict center Catholics who were accused of heresy, but vice versa, the SBC Boston Catholics accused their ecclesiastical and academic superiors at Harvard of heresy for denying the thrice defined infallible dogma of Outside the Church there is no Salvation. In 1953, Fr. Feeney was excommunicated "on account of grave disobedience of Church Authority."

Even the Holy Office would not name "heresy" as the real issue, and yet you dare to do so.

Likewise, The Holy Roman Catholic Church has never defined the "Baptism of Desire" as a dogma of the Faith, nor will never do it, and yet you dare to do so.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #62 on:** February 04, 2016, 05:21:11 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Anyone who needlessly puts of Baptism will be damned.

More Pelagianism. You just can't help yourself, can you?

Will be damned if they die without being Baptized.

Your statement was imprecise and poorly worded. You imply that anyone can be saved as long as they don't "needlessly put off" Baptism. Even if you accept BoD, many other conditions have to be met.

I have stated this many times. Supernatural Faith and Perfect charity or perfect contrition. Desire and or ignorance alone does not save anyone. True?

You did not say it in this post however. Nevertheless, you embrace a Pelagian mechanism for salvation whereby the subject's desire and other dispositions become salvific without the Sacrament of Baptism. If there's such a thing as BoD, it's the Sacrament of Baptism that operates through the desire in order to effect justification. People receive the Sacrament in voto but are not saved without the Sacrament or with a "substitute" for it, etc. Your formulations never fail to be both Pelagian and denying the dogmatic teaching of Trent that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation.

Substantiate the above with authoritative docuмentation. Do you deny that a person who has not been sacramentally baptized can be saved if he has a supernatural Faith and perfect charity? Yes or no?

clare · « **Reply #63 on:** February 11, 2016, 03:11:51 PM »

BOD has been taught for ages, and pre-V2 too, and there has been no condemnation from the Magisterium. You'd think there would have been if it were such a dangerous error.

Stubborn · « **Reply #64 on:** February 11, 2016, 04:33:44 PM »

Quote from: clare

BOD has been taught for ages, and pre-V2 too, and there has been no condemnation from the Magisterium. You'd think there would have been if it were such a dangerous error.

There is no magisterial docuмent anywhere from any time that mention a "Baptism of Desire".

There are dogmatic decrees which are infallible, which binds us to believe them absolutely, which explicitly state the sacrament of baptism is necessary unto salvation.

We all know that per V1, "the meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."

So this is how we know that when Trent said the sacrament is necessary unto salvation, that is what it meant then, now and will mean forever.

Exactly what do you think the Church would condemn that She has not condemned infallibly by decreeing what is necessary already? One reason to not condemn a BOD is because She could well make a list of condemned items a mile long if She did that every time She decrees that which She wishes to bind us to.

No, in the wisdom of the Holy Ghost, dogmatic decrees, by explicitly stating what exactly we must believe in, necessarily admits that everything contrary to the decree itself, is condemned. That is how that works.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #65 on:** February 11, 2016, 06:04:24 PM »

Bottom Line:

BODers - believe that some Moslems, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Bhuddists, Hindus, ect. can be saved.

Feeneyites – Do not believe that any Moslems, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Bhuddists, Hindus, ect can be saved.

That is the naked truth, though some BODers will protest (It appears to me that they are ashamed of what they believe?). The Feeneyites on the other hand do not protest nor feel any shame.

McCork · « **Reply #66 on:** February 12, 2016, 06:35:53 AM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican

Bottom Line:

BODers - believe that some Moslems, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Bhuddists, Hindus, ect. can be saved.

Feeneyites – Do not believe that any Moslems, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Bhuddists, Hindus, ect can be saved.

That is the naked truth, though some BODers will protest (It appears to me that they are ashamed of what they believe?). The Feeneyites on the other hand do not protest nor feel any shame.

Naked error.

Universal Salvationists, the ecuмenical ones in the Novus Ordo may say that, but baptism of desire traditionally says no such thing. Conversions start in the heart first. IF that conversion was accompanied by sanctifying grace, the convert may still be physically associated with a non-Catholic sect, and it may take years to get out, but dying in that state of grace makes him essentially Catholic, though not a member of the body of the Church.

An easy example is an Anglican using the Catholic rite of baptism. That baptism, if performed properly, gives sanctifying grace. At that moment, and until that person commits a personal mortal sin, he is a essentially Catholic, though not a member of the body of the Church, and to all appearances of men is an Anglican. If dying in the state, the person is saved, but NOT by the false Anglican Church. The baptism is a Catholic baptism.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #67 on:** February 12, 2016, 09:37:05 AM »

Obviously right from the start we eliminate those who are culpably ignorant of the necessity of the Catholic Church and Baptism for salvation - as non-members who are outside the Church who refuse to seek the truth or turn a blind eye to it cannot die within that Church.

Additionally we sort out those who are not good willed and all who do not have a supernatural Faith and perfect Charity, or, being guilty of mortal sin, do not die with perfect contrition.

Are some Muslims, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. capable of dying with a supernatural Faith and perfect Charity as Muslims, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.?

How much time an ink is wasted and spilled by the ignorant (I lump myself in this group) who would be better served by doing almost anything else. Let us spend this time converting others. Converts must be baptized sacramentally. Water Baptism is not optional for them. They do not convert planing to die in order to avoid the Sacrament. They are not told that they become members of the Church by simply desiring Baptism and they can feel free to avoid being sacramentally baptized if they prefer. They are made aware that the must be sacramentally baptized before they can become members of the Church and partake of the other Sacraments. Though those converts/catechumens who die having desired the Sacrament and having planed on receiving it at the appointed time are not damned simply because they happened to die before they could obtain what they had desired.

Can we simply accept the fact that anyone who dies in a state of sanctifying grace goes to Heaven having obtained that grace within the Church and humbly defer to God and let Him sort out the goats from the sheep?

Stubborn · « **Reply #68 on:** February 12, 2016, 09:59:43 AM »

Quote from: McCork

Conversions start in the heart first. IF that conversion was accompanied by sanctifying grace, the convert may still be physically associated with a non-Catholic sect, and it may take years to get out, but dying in that state of grace makes him essentially Catholic, though not a member of the body of the Church.

You only prove what LT said: BODers - believe that some Moslems, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Bhuddists, Hindus, ect. can be saved.

Just more McTheology. Good old sincerity outside the Church means salvation within the Church.

Here is a live example of what you preach........minus the death of one of them.

McCork · « **Reply #69 on:** February 12, 2016, 05:47:52 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: McCork
Conversions start in the heart first. IF that conversion was accompanied by sanctifying grace, the convert may still be physically associated with a non-Catholic sect, and it may take years to get out, but dying in that state of grace makes him essentially Catholic, though not a member of the body of the Church.

You only prove what LT said: BODers - believe that some Moslems, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Bhuddists, Hindus, ect. can be saved.

Just more McTheology. Good old sincerity outside the Church means salvation within the Church.

Here is a live example of what you preach........minus the death of one of them.

Yet, Stubborn, again, doesn't take any time to inform the pubic of just where the thinking is wrong. Just caveman complaints. Grunt, grunt, grunt. The real reason you don't accept what I just wrote is that you believe that validly baptized Anglicans are Catholic.

Stubborn · « **Reply #70 on:** February 13, 2016, 05:19:54 AM »

Quote from: McCork

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: McCork
Conversions start in the heart first. IF that conversion was accompanied by sanctifying grace, the convert may still be physically associated with a non-Catholic sect, and it may take years to get out, but dying in that state of grace makes him essentially Catholic, though not a member of the body of the Church.

You only prove what LT said: BODers - believe that some Moslems, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Bhuddists, Hindus, ect. can be saved.

Just more McTheology. Good old sincerity outside the Church means salvation within the Church.

Here is a live example of what you preach........minus the death of one of them.

Yet, Stubborn, again, doesn't take any time to inform the pubic of just where the thinking is wrong. Just caveman complaints. Grunt, grunt, grunt. The real reason you don't accept what I just wrote is that you believe that validly baptized Anglicans are Catholic.

It's quite obvious - LT said you, as a BODer, believe that those not members of the Church ("some Moslems, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Bhuddists, Hindus, ect.") can be saved.

You answered and said that this truth is a "naked error".

You then proceed to admit that his "naked error" is perfectly correct as you twist what he said (McTheology at work), so as to be perfectly clear that non-members can indeed be saved, which of course makes his "naked error" perfectly true, as per McTheology.

Same o same o.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #71 on:** February 13, 2016, 05:06:47 PM »

Yeah, it's not worth our time to argue with the likes of McCork and LoT. They despise the dogma EENS and hold to "Anonymous Christian" theology, which even Rahner couldn't have articulated better than McCork (people can be in the Church without anyone, including themselves, even knowing it). Yet they reject Vatican II largely because of its "heretical ecclesiology". It would be utterly laughable if it weren't so tragic.

McCork · « **Reply #72 on:** February 13, 2016, 05:16:49 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Yeah, it's not worth our time to argue with the likes of McCork and LoT. They despise the dogma EENS and hold to "Anonymous Christian" theology, which even Rahner couldn't have articulated better than McCork (people can be in the Church without anyone, including themselves, even knowing it). Yet they reject Vatican II largely because of its "heretical ecclesiology". It would be utterly laughable if it weren't so tragic.

You don't have the Catholic spirit. Even if you think I am a heretic and am promoting error, the Saints found it necessary to publicly oppose heretic in debate because a PUBLIC was being addressed already, and at least for the sake of that public. I am willing, you are not. We know who's who.

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #73 on:** April 10, 2016, 11:10:08 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Respond the question McCork. Don't hit and run!

Do you deny the following matter of dogmatic Faith (de fide) from the Council of Vienne?

Quote from: Council of Vienne (1311-12)
Besides, only one Baptism which regenerates all who are baptized in Christ MUST be faithfully confessed by all, just as there is “one God and one faith” [Eph. 4:5], which is celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Denzinger 428)

Yes or No.

BUMP

McDork, you never answered the question.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #74 on:** April 13, 2016, 09:39:39 AM »

Quote from: ascent

Quote from: Cantarella
Respond the question McCork. Don't hit and run!

Do you deny the following matter of dogmatic Faith (de fide) from the Council of Vienne?

Quote from: Council of Vienne (1311-12)
Besides, only one Baptism which regenerates all who are baptized in Christ MUST be faithfully confessed by all, just as there is “one God and one faith” [Eph. 4:5], which is celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Denzinger 428)

Yes or No.

BUMP

McDork, you never answered the question.

Thankfully Nado McCork has finally been re-banned by Matthew.

No doubt he'll re-emerge under a different registration at some point in the future. Just keep an eye out for his "negative infallibility" thing. It's his unique calling card ... since not even the most radical dogmatic SV believes this.