Author Topic: Catholic (vs. Heretical) Baptism of Desire (Read 16298 times)

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #135 on:** August 17, 2014, 03:52:08 PM »

1) opinion

2) false

3) does not apply

4) does not apply

5) opinion

6) false

7) no thank you

Stubborn · « **Reply #136 on:** August 17, 2014, 04:06:28 PM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

1) opinion

2) false

3) does not apply

4) does not apply

5) opinion

6) false

7) no thank you

You are in denial, you may as well follow him into the pit with a smile on your face the whole way.

Stubborn · « **Reply #137 on:** August 17, 2014, 04:17:03 PM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

1) opinion

2) false

3) does not apply

4) does not apply

5) opinion

6) false

7) no thank you

Something else.

This reply of yours is completely hypocritical of you - which is one reason why we say you NSAAers are lying hypocrites.
I mean here's you demanding approved sources for the stupidest things that any idiot can understand was meant to be understood as declared - I am talking specifically about the dogma known as EENS - yet you, of all people, could do no better than to reply with only your own sedevacantist opinion, with absolutely not even a hint of approved Church teaching to back you up.

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #138 on:** August 17, 2014, 06:31:29 PM »

I have no doubt that the Dimond brothers will not fail to slander me when it suits them. They have done so in the past, and I am quite sure they will continue to do so. They are liars, and it seems that they continue in their evil ways.

It is rather laughable that an encyclical regarding Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ would be used to support the teaching of Baptism of Desire when there are ample references from authorities in the Church on the topic, and it is not surprising that they would somehow attribute this to me.

Two fake monks, clowns in this circus that they have created. I can still recall when they thought they were the two witnesses - what a joke these clowns are. Circus clowns to the end. Pride has warped their reality into a sideshow.

It was St. Alphonsus Liguori who identifies Baptism of Desire as 'Of the Faith',

Quote

"But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called 'of wind' ['flaminis'] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind ['flamen']. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon 'A p o s t o l i c a m D e P r e s b y t e r o N o n B a p t i z a t o' and 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.'"

I stand 100% with the Church. Two pretend monks have no sway over me at all. It amuses me that this very topic, Baptism of Desire, was the argument that caused me to discontinue helping them in the past, and here now I see they continue to push their distortion of truth. I wonder if they ever corrected their misrepresentations, although, I highly doubt it.

And you, LouisM, now you are the same as them to me. I hope you enjoy their company. Maybe you too can join their ranks and play monk.

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #139 on:** August 17, 2014, 06:35:53 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
1) opinion

2) false

3) does not apply

4) does not apply

5) opinion

6) false

7) no thank you

You are in denial, you may as well follow him into the pit with a smile on your face the whole way.

Don't like my answers? Like I care. You are a clown.

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #140 on:** August 17, 2014, 06:40:22 PM »

Baptism of Desire...

Quote

1. Council of Trent 1545-1563

Canons on the Sacraments in General: - (Canon 4):
"If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."

Decree on Justification - (Session 6, Chapter 4):
"In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the 'adoption of the Sons' (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).

2. St. Alphonsus Liguori 1691-1787

Moral Theology - (Bk. 6):
"But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called 'of wind' ['flaminis'] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind ['flamen']. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon 'A p o s t o l i c a m D e P r e s b y t e r o N o n B a p t i z a t o' and 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.'"

There is no getting around it. The Council of Trent taught it, and shortly thereafter St. Alphonsus Liguori confirmed this TRUTH of the One, Holy Catholic, and Apostolic Church of our Lord and Saviour, The Christ, Jesus.

Cantarella · « **Reply #141 on:** August 17, 2014, 10:58:52 PM »

The Council of Trent DID NOT teach Baptism of Desire. After reading the entire treatise (not only the isolated cited paragraph by itself) on Justification, one realizes that it clearly teaches that we cannot be justified without water or the will for it, since Our Lord said that we cannot be born again without water AND the Holy Spirit. We need BOTH. The focus in the word "or" is incorrect.

Trent clearly teaches that BOTH the water(Sacrament) AND the Faith are required for justification. Without THE CATHOLIC FAITH there is no justification and the obligation to receive the Sacrament still is required for salvation.

Indeed, if one tries to make the water or the desire thereof an "either ... or" proposition, then one turns the teaching of Trent into an ERROR. Because we cannot be justified with water only WITHOUT the Faith.

Cantarella · « **Reply #142 on:** August 17, 2014, 11:10:45 PM »

St. Alphonsus Liguori does not represent the binding authority of the Church. Saints are fallible as they can, and have erred. It is the Divine Infallible Teaching of the Church which does not err and cannot be contradicted. The Church has consistently and infallibly taught that Baptism (of water) is necessary to obtain life everlasting. No one has the power to change a Sacrament so explicitly instituted by Our Lord. The matter for Baptism as given to us by CHRIST HIMSELF (see Jon 3:5) is true and natural WATER. There is NO TRUE Baptism without the proper matter or form. God has revealed that there is only ONE Baptism and that of water and the word.

Stubborn · « **Reply #143 on:** August 18, 2014, 03:47:21 AM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

I have no doubt that the Dimond brothers will not fail to slander me when it suits them. They have done so in the past, and I am quite sure they will continue to do so. They are liars, and it seems that they continue in their evil ways.

It is rather laughable that an encyclical regarding Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ would be used to support the teaching of Baptism of Desire when there are ample references from authorities in the Church on the topic, and it is not surprising that they would somehow attribute this to me.

Two fake monks, clowns in this circus that they have created. I can still recall when they thought they were the two witnesses - what a joke these clowns are. Circus clowns to the end. Pride has warped their reality into a sideshow.

It was St. Alphonsus Liguori who identifies Baptism of Desire as 'Of the Faith',

Quote
"But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called 'of wind' ['flaminis'] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind ['flamen']. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon 'A p o s t o l i c a m D e P r e s b y t e r o N o n B a p t i z a t o' and 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.'"

I stand 100% with the Church. Two pretend monks have no sway over me at all. It amuses me that this very topic, Baptism of Desire, was the argument that caused me to discontinue helping them in the past, and here now I see they continue to push their distortion of truth. I wonder if they ever corrected their misrepresentations, although, I highly doubt it.

And you, LouisM, now you are the same as them to me. I hope you enjoy their company. Maybe you too can join their ranks and play monk.

You NSAAers and your selective quotes. You do not understand that St. Alphonsus is not the Church, is not infallible and was a moral theologian, not a dogmatic theologian.

It was St. Alphonsus Liguori who identifies the necessity of the sacrament:

Quote

The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, inasmuch as they hold that man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments only serve to excite and nourish this faith, which (as they say) can be equally excited and nourished by preaching. But this is certainly false, and is condemned in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth canons: for as we know from the Scriptures, some of the sacraments are necessary as a means without which salvation is impossible. Thus Baptism is necessary for all, Penance for them who have fallen into sin after Baptism, and the Eucharist is necessary for all at least in desire

It was also St. Alphonsus who identified that without recourse to Mary, salvation is impossible - which I agree with.

So where does recourse to Our Blessed Mother fit it with your idea of a BOD?

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #144 on:** August 18, 2014, 11:45:53 AM »

Quote from: The Catechism of The Council of Trent, page 179

"... should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."

Cantarella · « **Reply #145 on:** August 18, 2014, 12:05:21 PM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

Quote from: The Catechism of The Council of Trent, page 179
"... should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."

Continue wasting time on talking about Baptism of Desire, which the Modernists (just as the Feeneyites do not believe in anyway). This is because as taught by the Church, hypothetical BOD could only apply to those pius catechumens that, while fervently wishing to enter the Catholic Church, die before receive water baptism.

Address salvation of non-Catholics via implicit desire, salvation by justification alone, and invincible ignorance.

Ambrose · « **Reply #146 on:** August 18, 2014, 12:13:25 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

Quote from: The Catechism of The Council of Trent, page 179
"... should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."

Continue wasting time on talking about Baptism of Desire, which the Modernists (just as the Feeneyites do not believe in anyway). This is because as taught by the Church, hypothetical BOD could only apply to those pius catechumens that, while fervently wishing to enter the Catholic Church, die before receive water baptism.

Address salvation of non-Catholics via implicit desire, salvation by justification alone, and invincible ignorance.

Implicit Baptism of Desire as taught by the Doctors, theologians and Holy Office does not = salvation outside the Church.

That is old Feeneyite propaganda.

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #147 on:** August 18, 2014, 01:53:44 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

Quote from: The Catechism of The Council of Trent, page 179
"... should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."

Continue wasting time on talking about Baptism of Desire, which the Modernists (just as the Feeneyites do not believe in anyway). This is because as taught by the Church, hypothetical BOD could only apply to those pius catechumens that, while fervently wishing to enter the Catholic Church, die before receive water baptism.

Address salvation of non-Catholics via implicit desire, salvation by justification alone, and invincible ignorance.

Actually, for my own reassurance and edification, I re-read the section on Baptism contained in The Catechism of The Council of Trent, thinking that if I was mistaken in my understanding of this topic, I might find some clarification there. Now, while I was reassured that God, in His infinite justice, would not allow the circuмstances of an untimely death to prevent someone from suffering the eternal fires of hell who had "repentance for past sins" and the "intention and determination to receive Baptism", reading further, I also gained some insight into another interpretation of the Council's decree that is perhaps a primary influence to those that oppose Baptism of Desire.

I am not going to debate this topic.

Ambrose · « **Reply #148 on:** August 18, 2014, 02:30:40 PM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

Quote from: The Catechism of The Council of Trent, page 179
"... should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."

Continue wasting time on talking about Baptism of Desire, which the Modernists (just as the Feeneyites do not believe in anyway). This is because as taught by the Church, hypothetical BOD could only apply to those pius catechumens that, while fervently wishing to enter the Catholic Church, die before receive water baptism.

Address salvation of non-Catholics via implicit desire, salvation by justification alone, and invincible ignorance.

Actually, for my own reassurance and edification, I re-read the section on Baptism contained in The Catechism of The Council of Trent, thinking that if I was mistaken in my understanding of this topic, I might find some clarification there. Now, while I was reassured that God, in His infinite justice, would not allow the circuмstances of an untimely death to prevent someone from suffering the eternal fires of hell who had "repentance for past sins" and the "intention and determination to receive Baptism", reading further, I also gained some insight into another interpretation of the Council's decree that is perhaps a primary influence to those that oppose Baptism of Desire.

I am not going to debate this topic.

You are right to not debate it. They need correction, not debate. Also, we need to expose this heresy, so that no one else gets ensnared.

They prey on innocent unsuspecting Catholics. If we who know the truth don't speak up, more will be drawn into their sect through their sophistries.

Cantarella · « **Reply #149 on:** August 18, 2014, 08:18:43 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

You are right to not debate it. They need correction, not debate. Also, we need to expose this heresy, so that no one else gets ensnared.

Agreed. Correction and not debate is the approach. The sedevacantist BODers also need of our prayers for their conversion and reunion with Holy Mother Church. Never forget that is another precious soul behind the screen who may profit from the knowledge. To inform in true charity and patience, and to instruct the ignorant, is all part of our call. Perhaps if they are simply informed of the modernist Cushing error, reason for the triumph of Modernism in Vatican II, those of good will who have been deceived by the "traditionalist" cults as a reactionary movement post Vatican II, could be enlighten and reunited with the Church of all Ages, as not to die outside of Her.