The problem with BODers is they cannot answer a straight question with a straight answer thereby avoiding the truth of the matter as best as they can.

V1 decrees that dogma are to be understood as declared, not interpreted, not explained under the pretext or in the name of a better or more profound understanding. It is quite clear on that.

That being fact, Trent meant exactly what it said - the sacrament of baptism is a necessity unto salvation - not optional. Whoever says otherwise is anathema per Trent and V1.

Trent's catechism explains wonderfully that "or the desire thereof" means you must have the proper disposition when you receive the sacrament - but the NSAAers keep ignoring that teaching thereby allowing them to continue to make their own exceptions to defined dogma by rejecting the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation.

I defy YOU to defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation - you will NEVER in your whole life be able to defend the necessity of the sacraments because YOU, and all BODers believe no sacrament at all is necessary unto salvation - -  and you all think that such a belief is Catholic.

So far, not one BODer has been honest enough to admit it, they simply continue to defend the mythical non sacrament, which is responsible for making non catholic saints - yet these same BODers criticize Pope Francis in anticipation of his making JP2 and JXXIII saints in a few weeks.

Go figure.
 

A few things here:

1- Are you saying all you need is a copy of Denzinger, and that you can go ahead and interpret what you read as you wish, and that you are free to dismiss and ignore everything that the Doctors, Saints and theologians teach?

2- I already said Trent itself said "or the desire thereof."

3- The Catechism itself says "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." What is the Dimond experts' "response" to this? "The Catechism is not infallible." Facepalm!  

4- St. Thomas says BOD/BOB are part of Baptism and substitutes, so no there is no question of denying the necessity of the Sacraments here, and BOD/BOB are in extreme cases anyways, so how can you say the Sacraments are deemed unnecessary?

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I was influenced by the Dimonds on this issue as well.  But eventually the truth overwhelmed me and I could no longer deny it as the current anti-BOB/Ders do.  Take for instance the above article.  Instead of refuting it, because they can't.  They call me a liar.  The article was not even written by me and they call me a liar because they cannot legitimately deny the truth presented.

You cannot even defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation - that in and of itself should tell you that you are a liar.

I will refrain from lowering myself to your level by describing you in negative.  Though were I to do so I would be accurate whereas your accusation is inaccurate.  

For the unbiased onlookers, when the erring cannot refute something in desperation they resort to attacking the messenger as Stubborn shows above.

Well, you keep on defending the anti-sacrament and preach that no sacrament at all is necessary unto salvation - and call that a teaching of the Church, and I will keep calling you a liar.

You have already proven my point (the desperate erring resort to name-calling).  You can stop now.   :cheers:

Quote from: Stubborn

The problem with BODers is they cannot answer a straight question with a straight answer thereby avoiding the truth of the matter as best as they can.

V1 decrees that dogma are to be understood as declared, not interpreted, not explained under the pretext or in the name of a better or more profound understanding. It is quite clear on that.

That being fact, Trent meant exactly what it said - the sacrament of baptism is a necessity unto salvation - not optional. Whoever says otherwise is anathema per Trent and V1.

Trent's catechism explains wonderfully that "or the desire thereof" means you must have the proper disposition when you receive the sacrament - but the NSAAers keep ignoring that teaching thereby allowing them to continue to make their own exceptions to defined dogma by rejecting the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation.

I defy YOU to defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation - you will NEVER in your whole life be able to defend the necessity of the sacraments because YOU, and all BODers believe no sacrament at all is necessary unto salvation - -  and you all think that such a belief is Catholic.

So far, not one BODer has been honest enough to admit it, they simply continue to defend the mythical non sacrament, which is responsible for making non catholic saints - yet these same BODers criticize Pope Francis in anticipation of his making JP2 and JXXIII saints in a few weeks.

Go figure.
 

A few things here:

1- Are you saying all you need is a copy of Denzinger, and that you can go ahead and interpret what you read as you wish, and that you are free to dismiss and ignore everything that the Doctors, Saints and theologians teach?

No, I am saying you do not need anything other than the defined dogma to understand it. V1 states no one is not allowed to interpret dogma, we are to understand it - that is infallible and we are bound under pain of sin to accept profess it and accept it - much to the dismay of those who feel the dogmas are really parables.

2- I already said Trent itself said "or the desire thereof."

"Or the desire thereof" means the sacrament must be received with the proper disposition. Trent's catechism explains "Or the desire thereof".............

Dispositions for baptism

Intention

The faithful are also to be instructed in the necessary dispositions for Baptism. In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it; for as in Baptism we all die to sin and resolve to live a new life, it is fit that it be administered to those only who receive it of their own free will and accord; it is to be forced upon none. Hence we learn from holy tradition that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it. This disposition even infants are presumed to have, since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken.

3- The Catechism itself says "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." What is the Dimond experts' "response" to this? "The Catechism is not infallible." Facepalm!  

is right. You do not read what is written, if you did, you could not read the catechism's previous 100s of pages on the necessity of the sacrament of baptism - then turn around and completely contradict those teachings with one sentence.
 
FYI -
The catechism snip makes no mention of death *or* salvation.
The catechism does not reward salvation via a BOD.
The catechism does not even promise them grace and righteousness.
The "unforeseen accident" can easily be that the priest who was supposed to administer the sacrament that day was unavoidably delayed for 3 hours.

When reading what is written, the catechism teaches that their contrition, and desire will *avail* them to *grace and righteousness* - IOW, it will put them "in the way" of grace - or to put it another way, before they can be baptized, the person *must* be in the way of grace via the proper intention - i.e. they must "desire" to be baptized prior to actually receiving the sacrament.

You need to go in the dictionary and post the definition of the word "Avail" is.

4- St. Thomas says BOD/BOB are part of Baptism and substitutes, so no there is no question of denying the necessity of the Sacraments here, and BOD/BOB are in extreme cases anyways, so how can you say the Sacraments are deemed unnecessary?

Trent came how long after St. Thomas had died? Read LoT's signature where it says: "If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." It's a pity such a sacrament despiser like him mocks the angelic Saint rather than practice what he has in his signature.

Well, the Great St. submits to the judgement of the Church - not the other way around as BODers have convinced themselves. This means a few things - First thing it means is that St. Thomas was not the Church, it also means he let everyone know that HE COULD BE WRONG - and per Trent, he was wrong on the whole BOD thing - as he was wrong on the Immaculate Conception.

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I was influenced by the Dimonds on this issue as well.  But eventually the truth overwhelmed me and I could no longer deny it as the current anti-BOB/Ders do.  Take for instance the above article.  Instead of refuting it, because they can't.  They call me a liar.  The article was not even written by me and they call me a liar because they cannot legitimately deny the truth presented.

You cannot even defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation - that in and of itself should tell you that you are a liar.

I will refrain from lowering myself to your level by describing you in negative.  Though were I to do so I would be accurate whereas your accusation is inaccurate.  

For the unbiased onlookers, when the erring cannot refute something in desperation they resort to attacking the messenger as Stubborn shows above.

Well, you keep on defending the anti-sacrament and preach that no sacrament at all is necessary unto salvation - and call that a teaching of the Church, and I will keep calling you a liar.

You have already proven my point (the desperate erring resort to name-calling).  You can stop now.   :cheers:

Stop calling you the liar that you are? Sorry if that is not nithe LoT, but I would rather you hate being called a liar and accept the truth so I can stop calling you a liar rather than you face God a liar, where you will have no opportunity to explain to Him why you spent your time on earth preaching that His sacraments are not necessary at all.

You are not making yourself look good to the unbiased and objective observer by continually calling me a liar.  Some might be inclined to agree with the Church against you merely because of your constantly resorting to name-calling.  Not a good way to evangelize.

But if you want to call me a liar for the 5th or so times in the past half hour please feel free.  Eventually maybe some will start to believe you.  After all isn't that what it's all about?   :cheers:

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Exurge

1- Are you saying all you need is a copy of Denzinger, and that you can go ahead and interpret what you read as you wish, and that you are free to dismiss and ignore everything that the Doctors, Saints and theologians teach?

No, I am saying you do not need anything other than the defined dogma to understand it. V1 states no one is not allowed to interpret dogma, we are to understand it - that is infallible and we are bound under pain of sin to accept profess it and accept it - much to the dismay of those who feel the dogmas are really parables.

Yes, you are saying that, because Denzinger is the collection of all the infallible prononcements and dogmas.

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Exurge

2- I already said Trent itself said "or the desire thereof."

"Or the desire thereof" means the sacrament must be received with the proper disposition.

Then the Council should have said AND the desire thereof, not or, but it said or.

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Exurge

3- The Catechism itself says "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." What is the Dimond experts' "response" to this? "The Catechism is not infallible." Facepalm!  

is right. You do not read what is written, if you did, you could not read the catechism's previous 100s of pages on the necessity of the sacrament of baptism - then turn around and completely contradict those teachings with one sentence.

You are the one who doesn't read what is written. You are the one who has to say that that one sentence is nonsensical and should be extirpated from the Catechism and that it was a mistake and that it contradicts all the rest.
 

Quote from: Stubborn

FYI -
The catechism snip makes no mention of death *or* salvation.

A little before the "snip" the Catechism was dealing with "Baptism Of Infants Should Not Be Delayed". And what did it say about that?

Quote

The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.

So infants have "no other means of salvation except Baptism". Next it deals with "Baptism of adults":

Quote

With regard to those of adult age who enjoy the perfect use of reason, persons, namely, born of infidel parents, the practice of the primitive Church points out that a different manner of proceeding should be followed. To them the Christian faith is to be proposed; and they are earnestly to be exhorted, persuaded and invited to embrace it.

Then comes the place where the "snippet" is:

Quote

Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once

On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; 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.

If adults were in the same state as infants, in which they couldn't absolutely be saved without the Sacrament, then delaying it would be tempting God because they can also die at any moment. It would be better to baptize them once they say they are willing to be Catholic and then instruct them. And yet it is delayed.

Moreover, if it were not dealing with the danger of death, then why would it say "should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters"?

Quote from: Stubborn

The catechism does not reward salvation via a BOD.

Grace and righteousness is not being justified?

Quote from: Stubborn

The catechism does not even promise them grace and righteousness.

 

Quote from: Stubborn

The "unforeseen accident" can easily be that the priest who was supposed to administer the sacrament that day was unavoidably delayed for 3 hours.

Well, that's your opinion, which has no value nor authority whatsoever.

Quote from: Stubborn

When reading what is written, the catechism teaches that their contrition, and desire will *avail* them to *grace and righteousness* - IOW, it will put them "in the way" of grace - or to put it another way, before they can be baptized, the person *must* be in the way of grace via the proper intention - i.e. they must "desire" to be baptized prior to actually receiving the sacrament.

Oh so now you take on the role of Parish Priest eh? Your own opinion and "understanding" again. Wow, do you claim you have psychic powers and that you knew that this is exactly what the one who wrote the Catechism meant???

Quote from: Stubborn

You need to go in the dictionary and post the definition of the word "Avail" is.

Avail: to be of use or value to; profit; advantage; have force or efficacy; serve; help

So it is clear that "their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them [to be of use or value to; profit; advantage; have force or efficacy; serve; help] to grace and righteousness."

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Exurge

4- St. Thomas says BOD/BOB are part of Baptism and substitutes, so no there is no question of denying the necessity of the Sacraments here, and BOD/BOB are in extreme cases anyways, so how can you say the Sacraments are deemed unnecessary?

Trent came how long after St. Thomas had died? Read LoT's signature where it says: "If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." It's a pity such a sacrament despiser like him mocks the angelic Saint rather than practice what he has in his signature.

Well, the Great St. submits to the judgement of the Church - not the other way around as BODers have convinced themselves. This means a few things - First thing it means is that St. Thomas was not the Church, it also means he let everyone know that HE COULD BE WRONG - and per Trent, he was wrong on the whole BOD thing - as he was wrong on the Immaculate Conception.

Trent said nothing at all about St. Thomas being "wrong on the whole BOD thing" as you would have us believe.

I have a new best friend.  Welcome Exurge!

 :applause: :applause: :applause:

Yes, you are saying that, because Denzinger is the collection of all the infallible prononcements and dogmas.

No, I rarely ever use Denzinger because there are errors in it. There have been adulterated revisions to dogma made from one edition to the next. These days we can find the dogmatic decrees directly from popes and councils with hardly any effort right online.

Again, if you do not believe the decrees mean what they say, then you go directly against V1's infallible teaching. Additionally, you should have the good sense to understand that the popes and councils did not speak in parables under protection from the Holy Ghost - to interpret dogma is to change it's meaning, these threads are a testiment to that fact.

We who defend the necessity of the sacraments present infallible teaching, but the sacrament despisers argue AGAINST the infallible teachings using text books. This also demonstrates their lack of faith in God and in His ability to communicate effectively.

Then the Council should have said AND the desire thereof, not or, but it said or.

No, you are not permitted to say such a thing about the canon.

First, you are not reading what is written - as it is written, rather you are zooming into the words "without the Desire thereof " and making those words a dogma - which is insanity itself.
 
In the first part of the canon, we see Trent explicitly decrees that the sacraments are a necessity, this is the first teaching BODers ignore:
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;



The rest of the canon continues on what the first part teaches - namely, that the sacraments are a necessity:

and [if anyone saith] that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.  

When Ambrose first actually read this canon as it is written, THAT was the first time he accused me of being a heretic, which of course demonstrates where his heart lies.






How a BODers can claim the words "or the desire thereof" means "either or" after all this time demonstrates a decided lack of honesty on their part. They are so blinded by their own contradiction that they cannot even admit that they preach there is no reason for any sacrament at all.

You are the one who doesn't read what is written. You are the one who has to say that that one sentence is nonsensical and should be extirpated from the Catechism and that it was a mistake and that it contradicts all the rest.

This is a good demonstration of your open dishonesty.
The snip is teaching the truth, but you are claiming the catechumen dies, which is your own invention because that is certainly not in the catechism, you further say that desire and contrition without the sacrament will *reward* (not "avail" as the catechism teaches) salvation (not "grace and righteousness" as the catechism teaches) - then you try to  weasel out of the whole thing by falsely saying that I am not reading what is written - - - this false accusation is typical of all BODers to date.


Again, there is no real point in debating another despiser of the sacraments - do yourself a favor and try hard as you can to do the strictly Catholic thing and defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation.

When you admit that the whole idea is abhorant to you, let that be your clue that you've made  giant step forward, until then, you will be in my prayers with the other sacrament despisers.

Stubborn, can you show me anybody besides Farher Wathen or the Dimonds speaking against bod/bob?

And don't give me your "believing dogmas as they are declared" thing again, we're not talking about that.