Author Topic: Desire to Know the Full Truth about Baptism of Desire Pt 2 (Read 4469 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #30 on:** April 10, 2014, 05:05:26 AM »

Quote from: Exurge

Stubborn,

Your Protestant and Dimondite idea of "dogmas and infallible pronouncements only" makes the very idea of Theology, Catechisms, Canon Law, Encyclicals, all the writings of the Saints and Doctors, dogmatic and moral theology manuals etc., utterly and completely useless and a total waste of time.

Is not the very point of a Catechism to EXPLAIN the dogmas and articles of faith to the faithful?

According to you, a Catechism, or any other writing for that matter, should only state the dogmas and pronouncements of the Church without any explanation whatsoever, and leave it up to the faithful to decide for themselves what they all mean.

Again, you believe one only needs to go by Denzinger.

Have you ever thought about that?

The progression of error below is laid out in front of you. Below you will read how the desire for the sacrament which must accompany reception of the sacrament was replaced with either the sacrament or the desire for it suffices.

Quote from: The Council of Trent

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

Catechism from Trent 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.

HOW "OR THE DESIRE THEREOF" AS DECLARED AT THE COUNCIL OF TRENT AND EXPLAINED IN IT'S CATECHISM WAS ADULTERATED INTO AND PROMULGATED AS A "BAPTISM OF DESIRE"
NOTE: Notice how easily attainable and unquestionably reliable for everyone the catechisms after Trent make Perfect Contrition out to be.

Catechism of St Pius X (1908):
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.

Baltimore Catechism (19th and 20th centuries):
159. Q. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for out salvation.

"Ardent wish" by one who has no opportunity of being baptized-for no one can baptize himself. He must be sorry for his sins and have the desire of receiving the Baptism of water as soon as he can; just as a person in mortal sin and without a priest to absolve him may, when in danger of death, save his soul from Hell by an act of perfect contrition and the firm resolution of going to confession as soon as possible.

Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water? A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.

Myrna'M's book scan on a BOD
An adult who for some reason or other cannot be baptized, can never the less, by an act of perfect love of God or perfect contrition, gain sanctifying grace and save his soul.

CCC
1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #31 on:** April 10, 2014, 01:05:45 PM »

This is a GREAT FIND from the Catechism of Trent, Stubborn. It completely backs up my interpretation of Trent regarding the "desire thereof" passage, that both the desire AND the water (Sacrament) are necessary in order to be justified through Baptism.

Quote from: Catechism of Trent

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.

Quote from: Trent

And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

To use analogy notation,

laver:water::desire::Holy Ghost

Trent had just spent several paragraphs detailing how the Holy Spirit works in the soul to predispose the will towards receiving the Sacrament. This teaching had nothing to do with so-called Baptism of Desire but was about the necessary cooperation between grace and free will ... against the Protestant errors of the day.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #32 on:** April 10, 2014, 02:01:11 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

This is a GREAT FIND from the Catechism of Trent, Stubborn. It completely backs up my interpretation of Trent regarding the "desire thereof" passage, that both the desire AND the water (Sacrament) are necessary in order to be justified through Baptism.

Quote from: Catechism of Trent
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.

Quote from: Trent
And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

To use analogy notation,

laver:water::desire::Holy Ghost

Trent had just spent several paragraphs detailing how the Holy Spirit works in the soul to predispose the will towards receiving the Sacrament. This teaching had nothing to do with so-called Baptism of Desire but was about the necessary cooperation between grace and free will ... against the Protestant errors of the day.

Misinterpreting Church teaching into heresy is not a great find.

Nishant · « **Reply #33 on:** April 10, 2014, 02:10:19 PM »

It's astonishing to me sensible persons can read the Catechism of Trent, and still deny the dogmatic truth that souls are saved by baptism of desire.

Quote

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.

Firstly, if this Catechism wanted to teach Feeneyism, it would have just said, if it is impossible to receive water baptism, then these catechumens are lost. Secondly, it is obvious the Catechism is speaking about the danger of death, despite some really desperate attempts to deny this, because the Catechism says the danger is the same as in the case of infants already mentioned [i.e. death, the Catechism also says infants are presumed to have desire as a disposition, but cannot receive the baptismal effect by desire, clearly showing it is not desire as a disposition that is being spoken off here]. Thirdly, the equally desperate attempts to deny that "avail them to grace" mean anything other than the same translation from the state of death to the state of grace Trent earlier spoke of are fanciful, and fourthly adding righteousness or justice makes it even more certain that the person in question is justified, and saved when he dies, and fifthly the tenor of the whole statement would have been different, if the Church did not regard it as absolutely certain and beyond doubt that these catechumens will be saved.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #34 on:** April 10, 2014, 02:25:31 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

It's astonishing to me sensible persons can read the Catechism of Trent, and still deny the dogmatic truth that souls are saved by baptism of desire.

There's no proof that anyone has ever been saved by Baptism of Desire.

I take it that you mean that souls CAN be saved by Baptism of Desire.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #35 on:** April 10, 2014, 02:28:11 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

It's astonishing to me sensible persons can read the Catechism of Trent, and still deny the dogmatic truth that souls are saved by baptism of desire.

Quote
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.

Firstly, if this Catechism wanted to teach Feeneyism, it would have just said, if it is impossible to receive water baptism, then these catechumens are lost. Secondly, it is obvious the Catechism is speaking about the danger of death, despite some really desperate attempts to deny this, because the Catechism says the danger is the same as in the case of infants already mentioned [i.e. death, the Catechism also says infants are presumed to have desire as a disposition, but cannot receive the baptismal effect by desire, clearly showing it is not desire as a disposition that is being spoken off here]. Thirdly, the equally desperate attempts to deny that "avail them to grace" mean anything other than the same translation from the state of death to the state of grace Trent earlier spoke of are fanciful, and fourthly adding righteousness or justice makes it even more certain that the person in question is justified, and saved when he dies, and fifthly the tenor of the whole statement would have been different, if the Church did not regard it as absolutely certain and beyond doubt that these catechumens will be saved.

Feeneyites are indeed astonishing in what they assert and in what they deny. I'm not even sure if "astonishing" is a strong enough word.

Aren't they the ones who laud Aquinas to the skies in one place and then accuse him of "numerous" errors in another. What are they doing on a Catholic forum?

Exurge · « **Reply #36 on:** April 10, 2014, 02:37:27 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

If you can read the multitude of posts here on CI where bowler and the others have repeatedly posted what the Church infallibly teaches regarding the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation, and still ask the above question, then there is no reply that will suffice to convince you that the sacrament of baptism is a necessity unto salvation and all those who die without it are lost forever.

This is why over 14 weeks ago (and counting) I posted the challenge to LoT and all BODers. I did it primarily for their own benefit because it is the only way I know of to expose your dishonesty *to your own self*.

My thinking in presenting the challenge is that:
A) You, and all BODers, certainly know in your heart and consciences that it is of the faith that the duty of all Catholics is to defend and profess the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation - even if it means dying a martyr's death in their defense.

B) Yet to do this strictly Catholic thing has proven an absolute impossibility for anyone who believes in a BOD for at least the last 14+ weeks.

C) The conclusion that BODers are trumpeting, is that they do not believe any sacrament at all is a necessity unto salvation. A BOD, after all, is No Sacrament At All. (I also tried to get them to replace using the term a BOD with the term NSAA, but they will not even go there.)

D) The pernicious part, is that when they discover for themselves that they cannot openly defend that which they inwardly despise, i.e. the sacraments, they harden their hearts against this fact and continue promoting salvation without any sacrament at all via the anti-sacrament, a BOD.

If they cannot even be honest with themselves and admit there is something wrong in their lex orandi, I certainly don't expect them to be honest with me - or anyone else for that matter. They KNOW they SHOULD be able to defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation - but they cannot - and in their conscience, they KNOW something is wrong with their thinking, yet they continue promoting salvation via NSAA.

Keep in mind what the challenge is and you will agree that I never challenged anyone to do anything sinful or anti-Catholic, rather, I challenged them to do something *strictly* Catholic, and they know this, yet not one BODer has the faith to even attempt to publicly defend the sacraments, because inwardly, they despise them. "For he who makes no use of what is really useful and necessary must be supposed to despise it" - Trent's Catechism

Bottom line is that BODers know that they despise the necessity of sacraments unto salvation, their inability to profess and defend the necessity of the sacraments testifies to themselves this, and they know it, but because of their dishonesty and bad will, they continue posting and promoting against the necessity of the sacraments - and this is what they call Catholic.

Stop trolling around.

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

You know, a Saint, a Doctor, a theologian etc., anybody, saying explicitly that bod and bob are false and useless.

Thanks.

Nishant · « **Reply #37 on:** April 10, 2014, 02:37:42 PM »

John, would you support the idea of a BOD subforum within the crisis section. It was proposed on another thread, and generally found acceptance?

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Nishant
It's astonishing to me sensible persons can read the Catechism of Trent, and still deny the dogmatic truth that souls are saved by baptism of desire.

There's no proof that anyone has ever been saved by Baptism of Desire.

I take it that you mean that souls CAN be saved by Baptism of Desire.

Well, theologians who teach on the subject cite examples like St. Emerentiana, publicly martyred by pagans while she was a catechumen due for baptism. She was and has been venerated for centuries as a martyr who died as an unbaptized catechumen. There are scores of other such incidents throughout ecclesiastical history.

Stubborn · « **Reply #38 on:** April 11, 2014, 04:05:43 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

It's astonishing to me sensible persons can read the Catechism of Trent, and still deny the dogmatic truth that souls are saved by baptism of desire.

Quote
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.

Firstly, if this Catechism wanted to teach Feeneyism, it would have just said, if it is impossible to receive water baptism, then these catechumens are lost. Secondly, it is obvious the Catechism is speaking about the danger of death, despite some really desperate attempts to deny this, because the Catechism says the danger is the same as in the case of infants already mentioned [i.e. death, the Catechism also says infants are presumed to have desire as a disposition, but cannot receive the baptismal effect by desire, clearly showing it is not desire as a disposition that is being spoken off here]. Thirdly, the equally desperate attempts to deny that "avail them to grace" mean anything other than the same translation from the state of death to the state of grace Trent earlier spoke of are fanciful, and fourthly adding righteousness or justice makes it even more certain that the person in question is justified, and saved when he dies, and fifthly the tenor of the whole statement would have been different, if the Church did not regard it as absolutely certain and beyond doubt that these catechumens will be saved.

You have not looked up the word "Avail" yet I see.

FYI, "will avail them to grace and righteousness" does not mean "will reward them eternal salvation" - one must die for the latter. Unfortunately for you, the reason Trent teaches that the urgency is not as great, has bounced off your bad will completely as you read what is not taught and reject that which is taught.

The error is yours here because you are *not* reading what is written.

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 hit by a car.

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.

What you did, was take what the catechism teaches regarding the Desire for Baptism, and changed it into teaching a Baptism of Desire.

Stubborn · « **Reply #39 on:** April 11, 2014, 04:24:37 AM »

Quote from: Exurge

Quote from: Stubborn
If you can read the multitude of posts here on CI where bowler and the others have repeatedly posted what the Church infallibly teaches regarding the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation, and still ask the above question, then there is no reply that will suffice to convince you that the sacrament of baptism is a necessity unto salvation and all those who die without it are lost forever.

This is why over 14 weeks ago (and counting) I posted the challenge to LoT and all BODers. I did it primarily for their own benefit because it is the only way I know of to expose your dishonesty *to your own self*.

My thinking in presenting the challenge is that:
A) You, and all BODers, certainly know in your heart and consciences that it is of the faith that the duty of all Catholics is to defend and profess the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation - even if it means dying a martyr's death in their defense.

B) Yet to do this strictly Catholic thing has proven an absolute impossibility for anyone who believes in a BOD for at least the last 14+ weeks.

C) The conclusion that BODers are trumpeting, is that they do not believe any sacrament at all is a necessity unto salvation. A BOD, after all, is No Sacrament At All. (I also tried to get them to replace using the term a BOD with the term NSAA, but they will not even go there.)

D) The pernicious part, is that when they discover for themselves that they cannot openly defend that which they inwardly despise, i.e. the sacraments, they harden their hearts against this fact and continue promoting salvation without any sacrament at all via the anti-sacrament, a BOD.

If they cannot even be honest with themselves and admit there is something wrong in their lex orandi, I certainly don't expect them to be honest with me - or anyone else for that matter. They KNOW they SHOULD be able to defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation - but they cannot - and in their conscience, they KNOW something is wrong with their thinking, yet they continue promoting salvation via NSAA.

Keep in mind what the challenge is and you will agree that I never challenged anyone to do anything sinful or anti-Catholic, rather, I challenged them to do something *strictly* Catholic, and they know this, yet not one BODer has the faith to even attempt to publicly defend the sacraments, because inwardly, they despise them. "For he who makes no use of what is really useful and necessary must be supposed to despise it" - Trent's Catechism

Bottom line is that BODers know that they despise the necessity of sacraments unto salvation, their inability to profess and defend the necessity of the sacraments testifies to themselves this, and they know it, but because of their dishonesty and bad will, they continue posting and promoting against the necessity of the sacraments - and this is what they call Catholic.

Stop trolling around.

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

You know, a Saint, a Doctor, a theologian etc., anybody, saying explicitly that bod and bob are false and useless.

Thanks.

You sound just like the heretic poster Cathedra, I don't think Pope Eugene' s infallible declaration states that: "Not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's sake, can he be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." was good enough for him either.

How many infallible declarations would be good enough for you anyway?

Why is it that no BODer can get them self to defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #40 on:** April 11, 2014, 05:14:43 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

John, would you support the idea of a BOD subforum within the crisis section. It was proposed on another thread, and generally found acceptance?

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Nishant
It's astonishing to me sensible persons can read the Catechism of Trent, and still deny the dogmatic truth that souls are saved by baptism of desire.

There's no proof that anyone has ever been saved by Baptism of Desire.

I take it that you mean that souls CAN be saved by Baptism of Desire.

Well, theologians who teach on the subject cite examples like St. Emerentiana, publicly martyred by pagans while she was a catechumen due for baptism. She was and has been venerated for centuries as a martyr who died as an unbaptized catechumen. There are scores of other such incidents throughout ecclesiastical history.

Yes.

In fact since those who plague this site with there heresy against BOD are allowed on I wish they could be relegated to a subforum where they could point out all the errors of the Saints, Doctors and Popes and commiserate with one another over it. I wish they would be denied access to any place other than that one subforum.

But since that won't happen a subforum where the doctrine of BOD and the proper understanding of EENS would be nice so people could just ignore the forum if they chose and the crisis section would not be clogged up by all the threads necessary to refute those who think they know more than Church and who are allowed to confuse the faithful on most basic aspects of our faith.

Stubborn · « **Reply #41 on:** April 11, 2014, 05:21:59 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Nishant
John, would you support the idea of a BOD subforum within the crisis section. It was proposed on another thread, and generally found acceptance?

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Nishant
It's astonishing to me sensible persons can read the Catechism of Trent, and still deny the dogmatic truth that souls are saved by baptism of desire.

There's no proof that anyone has ever been saved by Baptism of Desire.

I take it that you mean that souls CAN be saved by Baptism of Desire.

Well, theologians who teach on the subject cite examples like St. Emerentiana, publicly martyred by pagans while she was a catechumen due for baptism. She was and has been venerated for centuries as a martyr who died as an unbaptized catechumen. There are scores of other such incidents throughout ecclesiastical history.

Yes.

In fact since those who plague this site with there heresy against BOD are allowed on I wish they could be relegated to a subforum where they could point out all the errors of the Saints, Doctors and Popes and commiserate with one another over it. I wish they would be denied access to any place other than that one subforum.

But since that won't happen a subforum where the doctrine of BOD and the proper understanding of EENS would be nice so people could just ignore the forum if they chose and the crisis section would not be clogged up by all the threads necessary to refute those who think they know more than Church and who are allowed to confuse the faithful on most basic aspects of our faith.

What exactly is the heresy against salvation without any sacrament at all aka a BOD?

Ever wonder why you cannot defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation?

Stubborn · « **Reply #42 on:** April 11, 2014, 05:38:47 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

John, would you support the idea of a BOD subforum within the crisis section. It was proposed on another thread, and generally found acceptance?

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Nishant
It's astonishing to me sensible persons can read the Catechism of Trent, and still deny the dogmatic truth that souls are saved by baptism of desire.

There's no proof that anyone has ever been saved by Baptism of Desire.

I take it that you mean that souls CAN be saved by Baptism of Desire.

Well, theologians who teach on the subject cite examples like St. Emerentiana, publicly martyred by pagans while she was a catechumen due for baptism. She was and has been venerated for centuries as a martyr who died as an unbaptized catechumen. There are scores of other such incidents throughout ecclesiastical history.

When ever there is doubt, always side *with* the sacrament, not against it - in this way you will always be siding with God, not against Him.

It is just as easy to speculate that God provided Baptism to St. Emerentiana
through some unseen means or even a miracle to supply His requisites for salvation, as it is to use our want of knowledge as proof of its dispensability. What we do not know is not a proof of anything. - Agreed?

It is impossible to prove that God did not grant the Sacrament of Baptism to her and all martyrs who died apparently without this Sacrament. If the Church honors anyone as a saint, according to her own teaching, the presumption must be that the saint was baptized. - Agreed?

St. Aiphonsus de Liquori tells us that there were approximately eleven million martyrs in the first three centuries of the Church's history. Out of these eleven million martyrs, and the thousands of others which have been recorded since by various Church historians, there are about ten cases in which the martyrs are reported to have died without baptism. In not one of these cases can we assert or conclude positively that these persons were not baptized.

Exurge · « **Reply #43 on:** April 11, 2014, 08:46:55 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Exurge
Quote from: Stubborn
If you can read the multitude of posts here on CI where bowler and the others have repeatedly posted what the Church infallibly teaches regarding the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation, and still ask the above question, then there is no reply that will suffice to convince you that the sacrament of baptism is a necessity unto salvation and all those who die without it are lost forever.

This is why over 14 weeks ago (and counting) I posted the challenge to LoT and all BODers. I did it primarily for their own benefit because it is the only way I know of to expose your dishonesty *to your own self*.

My thinking in presenting the challenge is that:
A) You, and all BODers, certainly know in your heart and consciences that it is of the faith that the duty of all Catholics is to defend and profess the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation - even if it means dying a martyr's death in their defense.

B) Yet to do this strictly Catholic thing has proven an absolute impossibility for anyone who believes in a BOD for at least the last 14+ weeks.

C) The conclusion that BODers are trumpeting, is that they do not believe any sacrament at all is a necessity unto salvation. A BOD, after all, is No Sacrament At All. (I also tried to get them to replace using the term a BOD with the term NSAA, but they will not even go there.)

D) The pernicious part, is that when they discover for themselves that they cannot openly defend that which they inwardly despise, i.e. the sacraments, they harden their hearts against this fact and continue promoting salvation without any sacrament at all via the anti-sacrament, a BOD.

If they cannot even be honest with themselves and admit there is something wrong in their lex orandi, I certainly don't expect them to be honest with me - or anyone else for that matter. They KNOW they SHOULD be able to defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation - but they cannot - and in their conscience, they KNOW something is wrong with their thinking, yet they continue promoting salvation via NSAA.

Keep in mind what the challenge is and you will agree that I never challenged anyone to do anything sinful or anti-Catholic, rather, I challenged them to do something *strictly* Catholic, and they know this, yet not one BODer has the faith to even attempt to publicly defend the sacraments, because inwardly, they despise them. "For he who makes no use of what is really useful and necessary must be supposed to despise it" - Trent's Catechism

Bottom line is that BODers know that they despise the necessity of sacraments unto salvation, their inability to profess and defend the necessity of the sacraments testifies to themselves this, and they know it, but because of their dishonesty and bad will, they continue posting and promoting against the necessity of the sacraments - and this is what they call Catholic.

Stop trolling around.

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

You know, a Saint, a Doctor, a theologian etc., anybody, saying explicitly that bod and bob are false and useless.

Thanks.

You sound just like the heretic poster Cathedra, I don't think Pope Eugene' s infallible declaration states that: "Not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's sake, can he be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." was good enough for him either.

How many infallible declarations would be good enough for you anyway?

Why is it that no BODer can get them self to defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation?

Even the decree from Trent on the sacraments in general says "or the desire thereof" lolz

Exurge · « **Reply #44 on:** April 11, 2014, 09:09:21 AM »