.

Threads like this belong in their own sub-forum.  


.

It is precisely the BOD/BOB threads that brought me to this forum. So I hope you don't mean " there goes the neighborhood" when you all saw me move in next door.

That was a typo, sorry.

God bless,
JoeZ

To deny Baptism of Desire is heresy.  For those that reject this de fide teaching of the Church, you place your soul in grave peril.

Please provide the de fide statement...

.

There really ought to be a separate forum for these threads.  They're killing CI.  

Quote

Therefore:

1. BOD is not baptism.
2. BOD is not a teaching of the Catholic Church.
3. BOD cannot save anyone.
4. BOD is a heresy.
5. Anyone who obstinately holds to “baptism of desire” after seeing the positive dogmatic evidence proving that it is a heresy, is a heretic.

I didn't have to read to the end before I knew this was the cubic-zirconia Dimond brothers.  

(1.)  BoD is not baptism -- they got one thing right.  But that's about all.  

It's most curious to see otherwise sound thinkers (BoD'ers) say that BoD is not baptism, but it is a KIND of baptism, because there are three kinds of baptism, one of which is baptism (of water) and the other two of which are not baptism (not of water).  Very Very Strange.

(2.)  While BoD is not doctrine, it is a theological speculation, but it seems to be only good for getting certain people really upset, and that's also weird.

(3.)  Whether BoD can or cannot save anyone is God's problem, and not ours.

(4.)  BoD is not a heresy.  It is a theological speculation and nothing more.

(5.)  There is no positive dogmatic evidence proving that it is a heresy, because it isn't a heresy.

(5.)  Anyone who believes in it is not a 'heretic'.  


.

Satan is God's ape.  He has provided a counterfeit for each of God's good things.  The Novus Ordo vs the Latin Mass is one of the greatest achievements of Satan for hatefully copying God's good things.  Heliocentrism vs Geocentrism.  Protestant vs. Catholic.  But the crowning achievement, a so-called baptism, baptism that isn't, a non-baptism with grace that is absolutely less than certain, vs the certainty of the grace of baptism?  It isn't worthy of the name!  Why argue for BOD when the grace needed is so terribly iffy?  And when the grace of baptism is so absolutely necessary? What good does BOD do the Catholic trying to get to heaven? Zip Zero Nada.  In fact, BOD only manages to undermine the missionary mandate zeal of Catholics who long to sooth their consciences for not doing more to gain souls through conversion and baptism.  It is for this reason BOD'ers get so mad when you tell the truth about BOD.  They want that loophole to comfort themselves.    

This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written:

Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

You can see the dishonesty at work here.  First you use the false "except through" translation ... on purpose.  Secondly, you insert an artificial paragraph break to make it seem as if the second part is not a direct qualifier of the first.  Thirdly, the word "desire" is incredibly misleading, as even the author of the Catholic Encyclopedia admits; it really refers to the entire set of requisite dispositions as detailed in the part about the necessary predispositions for justification via Baptism.  Fourthly, you render the phrase, "desire for it" as "its desire" to further obfuscate the true meaning of the quote.

So let me fix it for you:

This translation [=justification], however cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, happen without the laver of regeneration or the disposition for it, as it is written, "Unless a man be born again of water AND the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

laver:water::disposition:Holy Ghost (see the entire treatise on justification)

So it's like saying that the expression:

"Bob says we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since he says that we need a bat and a ball to baseball." really means that we can play baseball with either a bat or a ball.

Quote from: Ambrose

This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written:

Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

You can see the dishonesty at work here.  First you use the false "except through" translation ... on purpose.  Secondly, you insert an artificial paragraph break to make it seem as if the second part is not a direct qualifier of the first.  Thirdly, the word "desire" is incredibly misleading, as even the author of the Catholic Encyclopedia admits; it really refers to the entire set of requisite dispositions as detailed in the part about the necessary predispositions for justification via Baptism.  Fourthly, you render the phrase, "desire for it" as "its desire" to further obfuscate the true meaning of the quote.

So let me fix it for you:

Quote from: Trent

This translation [=justification], however cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, happen without the laver of regeneration or the disposition for it, as it is written, "Unless a man be born again of water AND the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

laver:water::disposition:Holy Ghost (see the entire treatise on justification)

So it's like saying that the expression:

"Bob says we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since he says that we need a bat and a ball to baseball." really means that we can play baseball with either a bat or a ball.

I copied it directly from the source I posted.  I do not trust Dimond "scholarship."

That is the old "it doesn't say what it says" or "it doesn't mean what it means" objection.  Even Father Feeney realized that one could be justified apart from water based on his understanding of Trent.  That is why he felt compelled to invent his theory that one can be justified but still not saved if he dies justified apart from water baptism.  Most Feeneyites disagree with him [her] and claim one cannot be justified apart from water.  

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: Ladislaus

So it's like saying that the expression:

"Bob says we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since he says that we need a bat and a ball to baseball." really means that we can play baseball with either a bat or a ball.

No, I disagree completely. It is not like that expression. The keyword was underlined or. In your translation you did not change this word. The meaning differs little in your translation from the other. In the expression, the word "or" is what implies that you may play baseball with "either" a bat "or" a ball. Clearly, in the translations the "or" was not the relevant issue.

So Bellarmine, Alphonsus, Pius XII and countless other weighty theologians misunderstood Trent.  Got it.  

Who said anything about anyone's understanding of Trent. I was speaking very clearly about the relevance of the baseball analogy regarding the two translations. Since translating is my profession, I thought I would point that out.

You should try to grasp what someone is saying before willy-nillyly throwing wild accusations of heresy at them.