Author Topic: Dying by "Accident" before being baptized, and BOD? (Read 18766 times)

nadieimportante · « **Reply #315 on:** December 16, 2011, 09:06:50 AM »

Quote from: Jim

Why do hardcore Feeneyites such as the Dimonds consider Catholics today as heretics, yet they do not call Pius IX, Cardinals Ottaviani and Marchetti-Selvaggiani, et al heretics damned to Hell?

Considering the situation of the Church since 1958/63/65, with confusion and the possible lack of a Supreme Pontiff which should lessen the culpability of the faithful, to me, at least, the Dimonds seem to make it easier to be culpable.

The pope, whether it is the current one and the SSPX "convert" thesis is correct, or the Cassiciacuм Thesis is correct, or the sedevacantist thesis is correct, God willing, once this crisis is over, a Pope must effectively end the debate.

As I previously mentioned, I only wish to hold the Catholic Faith. As such, if anyone charges me of heresy, I appeal to eternal Rome, I appeal to the Most Holy Office of the Inquisition, I appeal to my Archdiocese, which may be vacant, to decide if I am simply mistaken, or if I am pertinacious. I can say right now that I do not pertinaciously hold to heresy with full consent of the will, due to the situation the Church is in. Also, the Dimonds have no authority or jurisdiction to try and/or condemn me or anyone else who believes that Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire is a true teaching of the Church, in the words of St. Alphonsus, "de Fide."

By calling people who believe in EENS as it is written, "Feeneyites", you make yourself sound no different than the Dimonds. You need to venture out from your knowledge base ghetto, if you truly think the Dimonds (or Fr. Feeney) are the only believers in EENS as it is written. Not one believer in EENS as it is written, has called any BODer a heretic here on this long thread. AND yet, the BODers here have called me a heretic at least four times. You don't see me calling them "hardcore "ites" do you? Get over your obsession with the Dimonds.

nadieimportante · « **Reply #316 on:** December 17, 2011, 03:54:37 AM »

What you wrote does not explain what you believe. The Fathers of the Church never wrote anything about baptism of desire of anyone but a catechumen. All of the other theories that followed are not properly BOD. It is not the "Feeneyites" who say this. Read the SSPX Fr. Rulleau's Baptism of Desire, A Patristic Commentary Page 43:

"The existence of baptism of desire is, then, a truth which, although it has not been defined as a dogma by the Church, is at least proximate to the faith. Historically, the Fathers of the Church only the case of a catechumen who died before he could receive the sacrament without being guilty of any negligence or contempt of the sacrament. Following the same reasoning, however, should we not include in this category of saved by baptism of desire converts not yet catechumens who might desire baptism? If so, what kind of desire is necessary? Would a simple attraction towards the Catholic religion suffice? Again, following the same reasoning, should we not include someone who had never heard of the Faith for want of preachers to make it known? It becomes clear that by following this line of reasoning you would end by extending baptism of desire to every decent man seeking God. Consistent with the same reasoning, should we not go so far as to call "anonymous Christians" everyman whose vague belief in the beyond would take the place of "baptism"? When the Church was only confronted by a waning paganism, these questions did not come up. Since the beginning of the Modern Age, however, as the Church has found herself confronted by entire nations which do not know Christ, and, in the former Christendom, by Christians benighted by ignorance and unbelief, these questions have become unavoidable" END

----------------------------
Do you believe in BOD of "the catechumen,who died before he could receive the sacrament without being guilty of any negligence or contempt of the sacrament"?

Do you believe in the salvation of "converts not yet catechumens who might desire baptism, if so, what kind of desire is necessary"?

Do you believe in the salvation of "those who had never heard of the Faith for want of preachers to make it known"?

Do you believe in the salvation of a "decent man seeking God".

Do you believe in (Implicit Faith) that "everyman whose vague belief in the beyond would take the place of "baptism"?

nadieimportante · « **Reply #317 on:** December 17, 2011, 11:35:19 AM »

Dear Cupertino,

Let's deal in reality, the reality is that you don't really believe that desire for baptism is necessary to save a non-Catholic. So, you are only fooling yourself by calling it baptism of desire. What is the point of debating about the desire for baptism of a catechumen, when people like you don't even believe that desire is necessary to save non-Catholics?

So much for explicit desire to be a baptized Catholic, or a catechumen, or a martyr (baptism of blood), anyone can be saved in your belief system!

Your Belief system is Schizophrenic

The Fathers were unanimously against BOD of the catechumen. The Fathers and St. Thomas, and St. Alphonsus are all against invincible ignorance being salvific, and against implicit faith. They were also opposed to any implicit desire that did not explicitly include a desire to be a Catholic. Therefore, your belief system pits your very own sources of evidence one against the other, your beliefs are schizophrenic. You only quote St. Thomas when he suits you, and ignore him when he opposes your beliefs.

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #318 on:** December 17, 2011, 03:19:02 PM »

s2srea · « **Reply #319 on:** December 17, 2011, 09:40:58 PM »

And please... Yes or No, or I'll choke on my popcorn.

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #320 on:** December 17, 2011, 11:21:52 PM »

Cupertino, more significantly, can A and B both be true when they contradict each other?

Do you reject the New Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church?

Raoul76 · « **Reply #321 on:** December 18, 2011, 02:25:50 AM »

nadieimportante said:

Quote

The Fathers and St. Thomas, and St. Alphonsus are all against invincible ignorance being salvific --

That's true, because it isn't. Someone would be saved despite invincible ignorance, not because of it --

Quote

-- and against implicit faith.

That is blatantly untrue, even Richard Ibranyi quotes St. Alphonsus saying that the opinion that someone needs only implicit faith in certain mysteries is PROBABLE. That was at the time when this was still being discussed and there were opinions on both sides; Pius IX ended the discussion, and clearly taught implicit faith.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #322 on:** December 18, 2011, 02:28:28 AM »

Cupertino said:

Quote

2) Other brand? Probably most Feeneyites insist on physical water even to say an Angel will do it covertly at least a moment before death even if other humans can't witness it.

And if that doesn't show people their literal-mindedness and scruples, I don't know what does.

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #323 on:** December 18, 2011, 02:43:33 PM »

Quote from: Cupertino

Quote from: Augstine Baker
Cupertino, more significantly, can A and B both be true when they contradict each other?

Do you reject the New Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church?

Read the title of this thread and realize that most significantly, you should answer the question I just asked.

Trent explicitly states that "if anyone saith that water baptism is not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema".

It seems that you want to make an exception to the rules for reasons all your own, whatever they may be.

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #324 on:** December 18, 2011, 02:47:20 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

nadieimportante said:
Quote
The Fathers and St. Thomas, and St. Alphonsus are all against invincible ignorance being salvific --

That's true, because it isn't. Someone would be saved despite invincible ignorance, not because of it --

Quote
-- and against implicit faith.

That is blatantly untrue, even Richard Ibranyi quotes St. Alphonsus saying that the opinion that someone needs only implicit faith in certain mysteries is PROBABLE. That was at the time when this was still being discussed and there were opinions on both sides; Pius IX ended the discussion, and clearly taught implicit faith.

Bl Pius IX states that no one is saved by invincible ignorance.

nadieimportante · « **Reply #325 on:** December 18, 2011, 05:03:34 PM »

Quote

Raul wrote: That is blatantly untrue, even Richard Ibranyi quotes St. Alphonsus saying that the opinion that someone needs only implicit faith in certain mysteries is PROBABLE.

If you would quote the source itself that you mention, rather than writing your own interpretation, you would catch your own errors. Confusing as you do, implicit desire with implicit faith, is like confusing lightning bug and lightning.

I have not seen you once post the quotes of which you only mention the authors. This is not about you, there's other people reading these threads, and your not posting the actual quote is not teaching anyone anything. Are people supposed to take your word for it?

nadieimportante · « **Reply #326 on:** December 18, 2011, 05:09:37 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Cupertino said:
Quote
2) Other brand? Probably most Feeneyites insist on physical water even to say an Angel will do it covertly at least a moment before death even if other humans can't witness it.

And if that doesn't show people their literal-mindedness and scruples, I don't know what does.

I can understand how you feel, since you don't know the difference between, baptism of desire of the catechumen, implicit desire to be a baptized Catholic, implicit faith, and invincible ignorance. To you it's just "literal mindedness".
Again the diffrence between all those DIFFERENT derivatives of BOD, is like the difference between lightning and lightning bug. One is harmless and the other will kill you.

"Fools rush in where wise men fear to thread".