Author Topic: Dying by "Accident" before being baptized, and BOD? (Read 18761 times)

Telesphorus · « **Reply #30 on:** November 29, 2011, 12:29:51 AM »

Quote from: PereJoseph

Quote from: gunfighter
Quote from: nadieimportante
Quote
Where is your evidence for the assertion that the Catechism of the Council of Trent is not infallible?

No catechism is infallible.

As to the rest of what you wrote it is all emotional, and full of false assumptions, and conclusions. Not worthy of a response.

I think we all know what is and is not infallible. The real question is whom do you trust, the Dimond's pitch or St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catechism. For the rational Catholic, the only answer can be the latter. Why would one trust the Dimond's over the Angelic Doctor. Pure folly.

Somebody can come to the conclusion that pre-destination excludes the concept of an accidental death and therefore gives grave difficulties to the concept of implicit faith BOD completely independently of any influence of the Dimonds.

For instance, if he read the Church Fathers, he would most likely see that their moral consensus is opposed -- explicitly in some writers, such as St Augustine and St Gregory of Nyssa -- to the concept of BOD. It is commonly said that BOD is the constant teaching of the Church, but I have never seen anybody sufficiently explain the fact that the Church Fathers hardly mention it at all -- that is, unless they are writing against it.

This issue also troubles me, since the 1941 letter from the Holy Office seems to clearly conflict with the moral consensus of the Church Fathers and the plain meaning of the language of numerous oecuмenical councils and the teachings of the great missionary saints of the XVIIth century (such as St Francis Xavier, St Peter Claver, St Isaac Jogues, &c.). If I were to accept implicit faith, it would be purely as a bow to authority, though I am not convinced that the Church's authority has defined this subject. It would be purely out of obedience because, according to all logic, the whole theory of BOD makes no sense whatsoever and I have never seen a convincing explanation. Perhaps it could make sense if one were ready to accept that the mind is fundamentally incapable of knowing the Truth as such and therefore one could not be held accountable for betraying the movements of the intellect out of fear, but I cannot accept this.

Anyway, to make a long post shorter, the issue is not so simple as St Thomas versus the Dimonds; your interpretation of St Thomas is debatable and the Dimonds can be completely removed from this discussion without anything changing. For instance, I cannot recall ever having read the Dimonds' literature on this topic and still have my doubts concerning BOD.

I think one could just as easily say it doesn't make any sense that someone a minute before baptism could be struck by a meteorite and the disposition of his soul without the sacrament means nothing because God ordained his damnation, but that a minute after baptism the same person struck by a meteorite would go to heaven, because God ordained his salvation.

It makes God seem capricious. The Church honors martyrs as saints who died without Baptism.

The fact that the Church has not condemned Baptism of Desire over many centuries makes it clear that it's not an issue for people to accept Baptism of desire. We can't know how God will judge people, we can accept that Baptism is necessary without consigning all those who are unbaptized, often through no fault of their own, to Hell.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #31 on:** November 29, 2011, 12:33:41 AM »

I don't think anyone who supports the strict interpretation would be able to tell the relatives of a catachumen that the catachumen is certainly damned because he was struck down without Baptism.

nadieimportante · « **Reply #32 on:** November 29, 2011, 04:39:58 AM »

Quote from: curiouscatholic23

Question for Nadie:

Were there not many and numerous medieval saints who believed in baptism of blood and desire? According to your logic, they would had to have been heretics.

Don't mix baptism of blood with baptism of desire of the catechumen, and all the other modern offshoots of it. That is just a tactic to FIND the support of some saints. A few saints don't make doctrine. Read all the dogmatic decrees I posted, not one mention of an excuse like BOD or BOB, not one in the history of the Church.

There are maybe like 10 examples of baptism of blood saints in the 2000 year history. Not one can be proved not to have been baptized. Now, there are thousands upon thousands of examples of people who are incomprehensible just hanging on to life for the longest time, then they are baptized and immediately die. Fr. DeSmet details thousands of such infant and elderly baptisms he administered himself in his book written in the 1850's. There are hundreds of examples of people sent back from the dead just to be baptized.

Why would God not provide any examples of baptism of blood except like 10 back 1800 years ago, and then God provides hundreds of thousands of examples of persons who scaresly held on to life and died by the groves (as described by Fr. Smet), immediately upon being baptized? Why would God provide so many examples of people sent back from the dead just to be baptized?

That's baptism of blood, and as for baptism of desire of the catechumen (forget all the other offshoots of it, they have no support from the medieval saints )there is not one single example in 2000 years.

Read all the dogmatic decrees I posted, not one mention of an excuse like BOD or BOB, not one in the history of the Church. Catholics follow dogma, not a story here nad there over 2000 years.

As for calling anyone a heretic, I don't do that, not for BOB or BOD of the catechumen. If a person wants to believe in baptism of blood, it's no big deal, a non-baptized person who dies wanting to be a baptized Catholic, where are they? I've never seen one. BOD of the catechumen, how many catechumnes who died before being baptized can there be? One hear one there? Those theoretical loopholes, are not the problem, the problem is today that there are scaresly any believers in BOD and BOB that restrict their belief to just baptism of blood and baptism of desire of the catechumen, ALL of them believe in all the other offshoots to different levels, offshoots like implicit desire of those that don't even want to be Catholics or baptized, implicit faith, invincible ignorance, an invisible church that includes non-Catholic "good" people, and universal salvation for all. THAT IS THE PROBLEM, that seed brought us the false ecuмenism of Assisi, and Vatican II, what Catholics believe today, that basically outside of the church there IS salvation. That's the root cause of why we are in the predicament that we are in.

nadieimportante · « **Reply #33 on:** November 29, 2011, 04:44:17 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

I don't think anyone who supports the strict interpretation would be able to tell the relatives of a catachumen that the catachumen is certainly damned because he was struck down without Baptism.

If the issue was just about baptism of desire of the catechumen, there would not exist any discussion. How such people can there be?

By the way, unbaptized catechumens were not allowed to be buried in Catholic cementaries, till 1917.

nadieimportante · « **Reply #34 on:** November 29, 2011, 05:14:22 AM »

Quote

I think one could just as easily say it doesn't make any sense that someone a minute before baptism could be struck by a meteorite and the disposition of his soul without the sacrament means nothing because God ordained his damnation, but that a minute after baptism the same person struck by a meteorite would go to heaven, because God ordained his salvation.

Pure speculation on your part. you are just thinking out loud.

Read the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia on the subject of predestination. God does not ordain anyones damnation, the person damns himself. If a condemned person in hell were sent back to earth for 1000 years, he would still damn himself. God does not make any mistakes, He had put every soul through every possible scenario of salvation before he created the Earth. There are no mistakes in Heaven or Hell.

Quote

The fact that the Church has not condemned Baptism of Desire over many centuries makes it clear that it's not an issue for people to accept Baptism of desire.

The Church has also not condemned all the offshoots of baptism of desire, like implicit desire of people who don't want to be baptized Catholics, implicit faith, and invincible ignorance. The Church moves slow. That does not render meaningless the clear words of all those dogmas I posted, to those with eyes to see. If all those dogmas can be rendered useless, then NOTHING, no dogma can stand. Then all dogmas do not mean what they say.

Quote

We can't know how God will judge people[/u], we can accept that Baptism is necessary without consigning all those who are unbaptized, often through no fault of their own, to Hell.

We were always required to judge all unbaptized infants to never be able to see the beatific vision. We were always required to judge all non-Catholics as without a doubt lost for all eternity:

Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

nadieimportante · « **Reply #35 on:** November 29, 2011, 05:23:35 AM »

Quote

The fact that the Church has not condemned Baptism of Desire over
Quote
many centuries makes it clear that it's not an issue for people to accept Baptism of desire.

The Church has also not condemned all the offshoots of baptism of desire, like implicit desire of people who don't want to be baptized Catholics, implicit faith, and invincible ignorance. The Church moves slow. That does not render meaningless the clear words of all those dogmas I posted, to those with eyes to see. If all those dogmas can be rendered useless, then NOTHING, no dogma can stand. Then all dogmas do not mean what they say.

P.S.- NOTICE that I didn't include the offshoot of baptism of desire that teaches the theory of a invisible church that includes saved non-Catholics, the theory that says that there are members who belong to the "soul of the church" who are not members of the visible Church". I didn't include that theory, which you will find in catechisms of the early 1900's till some even today, because IT WAS CONDEMNED by Pius XII in Mystici Corporis 1943. All the other theories will also be condemned one day too, when order returns:

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver
of regeneration [water baptism] and profess the true faith.”

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 27), June 29, 1943: “He (Christ) also determined that through Baptism (cf. Jn. 3:5) those who should believe would be
incorporated in the Body of the Church.”

Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate
them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and
consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy orders sets the
priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this
consecration.”

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #36 on:** November 29, 2011, 06:17:08 AM »

nadieimportante,

Can you please use a larger font so we can all see what you are shouting at us more clearly?

clare · « **Reply #37 on:** November 29, 2011, 07:26:50 AM »

Tele,

Just so you know. I am in complete agreement with you here!
:dancing:

nadieimportante · « **Reply #38 on:** November 29, 2011, 08:13:07 AM »

Quote from: Roman Catholic

nadieimportante,

Can you please use a larger font so we can all see what you are shouting at us more clearly?

You can choose to call it shouting, that's your take.

I highlight and enlarge some text for people that don't have the time to read everything.

s2srea · « **Reply #39 on:** November 29, 2011, 08:39:10 AM »

Why does it feel like someone is here with an agenda... :rolleyes:

nadieimportante · « **Reply #40 on:** November 29, 2011, 09:54:54 AM »

Quote from: s2srea

Why does it feel like someone is here with an agenda... :rolleyes:

Because obviously someone is here with "an agenda", to sway Catholics away from thinking that there is salvation outside of the Church. How much clearer can I have made it?:

"If a person wants to believe in baptism of blood, it's no big deal, a non-baptized person who dies wanting to be a baptized Catholic, where are they? I've never seen one. BOD of the catechumen, how many catechumen who died before being baptized can there be? One hear one there? Those theoretical loopholes, are not the problem, the problem is today that there are scarcely any believers in BOD and BOB that restrict their belief to just baptism of blood and baptism of desire of the catechumen, ALL of them believe in all the other offshoots to different levels, offshoots like implicit desire of those that don't even want to be Catholics or baptized, implicit faith, invincible ignorance, an invisible church that includes non-Catholic "good" people, and universal salvation for all. THAT IS THE PROBLEM, that seed brought us the false ecuмenism of Assisi, and Vatican II, what Catholics believe today, that basically outside of the church there IS salvation. That's the root cause of why we are in the predicament that we are in."

I've met maybe three BODers in my life who really restricted their BOD to the catechumen. I doubt there are any here on this forum. That is why I have "an agenda". A Catholic agenda.

Basically there are only two kinds of Catholics today, those who believe in an unrestricted BOD (and who only give lip service to EENS), and those that believe in the absolute necessity of baptism and EENS as it is written. There are scarcely any in between, not enough to talk about.

gunfighter · « **Reply #41 on:** November 29, 2011, 10:15:05 AM »

Actually, I think the agenda is to raise money and followers for the Dimonds.

Let say that you are right and the BOD position of the traditional clergy is wrong. So what? First, it would be an error, but one in good faith. Man is fallible and will not be judged for making an innocent mistake. Second, whether they are right or wrong has no effect on the daily lives of Catholics. Whether God chooses to save someone via BOD has NO effect on my life.

IMO, this is all about the Dimonds' pocketbook and pride. I have had a few exchanges with them and they are liars and nasty men.

Catholics should worry about their spiritual lives. Forget BOD and concentrate on how to become a saint.

PereJoseph · « **Reply #42 on:** November 29, 2011, 10:31:34 AM »

Quote from: s2srea

Why does it feel like someone is here with an agenda... :rolleyes:

It certainly doesn't seem to be a subversive agenda, though.

nadieimportante · « **Reply #43 on:** November 29, 2011, 10:37:18 AM »

Quote

Actually, I think the agenda is to raise money and followers for the Dimonds.

You need to get out of your knowledge base ghetto, if you truly think the Dimonds are the only believers in EENS as it is written.

Quote

Let say that you are right and the BOD position of the traditional clergy is wrong. So what? First, it would be an error, but one in good faith. Man is fallible and will not be judged for making an innocent mistake. Second, whether they are right or wrong has no effect on the daily lives of Catholics. Whether God chooses to save someone via BOD has NO effect on my life.

Read my posting just before yours:
the problem is today that there are scarcely any believers in BOD and BOB that restrict their belief to just baptism of blood and baptism of desire of the catechumen, ALL of them believe in all the other offshoots to different levels, offshoots like implicit desire of those that don't even want to be Catholics or baptized, implicit faith, invincible ignorance, an invisible church that includes non-Catholic "good" people, and universal salvation for all. THAT IS THE PROBLEM, that seed brought us the false ecuмenism of Assisi, and Vatican II, what Catholics believe today, that basically outside of the church there IS salvation. That's the root cause of why we are in the predicament that we are in." and until it is rooted out, no pretty Latin Mass, or discussions with Rome about the real meaning of Vatican II, will change anything, because the foundations remain rotted.

What could be clearer?
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
“Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and non-exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.”

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”

Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”

PereJoseph · « **Reply #44 on:** November 29, 2011, 10:41:56 AM »

Quote from: gunfighter

Actually, I think the agenda is to raise money and followers for the Dimonds.

Do you have any reasons to think so ?

Quote

Let say that you are right and the BOD position of the traditional clergy is wrong. So what? First, it would be an error, but one in good faith. Man is fallible and will not be judged for making an innocent mistake. Second, whether they are right or wrong has no effect on the daily lives of Catholics.

Maybe not on most Catholics in the US, who are comfortable with their immersion in an integrally Protestant cultural ethos, but it has quite an effect on those who have never been fooled into accepting that mindset.

Quote

Whether God chooses to save someone via BOD has NO effect on my life.

It has an effect on how one goes about living his faith around other people and upon one's zeal and affability. It gives a very different mindset and sense to the believer if he believes that his heretical and/or apostate loved ones and co-workers certainly need to explicitly profess the Catholic Faith and receive water baptism, as opposed to his holding the assumption that, if they are good in their heart of hearts (something totally theologically unquantifiable and mysterious), God will save them in an extraordinary way outside of his covenant with mankind. Since we don't save or damn ourselves through the coöperation or resistance to grace alone in a vacuum but rather have our salvation play out in the day-to-day situations of our duty and our interactions with our neighbours, the whole question of salvation seems pretty relevant.

Quote

IMO, this is all about the Dimonds' pocketbook and pride. I have had a few exchanges with them and they are liars and nasty men.

Like I said, the Dimonds are much less influential than they sometimes appear. As far as I know, Nadie is not influenced by the Dimonds; do you have any solid reason to suppose the contrary ? People were having these discussions long before the Dimonds were even born.