Author Topic: Effects of the Heresy of Denying Baptism of Desire (Read 35679 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #60 on:** March 19, 2014, 08:56:39 PM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
Quote from: Cantarella

Just a mistaken theological opinion...

Can you please provide any Church authority that has ever said this?

No more that you can provide an infallible dogmatic statement that demonstrates that Baptism of Desire is indeed DE FIDE.

You can not produce a single Church authority that confirms your opinion?

Yet, I and others, have time and time again provided you with authoritative Church sources teaching exactly the truths you yourself condemn. So as I survey you on one side of this debate, and Church authorities on the other side, there is really no option as to where my loyalties would be applied.

You agree that St. Alphonsus is a Church Authority ONLY when he teaches about a BOD?

What about when he said only heretics believe no sacraments are necessary? - Did you determine he suddenly does not know what he is talking about or is a heretic?

Why do you pick and choose like that?

Here is a link to a thread that Ambrose started: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29646&f=9&min=0&num=3

It starts out with St. Alphonsus clearly teaching: "2. The heretics say that no sacrament is necessary, - now to show you how screwed up BODers can get, Ambrose posted this in defense - not of the sacraments, ha, certainly not, he posted it to promote the anti-sacrament yet again.

If you read the first few posts from that thread, you'll see I was confused at how Ambrose was trying to use St. Alphonsus, who was clearly teaching the necessity of the sacraments, as a defense for a BOD.

At any rate, read the teaching of St. Alphonsus in that thread, then read his quote teaching a BOD is de fide - - - why do you choose to believe him when he teaches about a BOD but NOT when he teaches that only heretics say no sacrament is necessary?

Stubborn · « **Reply #61 on:** March 19, 2014, 08:59:46 PM »

Quote from: andysloan

...and the Dialogues of St Catherine of Siena - a great gift from Above, are totally inadmissible!!!

"In the Side, where she knew the fire of divine Charity, and so, if you remember well, My Truth manifested to you, when you asked, saying: ’Sweet and Immaculate Lamb, You were dead when Your side was opened. Why then did You want to be struck and have Your heart divided?’ And He replied to you, telling you that there was occasion enough for it; but the principal part of what He said I will tell you. He said: Because My desire towards the human generation was ended, and I had finished the actual work of bearing pain and torment, and yet I had not been able to show, by finite things, because My love was infinite, how much more love I had, I wished you to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to you open, so that you might see how much more I loved than I could show you by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show you the baptism of water, which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood, shed for Me, which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also in those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of fire without the Blood, because the Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because, through love was It shed. There is yet another way by which the soul receives the baptism of Blood, speaking, as it were, under a figure, and this way the Divine charity provided, knowing the infirmity and fragility of man, through which he offends, not that he is obliged, through his fragility and infirmity, to commit sin unless he wish to do so; but, falling, as he will, into the guilt of mortal sin, by which he loses the grace which he drew from Holy Baptism in virtue of the Blood, it was necessary to leave a continual baptism of Blood. This the Divine charity provided in the Sacrament of Holy Confession, the soul receiving the Baptism of Blood, with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers, who hold the keys of the Blood, sprinkling It, in absolution, upon the face of the soul. But, if the soul be unable to confess, contrition of heart is sufficient for this baptism, the hand of My clemency giving you the fruit of this precious Blood. But if you are able to confess, I wish you to do so, and if you are able to, and do not, you will be deprived of the fruit of the Blood. It is true that, in the last extremity, a man, desiring to confess and not being able to, will receive the fruit of this baptism, of which I have been speaking." ~The Dialogue of St. Catherine of Siena

Heaven must blush!!!!

Matthew 8:11-12

"And I say to you that many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven: But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Still weaseling Andy?

Do you have it in you to start a thread and champion defending the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation or will you live the lie you've been living?

Mathieu · « **Reply #62 on:** March 19, 2014, 09:09:39 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Mathieu
Quote from: Stubborn
No, it only makes him wrong.
He did what was later condemned by V1:

Quote
Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

Had he been alive after knowing the above decree, do you think he would have persisted teaching what Trent taught under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding? - or would he have submitted to the judgement of the Church and recanted his error and accepted what Trent, "as once declared", taught?

To say that he did something that was later condemned by Vatican I means that before 1870 no one previously understood that Dogmas were to be taken at face value? That someone of his holiness and calibre would attempt to twist a Dogma to his own agenda? Every good Catholic already knew and followed this: "Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding." It was nothing new - any well-intentioned Catholic would always believe a Dogma in exactly the way the Church intended. It was defined to arrest the onslaught of those who in bad faith tried to corrupt the innocent.

St. Alphonsus was a man who had a profound love for God and had an intelligence most likely superior to everyone on this forum put together. It is unreasonable to think that he was looking to interpret the Dogma in a different light from what was previously stated.

That being said, if, as you say, St. Alphonsus was wrong on this, where, then does that place him?

Do you deny that St. Alphonsus as well as all the others who preached a BOD did so under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding or John 3:5 and / or Trent?

Do you think the saints have authority over the Councils?

I think he has more weight than you do and I do not think he violates Vatican I, because no good Catholic ever would take a Dogma out of context. Concerning this particular topic, I think people are more focused on being right and not on being holy.

I believe everyone on this site is trying his best to deal with an unprecedented crisis and apostasy, and I think there needs to be a little more mercy and understanding and a lot less condemnation.

andysloan · « **Reply #63 on:** March 19, 2014, 09:17:10 PM »

To Cantarella:

What about this infallible dogmatic statement?

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, ex cathedra: "In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5)."

World English Dictionary

OR

1 (ɔː, ( unstressed ) ə)

— conj
1. used to join alternatives: apples or pears ; apples or pears or cheese ; apples, pears, or cheese

God bless!

Conspiracy_Factist · « **Reply #64 on:** March 19, 2014, 09:35:46 PM »

I posted this in another thread and I don't believe I got a response, I'll try again

I believe that if a catechumen who's learning the catholic faith , desires baptism but dies before actually receiving water baptism will have a chance to avoid hell, baptism of desire
what is implicit baptism of desire exactly? can you give me a que from a pope which supports implicit baptism of desire