Author Topic: Effects of the Heresy of Denying Baptism of Desire (Read 35658 times)

andysloan · « **Reply #80 on:** March 20, 2014, 09:21:29 AM »

Ladislaus:

"I would just continue on with my simple belief in Our Lord's teaching."

You do not believe in the Lord's teaching:

"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

Do you really believe God's providence has permitted a false teaching through the great St Catherine and only a tiny band of Fr Feeney adherents have been given the light to spot it?

Judith 11:16

"Because these things are told me by the providence of God."

"The truth is God has blinded you and the others as a punishment for your pride. It is not an honest error; in your secret hearts, you desire an exclusivity above others."

And your common dishonest methods of argumentation and belittling of others is proof against you.

John 5:7-9

"And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one."

You won't make any progress on here anyway, because your opponents have been give the light by God to see:

As the Lord says:

Matthew 23:24

"Blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel."

If you look inside your souls, you will find the cause of the error is some inner deficiency in being subject to God's will.

bowler · « **Reply #81 on:** March 20, 2014, 09:23:10 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Your reading of Trent is completely wrong. You focus incorrectly on the word "or" without recognizing that it's in a double negative construction along with the preposition without. You need to read the passage in the entire context of Trent. I used to think Trent taught BoD and therefore believed in BoD (for catechumens). But I went back and read the ENTIRE Treatise on Justification in Latin, and it became very obvious that Trent was not teaching BoD.

Bill says that we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball.

Out of context, and if you didn't know what baseball was, that could be ambiguous. Do you need BOTH or do you need ONE or the OTHER? This could be read as "We cannot play without (either a bat or a ball)"? (in Latin you would expect a double "or", an aut ... aut type of contruction before aut bat aut ball). But Trent doesn't use this construction. or else "We cannot play baseball without a bat or without a ball?" (meaning that you need both).

But what if I add the sentence:

Bill says that we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since we need a bat and a ball to play baseball.

Immediately disambiguated.

Now look at Trent.

We cannot be justified without water or the will (votum = will, not just desire) for it, since Our Lord said that we cannot be born again without water AND the Holy Spirit.

Trent had just spent paragraphs discussing how the Holy Spirit acts in the soul to cause it to cooperate and to be properly disposed for the Sacrament.

Trent was teaching the relationship between the ex opere operato nature of the Sacrament which however could only confer the grace of justification with the cooperation of the will. AGAINST THE PROTESTANT ERRORS. So Trent is making an analogy between the votum and Our Lord's reference to the Holy Spirit in the phrase "water and the Holy Spirit".

Trent is CLEARLY teaching that BOTH the water (Sacrament) AND the cooperation / proper disposition are required for justification. Without BOTH there is no justification.

Notice also the conspicuous absence of any mention regarding Baptism of Blood, which you would clearly expect if that's what Trent was actually intending to teach.

If you try to make the water or the desire thereof an "either ... or" proposition, then you turn the teaching of Trent into an ERROR. Why? Because you CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED WITH WATER WITHOUT THE WILL OR DISPOSITION. If you are not properly disposed and have the Sacrament performed on you, YOU ARE NOT JUSTIFIED.

Now let's look at some of the Canons in Trent:

Quote from: Trent
Canon 3.
If anyone says that without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost[111] and without His help, man can believe, hope, love or be repentant as he ought,[112] so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him, let him be anathema.

Notice how this backs up my reading of Trent. Trent goes out of its way to say that the activity of the Holy Spirit to predispose the soul for justification is required, and to deny this is anathema.

Quote from: Trent
Canon 4.
If anyone says that man's free will moved and aroused by God, by assenting to God's call and action, in no way cooperates toward disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification, that it cannot refuse its assent if it wishes, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive, let him be anathema.

Again, reinforcing the requirement of the will to cooperate in the grace of justification.

Quote
Canon 9.
If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone,[114] meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.

Again, ONE MORE emphasis on the need for the cooperation of the WILL (will comes from the same root word as "votum" in the famous passage that BoDers misinterpret).

Trent was teaching on Justification against the PROTESTANT ERRORS.

So when Trent teaches about not being able to be justified without the water or the will. It's not saying EITHER OR. In fact, it's emphasizing that the WATER (Sacrament working ex opere operato) REQUIRES ALSO THE COOPERATION OF THE WILL (="votum", usually translated wrongly as desire) towards justification.

It's ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS that Trent is teaching that BOTH WATER AND (COOPERATION OF) THE WILL are required for justification.

BODers say say that that one word in Trent means explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen, meanwhile:

1) they deny that explicit desire for baptism or explicit desire to be a Catholic, or explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity are necessary for salvation!

2) they say that this clear DOGMA below from the Council of Florence, does not mean what it CLEARLY says:

Quote from: bowler

To the BODer no sacrament, no explicit desire for baptism, no explicit desire to be a Catholic, no belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity, none of those are required for salvation! So why do they debate 99% of the time about BOD & BOB of the catechumen?

Quote from: bowler
The Subject of this Thread: BODers say anyone can be saved witout explicit belief in Christ

Dear Nishant,

DOGMA:

Quote
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.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

If that dogma does not mean what it CLEARLY says, then words have no meaning whatsoever. It is a waste of time to talk to people like you, for you have no regard for dogma. Moreover, it does not phase you one iota that not a Father, Saint, Doctor, or Council ever taught that anyone can be saved without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity.

If you will not hear clear dogma from the Holy Ghost, no one and nothing will convince you that you are wrong. Be prepared though that if this clear dogma does not mean what it clearly says, then NOTHING that is written means what it says! And you might as well go talk to yourself.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #82 on:** March 20, 2014, 09:51:30 AM »

Last time I checked St. Catherine of Siena DOES NOT EQUAL Our Lord.

Last time I checked private revelation does not equal public revelation or magisterium.

I've already addressed this dubious quote but you keep spamming this quote as if it's the one thing you have to justify BoD.

Finally, there's no indication that the BoD referred to in this quote is the EENS-denying version that you hold and promote.

Cantarella · « **Reply #83 on:** March 20, 2014, 10:09:52 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Your reading of Trent is completely wrong. You focus incorrectly on the word "or" without recognizing that it's in a double negative construction along with the preposition without. You need to read the passage in the entire context of Trent. I used to think Trent taught BoD and therefore believed in BoD (for catechumens). But I went back and read the ENTIRE Treatise on Justification in Latin, and it became very obvious that Trent was not teaching BoD.

Bill says that we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball.

Out of context, and if you didn't know what baseball was, that could be ambiguous. Do you need BOTH or do you need ONE or the OTHER? This could be read as "We cannot play without (either a bat or a ball)"? (in Latin you would expect a double "or", an aut ... aut type of contruction before aut bat aut ball). But Trent doesn't use this construction. or else "We cannot play baseball without a bat or without a ball?" (meaning that you need both).

But what if I add the sentence:

Bill says that we cannot play baseball without a bat or a ball, since we need a bat and a ball to play baseball.

Immediately disambiguated.

Now look at Trent.

We cannot be justified without water or the will (votum = will, not just desire) for it, since Our Lord said that we cannot be born again without water AND the Holy Spirit.

Trent had just spent paragraphs discussing how the Holy Spirit acts in the soul to cause it to cooperate and to be properly disposed for the Sacrament.

Trent was teaching the relationship between the ex opere operato nature of the Sacrament which however could only confer the grace of justification with the cooperation of the will. AGAINST THE PROTESTANT ERRORS. So Trent is making an analogy between the votum and Our Lord's reference to the Holy Spirit in the phrase "water and the Holy Spirit".

Trent is CLEARLY teaching that BOTH the water (Sacrament) AND the cooperation / proper disposition are required for justification. Without BOTH there is no justification.

Notice also the conspicuous absence of any mention regarding Baptism of Blood, which you would clearly expect if that's what Trent was actually intending to teach.

If you try to make the water or the desire thereof an "either ... or" proposition, then you turn the teaching of Trent into an ERROR. Why? Because you CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED WITH WATER WITHOUT THE WILL OR DISPOSITION. If you are not properly disposed and have the Sacrament performed on you, YOU ARE NOT JUSTIFIED.

Now let's look at some of the Canons in Trent:

Quote from: Trent
Canon 3.
If anyone says that without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost[111] and without His help, man can believe, hope, love or be repentant as he ought,[112] so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him, let him be anathema.

Notice how this backs up my reading of Trent. Trent goes out of its way to say that the activity of the Holy Spirit to predispose the soul for justification is required, and to deny this is anathema.

Quote from: Trent
Canon 4.
If anyone says that man's free will moved and aroused by God, by assenting to God's call and action, in no way cooperates toward disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification, that it cannot refuse its assent if it wishes, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive, let him be anathema.

Again, reinforcing the requirement of the will to cooperate in the grace of justification.

Quote
Canon 9.
If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone,[114] meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.

Again, ONE MORE emphasis on the need for the cooperation of the WILL (will comes from the same root word as "votum" in the famous passage that BoDers misinterpret).

Trent was teaching on Justification against the PROTESTANT ERRORS.

So when Trent teaches about not being able to be justified without the water or the will. It's not saying EITHER OR. In fact, it's emphasizing that the WATER (Sacrament working ex opere operato) REQUIRES ALSO THE COOPERATION OF THE WILL (="votum", usually translated wrongly as desire) towards justification.

It's ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS that Trent is teaching that BOTH WATER AND (COOPERATION OF) THE WILL are required for justification.

Brilliant post, Ladislaus :applause:. Thank you for clearing that up. I guess there is nothing else to say to Mr. Mithrandylan. Here is the original text of the passage in Latin.

"...in statum gratiæ, et adoptionis filiorum Dei per secundum Adam Iesum Christum, salvatorem nostrum: quæ quidem translatio post evangelium promulgatum, sine lavacro regenerationis, aut ejus voto, fieri non potest... . ..."

Again, these lines are referring to Justification, and Justification is only sealed through water Baptism.

andysloan · « **Reply #84 on:** March 20, 2014, 10:26:49 AM »

Ladislaus/Bowler/Cantarella/Stubborn

At the end of the day, BoB and BoD are valid baptisms which make one a member of the church.

Fr Feeeney, having passed away, now knows this, as will you do when you die (but hopefully before.)

That is the end of the matter.