Author Topic: Effects of the Heresy of Denying Baptism of Desire (Read 21688 times)

Ambrose · « **on:** March 18, 2014, 07:09:49 PM »

To Matthew and all,

I wrote this post a while back, but I think it is relevant again. There are grave effects of holding the heresy of denying Baptism of Desire, or, likewise the grave error of rejecting implicit Baptism of Desire.

When the Church reforms, the proponents of this heresy and error against the Faith will be warned, and if they will not recant, they will incur excommunication. The legitimate authorities of the Church will bring justice to these doctrinal criminals.

To sum up:

1. This heresy leads to a perverse idea about God's mercy, by erroneously holding that the State of Grace, the friendship with God, is not sufficient for salvation.

2. It leads to a false idea that God is bound to the externals.

3. It leads to the idea that the Popes can allow heresy or grave errors against the Faith to be taught in catechisms, dogmatic theology manuals, commentaries on the Code, and explanations from the Holy Office. To follow this position, one would never trust the Church again.

4. It exalts the role of individuals to be the judge of what Catholics must believe and destroys the necessity of submission and trust to the Popes and bishops.

5. It holds that private interpretation of Council docuмents supersedes the common understanding and interpretation of the Doctors and theologians.

6. It holds the arrogant belief that Catholics can hold dissenting opinions against the consensus of the theologians.

7. It holds that Catholics can privately evaluate the teaching of the Fathers against the common teaching of the theologians.

8. It holds a position contrary to the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, which has consistently taught Baptism of Desire and Blood always and everywhere.

9. It holds a position directly opposed to the Council of Trent, which has explicitly taught Baptism of Desire, and the reason St. Alphonsus states it was de fide.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #1 on:** March 18, 2014, 07:39:23 PM »

blah blah blah, Ambrose.

We've heard it all before.

I could list a couple dozen harmful effects of your EENS-denial.

Sigismund · « **Reply #2 on:** March 18, 2014, 07:41:15 PM »

Thank you, Ambrose, for defending Catholic doctrine.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** March 18, 2014, 08:01:42 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

1. This heresy leads to a perverse idea about God's mercy, by erroneously holding that the State of Grace, the friendship with God, is not sufficient for salvation.

You admit your BoD premise, that it would be incompatible of God's mercy (in your thinking) for Him to withhold salvation from anyone. That's heretical. No one is owed salvation. As St. Augustine said, this thinking opens the "vortex of confusion". Why isn't it incompatible with God's Mercy that unbaptized infants are lost? Why isn't it incompatible with God's Mercy that some receive certain graces while other do not? You open up a can of worms and arrogantly PRESUME to tell God what is merciful and what is not.

Quote from: Ambrose

2. It leads to a false idea that God is bound to the externals.

That's a heretical denial of the necessity of the Sacraments. Plus it's utterly ridiculous. Of course God is not bound by anything; what's at issue is the economy of salvation to which He has bound US.

BoD is predicated upon another heretical premise, namely that anything is IMPOSSIBLE for God. God can bring the Sacraments to His elect just as He can give them any other grace.

Quote

3. It leads to the idea that the Popes can allow heresy or grave errors against the Faith to be taught in catechisms, dogmatic theology manuals, commentaries on the Code, and explanations from the Holy Office. To follow this position, one would never trust the Church again.

You're barking up the wrong tree here, Ambrose. Matthew is a sedeplenist and therefore by definition believes that Popes can allow heresy or grave errors against the Faith. You demand allegiance to pre Vatican II theologians but then hypocritically refuse it to the UNANIMOUS TEACHING OF ALL THE BISHOPS OF THE WORLD AT VATICAN II. You follow the ridiculous caricature that many sedevacantists make of infallibility that a Pope can never err. That's patently false. Vatican I Fathers cited numerous examples of errors and contradictions in authoritative papal teaching. They used these to come up with their definition of papal infallibility and the notes of infallibility.

Quote from: Ambrose

4. It exalts the role of individuals to be the judge of what Catholics must believe and destroys the necessity of submission and trust to the Popes and bishops.

You judged Vatican II to be erroneous and unworthy of submission, hypocrite. Where was your submission to the Pope and Bishops of Vatican II?

Quote

5. It holds that private interpretation of Council docuмents supersedes the common understanding and interpretation of the Doctors and theologians.

YOU, again hypocritically, are the one who interprets. We are taking the Council definitions of EENS at face value. We believe that when Our Lord taught that one must be born again of water AND the Holy Spirit, that Our Lord meant exactly that. YOU are the one who interprets this to mean, of water OR ELSE AT LEAST the Holy Spirit. When numerous dogmatic definitions have taught that pagans, heretics, and schismatics CANNOT BE SAVED, we take that at face value. YOU are the one who makes pages of distinctions to basically tell us in your heretical hubris that WE are heretics for accepting the formula as it's written, and that we are heretics for not believing that the EXACT OPPOSITE is somehow dogma. What a mockery you make of the Church's magisterium.

Quote from: Ambrose

6. It holds the arrogant belief that Catholics can hold dissenting opinions against the consensus of the theologians.

And yet you're allowed to reject the teaching of the bishops of the entire world teaching in Council?

Quote from: Ambrose

7. It holds that Catholics can privately evaluate the teaching of the Fathers against the common teaching of the theologians.

And yet you can privately evaluate the teachings of the bishops of the entire world teaching in Council?

Quote from: Ambrose

8. It holds a position contrary to the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, which has consistently taught Baptism of Desire and Blood always and everywhere.

Was not the Universal Ordinary Magisterium in play when the bishops of the entire world unanimously taught us Vatican II?

Quote from: Ambrose

9. It holds a position directly opposed to the Council of Trent, which has explicitly taught Baptism of Desire, and the reason St. Alphonsus states it was de fide.

Trent never taught BoD.

One heresy / hypocrisy after another, Ambrose, and yet you have the audacity to call us heretics.

Mabel · « **Reply #4 on:** March 18, 2014, 08:21:23 PM »

How timely.
:devil2:

SJB · « **Reply #5 on:** March 18, 2014, 08:56:21 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

That's a heretical denial of the necessity of the Sacraments.

God's grace is not bound by the sacraments is a common teaching of the theologians. You are an idiot for calling it heretical.

bowler · « **Reply #6 on:** March 18, 2014, 09:36:10 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Effects of the Heresy of Denying Baptism of Desire

A Strawman thread!

The Saint Benedict Center is in full communion with Rome and the local diocese. The Church has not declared BOD in any shape or form a dogma, nor has it declared heretics anyone or any saint, doctor or priest who taught teach John 3:15 as it is written, including all the Saint Benedict centers .

It is only YOU Ambrose that by your own cojones declares them heretics.

And yet, you believe that anyone can be saved who has no explicit desire to be Catholic, baptized, nor belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity!

Your belief is oppose to the clear DOGMA of Florence and the 1600 year old Athanasian creed.

It does not phase you one iota that not one Doctor, Father, Saint, or Council taught your salvation without explicit belief Incarnation and the Trinity, nor explicit desire to be baptized or Catholic!

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. Moreover, not a Father, Saint, Doctor, or Council ever taught that anyone can be saved without belief in Christ and the real God, the Holy Trinity.

bowler · « **Reply #7 on:** March 18, 2014, 09:45:48 PM »

Quote

God's grace is not bound by the sacraments is a common teaching of the theologians.

=End Run (= disregard all dogmas, God's grace is not bound by the sacraments )

Quote from: bowler

From Fr. Ludwig Ott, a source frequently sighted by traditionalists here on CI:

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Fr. Ludwig Ott (b1906-d1985), 1952

Page 239
II. The Universality of Grace, sec. C, “ There is also the possibility that God, in an extraordinary manner, remits original sin to those children who die without baptism, and communicates grace to them, as His power is not limited by the Church’s means of grace. However, the possibility of such an extra-sacramental communication of grace cannot be proved.”

Since "God is not bound by the sacraments", then God can make Pope Francis a valid priest, bishop, pope, and the Novus Ordo priests and bishops and consecrations all valid.

Combine the term "implicit" and the theory that "God is not bound by the sacraments", and you can turn white into black. No dogma or teaching has any meaning. Oh, I forgot, that already happened, it's the conciliar church.

Cantarella · « **Reply #8 on:** March 19, 2014, 12:01:19 AM »

Here are some long - term effects of promoting the heresy of Invincible Ignorance via last minute Baptism of Desire:

If there is Salvation outside the Church (via last minute invisible Baptism of Desire), it will automatically follows that:

1. The pope is not infallible because the three popes who solemnly defined the dogma ex-cathedra were in error.

2. The Church has no ultimate authority and all dogmatic definitions are not infallible either and can be rejected or accepted at will. Fallible theologians supersede the Church's Divine appointed authority.

3. The Sacraments of the Church are not really necessary for salvation.

4. Priesthood to administer the Sacraments is not necessary either
since they are not only "invisible" but are available to everybody by "desire".

5. Neither an ordained clergy nor a hierarchical structure are necessary because the Church is now an invisible entity and membership by Baptism in the visible Church is not necessary for Salvation.

Why in the world would anyone want to become a Catholic and strive to be a good one if that, if this heresy of being part of the Church invisibly is what we are preaching? These are the ultimate consequences of BOD in the long run.

Stubborn · « **Reply #9 on:** March 19, 2014, 04:33:36 AM »

No, no, no Ambrose!

I challenged you to defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation - not the mythical anti-sacrament a BOD!

What were you thinking?

You are always proving me right - which, in this instance, is not what I actually want.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; ... let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

Question: Who was the first one who ever thought to ask the question: "How many baptisms are there" anyway?

Ambrose, don't you remember this challenge?

Quote from: Stubborn

I am of the opinion that you and the other BODers will remain obstinately attached to your error for as long as you continue with your lex orandi, which is to mock and despise the necessity of the sacraments and the Church for the hope of salvation. As long as you keep repeating the same error, the error will remain the way you believe, the error is your lex credendi.

NOTE:
If you do not believe me, if you think I'm wrong, if you want to get it off your chest and really prove and expose to everyone exactly how ignorant of a person I really am, then please prove me completely wrong by starting and participating in a thread in which you do the strictly Catholic thing and actually defend the necessity of the sacraments for the hope of salvation.

I maintain that SJB or Ambrose or any BODer who clings to the belief that salvation without the sacrament is possible, will be both unwilling and unable to get themselves to even think of doing such a thing much less actually do it - it is not just *not* a part of a BODers lex credendi, doing such a thing is actually opposed to a BODers lex credendi.

This is the easiest way I can think of for you and other BODers to discover for yourselves and on your own that you cannot do the Catholic and outwardly defend, that which you inwardly deeply despise.

I've asked this of BODers 5 or 6 times now and so far, not even one of them has even acknowledged the challenge, but new threads trivializing the necessity of the sacraments are started by a BODers regularly.

It is just not a part of a BODer's lex credendi to do the Catholic thing and defend the necessity of the sacraments for the hope of salvation.

Now try again! This time do the Catholic thing and defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation!

Ladislaus · « **Reply #10 on:** March 19, 2014, 06:03:52 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Ladislaus
That's a heretical denial of the necessity of the Sacraments.

God's grace is not bound by the sacraments is a common teaching of the theologians. You are an idiot for calling it heretical.

God has bound US with the necessity of the Sacraments. Consequently, WE are bound by the Sacraments. You guys keep promoting the gnostic garbage (which undermines the Incarnation) in disparaging the visible aspect of the Sacraments to which God has bound US. You can read my response where I admit that God is not bound by anything; it's a question of what He has bound US with. God is not bound ultimately by ANYTHING; it's a question of what God has bound US with and what God has revealed to US in terms of what He binds us with.

You are therefore heretical for denying the necessity of the Sacraments. Stubborn is correct in saying that you outright DESPISE the Sacraments. Your false application of this principle to undermining the necessity of the Sacraments is what's heretical. It's a bogus argument that leads to heresy.

Is God bound by the use of water in conferring the Sacramental character of water? Hey, SJB, you are BINDING God if you say that the Sacramental character CANNOT be conferred without the pouring of water. You stupid dishonest buffoon. Go take a Logic 101 course before you try to argue theology.

Go ahead, SJB, try to confer the Sacrament of Baptism by just saying the words and not pouring any water, and then come back and tell me what God is "bound by". I'm guessing that you would not validly confer the Sacrament of Baptism despite your "desire" to do so. This is yet another one of your dishonest arguments.

You guys are dishonest. You guys are hypocrites.

You guys are enemies of the Catholic Faith, not its defenders. You are more interested in the appropriate dimensions of the lavabo cloth than in dogma.

I'll TELL you the effects of your BoDer ecclesiology.

it's called Vatican II.

Your BoDer ecclesiology leads to RELIGIOUS INDIFFERENTISM.

Your BoDer ecclesiology leads to EVERY SINGLE ERROR IN VATICAN II.

You are not honest enough to admit that your BoDer ecclesiology is identical to V2 ecclesiology.

I have repeatedly asked you to distinguish, and you CONSTANTLY come back with ad hominems, hiding behind BoD proper, and changing the subject. I have received EXACTLY ONE RESPONSE when I traced out in detail the logical continuity between extended BoD and Vatican II, and the response was from someone who obviously never read Vatican II and claimed without citation or proof that Vatican II promoted the notion that non-Catholic creeds are as good as Catholic ones. Which Vatican II clearly does NOT teach.

If you were to convince me of your ecclesiology, I would be honest enough to renounce Traditional Catholicism and accept Vatican II.

You on the other hand are not honest. You want to have your Traditional cake and eat it too.

You know, I used to criticize the Dimonds for calling people like you bad-willed. Evidently they have dealt with your type of heretical nonsense long enough to know. You have clearly manifested your bad will.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #11 on:** March 19, 2014, 06:05:39 AM »

Quote from: Mabel

How timely.
:devil2:

We appreciate your deep theological insights as always, Mabel.

:heretic:

Ladislaus · « **Reply #12 on:** March 19, 2014, 06:11:24 AM »

Notice how Ambrose disparages the MATTER of the Sacraments, matter that was instituted by Our Lord, as mere "externals". That's actually VERY much in line with mainstream Novus Ordo theology. To Stubborn's point about how they despise the Sacraments. At first I thought Stubborn's language was a bit strong, but now I agree with it.

Even in your bogus BoD theology, you have to admit that there is NO OTHER WAY to confer the Baptismal character than THE EXTERNALS, no other way to confer HOLY ORDERS than by THE EXTERNALS. You are heretical in BINDING God to these externals.

andysloan · « **Reply #13 on:** March 19, 2014, 07:02:53 AM »

To Ladislaus/Canterella/Bowler

You can take the following "private revelation" with you to your individual judgements and tell Christ "I honestly did not believe it"!

"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

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."

Ladislaus · « **Reply #14 on:** March 19, 2014, 08:41:29 AM »

Quote from: andysloan

To Ladislaus/Canterella/Bowler

You can take the following "private revelation" with you to your individual judgements and tell Christ "I honestly did not believe it"!

Firstly, we are talking about extended BoD and not BoD proper, which is the subject of this citation.

Secondly, material like this cannot be used to form dogma. These texts are often interpolated and embellished by editors, etc. And even if it was authentic, when it comes to locutions very often the intellect of the "receiver" becomes a conduit or a filter, and it's often very difficult to distinguish personal reflection from actual divine location. So, for instance, there are direct contradictions between the visions of Catherine Emmerick and Mary of Agreda regarding specific concrete details about the life of Our Lord. While it takes nothing away from the sanctity of St. Catherine of Siena, there's a lot of doubt about where any particular passage comes from (from an editor, interpolator, or the saint's own mind). In fact, the Dialogues appear to DERIVE from one or more "Letters" of St. Catherine which according to editors contain "mostly" the "words of God". Mostly? There are some correlations between St. Catherine's "Letter 272" and the "Dialogue", but there are also major differences. Many scholars consider the Dialogue a "derived work" (derived by whom?), derived from some content in her letters. Adding to the confusion and uncertainty, Catherine herself was just beginning to learn how to write and relied upon secretaries for most of her correspondence. Over time there had been multiple editions or compilations with different structures and different content.

What matters in establishing true Catholic doctrine is Revelation and the Church's magisterium interpreting that Revelation.

There's absolutely ZERO indication that Baptism of Desire is revealed.

You have ONE Church Father who unambiguously floats the idea of BoD: St. Augustine. St. Augustine later retracted the opinion. Even in floating it he did NOT describe it as a TEACHING or as having any authority. He admitted in his language that it was his own personal speculative theology. "Considering the matter over and over again, I find ..." HE "finds" (not "teaches"). He went back and forth on the subject and then landed on this speculative opinion. Meanwhile, there are 3 or 4 Church Fathers who EXPLICITLY reject BoD. Consequently, there's lacking ANY PROOF WHATSOEVER that BoD was part of Divine Revelation. Had it been revealed by Our Lord, then there would be indication of that in a unanimous consent and teaching of the Church Fathers. If it's not part of Divine Revelation, it can never become dogma, regardless of how many people hold the opinion.

Another way that something can be said to be revealed is if it derives implicitly (by way of syllogism) from other revealed dogmas. No theologian has EVER even attempted to demonstrate this. They merely repeat the gratuitous assertion of this opinion rooted in speculative theology. There's no such thing as some kind of "growing awareness" of the Church nonsense that the modernists like to promote as a source of dogma. Just because more and more people over time have glommed onto the idea (because it tickles their fancy and they like it) does NOT mean that it's dogma.

Consequently, BoD CAN NEVER BECOME DOGMA. It can on the other hand be rejected as heretical if it can be demonstrated to contradict revealed dogma, and all the evidence indicates that it does contradict revealed dogma.