I have a question for the forum. If water baptism is the only way to be incorporated into the Church, why does Pope Pius XII define in Mystici Corporis the following:

22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.

If water baptism were the only way shouldn't this read:

22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church those who have received the Sacrament of baptism, and profess the true faith,.....

Do you see what I mean?

NSAAers don't use papal teachings - certainly they don't use infallible teachings - according to NSAAers, papal teachings need to be interpreted first otherwise  they'll be understood to mean what they say, and they cannot have that.

As far as your above post goes - what is baptism? It's a SACRAMENT.

Ambrose,

Quote

As I have told them all before, I still have the hope that when a Pope comes again and admonishes them, that this may be what they need to finally break free from this trap they are in.  

But, if the pope admonishes you, will you leave the comfortable confines of your own trap?

The Catholic Church is not a trap.  By the Grace of God, I will always remain a loyal son of the Church.  When a true Pope comes again, he will most certainly affirm Catholic Teaching on the truth of Baptism of Desire and will admonish the heretics that deny it.

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Truly remarkable.  You are such a waste of time.  Good luck with your pet theories, I hope you don't go to Hell for them.

This is the sad effect of what heresy does to its victims.  It is rooted in pride and it blinds the intellect.  It is a sad sight to watch.

As I have told them all before, I still have the hope that when a Pope comes again and admonishes them, that this may be what they need to finally break free from this trap they are in.  

You've been told before that you already have a pope who preaches, lives and exemplifies the faith of salvation by desire. The last 6 popes have preached salvation via No Sacrament At All just like you, just like Mith, just like the rest of the modernist wolves - sorry to disappoint you but the next "real pope" can only repeat that which has already been declared - i.e. the sacrament is not optional, that is, it is necessary unto salvation.

You are likened to a man waiting for a train that passed 50 years ago.

Quote from: Mithrandylan

If they have any Catholic sense left.  Fifty years of rejecting what one insists is a legitimate authority will take a toll on a person.  There's a reason most Feeneyites are R&R Catholics, because they've accepted the lie that they only have to believe solemn definitions, and fancy themselves good Catholics who can make the faith what they want it to be so long as they obey solemn definitions (and, their interpretation of them, mind you).  

There is, underpinning this entire philosophy, a schismatic spirit.  Who knows how it will manifest when a true pope rebukes such errors?  

The fact remains you are as dishonest as every other NSAAer. The proof is that you have demonstrated that you believe that the infallible canon from Trent is, of all things, heretical.

That you will not hear the Pope Paul III when he infallibly declares the sacrament is not optional, is not too surprising since you take the authority upon yourself to depose popes as tho it is your duty or something.

I think maybe you were better off when you were king of memes on FE just a year or so ago - sadly, you've come a long way in the wrong direction in a very short time.

Now if you wish to prove me wrong, something I look forward to, answer the challenge and use the infallible canon as your foundation, and to prove the sacrament is not necessary unto salvation.

Ambrose is a devoted NSAAer and has repeatedly proven his dishonesty - he absolutely cannot answer a direct question for nuthin' or nobody. It is pride that does it - you must humble yourself and prepare to accept the truth whole and entire no matter what the answer.

Now, use the canon and prove the Church teaches that one can make it to heaven without the sacrament.

There is no dishonesty or games.  You have two choices, accept heresy by denying Baptism of Desire or accept Catholicism by affirming your belief in Baptism of Desire.

There is no other way.

Pope XII needed not to add the word "sacrament". Throughout the Church history it has always been understood that those "baptized" are the ones that have been validly so, this is, when proper matter and form are used. There was no need to specify further. The modernists are the ones that have been twisting defined dogmas by giving them an ambiguous meaning.  The unbaptized simply do not belong to the Church, this is, the Body of Christ.

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: GJC

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: GJC

I have a question for the forum. If water baptism is the only way to be incorporated into the Church, why does Pope Pius XII define in Mystici Corporis the following:

22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.

If water baptism were the only way shouldn't this read:

22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church those who have received the Sacrament of baptism, and profess the true faith,.....

Do you see what I mean?

NSAAers don't use papal teachings - certainly they don't use infallible teachings - according to NSAAers, papal teachings need to be interpreted first otherwise  they'll be understood to mean what they say, and they cannot have that.

As far as your above post goes - what is baptism? It's a SACRAMENT.

Thanks for your response, but you did not answer my question. Baptism is a washing or cleansing and a Sacrament is a kind of sign that is sensible. Christ commanded that the only element in this universe that can be used to baptize is water, and as St Augustine says, " The word is added to the element and this becomes the sacrament".

Now Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Repentance (fire) are not Sacraments. Do you see what I mean? Why does Pope Pius XII not specifically define that the Sacrament of Baptism (water) is required to be included as a member of the Church.

Does this mean that all those who condemn Baptism of Blood and Repentance may want to contemplate this matter a little more?

GJC,

I agree with where I think you're trying to go (a defense of BOD) but I don't know that the text you're trying to use to support it is the best.  Pius XII is talking about membership, and only the baptized (who profess the faith and have not been severed from the Church) are members; even catechumens are not.

Since I am new to this forum, it should be known that I do not in anyway support the BOD as it is taught in the world today. I do not believe that people can be saved who are invincibly ignorant, a person can explicitly reject/implicitly accept,  anonymous Christian, etc..... You will not even hear me say BOD, it is  Baptism of Repentance (fire).

Now I am aware that the Saints used the terminology BOD, however it was always understood that this "desire" was always subordinate to the "vow", e.g. If a person vows do do something by necessity they desire to do it (except liars), but if a person desire to do something that does not mean they have made a vow to do it. Therefore we have marriage vows, priest vows, etc... When has it ever been adequate to "desire to tell the whole truth". I believe this is where God has allowed the enemies to enter the Church, and destroy the EENS Dogma.

By making the vow secondary, now we can have people who are ignorant of the Truth (through no fault of their own), as they say, justified by desiring to vow to do something they do not know exists.

BOD is a question of salvation.  Can a man be justified prior to receiving water baptism?  We answer yes, and that in such a case, were he to die before achieving water baptism while in this state of justification, such a man would be saved.  This is a distinct question from whether or not such a man is a member of the Church.  Indeed he belongs to her, but Pius XII is not treating this issue in MCC, he is treating visible membership which requires water baptism (among other things).