Traditional Catholic BoDers are nothing but useful idiots in service to the enemies of the Church.

BoD serves no other purpose, especially in this day and age, than to undermine the Faith.  If nothing else, you at least need to wake up and realize that it's absolutely "inopportune" for you to go around trumpeting the idea of BoD in this day and age.  It serves NO GOOD PURPOSE WHATSOEVER.  Instead you need to be EMPHASIZING ... EENS and the NECESSITY OF THE SACRAMENTS and the need for CONVERSION.  Instead you've made BoD your chief crusade, the very concept which has led directly to all the modern errors.

Useful idiots!
 

You have a demonic hatred for Catholic Truth.  The Truth is our purpose.  We don't spin things one way or the other due to the times.  The truth stands on it its own which is why otherwise intelligent people get so frustrating with not being able to respond to our objections.  But I'll give you another chance to prove me wrong.

If you had a choice between death or deny Christ as a catechumen which would you choose.  A Catholic does not have to give it a second thought.  

Remember almost all the people that deny Baptism of "Desire" the Holy Ghost also deny Baptism of Blood.  This would mean a catechuman when confronted with denying Christ or death would have to deny Christ until he got baptized.  

But those who have been deceived by the recent heresy of Feeneyism don't think these things through, they first get brainwashed in the heresy and then proceed to try to brainwash everyone else.  

Can anyone who does not believe in Baptism of Blood explain what a catechuman should do when presented with the choice of "death" or "deny Christ"?  

Baptism of Blood (Florence, 14..):

“The Holy Roman Church believes, professes, and preaches that no one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not just pagans, but also Jews or heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the ‘everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt.25:41), unless before the end of life they are joined to the Church. For union with the body of Christ is of such importance that the sacraments of the Church are helpful to salvation only for those remaining in it; and fasts, almsgiving, other works of piety, and the exercise of Christian warfare bear eternal rewards for them alone. And no one can be saved, no matter how much alms he has given, even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Church[/color][/b]”  

Although there is no a direct condemnation of Baptism of Blood, we certainly find that even martyrdom for Christ cannot save outside the Catholic Church.

Now, give you two guesses why the discussion is not really about Baptism Of  Blood for martyrs, but irremediably fall into BOD. It is because it is the theory of BOD (not BOB) that the modernist liberals have twisted in order to justify invincible ignorance and thus salvation for non-Catholics, making the membership in the Church "abstract" or "relative" to their convenience.

Heresies often occur in pairs, the Monophysites were so repulsed by the heretical Nestorian division of Christ into Two Persons that they refused to admit the true distinction of Natures in His Person, and became heretics themselves. There are several other examples, and Feeneyites and indifferentists like Nestorians and Monophysites are just two false extremes, the laxist and the rigorist, diverging to the right and the left from the narrow path of Catholic orthodoxy as taught by Saints, Doctors, theologians, the Church, Her Catechisms, Ordinary Magisterium, Ordinary and universal Magisterium and Extraordinary Magisterium itself.

The three dogmatic proofs from Trent cannot be overthrown, first, Trent always uses voto to refer to desire causing the sacramental effect (when, for example, it speaks of the reception of penance and the Eucharist in voto), and never to voto as a mere disposition, therefore, this proves that baptism also can be received in voto. Second, penance is said in Trent to be necessary for salvation in those who have fallen as baptism itself is necessary for those who have not been regenerated. But even most Feeneyites concede that penance is necessary in fact or in desire, and this is plainly taught in both the Council and Catechism of Trent anyway, which even Feeneyites cannot deny even if they wanted. But then it would follow that baptism too is necessary in fact or in desire.

There is a third proof (for those like Stubborn who from Sola Denzinger to Sola Trent are so far gone as to insist on Sola Canons) from those very canons which nonetheless refutes the obstinate denial of Catholic doctrine Feeneyites routinely engage in, and it is that Trent clearly says, "Sacraments", in plural, and "desire for them" again in plural, (See Session VII, Canon 4, Denz 847) in its canons thereby emphasizing that desire can cause the sacramental effect of justification for both sacraments. Feeneyites admit this is true of penance, but cannot explain why this is used in the plural, and it cannot be explained, unless it were true for two sacraments, namely baptism and penance alike.

Authoritative Papal teaching after Trent is absolutely unanimous on what is the mind of the Church on this subject.

17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.

If you won't hear it from one of the very greatest Popes in the history of the Catholic Church, a champion against modernism, then you probably won't hear it from any Pope ever. And please let's not hear the discredited claim that St. Pius X did not write this, which is often asserted but never proven, and has been disproven here before, with a scanned photocopy of the original text of this Catechism uploaded, and a link to the Vatican website where St. Pius X evidently confirms his authorship and approval. If Pope St. Pius X's teaching does not suffice, then nothing will.

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Remember almost all the people that deny Baptism of "Desire" the Holy Ghost also deny Baptism of Blood.  This would mean a catechuman when confronted with denying Christ or death would have to deny Christ until he got baptized.  

But those who have been deceived by the recent heresy of Feeneyism don't think these things through, they first get brainwashed in the heresy and then proceed to try to brainwash everyone else.  

Can anyone who does not believe in Baptism of Blood explain what a catechuman should do when presented with the choice of "death" or "deny Christ"?  

Baptism of Blood (Florence, 14..):

“

Quote

The Holy Roman Church believes, professes, and preaches that no one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not just pagans, but also Jews or heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the ‘everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt.25:41), unless before the end of life they are joined to the Church. For union with the body of Christ is of such importance that the sacraments of the Church are helpful to salvation only for those remaining in it; and fasts, almsgiving, other works of piety, and the exercise of Christian warfare bear eternal rewards for them alone. And no one can be saved, no matter how much alms he has given, even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Church

[/i][/color][/b]”  

Although there is no a direct condemnation of Baptism of Blood, we certainly find that even martyrdom for Christ cannot save outside the Catholic Church.

Now, give you two guesses why the discussion is not really about Baptism Of  Blood for martyrs, but irremediably fall into BOD. It is because it is the theory of BOD (not BOB) that the modernist liberals have twisted in order to justify invincible ignorance and thus salvation for non-Catholics, making the membership in the Church "abstract" or "relative" to their convenience.

_______________________________________________________

"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 [aggregati] to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for 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 produce 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 Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441, ex cathedra
_________________________________________________________

    Abide - To remain; continue; stay.

    Aggregati - collect, include, group, implicate; (cause to) flock/join together, attach.

    Persevered - Persisted in; remained constant.

Look closely at this paragraph immediately above and one sees two basic parts, the first that teaches 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" (in other words, dealing with those who are outside the Church, and the second, "that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for 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 produce 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," which deals with those who are [already] inside the Church. Notice that it is clearly referring to the second part (those inside the Church) when it uses the word "persevered" to specify what they must do. To sacrifice all and give any manner of alms etc. but then fail to persevere within the Church is to be in that category in which "nobody can be saved." Only the first part of this paragraph pertains to those who are outside the Church (and hence required to seek baptism), and the only condition it places upon them is to be "joined to the Church before the end of their lives." Since this does not in any manner address what it takes to be "joined to the Church" it in no way excludes whatever means God may elect to use in some specific case where water baptism was not obtainable but nevertheless sought.

http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/13Jun/jun3ftt.htm

I have responded as clearly as possible to your good objection.  If you can't see the distinction being made here then.  Well, hopefully you can see the distinction made even if you do not admit to it.  Legitimate theologians easily make the distinction.  Others don't.  Left to your own wiles, well take a look around.  

No one can come out and say if I was a catecuмen I would deny Christ rather than die before being baptized?  Good.  One who does so makes water more important than Christ.  

Carry on.   :cheers:

To make it even more clear the Bull teaches that a Catholic who does not persevere in the Catholic Church cannot be saved even if he shed his blood for Christ.  It does not deny BOB in regards to those "joined" to the Church either by desire or as members.  A member has no need of BOB to be saved, though one "joined" to her through desire would benefit greatly from BOB.  This is clear to the objective observer.  In fact the Church teaches that BOB is a more perfect form of the one baptism than sacramental baptism as it most perfectly imitates Christ.  

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Lover of Truth

STUBBORN:

Quote

Council of Trent said:


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


While this confuses you, it does not confuse those who read it for what it teaches.

LOVER OF TRUTH:

Quote

Again we must suppose Saint Liguori and Pius XII and all the others who were aware of the above quote were confused since they taught BOB/D but Stubborn is not.

Can you go out on a limb Stubborn and claim you understand the above quote better than Saint Ligouri and Pope Pius XII?

Yes yes LoT, we all know you believe saints are above infallible decrees - what else is new? You do not even know what infallibility is.

Also, why are you mentioning Pius XII when you believe papal teachings cannot be understood unless some theologian interprets it for you?

Will you ever start a thread and champion defending the absolute necessity of the sacraments unto salvation?  No, because you who despise the necessity of the sacraments cannot defend that which you despise - any more than I could possibly defend salvation via NSAA.
That should be your clue that you are lost and to tell you the truth, I am amazed that after more than six months now, you still cannot admit that it is an impossibility for you to actually defend the necessity of the sacraments. It demonstrates how strong your dishonesty reigns within you.

Answer the following questions Stubborn, if you have any integrability:

1.  I  When did I say the saints are above infallible decrees?

2.  When did I say papal teachings cannot be understood unless some theologian interprets it for you?

3.  When did I say I despise the sacraments?

4.  Do you understand the quote from the Council of Trent better than Liguori or Pius XII did?  

The above post shows that you are willing to make up things in order to validate your false beliefs.  I'll recant if you can answer the above questions and show that I claim the saints [teachings] are above infallible decrees, that papal teachings cannot be understood unless some theologian interprets it for me [of course Stubborn doesn't need anyone to interpret anything for him as he has a better understanding of theology than Aquinas, Bellarmine and Ligouri], show where I said that I "despise" the sacraments and either admit or deny that you [believe you] understand Trent better than Ligouri.

Carry on.   :cheers:

That you will not understand clear teaching is obvious. That the saints answer to Trent and not the other way around is something you might understand if you understood what infallibility is.

As Trent's catechism teaches: "For he who makes no use of what is really useful and necessary must be supposed to despise it.."

You preach the sacraments are of no use, that the desire for them is all anyone (except you of course) needs. Therefore, per Trent, we must suppose you despise the sacraments. The danger lies in the fact that you and all other NSAAers refuse to openly admit it.

Here is another chance to prove you intellectual honesty Stubborn:


1.  I  When did I say the saints are above infallible decrees?

2.  When did I say papal teachings cannot be understood unless some theologian interprets it for you?

3.  When did I say I despise the sacraments?

4.  Do you understand the quote from the Council of Trent better than Liguori or Pius XII did?  

Cat got your tongue?  

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Ladislaus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

Quote

...useful idiot is a term for people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they are not fully aware of, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause.

The term is rightly considered uncharitable.

I'm just speaking the truth, and the term useful idiot has become a very technical term to describe someone who think's he's fighting an enemy but is really enlisted in the enemy's cause and is being used by the enemy for their own ends.

Your dozens of articles promoting BoD, which is THE weapon the enemy has used to undermine the Faith, is only serving their purposes.

Where are your articles defending EENS and the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation?

I stand by the charge.  Whether you consider it "charitable" or not, it's the truth, and sometimes truth is charity.  Sometimes strong language is required to snap someone out of the intellectual stupor they've fallen into.

Have you admonished SJB (my fellow "Feeneyite") about his repeated (as in dozens of times) use of the term idiot against people?  Didn't think so.  It's much more harsh than the term "useful" idiot, which is a technical term.

SJB is not a Feeneyite and would be more likely to properly and accurately apply the term.  I have no doubt that useful idiots exist.