Just as Jansenism was condemned, I believe if we had a Catholic Pope he would have already put out a Bull condemning the other sects.

Another sedevacantist against the strict adherence to EESN?

No wonder  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Ambrose

You will not hear St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Thomas, all doctors of the Church, and countless dogmatic theologians, who have explained Baptism of Desire.

None of these have ever EXPLAINED BoD ... and that's part of the problem.  They merely SAY it exists.  There's no actual theological evidence for it either 1) from a unanimous teaching of the Fathers (there are more who reject it than who hold to it) or 2) explaining how it derives necessarily from other revealed doctrine.

Consequently, there's ZERO proof that this has been revealed, and if it has not been revealed it's nothing more than an exercise in speculative theology.  Period.  End of story.

It's been shown how both St. Alphonsus' and St. Thomas' "explanations" of BoD are completely invalid; their claims that it doesn't remit all the punishment due to sin have to be rejected as erroneous.  So where does it leave their theorizing about BoD?  St. Robert Bellarmine simply said that it "would seem too harsh" to say otherwise but gave no other explanation for why he holds it.

You've got nothing to stand on except for your interpretation of Trent, and my arguments that you're interpretation is wrong are rock solid and you have been unable to touch them.

But the Doctors of the Church do explain Baptism of Desire, it's just that you will not hear them.  For some strange reason you think you know better than them, but that is wrong, you and I are nobodies, the Doctors of the Church are the ones to learn from.

In all of this, it is becoming so difficult to find the doctrine of the fewness of the saved.  

Quote

Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

( Unless a man be born again: By these words our Saviour hath declared the necessity of baptism; and by the word water it is evident that the application of it is necessary with the words. Matt. 28. 19. )

 Amen, amen I say to you: He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber.

Who is it that will not hear Christ?

Baptism of Desire does not conflict with the teaching that few are saved.

But the Doctors of the Church do explain Baptism of Desire, it's just that you will not hear them.

No, they don't.  They simply float it as speculative opinion, based on no solid theological reasoning.

Quote from: Ambrose

But the Doctors of the Church do explain Baptism of Desire, it's just that you will not hear them.

No, they don't.  They simply float it as speculative opinion, based on no solid theological reasoning.

This is false:

We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the Passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” [“flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind [“flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”

http://www.cmri.org/02-baptism_blood-desire_stalph.html

It's just absurd to claim that St Alphonsus could be going around touting a mere "theological opinion" as being de fide without so much a peep from the Chair of Peter.  No doubt exists whatsoever that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood are de fide dogmas of the Catholic Church.  Now, if you want to say, as a theological opinion, that the One and Triune God will, through miraculous means and/or the ministry of angels, provide each and every one of His Elect with the sacramental character of Baptism, then that's fine, but understand, such is your opinion.

P.S.  I have no idea why this post is getting auto-edited; see the above link for the full quote.

This is false:

Where in your citation is there any theological explanation of BoD?  As with EVERY SINGLE BoD assertion I've EVER seen, the theologian in question simply SAYS it exists.  There's absolutely no proof that God has ever willed to save anyone by so-called Baptism of Desire.  There's no proof that this has been revealed by God.  There's no proof that BoD derives from other revealed doctrines.  That's beyond dispute.

Once you have made up BoD, then you start making things up ABOUT BoD.

1) that BoD doesn't remit all temporal punishment due to sin (that's proven erroneous according to Church teaching)

2) that BoD doesn't impart the Christian character upon the soul (well, I say that, if there is a BoD, then it must impart the Christian character because this character is essential for being reborn in and incorporated in Christ).  Who's right?  No one knows because we'd both be just MAKING IT UP.

BOD IS MADE UP OUT OF THIN AIR DUE TO NO OTHER REASON THAN SPECULATION ROOTED IN THIS ARROGANT NOTION THAT WE CAN TELL GOD WHAT IS FAIR AND WHAT ISN'T.

If BoD exists, God has NOT revealed it to us.  If God has willed to save people by this means, then who am I to argue?  But God does not ALLOW BoD due to some imagined impossibility.  That too is heretical.  It would not only be possible but downright easy for God to bring Baptism to ANY of His elect, so it leaves the only remaining possibility that God would actually WILL that some of His elect be saved by BoD.  Why would He do that after instituting the Sacrament of Baptism and solemnly declaring it to be necessary for salvation?  God could raise up "children of Abraham" from the stones around a dying person in order to administer the Sacrament of Baptism.  You hypocritically claim that God cannot be bound by His Sacraments (thereby rejecting Trent's dogmatic teaching on the necessity of the Sacraments) but then claim that God can be bound by "impossibility".

I've given you ample opportunity to retract your heretical rejection of Trent's teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation (even without your having to reject BoD), but you REFUSE to do it, constantly insisting that people can be saved without the Sacrament.  You have been warned but you do not care about your heresy, the Protestant heresy that Trent was condemning.  All you have to do is to say via BoB or BoD people receive the Sacrament in voto rather than to say that they are saved without the Sacrament.  But you won't do it.

You are all just fools and you all promote BoD ultimately because you refuse to accept EENS.

Since most of you don't stop at BoD for catechumens but extend it to all manner of non-Catholics and thereby hypocritically reject the teaching of St. Thomas regarding the need for explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation for salvation, while trumpeting the authority of St. Thomas regarding BoD.

You're not honest.  Underlying your adherence to BoD is a REFUSAL TO ACCEPT EENS.

Why would you deflect attention away from your error that has been condemned by the Church? Then make a false assertion that I deny EENS?

29. Outside of the Church, no grace is granted. Condemned by Pope Clement XI

There are two kinds of grace: Sanctifying and Actual. Notice:

The problem is that there is no Sanctifying Grace outside the Church. It is Baptism only what puts Sanctifying Grace into our souls for the first time. We all are born without it. Sanctifying Grace is a gift and no one has a right to it. That is why infants who die without being baptized cannot go to Heaven because they die without Sanctifying Grace.

The truth is that actual grace, which comes from the Catholic Church, is given to those outside the Catholic Church (non-Catholics) to effect their conversion. Whereas sanctifying grace is given only to those inside the Catholic Church, (validly baptized Catholics).

The attempt to bring out the condemned Jansenist errors by Pope Clement XI in Unigenitus, 1713, is therefore invalid, since there is indeed grace outside the Church, but only actual, not sanctifying.

If I may,

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: GJC

Think about Cornelius in Acts.

You just read into the episode of Cornelius what you want to see there.  It just shows the activity of the Holy Spirit on Cornelius.  If you read Trent on Justification it speaks of the Holy Spirit as disposing the soul to receive Baptism.  This was shown to St. Peter to overcome his tendency towards judaizing.  It is absolutely no proof of BoD.

(1) I did? I was simply showing that grace exists outside of the Church.

(2) Trent clearly teaches that an adult disposed properly, as in Cornelius, and who has received the gifts of faith, hope and charity are perfectly united to Christ and become a living member of His body. This is prior to the sacrament being administered. Does this member have the indelible mark? NO! Do they have the character or seal? YES!

Does this adult deny the sacrament or the necessity of the sacrament? Please don't  say yes.

Does this adult deny that water must be used, or the words of Christ in John 3:5? Please don't say yes.

Open your eyes and understand how Trent reads in chapter XI:

But no one, however much justified, should consider himself exempt.... Do you understand what this means?

(3) Hopefully you can see how Baptism BY Desire (vow, oath, swearing) justifies a man, but not completely, but nonetheless if they died in this state they are saved.

If anyone accuses me of holding this vow (desire) can apply to someone who is invincibly ignorant, or as "they" say an adult who would make the vow if it were know to them (as mostly every traditional priest claims) bears false testimony.

1: Grace exists outside the church to move men to her. Sanctifying grace only exists in the church because the 7 Sacraments are man's only material interface with sanctifying grace.

2: As Ladislaus stated above, Trent does not teach this. You cannot show where it does so.

3: The proposition that justification is had before baptism is the 33rd error of Michael du Bay and as such was condemned by pope St. Pius V in Ex omnibus afflictionibus. (Denzinger 1033). Condemned is that " A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained." So condemned is the error that even the catechumen fulfills the law before baptism and St. Pius added the interjection " which is only received in the laver of baptism" to leave no doubt as to why du Bay's proposition was wrong.


I hope I've helped here,
and please correct me if I am wrong.
God bless,
JoeZ