CathInfo.com

This is where self-proclaimed theologians fail utterly in their logic, since they ignore all the saintly theologians of the Middle Ages (pretending they were idiots to ignore Apostolic tradition) or Saint Alphonsus for that matter. I am inclined to think you believe anyone believing in BOB/BOD is a heretic. If that is so, I'm afraid you better get out of here, since people like that don't last long here!

No, I do not believe that people who believe in explicit BOD/BOB for Catechumens, like the saints taught them, are heretics. The Dimond boys believe that, and they are wrong about that.

I'm not stupid. I'm well aware it is ridiculous to say they are heretical. However, i believe they are erroneous and i don't believe in them.

Oh but you consider yourself a theologian too.

Tell me, do you follow St. Alphonsus when he taught that "This is my Body" is all that is necessary for a valid consecration? Or do you follow St. Thomas where he taught that the BVM was not immaculately conceived?

Apples and oranges! BOD/BOD wasn't controverted till Fr. Feeney, despite assertions to the contrary. St. Thomas Aquinas was giving opinion on a controverted topic, as well as St. Alphonsus. You might as well say the Council of Trent was erroneous, since the Catechism and it clearly proclaims explicit BOD.

Oh I see. How convenient!

My point is, they were clearly wrong, they made mistakes and blunders. And my point is that people like you pretend they are infallible and just because "they said it" we must believe it, no matter if they seem contradictory or if what they use as evidence is proven to be clearly erroneous.

And there are other Saints and Doctors who taught otherwise. What do you say to that?

Oh so now the Council of Trent and the Catechism "clearly proclaimed explicit BOD". Ha!

Explicit? THIS is explicit:

"If anyone shall say that baptism of the spirit, also known as baptism of desire, does not serve as a substitute for the sacrament of water baptism when this cannot be had in a life or death situation, and that baptism of blood, which is the shedding of one's blood while not being baptized yet, does not serve as a substitute for the sacrament as well, and that both baptism of desire and blood take away original sin and impart the indelible mark the sacrament imparts, and that one is made a subject of the Roman Pontiff when these two substitutes really and truly take place: LET HIM BE ANATHEMA."

That's explicit.

But what do we have? "...without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof..."

WOW. That sure is explicit.

But hold on a second. Does that mean that, if i desire baptism, i can do away without ever getting baptized with the sacrament? It says "or the desire thereof"! So that means NO ONE really needs to be baptized at all, because "the desire thereof" suffices!!!

And don't even get me started with the Catechism.

There is ONE ambiguous sentence which seems to teach BOD, without even talking about BOD! But there is statement after statement repeating the necessity of the SACRAMENT of baptism!

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Matter of Baptism ‐ Fitness, p. 165: “Upon this subject pastors can teach in the first place that water, which is always at hand and within the reach of all, was the fittest matter of a Sacrament which is necessary to all for salvation.”

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Comparisons among the Sacraments, p. 154:
The universal and absolute necessity of Baptism our Savior has declared in these words: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God(Jn. 3:5).”

Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism – Necessity of Baptism, pp. 176‐177: “If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the
faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that THE LAW OF BAPTISM, AS ESTABLISHED BY OUR LORD, EXTENDS TO ALL, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5).”

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Definition of Baptism, p. 163: “Unless, says our Lord, a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5); and, speaking of the Church, the Apostle says, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life (Eph. 5:26). Thus it follows that Baptism may be rightly and accurately defined: The Sacrament of regeneration by water in the word.”

Catechism of the Council of Trent, In Case of Necessity Adults May Be Baptized At Once, p. 180: “Sometimes, however, when there exists a just and necessary cause, as in the case of imminent danger of death, Baptism is not to be deferred, particularly if the person to be baptized is well instructed in the mysteries of faith.”



What a bunch of hogwash.

If anything, one should reject the very idea of BOD of desire from what the Catechism teaches!


Utter baloney. All the BOD/BOB defenders would have us believe that they are "de fide" and that the Council of Trent and the Catechism of Trent "explicitly taught them", when there is no specific and clear mention of them AT ALL.

Why wasn't there a specific section entitled "On baptism of spirit and blood" in the Council and in the Catechism?

What about subjection to the Roman Pontiff?

Think again and admit that you cannot force anyone to believe in this.

You ignore the "votum" part of the Council of Trent as all BOD deniers do, or if they pay attention to it, they twist the words to suit their arguments.

"the state of grace cannot be had except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it".

Fr. Marin-Sola states in his theological treaties on the sacraments: “Certain heretics have affirmed that no adult can be saved without receiving baptism itself before he dies, however much he would burn with desire for it, and that it would do him no good unless he were washed with water. Baius (in a proposition condemned by Pope V) also taught that charity was not always joined to the remission of sins.” He continues on to state “Against the second part (baptism of blood) there are hardly any adversaries, save for a few theologians who disagree over the manner in which martyrdom achieves its effect.”