I really meant for the individual person to ask the question his own way, what I wrote was just my example, anyhow here it is fixed:


QUESTION:

Just tell me one thing, is the discussion about baptism of desire of the catechumen, the catechumen who is on the way to be baptized and gets run over by a truck? Are you one of those few honest BODers that limits his belief to BOD of the catechumen of St. Thomas Aquinas? Or are you just another of the legion of sophists false BODers that believes Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, indeed people in any religion (that have no explicit desire to be Catholic, or baptized, or belief in the Incarnation or the Holy Trinity) can be saved by their belief in a god that rewards, by implicit faith?

I am more interested in getting to the crux of the subject matter. I'd like to know why any individual who is themself sacramentally baptized and self-identifies as one holding the [traditional] Catholic faith, is so willing and adamant about insisting, contrary to defined dogma, contrary to Scripture, contrary to Divine Providence and contrary to right reason, that the sacrament of baptism is not necessary for salvation.

What is it *exactly* that drives these individuals to insist the sacrament is not necessary for salvation?

Having dealt with some genuine catechumens in my life, and even though at the time they only knew very, very little about the faith, the very first thing they wanted before anything else, even before learning anything else about the faith, was to get baptized immediately if not sooner because they feared going to hell if they died without it!

These catechumens were only theological dumb bells who could not possibly be calmed with the idea of a BOD saving them, they wanted the sacrament - period, nothing short of the sacrament would satisfy them. To them, a BOD made no sense and was entirely illogical. See, they knew with absolute certainty, theologically dumb as they were, that if they died before receiving the sacrament, that going to hell was certain.

And after having finally entered the Kingdom of God (on earth), the Church, through the sacrament of baptism, all I will say is that their joy was immense, their joy was full and they found that peace which Christ left for us, His heirs.    

So *exactly* why does any baptized Catholic claim that the sacrament is not necessary for salvation?      

Yes, XavierSem has been exposed.

He kept saying that he believed in the necessity of explicit faith, but then immediately began arguing against it.  When Matto professed his belief in the requirement for explicit faith, including his belief in the possibility of BoD, XavierSem immediately started arguing against him, while I actually praised him.

This completely exposed him and his agenda and his dishonesty.

Lover of Truth used to play the same game, pretend he believed that explicit faith is required, and then trying to undermine that at every turn.  We had a BoDer named Arvinger taking OUR side against Lover of Truth.  Arvinger and Matto are rare examples of sincere Thomistic BoDers.  XaiverSem is a dishonest pretender with an agenda.

It almost looks like XavierSem is schizophrenic. XavierSem uses the same technique as Lover of Truth, bombarding his OP with cut and paste template long lists of BOD of the catechumen quotes while really to teaching salvation by belief in a god that rewards. Lover of Truth turned out to be not too well upstairs. It looks like XavierSem is cracking up quicker.

As a father, I would ask a BODer who was a father as well if they felt at peace if their unbaptized children who were at the age of reason simply had the desire and suddenly died without water baptism. In words, would either actual baptism or BOD put their minds and hearts at rest?

I am an adult convert. I could not rest easily leading up to Easter Vigil until I knew I had received it as well as my wife and kids. My wife had "felt" a supernatural "experience" as soon as it was performed that she cannot describe but knows that she never felt anything like that in her life. It's called the laver of regeneration for a reason. 

From time to time I believe God gives us those graces to remind us of what is actually happening. 

As a father, I would ask a BODer who was a father as well if they felt at peace if their unbaptized children who were at the age of reason simply had the desire and suddenly died without water baptism. In words, would either actual baptism or BOD put their minds and hearts at rest?

I am an adult convert. I could not rest easily leading up to Easter Vigil until I knew I had received it as well as my wife and kids. My wife had "felt" a supernatural "experience" as soon as it was performed that she cannot describe but knows that she never felt anything like that in her life. It's called the laver of regeneration for a reason.

From time to time I believe God gives us those graces to remind us of what is actually happening.

The problem with your question is that the hypothetical unbaptized “child” would be in a state of sin since he only relied on his desire for baptism and never acted upon it.  It seems that he would be tempting God. Those of us who believe in the doctrine of baptism of desire in the orthodox way, would see that the child actually would not be a candidate for BOD since he wouldn’t be properly disposed to make an act of perfect contrition and thus not be in a state of sanctifying grace.

One reason, and Lover of Truth kept repeating it, is that they think the EENS as it is written scares away potential converts. Maybe, the false BODers are cowards themselves, that is why they think others would be scared by the strict interpretation. I, myself would be attracted to it, the strict interpretation because it is for sure, it is dogma, the final word, the truth. Maybe it is because they are cowards afraid of turning off people?  

I don't know LT, I mean these people pushing the idea are not stupid, they are intelligent adults with a working intellect who know how to read and write, many are even priests, bishops and higher authorities whose business it is to proclaim truth without regard to denier's feelings.

On the other thread, I am trying to get Praeter to answer a simple question showing that a BOD contradicts official dogma - but instead of answering, he entirely ignores the question while he dances around it, trying to prove dogma is to be interpreted, as if dogma, of all things, is supposed to be interpreted because it does not really mean what it says.

The very reason that "Or the desire thereof" was transformed into a BOD, is because instead of simply reading it as it is written, they HAVE GOT TO [mis]interpret it or they cannot possibly EVER get a BOD out of it, because what Trent is actually teaching, is condemning those who say justification is obtained without the sacrament or without the desire thereof. That is it, no interpretation, no added exceptions, just what it actually teaches.

So how is it even remotely possible that they take that clear decree, and insist it must be flipped into a BOD, where salvation is obtained without the sacrament, but with the desire thereof? It boggles the mind.








  

God is not the Almighty Terrorizer, and personally, I believe that to seriously consider such a hypothetical situation as a real life example is insulting to God, Who promised that whatever we desire, "whatever we ask necessary to salvation with humility, fervour, perseverance, and other due circuмstances, we may be assured God will grant when it is best for us. If we do not obtain what we pray for, we must suppose it is not conducive to our salvation, in comparison of which all else is of little moment". -Haydock, re: Mat. 7:8

Always remember and understand, that Almighty God provided you with the time to do it, and the water for doing it, and the minister for doing it. Always remember that if God arranged for you to be baptized, it is by the very same Providence He can arrange for anyone else who desires or is willing to receive it and that a BOD denies this truth.

If the child were to be struck by lightning and if you have faith, then you would know with absolute certainty that it would be  on his way home, after being baptized - that is the only way it works with God, always.
 

Its ridiculous, I agree, but its used as a hypothetical to make a point.  

The thing is, I remember your hypothetical situation being asked since I was a child. The answer given was always the same, namely, if that person died on his way to be baptized, it was most likely  because that person was insincere in their desire to be baptized and God knew it. By taking him early, the ever merciful God saved that person additional suffering.

As a trad child, that was the standard answer from relatives, priests and nuns who were still trads. How did that clear answer full of simple reasoning and faith, ever get flipped over to a BOD?

I'm not following.  How is keeping him from baptism saving him from additional suffering?

The damned who have the character of Baptism, AKA the seal, suffer greater punishments.

I did not know this.  I just figured both go to Hell, so both suffer.  Can you provide Church teaching on this?