Author Topic: Is baptism optional? (Read 6968 times)

McCork · « **Reply #15 on:** January 31, 2016, 11:57:36 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Baltimore Catechism #3 Fourteenth Lesson: On Baptism
Q. 631. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is necessary to salvation, because without it we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Saint Paul said to the Ephesians; One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Quote from: Baltimore Catechism #3 Fourteenth Lesson: On Baptism
Q. 644. How many kinds of Baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of Baptism: 1.Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.

In the original Americanist Baltimore catechism of 1894 it appears the word "three". The way it was worded in the original catechism is actually heretical, so it was modified in later editions. There are NOT "three baptisms" and never have been.

This is the original Catechism of 1894 which contained the word "three" as shown here:

http://www.boston-catholic-journal.com/baltimore_catechism.pdf

; but it was plainly heretical and the revised editions (1941) do not longer have the word "three":

http://www.catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/

Yet the "traditionalists" are not content with these revisions and still want to claim there are "three" baptisms. Traditionalists in name only, that is.

There is not the slightest historical evidence that the edit of the word "three" was because anyone considered it heretical . It is YOU Feeneyites who claim that. And the Catechism you refer to still refers to those three things

1. There is the Sacrament of Baptism.
2. There is baptism of desire.
3. There is baptism of blood.

The three are still there, whether they actually use the word "three".

McCork · « **Reply #16 on:** January 31, 2016, 12:14:27 PM »

To Laszlo, the Feeneyites vary a little in the amount of errors they profess, but there is one common denominator among them. You happen to be not as much of a mess as Stubborn is. You at least believe in baptism of desire for those who explicitly want to be Catholic

The common error is that you ALL believe that the Church can solemnly teach something, and then later, Saints, or popes, or theologians, or Catechisms can be contrary to that previous solemn teaching...and for nobody in the world to have noticed. Not even theologians have EVER been allowed to call into question something previously solemnly taught.

I am sorry, but the Feeneyite stand, of whatever flavor, is devastating to the Catholic Faith. It is impossible.

Cantarella · « **Reply #17 on:** January 31, 2016, 12:18:11 PM »

Quote from: McCork

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Baltimore Catechism #3 Fourteenth Lesson: On Baptism
Q. 631. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is necessary to salvation, because without it we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Saint Paul said to the Ephesians; One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Quote from: Baltimore Catechism #3 Fourteenth Lesson: On Baptism
Q. 644. How many kinds of Baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of Baptism: 1.Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.

A pure Protestant move - private interpretation. You quote scripture for a meaning that the Church does not give it. The Church is above Scripture and tells us what it means and doesn't mean. The Catechism tells us what it means, and the Church approved of it.

Quote from: Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (29 June, 1943)

Consequently, as in the real assembly of the faithful there can be only one Body, one Lord, and one Baptism...

Denz. 2286: (From the Encyclical, "Mystici Corporis," June 29, 1943)

"Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith, and have not, to their misfortune, separated themselves from the structure of the Body, or for very serious sins have not been excluded by lawful authority. "For in one spirit," says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free" [ 1 Cor. 12:13]. So, just as in the true community of the faithful of Christ there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith [cf. Eph. 4:5]; and so he who refuses to hear the Church, as the Lord bids "let him be as the heathen and publican" [cf. Matt. 18:17 ]. Therefore, those who are divided from one another in faith or in government cannot live in the unity of such a body, and in its one divine spirit."

Stubborn · « **Reply #18 on:** January 31, 2016, 12:18:48 PM »

Quote from: McCork

Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Baltimore Catechism #3 Fourteenth Lesson: On Baptism
Q. 631. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is necessary to salvation, because without it we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Saint Paul said to the Ephesians; One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Quote from: Baltimore Catechism #3 Fourteenth Lesson: On Baptism
Q. 644. How many kinds of Baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of Baptism: 1.Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.

In the original Americanist Baltimore catechism of 1894 it appears the word "three". The way it was worded in the original catechism is actually heretical, so it was modified in later editions. There are NOT "three baptisms" and never have been.

This is the original Catechism of 1894 which contained the word "three" as shown here:

http://www.boston-catholic-journal.com/baltimore_catechism.pdf

; but it was plainly heretical and the revised editions (1941) do not longer have the word "three":

http://www.catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/

Yet the "traditionalists" are not content with these revisions and still want to claim there are "three" baptisms. Traditionalists in name only, that is.

There is not the slightest historical evidence that the edit of the word "three" was because anyone considered it heretical . It is YOU Feeneyites who claim that. And the Catechism you refer to still refers to those three things

1. There is the Sacrament of Baptism.
2. There is baptism of desire.
3. There is baptism of blood.

The three are still there, whether they actually use the word "three".

Sorry, St. Paul disagrees with you.

What St. Paul said is infallible, there really is only one baptism, not three..........but then again, when he said it, he did not have the benefit of the teaching in the Baltimore Catechism to set him straight. Looks like St. Paul is just another darned old feeneyite.

BTW, here is yet another question that no BODer has EVER been able to answer...........Who was the first person ever to ask; "How many baptisms are there?"

McCork · « **Reply #19 on:** January 31, 2016, 12:22:21 PM »

Quote from: McCork

To Laszlo, the Feeneyites vary a little in the amount of errors they profess, but there is one common denominator among them. You happen to be not as much of a mess as Stubborn is. You at least believe in baptism of desire for those who explicitly want to be Catholic

The common error is that you ALL believe that the Church can solemnly teach something, and then later, Saints, or popes, or theologians, or Catechisms can be contrary to that previous solemn teaching...and for nobody in the world to have noticed. Not even theologians have EVER been allowed to call into question something previously solemnly taught.

I am sorry, but the Feeneyite stand, of whatever flavor, is devastating to the Catholic Faith. It is impossible.

bump

Stubborn · « **Reply #20 on:** January 31, 2016, 12:24:26 PM »

Quote from: McCork

Quote from: McCork
To Laszlo, the Feeneyites vary a little in the amount of errors they profess, but there is one common denominator among them. You happen to be not as much of a mess as Stubborn is. You at least believe in baptism of desire for those who explicitly want to be Catholic

The common error is that you ALL believe that the Church can solemnly teach something, and then later, Saints, or popes, or theologians, or Catechisms can be contrary to that previous solemn teaching...and for nobody in the world to have noticed. Not even theologians have EVER been allowed to call into question something previously solemnly taught.

I am sorry, but the Feeneyite stand, of whatever flavor, is devastating to the Catholic Faith. It is impossible.

bump

You do not even profess the Catholic faith, so you saying that the dogmatic decrees are subject to saints, catechisms and theologians only demonstrates it.

McCork · « **Reply #21 on:** January 31, 2016, 12:51:01 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: McCork
Quote from: McCork
To Laszlo, the Feeneyites vary a little in the amount of errors they profess, but there is one common denominator among them. You happen to be not as much of a mess as Stubborn is. You at least believe in baptism of desire for those who explicitly want to be Catholic

The common error is that you ALL believe that the Church can solemnly teach something, and then later, Saints, or popes, or theologians, or Catechisms can be contrary to that previous solemn teaching...and for nobody in the world to have noticed. Not even theologians have EVER been allowed to call into question something previously solemnly taught.

I am sorry, but the Feeneyite stand, of whatever flavor, is devastating to the Catholic Faith. It is impossible.

bump

You do not even profess the Catholic faith, so you saying that the dogmatic decrees are subject to saints, catechisms and theologians only demonstrates it.

I did NOT say that dogmatic decrees are subject to anyone.

Read it again, this time more slowly.

Stubborn · « **Reply #22 on:** January 31, 2016, 01:41:28 PM »

Quote from: McCork

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: McCork
Quote from: McCork
To Laszlo, the Feeneyites vary a little in the amount of errors they profess, but there is one common denominator among them. You happen to be not as much of a mess as Stubborn is. You at least believe in baptism of desire for those who explicitly want to be Catholic

The common error is that you ALL believe that the Church can solemnly teach something, and then later, Saints, or popes, or theologians, or Catechisms can be contrary to that previous solemn teaching...and for nobody in the world to have noticed. Not even theologians have EVER been allowed to call into question something previously solemnly taught.

I am sorry, but the Feeneyite stand, of whatever flavor, is devastating to the Catholic Faith. It is impossible.

bump

You do not even profess the Catholic faith, so you saying that the dogmatic decrees are subject to saints, catechisms and theologians only demonstrates it.

I did NOT say that dogmatic decrees are subject to anyone.

Read it again, this time more slowly.

No, we do not believe that the Church can solemnly define a dogma, then have anyone assign a different meaning to that dogma - whoever does is in error no matter who it is. The fact that it has been tolerated and not *yet* been condemned outright does not change anything.

This is because it is the dogma itself which is infallible forever, not any one's misinterpretation of it.

V1 decreed that dogmas are to be understood as declared and that and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding........well, every time a catechism or theologian reduce the dogma to a meaningless formula, WHAT ARE THEY DOING? - Answer, they explain it away under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding! IOW, they do precisely what V1 said not to do.

Because V1 infallibly decreed that dogma is "to be understood as once declared", any time anyone, no matter who it is, even if it were an angel - try to say it means anything other that it actually says, they are wrong.

Per V1, when Trent decrees that sacraments are necessary unto salvation - that is what it means. When they say the sacrament is not optional - that is what it means no matter what catechisms, theologians or saints say.

It is the dogma itself that is infallible and dogma is not subject to theological refinement but itself is the formal object of Divine and Catholic Faith. To say, “dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it,” as taught in Suprema Haec, is to claim for the theologian an authority that belongs to the dogma itself. This is Modernist teaching.

When this modernist proposition is accepted, there is no dogmatic declaration that can be taken as a definitive expression of our faith for it will always be open to theological refinement hence reduced to a meaningless formula.

McCork · « **Reply #23 on:** January 31, 2016, 04:50:47 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: McCork
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: McCork
Quote from: McCork
To Laszlo, the Feeneyites vary a little in the amount of errors they profess, but there is one common denominator among them. You happen to be not as much of a mess as Stubborn is. You at least believe in baptism of desire for those who explicitly want to be Catholic

The common error is that you ALL believe that the Church can solemnly teach something, and then later, Saints, or popes, or theologians, or Catechisms can be contrary to that previous solemn teaching...and for nobody in the world to have noticed. Not even theologians have EVER been allowed to call into question something previously solemnly taught.

I am sorry, but the Feeneyite stand, of whatever flavor, is devastating to the Catholic Faith. It is impossible.

bump

You do not even profess the Catholic faith, so you saying that the dogmatic decrees are subject to saints, catechisms and theologians only demonstrates it.

I did NOT say that dogmatic decrees are subject to anyone.

Read it again, this time more slowly.

No, we do not believe that the Church can solemnly define a dogma, then have anyone assign a different meaning to that dogma - whoever does is in error no matter who it is. The fact that it has been tolerated and not *yet* been condemned outright does not change anything.

This is because it is the dogma itself which is infallible forever, not any one's misinterpretation of it.

V1 decreed that dogmas are to be understood as declared and that and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding........well, every time a catechism or theologian reduce the dogma to a meaningless formula, WHAT ARE THEY DOING? - Answer, they explain it away under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding! IOW, they do precisely what V1 said not to do.

Because V1 infallibly decreed that dogma is "to be understood as once declared", any time anyone, no matter who it is, even if it were an angel - try to say it means anything other that it actually says, they are wrong.

Per V1, when Trent decrees that sacraments are necessary unto salvation - that is what it means. When they say the sacrament is not optional - that is what it means no matter what catechisms, theologians or saints say.

It is the dogma itself that is infallible and dogma is not subject to theological refinement but itself is the formal object of Divine and Catholic Faith. To say, “dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it,” as taught in Suprema Haec, is to claim for the theologian an authority that belongs to the dogma itself. This is Modernist teaching.

When this modernist proposition is accepted, there is no dogmatic declaration that can be taken as a definitive expression of our faith for it will always be open to theological refinement hence reduced to a meaningless formula.

You still don't get it for some reason.

In 1950 when the Assumption was solemnly defined, immediately following the definition in that encyclical it said:

"if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."

Since, 1950, no theologian, even writing speculatively for other theologians, would ever be tolerated calling that solemn teaching into doubt. He would be jumped on immediately. It the way the Church has always worked.

Feeneyites believe against the infallibility of the learning church that somehow there was solemnly defined teaching, and then there came out teaching contrary to it, for the general public, and NOBODY in the Church noticed, even after the Popes scrutinized the works and allowed them to be used to teach the clergy and faithful. NOBODY noticed. That is absolutely impossible, and heretical. It undermines the holiness of the divine Church Christ founded. But. that is what Feeneyites do, nevertheless.

Desmond · « **Reply #24 on:** January 31, 2016, 05:53:16 PM »

McCork,
you still haven't addressed my posts where I try to show how your BODomania in fact makes the Sacrament optional.

Secondly:

Quote from: McCork

You still don't get it for some reason.

In 1950 when the Assumption was solemnly defined, immediately following the definition in that encyclical it said:

"if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."

Yes. And that's what you should stop doing. But you do, ergo you have fallen away completely from the Faith. You condemn yourself by your own words.

Quote

Since, 1950, no theologian, even writing speculatively for other theologians, would ever be tolerated calling that solemn teaching into doubt. He would be jumped on immediately. It the way the Church has always worked.

You mean in the whopping 8 years between the dogmatisation and the general apostasy with the election of John XXIII as Nope?
My oh my.

Quote

Feeneyites believe against the infallibility of the learning church that somehow there was solemnly defined teaching,

There was solemnly defined teaching.

Quote

and then there came out teaching contrary to it, for the general public, and NOBODY in the Church noticed, even after the Popes scrutinized the works and allowed them to be used to teach the clergy and faithful. NOBODY noticed.

What teaching are you referring to?

BOD for catechumens?

Be specific please.

Catechism edition, region, year of adoption, futher changes, approvation etc.

Quote

That is absolutely impossible, and heretical.

Even if these catechism contained error, it would not be impossible.
Let alone heretical (??). You're sounding like desperate Counterchurch apologists who derive dogma from theological speculation upon other dogmas etc. etc. so you end up with all sorts of impossibilities... debunked by reality.

Quote

It undermines the holiness of the divine Church Christ founded.

Does it? Let's use your rebuke to Cantarella's interregnum duration nonsense applying it to this case.
There are many Catechisms banned in the Index Librorum Prohibitorum throughout the ages.

Now, a Catechism containing error/heresy is published:
after how many years it becomes "impossible"? "Heretical"?

Is it 5 years? 10? 15? 150?

What if the Dioceses of Matutu land published a Catechism in the 16th century.
Being in the Amazon and all, they only could submit it to Rome after 5 years with great cost and hardship.
The Vatican, being swamped in both earthly and ecclesiastical matters, takes another 3 years to examine the book.

Then, finally, a nuncio is sent to Bishop Matutu of Matutuland, taking 2 years to reach them.

The Matutu diocese has been teaching error/heresy for a whole of 10 years.

Has the Church defected? Yes/No, why not?

Quote

But. that is what Feeneyites do, nevertheless.

I suppose the first step in your rehabilitation would be to stop using the epithet with no rhyme or reason.

What does it even mean?
Everyone not accepting that BOD+invincible ignorance apply to whoever anyone could possibly fancy to?

Is one a Feeneyite to oppose BOD for already damned people? Demons? Chimpanzees?

The second step would be to write down what your own understanding of BODomania exactly is.

And then compare it to your favourite BOD-friendly sources.

Then, once you have a clear picture of the situation, thirdly try to understand if a)you are wrong, or b)they were/are, or c)both are when compared to the Dogma of the necessity of the Sacraments upon salvation.

Cantarella · « **Reply #25 on:** January 31, 2016, 11:00:39 PM »

McCork,

Do you deny the following matter of dogmatic Faith (de fide) from the Council of Vienne?

Quote from: Council of Vienne (1311-12)

Besides, only one Baptism which regenerates all who are baptized in Christ MUST be faithfully confessed by all, just as there is “one God and one faith” [Eph. 4:5], which is celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Denzinger 428)

Yes or No.

Stubborn · « **Reply #26 on:** February 01, 2016, 04:50:47 AM »

Quote from: McCork

You still don't get it for some reason.

In 1950 when the Assumption was solemnly defined, immediately following the definition in that encyclical it said:

"if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."

I get it, you don't. Why is it that you cannot see that they say the same thing after all the canons and dogmatic decrees when they say "let him be anathema."
"If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

Quote from: McCork

Since, 1950, no theologian, even writing speculatively for other theologians, would ever be tolerated calling that solemn teaching into doubt. He would be jumped on immediately. It the way the Church has always worked.

If some prominent theologian(s) or publication were to come out and outright deny the Assumption ever occurred or explicitly rejected the dogmatic decree, THEN a quick condemnation might be expected.

Quote from: McCork

Feeneyites believe against the infallibility of the learning church that somehow there was solemnly defined teaching, and then there came out teaching contrary to it, for the general public, and NOBODY in the Church noticed, even after the Popes scrutinized the works and allowed them to be used to teach the clergy and faithful. NOBODY noticed. That is absolutely impossible, and heretical. It undermines the holiness of the divine Church Christ founded. But. that is what Feeneyites do, nevertheless.

You and all avid BODers share the same self inflicted malady, namely, rejecting the supreme authority of the dogmatic decrees.

Why do you care that the Church has yet to correct the error *again*? She already corrected it at least once at Trent, how many times do you think She needs to infallibly correct the same error anyway?

What you *really* want, is for the Church to dogmatically define a BOD, which shows you actually do understand the supremacy of dogmatic decrees, but YOU reject them because YOU want the Church to do what YOU want, ie condemn a BOD if it is such an error.

But She already did that, YOU will not accept it because it does not agree with YOU - and so if She does it again, why would YOU think it will change for YOU the second or third time when YOU did not accept it the first time?

McCork · « **Reply #27 on:** February 02, 2016, 01:35:07 PM »

I think you Feeneyites are heretics. You Feeneyites think I am a heretic.

Haven't both been well-established already? Yes, they have. There is no need to repeat them as a response just so you can avoid really responding to what I said. You are clearly avoiding what I am saying. Your stand has necessary logical consequences that you must face.

Once something is solemnly defined, those who call it into doubt completely fall away from the Catholic Faith. Yet, I am presenting things here that were fully accepted since Trent and other previous solemn teachings, with ANY controversy in the least. If you Feeneyites call me a heretic, then you MUST call all those people heretics where I got my things from.

You cannot exonerate St. Alphonsus who taught implicit desire and condemn me for the same. You cannot exonerate the pope and his counsels who scrutinized his writings and solemnly approved without the slightest hint that what St. Alphonse's said was dangerous or against previous solemn teaching,... and then condemn me for the same. I can go on and on about what was spread purposely with approval among the clergy and laity at large without the slightest controversy, yet you excuse them and condemn me?

Yes, you Feeneyites are heretics. To believe the Church could even tolerate an opinion that called into question previous solemn teachings, and for it be approved for wide use, and never even caused a stir.

You try to mutilate the meaning of what Pope Pius IX said about arrogantly limiting the mercy of God for those who don't know the true religion, and you cannot produce a shred of evidence that your mutilated misinterpretation existed after that Pope published his encyclical. You destroy the very divinity and holiness of the Church by doing this. The Church cannot approve a catechism damaging to the faith and be unaware that even for a year the children were getting their faith destroyed by it. Never happened, and never will happen. You believe in a fallible Church.

The further ramifications are that Feeneyites must today still wonder what else could be in the long-approved catechisms that have been destroying faith and nobody yet has noticed it!

It is absolutely and absurdly against a "holy" divinely founded Church.

Cantarella · « **Reply #28 on:** February 02, 2016, 01:41:15 PM »

Respond the question McCork. Don't hit and run!

Do you deny the following matter of dogmatic Faith (de fide) from the Council of Vienne?

Quote from: Council of Vienne (1311-12)

Besides, only one Baptism which regenerates all who are baptized in Christ MUST be faithfully confessed by all, just as there is “one God and one faith” [Eph. 4:5], which is celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Denzinger 428)

Yes or No.

Stubborn · « **Reply #29 on:** February 02, 2016, 02:00:16 PM »

Quote from: McCork

I think you Feeneyites are heretics. You Feeneyites think I am a heretic.

Haven't both been well-established already? Yes, they have. There is no need to repeat them as a response just so you can avoid really responding to what I said. You are clearly avoiding what I am saying. Your stand has necessary logical consequences that you must face.

Once something is solemnly defined, those who call it into doubt completely fall away from the Catholic Faith. Yet, I am presenting things here that were fully accepted since Trent and other previous solemn teachings, with ANY controversy in the least. If you Feeneyites call me a heretic, then you MUST call all those people heretics where I got my things from.

You cannot exonerate St. Alphonsus who taught implicit desire and condemn me for the same. You cannot exonerate the pope and his counsels who scrutinized his writings and solemnly approved without the slightest hint that what St. Alphonse's said was dangerous or against previous solemn teaching,... and then condemn me for the same. I can go on and on about what was spread purposely with approval among the clergy and laity at large without the slightest controversy, yet you excuse them and condemn me?

Have you ever read The Glories of Mary by St. Alphonsus? In it he says least a few times that no one gets to heaven unless they accept Mary as their mother.

St. Alphonsus said it, so it must be infallible - right? Right? Now go ahead and make that fit in with salvation via NSAA.

Read LoE's signature, St. Thomas Aquinas admitted he could have been wrong about it, but you won't admit he could be wrong - hell, you said Our Lord was wrong. St. Augustine rejected salvation via NSAA, Trent defined the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation. None of that is good enough for you.

I do not know what faith you profess, but you've not changed since posting as Nado, whatever faith you profess, it's more prot than most Prot's.

Here is a 60 second youtube demonstrating a BOD as taught by you - it has EXPLICIT contrition and EXPLICIT confession of Jesus as his Lord, which is above and beyond the standard BOD. The only thing missing is the unforeseen accidental death.