Author Topic: Is baptism optional? (Read 6950 times)

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #30 on:** February 02, 2016, 02:39:58 PM »

I have not gone through this thread but the title if it is meant to indicate that infallible teaching of BOB/D means that when a potential convert wants to join the Church legitimate authority says "great you can get Sacramentally baptized or just desire it and your in. You can now receive all the other Sacraments as a member of the Catholic Church". That is a shameless misrepresentation of the infallible teaching on BOB/D.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #31 on:** February 02, 2016, 02:41:13 PM »

Sacramental Baptism is necessary with a necessity of precept and a necessity of means BTW. Though not with intrinsic necessity.

Stubborn · « **Reply #32 on:** February 02, 2016, 02:49:40 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I have not gone through this thread but the title if it is meant to indicate that infallible teaching of BOB/D means that when a potential convert wants to join the Church legitimate authority says "great you can get Sacramentally baptized or just desire it and your in. You can now receive all the other Sacraments as a member of the Catholic Church". That is a shameless misrepresentation of the infallible teaching on BOB/D.

Please post the dogmatic decree for the infallible teaching on a BOB/D.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #33 on:** February 02, 2016, 03:40:09 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Sacramental Baptism is necessary with a necessity of precept and a necessity of means BTW. Though not with intrinsic necessity.

Not this "intrinsic necessity" crap again.

Matto · « **Reply #34 on:** February 02, 2016, 03:48:24 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Sacramental Baptism is necessary with a necessity of precept and a necessity of means BTW. Though not with intrinsic necessity.

Although I currently believe in BOD (though I do not understand how it works. It is a mystery to me.) I think this is crap. It just creates a new meaning for the word necessary so that words no longer mean what they say plainly.

McCork · « **Reply #35 on:** February 02, 2016, 05:30:02 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?

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.

Once again the Feeneyites avoid addressing what I just presented. The ploy is to ask me if I believe previously solemnly defined dogma. Of course I do! What I just wrote mentioned that previously solemnly defined dogma in the first place! One wonders if they really even read what I wrote.

The whole point is that the previously defined dogma must be RECONCILED with what has been taught by the magisterium since then. But the Feeneyites don't do that. They first excuse all the hundreds of years and millions of Catholics who believed then as I do now, but when it comes to me believing as they did, I am condemned as a heretic! Truth is stranger than fiction folks.

Then the Feeneyites fall in the logical fallacy of begging the question: "You cannot be right because our position is right." That is what it amounts to. They simply will NOT listen to the fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE for generations of Catholic laity and clergy to be fed danger to their faith by the Church, and for nobody to recognize it. I.M.P.O.S.S.I.B.L.E. That is why the Feeneyites are heretics. Their position destroys the divinity of the Church, and they avoid like the plague this ramification of their belief.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #36 on:** February 02, 2016, 07:44:49 PM »

McCork, I need to be blunt. You are a complete idiot. Your posts are nothing but a tapestry of lies, distortions, and false assumptions.

Most Feeneyites do not consider BoD to be heresy. That position would be limited to the Dimondites. Father Feeney did not consider it to be heresy. You are a heretic on the grounds of Pelagianism and for denying the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation -- both of those are indeed heresy. There's a Catholic way to understand BoD, but you hide behind the generic concept of a BoD to mask your heresies. You are a depraved, foaming-at-the mouth pertinacious heretic, McCork ... in addition to being an idiot. You have no business discussing theology since you clearly wouldn't know a distinction if it hit you in the face.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #37 on:** February 02, 2016, 07:53:49 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Sacramental Baptism is necessary with a necessity of precept and a necessity of means BTW. Though not with intrinsic necessity.

Although I currently believe in BOD (though I do not understand how it works. It is a mystery to me.) I think this is crap. It just creates a new meaning for the word necessary so that words no longer mean what they say plainly.

Indeed it's crap. EXTRINSIC necessity simply means that it's a necessity imposed by God rather than being inherent in the nature of the thing itself. But LoT uses this to essentially undercut the definition of "necessity of means" and distort it into a flavor of "necessity of precept". OF COURSE God isn't bound by the Sacraments. That's not the issue at all; it's just a distraction from the EENS-denying Pelagians. What's at issue is what God has bound US by. God has decided that there will not be any salvation without the Sacraments. Trent DOGMATICALLY taught this. Any Catholic understanding of BoD MUST entail having the Sacrament of Baptism be the instrumental cause of all initial justification. In a BoD scenario, if one believes in that speculation, it's the Sacrament causing the justification by acting through the votum; it is NOT the good disposition of the subject which effects justification. Post-Trent theologians (such as St. Robert Bellarmine) were very careful to state that such people would receive the Sacrament of Baptism in voto rather than that they were justified without the Sacrament. Anything else is absolutely NOTHING short of Pelagian heresy and also a heretical denial that the Sacraments are necessary by a necessity of means for salvation. I've explained to LoT several times now how a Catholic must understand BoD, but he absolutely REFUSES to accept it.

Desmond · « **Reply #38 on:** February 02, 2016, 08:05:29 PM »

@Lover of Truth:
your distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic necessity is bunk/meaningless.

Once you start to factor it in, then nothing is intrinsically necessary or even true anymore. It is the ultimate deconstruction of reality.

God's nature itself might be deconstructed indirectly as dogmas&Scripture are after all only extrinsically true by means of the authority certifying them being equally as uncertain.

There are really no limits.

@McCork

I'm not responding to you no more because you've shown yourself to be unreliable, not bothering to even respond out of courtesy to other people's answers, in favour of flaming, rambling, accusatory posts. So is it really worth spending time addressing your points?

Stubborn · « **Reply #39 on:** February 03, 2016, 03:45:00 AM »

Quote from: McCork

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

Why would anyone not think you're a heretic when you prove it consistently...........

Quote from: McCork

Quote from: ihsv

Can a man enter the Kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Holy Ghost?

Don't pretend as if your question is not based directly on Scripture.

It is obvious from my messages that the answer to your question is "yes".

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #40 on:** February 03, 2016, 05:36:29 AM »

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #41 on:** February 03, 2016, 06:05:09 AM »

If anyone has asked me questions that I have not responded to please ask them here. I do not comb through each thread. Though I do try to respond to any legitimate question directed toward me. Obviously I do not and will not respond to general comments about my statements that agree or disagree not directed to me.

It is sad that people that call themselves Catholics call Catholic teaching "crap". But here it is for those that are interested:

Baptism of water (sacramental Baptism) is necessary with a "necessity of precept" as well as with a "necessity of means". "Necessity of means" can be necessary with absolute or relative necessity. Sacramental Baptism is necessary with a necessity of means that is relative, not absolute or intrinsic. This means Sacramental Baptism or its substitute(s) baptism of blood and baptism of "desire", properly known as the baptism of the Holy Ghost or of "repentance" is absolutely or intrinsically necessary for salvation to be possible. That is no one at all can be saved apart from sacramental Baptism or its two replacements i.e. baptism of desire or baptism of blood.

The Catholic Encyclopedia shows how faith is necessary with an absolute necessity of means while sacramental baptism is necessary with a relative necessity of means as follows:

Quote

Again, in relation to the means necessary to salvation theologians divide necessity into necessity of means and necessity of precept. In the first case (necessity of means) the means is so necessary to salvation that without it (absolute necessity) or its substitute (relative necessity), even if the omission is guiltless, the end cannot be reached. Thus faith and baptism of water are necessary by a necessity of means, the former absolutely, the latter relatively, for salvation. In the second case (necessity of precept), necessity is based on a positive precept, commanding something the omission of which, unless culpable, does not absolutely prevent the reaching of the end.

When speaking of the "end" above we are speaking about the Beatific Vision or going to Heaven.

Necessity of precept - based on a positive precept, commanding something the omission of which, unless culpable, does not absolutely prevent the reaching of the end. (The formula and water used in sacramental Baptism - sacramental Baptism cannot take place apart from the minimum formula and water. It is a necessity of precept because Jesus instituted it whereas before He did so some words spoken and water poured on the head would not do anything other than perhaps annoy the person the water was being poured on)

Quote

Contumacious refusal to enter the Church or to remain within it is mortally sinful. Any person who knows the Church to have been divinely instituted by Our Lord and yet refuses to enter it or to remain within it cannot attain eternal salvation. (Fenton regarding necessity of precept)

Necessity of means - without the necessity in question (absolute necessity) or its substitute (relative necessity), even if the omission is guiltless, the end cannot be reached. (Faith = absolute necessity - sacramental Baptism = relative necessity)

Quote

No one at all can be saved unless he dies either as a member of the Church or with a genuine and sincere desire - either explicit or implicit - of entering the Church and remaining within it. (Fenton regarding the necessity of means by which one must die within the Church for salvation to be possible)

Intrinsic or absolute necessity - God can never grant salvation without the particular necessity being spoken of. There is no replacement or substitute for what is required intrinsically. A desire for that which is absolutely necessary, no matter how earnest and sincere, cannot replace or substitute for it. (Faith, Hope, Charity (Sanctifying Grace). (Emphasis mine throughout.)

It is funny without a Pope we get self-appointed Popes who interpret and dictate Catholic teaching that is either to the "right" or to the "left" of Catholic teaching. Note: "Right" and "left" are used to appeal to our modern sense of thinking when, in reality, we only have truth or error. We have the heresy of universal salvation and an "equal and opposite heresy" of "no salvation apart from water".

The fact that something is necessary with a relative necessity of means is not the same as saying anyone can be saved. This is obvious to theologians and lay-people who have studied the issue and are capable of making basic distinctions. Very few people die invincibly ignorant of the necessity of Baptism and of dying within the Catholic Church, and fewer still in addition to this also have a supernatural Faith, and fewer still in addition to all that have a perfect charity or die with a perfect contrition as many times if they are truly sorry at all it is only the fear of Hell that motivates them to be sorry. All the above are necessary for it to be possible to be saved within the Church. A relative necessity of means is is a means which is not fulfilled if the means or its replacements are not obtained.

Stubborn · « **Reply #42 on:** February 03, 2016, 06:34:54 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

If anyone has asked me questions that I have not responded to please ask them here. I do not comb through each thread. Though I do try to respond to any legitimate question directed toward me. Obviously I do not and will not respond to general comments about my statements that agree or disagree not directed to me.

It is sad that people that call themselves Catholics call Catholic teaching "crap". But here it is for those that are interested:

Baptism of water (sacramental Baptism) is necessary with a "necessity of precept" as well as with a "necessity of means". "Necessity of means" can be necessary with absolute or relative necessity. Sacramental Baptism is necessary with a necessity of means that is relative, not absolute or intrinsic. This means Sacramental Baptism or its substitute(s) baptism of blood and baptism of "desire", properly known as the baptism of the Holy Ghost or of "repentance" is absolutely or intrinsically necessary for salvation to be possible. That is no one at all can be saved apart from sacramental Baptism or its two replacements i.e. baptism of desire or baptism of blood.

The Catholic Encyclopedia shows how faith is necessary with an absolute necessity of means while sacramental baptism is necessary with a relative necessity of means as follows:

Quote
Again, in relation to the means necessary to salvation theologians divide necessity into necessity of means and necessity of precept. In the first case (necessity of means) the means is so necessary to salvation that without it (absolute necessity) or its substitute (relative necessity), even if the omission is guiltless, the end cannot be reached. Thus faith and baptism of water are necessary by a necessity of means, the former absolutely, the latter relatively, for salvation. In the second case (necessity of precept), necessity is based on a positive precept, commanding something the omission of which, unless culpable, does not absolutely prevent the reaching of the end.

When speaking of the "end" above we are speaking about the Beatific Vision or going to Heaven.

Necessity of precept - based on a positive precept, commanding something the omission of which, unless culpable, does not absolutely prevent the reaching of the end. (The formula and water used in sacramental Baptism - sacramental Baptism cannot take place apart from the minimum formula and water. It is a necessity of precept because Jesus instituted it whereas before He did so some words spoken and water poured on the head would not do anything other than perhaps annoy the person the water was being poured on)

Quote
Contumacious refusal to enter the Church or to remain within it is mortally sinful. Any person who knows the Church to have been divinely instituted by Our Lord and yet refuses to enter it or to remain within it cannot attain eternal salvation. (Fenton regarding necessity of precept)

Necessity of means - without the necessity in question (absolute necessity) or its substitute (relative necessity), even if the omission is guiltless, the end cannot be reached. (Faith = absolute necessity - sacramental Baptism = relative necessity)

Quote
No one at all can be saved unless he dies either as a member of the Church or with a genuine and sincere desire - either explicit or implicit - of entering the Church and remaining within it. (Fenton regarding the necessity of means by which one must die within the Church for salvation to be possible)

Intrinsic or absolute necessity - God can never grant salvation without the particular necessity being spoken of. There is no replacement or substitute for what is required intrinsically. A desire for that which is absolutely necessary, no matter how earnest and sincere, cannot replace or substitute for it. (Faith, Hope, Charity (Sanctifying Grace). (Emphasis mine throughout.)

It is funny without a Pope we get self-appointed Popes who interpret and dictate Catholic teaching that is either to the "right" or to the "left" of Catholic teaching. Note: "Right" and "left" are used to appeal to our modern sense of thinking when, in reality, we only have truth or error. We have the heresy of universal salvation and an "equal and opposite heresy" of "no salvation apart from water".

The fact that something is necessary with a relative necessity of means is not the same as saying anyone can be saved. This is obvious to theologians and lay-people who have studied the issue and are capable of making basic distinctions. Very few people die invincibly ignorant of the necessity of Baptism and of dying within the Catholic Church, and fewer still in addition to this also have a supernatural Faith, and fewer still in addition to all that have a perfect charity or die with a perfect contrition as many times if they are truly sorry at all it is only the fear of Hell that motivates them to be sorry. All the above are necessary for it to be possible to be saved within the Church. A relative necessity of means is is a means which is not fulfilled if the means or its replacements are not obtained.

All this just to explain that salvation can be had via NSAA - no sacrament is necessary.

Here is a live demonstration of a BOD.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #43 on:** February 03, 2016, 07:44:21 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

It is sad that people that call themselves Catholics call Catholic teaching "crap".

Nobody's calling Catholic teaching "crap", so get off your sanctimonious high horse already. What we're calling crap is your misapplication of Catholic teaching in order to embrace Pelagianism and the heresy that the Sacraments are not necessary for salvation.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #44 on:** February 03, 2016, 07:45:38 AM »

Quote from: LoT

This was by far the better post of your two most recent.