The book is a masterful work in theology, well sourced with tightly constructed and logical argumentation. It debunks the heretical idea that denies Catholic teaching on Baptism of Desire.
Every Catholic should read this book prior to coming into contact with deniers of Baptism of Desire. It will inoculate them from this heresy, and give them the apologetical tools needed to help those already infected to return to orthodoxy.
This book, along with so many other works on this subject by the SSPX, CMRI and other concerned Catholics should be on the bookshelf of every Catholic home.
Quote from: AmbroseThe book is a masterful work in theology, well sourced with tightly constructed and logical argumentation. It debunks the heretical idea that denies Catholic teaching on Baptism of Desire.
Every Catholic should read this book prior to coming into contact with deniers of Baptism of Desire. It will inoculate them from this heresy, and give them the apologetical tools needed to help those already infected to return to orthodoxy.
This book, along with so many other works on this subject by the SSPX, CMRI and other concerned Catholics should be on the bookshelf of every Catholic home.
Yes yes yes, but can you do the Catholic thing and defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation?
No, of course you can't defend that which you despise - if only you could get yourself to admit it.
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: AmbroseThe book is a masterful work in theology, well sourced with tightly constructed and logical argumentation. It debunks the heretical idea that denies Catholic teaching on Baptism of Desire.
Every Catholic should read this book prior to coming into contact with deniers of Baptism of Desire. It will inoculate them from this heresy, and give them the apologetical tools needed to help those already infected to return to orthodoxy.
This book, along with so many other works on this subject by the SSPX, CMRI and other concerned Catholics should be on the bookshelf of every Catholic home.
Yes yes yes, but can you do the Catholic thing and defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation?
No, of course you can't defend that which you despise - if only you could get yourself to admit it.
I am defending Catholic Teaching right before your eyes. You have been deceived by heretics. The door is always open for you to recant, don't let your stubbornness stop you.
The book is a masterful work in theology, well sourced with tightly constructed and logical argumentation.
Quote from: AmbroseThe book is a masterful work in theology, well sourced with tightly constructed and logical argumentation.
:roll-laugh1:
You call anything "masterful" that happens to reinforce your own thinking.
Father Laisney starts by declaring that BoD is the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers. He "proves" this by citing a number of Church Fathers talking about Baptism of Blood, Church Fathers who actually REJECT Baptism of Desire (while upholding that of Blood). St. Robert Bellarmine admits in his treatment of Baptism that the Church Fathers were divided on Baptism of Desire. Yet Laisney lies by claiming that they were "unanimous".
Laisney is constantly quoting things and inserting elipses in places where the text is not convenient for his agenda.
And the book goes downhill from there.
It's crap.
Karl Rahner actually does a VERY HONEST job of tracing the history of this thinking. And obviously Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner is no Feeneyite. He just happens to honestly admit that there's no trace of this in the early Church.
Quote from: AmbroseQuote from: StubbornQuote from: AmbroseThe book is a masterful work in theology, well sourced with tightly constructed and logical argumentation. It debunks the heretical idea that denies Catholic teaching on Baptism of Desire.
Every Catholic should read this book prior to coming into contact with deniers of Baptism of Desire. It will inoculate them from this heresy, and give them the apologetical tools needed to help those already infected to return to orthodoxy.
This book, along with so many other works on this subject by the SSPX, CMRI and other concerned Catholics should be on the bookshelf of every Catholic home.
Yes yes yes, but can you do the Catholic thing and defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation?
No, of course you can't defend that which you despise - if only you could get yourself to admit it.
I am defending Catholic Teaching right before your eyes. You have been deceived by heretics. The door is always open for you to recant, don't let your stubbornness stop you.
You are an oversized weasel who cannot defend the necessity of the sacraments any more than any other compromiser.
I pray when your last hour comes, that God does not leave you to desire the sacrament of Extreme Unction - your desire will never save you.
The book is a masterful work in theology, well sourced with tightly constructed and logical argumentation. It debunks the heretical idea that denies Catholic teaching on Baptism of Desire.
Every Catholic should read this book prior to coming into contact with deniers of Baptism of Desire. It will inoculate them from this heresy, and give them the apologetical tools needed to help those already infected to return to orthodoxy.
This book, along with so many other works on this subject by the SSPX, CMRI and other concerned Catholics should be on the bookshelf of every Catholic home.
Quote from: AmbroseThe book is a masterful work in theology, well sourced with tightly constructed and logical argumentation. It debunks the heretical idea that denies Catholic teaching on Baptism of Desire.
Every Catholic should read this book prior to coming into contact with deniers of Baptism of Desire. It will inoculate them from this heresy, and give them the apologetical tools needed to help those already infected to return to orthodoxy.
This book, along with so many other works on this subject by the SSPX, CMRI and other concerned Catholics should be on the bookshelf of every Catholic home.
An excursion into fuzzy theology and sentimentalism. It is indeed an example of one of the areas of soft theology that is found in the SSPX and its sede spinoffs.
Quote from: J.PaulQuote from: AmbroseThe book is a masterful work in theology, well sourced with tightly constructed and logical argumentation. It debunks the heretical idea that denies Catholic teaching on Baptism of Desire.
Every Catholic should read this book prior to coming into contact with deniers of Baptism of Desire. It will inoculate them from this heresy, and give them the apologetical tools needed to help those already infected to return to orthodoxy.
This book, along with so many other works on this subject by the SSPX, CMRI and other concerned Catholics should be on the bookshelf of every Catholic home.
An excursion into fuzzy theology and sentimentalism. It is indeed an example of one of the areas of soft theology that is found in the SSPX and its sede spinoffs.
So you say.
Fr. Francois Laisney, another winner. :facepalm:
The book is a masterful work in theology, well sourced with tightly constructed and logical argumentation. It debunks the heretical idea that denies Catholic teaching on Baptism of Desire.
Every Catholic should read this book prior to coming into contact with deniers of Baptism of Desire. It will inoculate them from this heresy, and give them the apologetical tools needed to help those already infected to return to orthodoxy.
This book, along with so many other works on this subject by the SSPX, CMRI and other concerned Catholics should be on the bookshelf of every Catholic home.
...
No, I just love the Catholic teaching, which you for some reason are unable to recognize.
...
I am defending Catholic Teaching right before your eyes. You have been deceived by heretics. The door is always open for you to recant, don't let your stubbornness stop you.
This is exactly why I'm not the least bit surprised to find modernism in the SSPX hierarchy.
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: AmbroseQuote from: StubbornQuote from: AmbroseThe book is a masterful work in theology, well sourced with tightly constructed and logical argumentation. It debunks the heretical idea that denies Catholic teaching on Baptism of Desire.
Every Catholic should read this book prior to coming into contact with deniers of Baptism of Desire. It will inoculate them from this heresy, and give them the apologetical tools needed to help those already infected to return to orthodoxy.
This book, along with so many other works on this subject by the SSPX, CMRI and other concerned Catholics should be on the bookshelf of every Catholic home.
Yes yes yes, but can you do the Catholic thing and defend the necessity of the sacraments unto salvation?
No, of course you can't defend that which you despise - if only you could get yourself to admit it.
I am defending Catholic Teaching right before your eyes. You have been deceived by heretics. The door is always open for you to recant, don't let your stubbornness stop you.
You are an oversized weasel who cannot defend the necessity of the sacraments any more than any other compromiser.
I pray when your last hour comes, that God does not leave you to desire the sacrament of Extreme Unction - your desire will never save you.
Catholic Teaching is not what you want it to be, it exists outside of your mind.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/211357956/Sources-of-Baptism-of-Blood-Baptism-of-Desire
Quote from: AmbroseThe book is a masterful work in theology, well sourced with tightly constructed and logical argumentation.
:roll-laugh1:
You call anything "masterful" that happens to reinforce your own thinking.
Father Laisney starts by declaring that BoD is the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers. He "proves" this by citing a number of Church Fathers talking about Baptism of Blood, Church Fathers who actually REJECT Baptism of Desire (while upholding that of Blood). St. Robert Bellarmine admits in his treatment of Baptism that the Church Fathers were divided on Baptism of Desire. Yet Laisney lies by claiming that they were "unanimous".
Laisney is constantly quoting things and inserting elipses in places where the text is not convenient for his agenda.
And the book goes downhill from there.
It's crap.
Karl Rahner actually does a VERY HONEST job of tracing the history of this thinking. And obviously Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner is no Feeneyite. He just happens to honestly admit that there's no trace of this in the early Church.
Quote from: LadislausQuote from: AmbrosiaThe book is a masterful work in theology, well sourced with tightly constructed and logical argumentation.
:roll-laugh1:
You call anything "masterful"
that happens to reinforce your own thinking.
[Wait...... isn't that what 'masterful' means???? :rolleyes: ]
Father Laisney starts by declaring that BoD is the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers. He "proves" this by citing a number of Church Fathers talking about Baptism of Blood, Church Fathers who actually REJECT Baptism of Desire (while upholding that of Blood). St. Robert Bellarmine admits in his treatment of Baptism that the Church Fathers were divided on Baptism of Desire. Yet Laisney lies by claiming that they were "unanimous".
Laisney is constantly quoting things and inserting elipses in places where the text is not convenient for his agenda. [But legitimately follows Rahner's example by his insertion of the ellipses, at least! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA]
And the book goes downhill from there.
It's crap.
Karl Rahner actually does a VERY HONEST job of tracing the history of this thinking. And obviously Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner is no Feeneyite. He just happens to honestly admit that there's no trace of this in the early Church.
Anybody wonders why Fr. Laisney is so eager to be "re-integrated"? Or Bp. Fellay, Rostand...? They have failed miserably to defend the faith against the Roman apostates and they still don't have a clue why.
:facepalm:
So you just spam the same posts across all the BoD threads (most of which were started by BoDers) whether or not it's germaine to the thread subject? That's very bad forum etiquette and troll behavior. You're just hoping to annoy everyone into submission when you are unable to actually address the points being made.
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
Quote from: Ladislaus:facepalm:
So you just spam the same posts across all the BoD threads (most of which were started by BoDers) whether or not it's germaine to the thread subject? That's very bad forum etiquette and troll behavior. You're just hoping to annoy everyone into submission when you are unable to actually address the points being made.
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
A 'little' secret for you, Ladislaus:
You'd find these threads so much easier to read if you would put LoE on "hide" so then you just don't have to read his crap anymore. It's such a relief!!
.
Quote from: Neil ObstatQuote from: Ladislaus:facepalm:
So you just spam the same posts across all the BoD threads (most of which were started by BoDers) whether or not it's germaine to the thread subject? That's very bad forum etiquette and troll behavior. You're just hoping to annoy everyone into submission when you are unable to actually address the points being made.
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
A 'little' secret for you, Ladislaus:
You'd find these threads so much easier to read if you would put LoE on "hide" so then you just don't have to read his crap anymore. It's such a relief!!
.
Done !
Quote from: LadislausQuote from: AmbroseThe book is a masterful work in theology, well sourced with tightly constructed and logical argumentation.
:roll-laugh1:
You call anything "masterful" that happens to reinforce your own thinking.
Father Laisney starts by declaring that BoD is the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers. He "proves" this by citing a number of Church Fathers talking about Baptism of Blood, Church Fathers who actually REJECT Baptism of Desire (while upholding that of Blood). St. Robert Bellarmine admits in his treatment of Baptism that the Church Fathers were divided on Baptism of Desire. Yet Laisney lies by claiming that they were "unanimous".
Laisney is constantly quoting things and inserting elipses in places where the text is not convenient for his agenda.
And the book goes downhill from there.
It's crap.
Karl Rahner actually does a VERY HONEST job of tracing the history of this thinking. And obviously Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner is no Feeneyite. He just happens to honestly admit that there's no trace of this in the early Church.
Anybody wonders why Fr. Laisney is so eager to be "re-integrated"? Or Bp. Fellay, Rostand...? They have failed miserably to defend the faith against the Roman apostates and they still don't have a clue why.
Quote from: LadislausQuote from: Neil ObstatQuote from: Ladislaus:facepalm:
So you just spam the same posts across all the BoD threads (most of which were started by BoDers) whether or not it's germaine to the thread subject? That's very bad forum etiquette and troll behavior. You're just hoping to annoy everyone into submission when you are unable to actually address the points being made.
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
A 'little' secret for you, Ladislaus:
You'd find these threads so much easier to read if you would put LoE on "hide" so then you just don't have to read his crap anymore. It's such a relief!!
.
Done !
For those who want relief put Neil Obstat on HIDE. It will be well worth your time to not read his venom.
Quote from: AmbroseQuote from: LadislausQuote from: Neil ObstatQuote from: Ladislaus:facepalm:
So you just spam the same posts across all the BoD threads (most of which were started by BoDers) whether or not it's germaine to the thread subject? That's very bad forum etiquette and troll behavior. You're just hoping to annoy everyone into submission when you are unable to actually address the points being made.
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
A 'little' secret for you, Ladislaus:
You'd find these threads so much easier to read if you would put LoE on "hide" so then you just don't have to read his crap anymore. It's such a relief!!
.
Done !
For those who want relief put Neil Obstat on HIDE. It will be well worth your time to not read his venom.
Ambrose is officially outta here !
Ambrose is officially outta here !
QuoteAmbrose is officially outta here !
Is he ............hiding.......
Quote from: J.PaulQuoteAmbrose is officially outta here !
Is he ............hiding.......
No, I am here, but I can only read so much heresy and arrogance per day, and some of the posters here are putting me over that limit.
Since Matthew will not ban the heretics, this is my only option.
Quote from: J.PaulQuoteAmbrose is officially outta here !
Is he ............hiding.......
No, I am here, but I can only read so much heresy and arrogance per day, and some of the posters here are putting me over that limit.
Since Matthew will not ban the heretics, this is my only option.
Quote from: AmbroseQuote from: J.PaulQuoteAmbrose is officially outta here !
Is he ............hiding.......
No, I am here, but I can only read so much heresy and arrogance per day, and some of the posters here are putting me over that limit.
Since Matthew will not ban the heretics, this is my only option.
It is an observable fact that to a heretic, orthodoxy always appears to be heresy.
This is especially true for pelagians and semi-universalists.
Jesus said, "Unless you be baptised with water and the Holy Spirit........"
Jesus said to Dismas, "This day thou shalt be with Me in Paradise"
Did someone immediately baptise Dismas OR did Jesus change His mind??????
Quote from: Miseremini
Jesus said, "Unless you be baptised with water and the Holy Spirit........"
Jesus said to Dismas, "This day thou shalt be with Me in Paradise"
Did someone immediately baptise Dismas OR did Jesus change His mind??????
Uhm, old dispensation. Dismas went to "paradise" (=bosom of Abraham) until all the Old Testament just were admitted into heaven.
Quote from: Miseremini
Jesus said, "Unless you be baptised with water and the Holy Spirit........"
Jesus said to Dismas, "This day thou shalt be with Me in Paradise"
Did someone immediately baptise Dismas OR did Jesus change His mind??????
Uhm, old dispensation. Dismas went to "paradise" (=bosom of Abraham) until all the Old Testament just were admitted into heaven.
I'll stick with the Council of Trent, the Popes, the Doctors of the Church, and the theologians, you can have the Dimonds.
A good question would be, Is Laisneyism Catholic?
Quote from: J.PaulA good question would be, Is Laisneyism Catholic?
No, it's not.
I was about to post Fr. Wathen's reply to Fr. Laisney, but for why? For the lying hypocrites who despise the sacraments? Nah. When their turn comes, they WILL find out - and I'm convinced, NOT before. Shame by then it'll be too late, but we can have faith that they will reap that which they've sewn.
I'm convinced, NOT before. Shame by then it'll be too late, but we can have faith that they will reap that which they've sewn.
QuoteI'm convinced, NOT before. Shame by then it'll be too late, but we can have faith that they will reap that which they've sewn.
Every Protestant says this, but it does not make it true.
Quote from: AmbroseQuoteI'm convinced, NOT before. Shame by then it'll be too late, but we can have faith that they will reap that which they've sewn.
Every Protestant says this, but it does not make it true.
St. Paul said it, you better hope it's not true - but I think you will be in for a rude awakening.
One thing is for positive, you will find out - you will not be able to weasel out if it then.
Published in 2001, Fr. Laisney’s book was a masterpiece in deceit. There are startling and shockingly dishonest things in his book, which will be exposed in the “Lies” section:
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php#isfeeneyismcatholic
Quote from: AlphonsusPublished in 2001, Fr. Laisney’s book was a masterpiece in deceit. There are startling and shockingly dishonest things in his book, which will be exposed in the “Lies” section:
The moderator of his site has forbidden links to that heretical group.
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: AmbroseQuoteI'm convinced, NOT before. Shame by then it'll be too late, but we can have faith that they will reap that which they've sewn.
Every Protestant says this, but it does not make it true.
St. Paul said it, you better hope it's not true - but I think you will be in for a rude awakening.
One thing is for positive, you will find out - you will not be able to weasel out if it then.
I have the same thoughts about you. This is not some kind of game. Catholic Doctrine is a serious matter, and there is no place for private judgment.
You are not allowed to pick what you want to believe as a Catholic. It is not à la carte.
Question 321, Baltimore Catechism: "How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism?
Answer: "Those who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what is called baptism of blood or baptism of desire."
Enjoined by the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore
Published by ecclesiatical authority
(under a noted Americanist Bishop)
Is that the Holy See?
The Third Plenary Council was presided over by the Apostolic Delegate, Archbishop James Gibbons of Baltimore. Its decrees were signed by fourteen archbishops, sixty-one bishops or their representatives, six abbots, and one general of a religious congregation. The first solemn session was held 9 November, and the last 7 December, 1884. Its decrees are divided into twelve titles, approved by Pope Leo XIII.
Title vii, Of Christian Doctrine.-(i) Of the office of preaching. (ii) A commission is appointed to prepare a catechism for general use. When published it is to be obligatory. (iii) Of prayer books. (iv) Of books and newspapers. While objectionable writings are to be condemned, Catholics should oppose them also by orthodox newspapers and books.
(http://traditionalcatholic.net/sede_vacante/BoD-BoB.png)
Is anyone here confused about what the Church teaches on Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood?
The book can be found on the SSPX book publisher, Angelus Press, linked HERE (http://angeluspress.org/Feeneyism-Catholic)
$7.95 plus shipping
Is Feeneyism Catholic?
Fr. Francois Laisney
Question 321, Baltimore Catechism: "How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism?
Answer: "Those who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what is called baptism of blood or baptism of desire." Period. Amen... for most of us.
But some, who even call themselves traditional Catholics, cannot accept this simple teaching of our catechism. They cannot accept baptism of desire because they confuse the grace of baptism (which is necessary for salvation) with the character of baptism (which is not necessary for salvation). Because of this confusion, they deny the simple truth that all that is really necessary for salvation is to die in the state of grace.
This is serious. And you need to know how to address these errors, how to defend the orthodox Faith, how to defend yourself and your family, and how to help those sitting in the darkness of error. This book examines these simple truths of our catechism. Quoting heavily the Church's Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the writings of the Saints, Fr. Laisney explains the Church's teaching on Baptism of Desire. A defense of Catholicism, not of false ecuмenism. Father's new edition is twice the size of his original work and is enriched and made more convincing by copious quotations from the writings of the Saints.
128 pp. Softcover.
Case Quantity = 72
Bookstores, ask us about our case discounts!
I think the BODers would fit in better in the NO.
Quote from: OHCAI think the BODers would fit in better in the NO.
Think harder.
It strikes me as very odd that I can open any book in my library to the topic of Baptism, and there is always a reference to Baptism of Desire. And yet, when I ask for any reference that supports a rejection of Baptism of Desire, all I receive is calumny.
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: OHCAI think the BODers would fit in better in the NO.
Think harder.
It strikes me as very odd that I can open any book in my library to the topic of Baptism, and there is always a reference to Baptism of Desire. And yet, when I ask for any reference that supports a rejection of Baptism of Desire, all I receive is calumny.
That's because you're a bad-willed troll.
Quote from: LadislausQuote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: OHCAI think the BODers would fit in better in the NO.
Think harder.
It strikes me as very odd that I can open any book in my library to the topic of Baptism, and there is always a reference to Baptism of Desire. And yet, when I ask for any reference that supports a rejection of Baptism of Desire, all I receive is calumny.
That's because you're a bad-willed troll.
That makes no sense at all. Are you saying because I open any Catholic book on the topic of Baptism and find Baptism of Desire described that I am "a bad-willed troll"? Do you have difficulty being civil?
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: LadislausQuote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: OHCAI think the BODers would fit in better in the NO.
Think harder.
It strikes me as very odd that I can open any book in my library to the topic of Baptism, and there is always a reference to Baptism of Desire. And yet, when I ask for any reference that supports a rejection of Baptism of Desire, all I receive is calumny.
That's because you're a bad-willed troll.
That makes no sense at all. Are you saying because I open any Catholic book on the topic of Baptism and find Baptism of Desire described that I am "a bad-willed troll"? Do you have difficulty being civil?
But John Anthony Marie and those alike are no talking at all about Baptism of Desire :pop:
They are bad willed trolls because what they are taling about is an entire negation of the Anathasian Creed, even after being informed, they keep denying the entire Catholic dogma of salvation.
" these posters even deny this very statement given that they believe that a Jew can be saved as a Jew, a Moslem as a Moslem, a Hindu as a Hindu...etc without converting to Catholicism and without even having the Catholic Faith, nor believing these "necessary Christian truths" - notice the image above - (which is the foundation of all justification).
Waste not time posting about the Church teaching on BOD for a catechumen that dies before receiving water baptism. It is clear as water that BOD is not really what these heretics talk about.
Address instead salvation of non-Catholics and "invincible ignorant" via implicit desire or salvation by justification alone, which leads to the heresy of indifferentism and a denial of EENS. Leave BOD alone already since the mask is long over."
Quote from: LadislausQuote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: OHCAI think the BODers would fit in better in the NO.
Think harder.
It strikes me as very odd that I can open any book in my library to the topic of Baptism, and there is always a reference to Baptism of Desire. And yet, when I ask for any reference that supports a rejection of Baptism of Desire, all I receive is calumny.
That's because you're a bad-willed troll.
That makes no sense at all. Are you saying because I open any Catholic book on the topic of Baptism and find Baptism of Desire described that I am "a bad-willed troll"? Do you have difficulty being civil?
Quote from: CantarellaQuote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: LadislausQuote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: OHCAI think the BODers would fit in better in the NO.
Think harder.
It strikes me as very odd that I can open any book in my library to the topic of Baptism, and there is always a reference to Baptism of Desire. And yet, when I ask for any reference that supports a rejection of Baptism of Desire, all I receive is calumny.
That's because you're a bad-willed troll.
That makes no sense at all. Are you saying because I open any Catholic book on the topic of Baptism and find Baptism of Desire described that I am "a bad-willed troll"? Do you have difficulty being civil?
But John Anthony Marie and those alike are no talking at all about Baptism of Desire :pop:
They are bad willed trolls because what they are taling about is an entire negation of the Anathasian Creed, even after being informed, they keep denying the entire Catholic dogma of salvation.
" these posters even deny this very statement given that they believe that a Jew can be saved as a Jew, a Moslem as a Moslem, a Hindu as a Hindu...etc without converting to Catholicism and without even having the Catholic Faith, nor believing these "necessary Christian truths" - notice the image above - (which is the foundation of all justification).
Waste not time posting about the Church teaching on BOD for a catechumen that dies before receiving water baptism. It is clear as water that BOD is not really what these heretics talk about.
Address instead salvation of non-Catholics and "invincible ignorant" via implicit desire or salvation by justification alone, which leads to the heresy of indifferentism and a denial of EENS. Leave BOD alone already since the mask is long over."
No one outside the Church is saved, ever. No one is saved without supernatural Faith. No one is saved who is not in the state of grace. No one who is not Baptized is saved without at least the implicit desire for Baptism.
All of these principles were taught by the 1949 letter of the Holy Office.
It all depends on what you mean by "inside."
It all depends on what you mean by "the Church."
It all depends on what you mean by "salvation."
It all depends on what you mean by "outside."
It all depends on what you mean by "no."
Quote from: AmbroseQuote from: CantarellaQuote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: LadislausQuote from: JohnAnthonyMarieQuote from: OHCAI think the BODers would fit in better in the NO.
Think harder.
It strikes me as very odd that I can open any book in my library to the topic of Baptism, and there is always a reference to Baptism of Desire. And yet, when I ask for any reference that supports a rejection of Baptism of Desire, all I receive is calumny.
That's because you're a bad-willed troll.
That makes no sense at all. Are you saying because I open any Catholic book on the topic of Baptism and find Baptism of Desire described that I am "a bad-willed troll"? Do you have difficulty being civil?
But John Anthony Marie and those alike are no talking at all about Baptism of Desire :pop:
They are bad willed trolls because what they are taling about is an entire negation of the Anathasian Creed, even after being informed, they keep denying the entire Catholic dogma of salvation.
" these posters even deny this very statement given that they believe that a Jew can be saved as a Jew, a Moslem as a Moslem, a Hindu as a Hindu...etc without converting to Catholicism and without even having the Catholic Faith, nor believing these "necessary Christian truths" - notice the image above - (which is the foundation of all justification).
Waste not time posting about the Church teaching on BOD for a catechumen that dies before receiving water baptism. It is clear as water that BOD is not really what these heretics talk about.
Address instead salvation of non-Catholics and "invincible ignorant" via implicit desire or salvation by justification alone, which leads to the heresy of indifferentism and a denial of EENS. Leave BOD alone already since the mask is long over."
No one outside the Church is saved, ever. No one is saved without supernatural Faith. No one is saved who is not in the state of grace. No one who is not Baptized is saved without at least the implicit desire for Baptism.
All of these principles were taught by the 1949 letter of the Holy Office.
Yet for the Modernist mindset, the EENS salutary dogma gets transformed by changing the real meaning of words as to introduce ambiguity and subjectivism:Quote from: Neil Obstat
It all depends on what you mean by "inside."
It all depends on what you mean by "the Church."
It all depends on what you mean by "salvation."
It all depends on what you mean by "outside."
It all depends on what you mean by "no."
Modernists will, at least in public, affirm the words of the defined dogmas. However, they will teach a meaning that is different from what the words literally say and mean. This astute and sneaky method allows for an evolution of meaning within a dogma. This absolutely undermines the immutability of divinely revealed truth. It then allows for an actual denial of the dogma as the Church has always understood it and taught it.
This is exactly what has happened with the EENS dogma, being BOD the convenient loophole from where they can spread the heresy.
The Church defines these terms, not the modernists or the Feeneyites or the Dimond brothers.
Ambrose,QuoteThe Church defines these terms, not the modernists or the Feeneyites or the Dimond brothers.
Yes, Her definitions are clearly present in Her dogmatic declaration. The problem arises when the emotions and sentiments of man will not allow him to accept them, as the Church has once declared them.
Let me ask you a question Ambrose.
Suppose a person believes ONLY that God is a rewarder of those who seek him, but would believe in the Incarnation and Trinity if it were known to him/her does this person have Divine Faith? Yes or No
Quote from: AmbroseQuote from: GJCLet me ask you a question Ambrose.
Suppose a person believes ONLY that God is a rewarder of those who seek him, but would believe in the Incarnation and Trinity if it were known to him/her does this person have Divine Faith? Yes or No
My answer: I am a Thomist and remain with the majority on this point, that all four beliefs at a minimum must be explicitly believed.
The four are:
1. the one God.
2. who is a rewarder of the just and a punisher of evil.
3. The Incarnation.
4. The Trinity.
Since the Holy See has not resolved this point authoritatively, and has tolerated the minority opinion that explicit belief in #1 & #2 (above) are sufficient for the minimum necessary for explicit Faith, I will not speak against it, except to say that I do not believe it.
This seems to be the common answer that I hear.
So are you telling me that the Catholic Church has not defined whether or not a person must believe in Christ Jesus?
Quote from: AmbroseOne must believe in Him, once they are aware of Him.
What we are talking about is a minimum degree of Faith acceptable to God, for those not yet Catholics.
Is this minimum degree of Faith which is acceptable to God, as you say, make a person a Catholic if they never become aware of Jesus Christ?
Also, Baptism of Desire itself does not make one a member of the Church. The process is invisible and the Church is visible. Only The Sacrament of Baptism makes one a member of Church.
Ambrose,QuoteAlso, Baptism of Desire itself does not make one a member of the Church. The process is invisible and the Church is visible. Only The Sacrament of Baptism makes one a member of Church.
It does not make one a member of the Church, and there is absolutely no salvation outside of the Church, how then is such a person invisibly saved?
In the Church=Saved
Outside of the Church=Lost
The invisibility of desire=???
Baptism=in the Church
No Baptism= outside of the Church
Quote from: J.PaulAmbrose,QuoteThe Church defines these terms, not the modernists or the Feeneyites or the Dimond brothers.
Yes, Her definitions are clearly present in Her dogmatic declaration. The problem arises when the emotions and sentiments of man will not allow him to accept them, as the Church has once declared them.
Dogmatic theologians are not emotional writers.
They are in the Church invisibly, as a friend of God, but not a member of the Church which is visible and only accomplished through Baptism.
The trouble you have is that you are placing a limit on God. Do you think God is bound to this visible world?
Here are the latest reasons I heard from the Feeneyites believe the Catholic teaching of BOD is wrong.
1. Because SVs believe it is true
2. Because someone watched TV seven years ago.
I kid you not.
Now here is the Catholic teaching which the Feeneyites ignore and wish away:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/211357956/Sources-of-Baptism-of-Blood-Baptism-of-Desire
You can have Peter Abélard, Fr. Leonard Feeney and Peter Dimond
I'll take St. Bernard of Clairvaux, the Saints, Fathers, Doctors and Popes of the holy Catholic Church.
This thread pretends BOD is not a Catholic teaching which is manifestly false.
You can have Peter Abélard, Fr. Leonard Feeney and Peter Dimond
I'll take St. Bernard of Clairvaux, the Saints, Fathers, Doctors and Popes of the holy Catholic Church.
Quote from: Lover of TruthYou can have Peter Abélard, Fr. Leonard Feeney and Peter Dimond
I'll take St. Bernard of Clairvaux, the Saints, Fathers, Doctors and Popes of the holy Catholic Church.
They really can't have Abelard, because he obeyed when he was corrected.
Quote from: AmbroseQuote from: Lover of TruthYou can have Peter Abélard, Fr. Leonard Feeney and Peter Dimond
I'll take St. Bernard of Clairvaux, the Saints, Fathers, Doctors and Popes of the holy Catholic Church.
They really can't have Abelard, because he obeyed when he was corrected.
You can find no backers for your Pelagian heresy; you continue to hide behind Baptism of Desire as cover for your heretical depravity.
I will stick with the Catholic Church, you can keep the Dimonds.
Quote from: AmbroseI will stick with the Catholic Church, you can keep the Dimonds.
You are a liar, a heretic, and a shismatic. You do not stick with the Catholic Church but with Pelagius. You have Pelagius for your father and not the Church for your Mother.
Quote from: LadislausQuote from: AmbroseI will stick with the Catholic Church, you can keep the Dimonds.
You are a liar, a heretic, and a shismatic. You do not stick with the Catholic Church but with Pelagius. You have Pelagius for your father and not the Church for your Mother.
False, I love the Catholic Church. I detest heresy, including the one you are professing.
Quote from: AmbroseQuote from: LadislausQuote from: AmbroseI will stick with the Catholic Church, you can keep the Dimonds.
You are a liar, a heretic, and a shismatic. You do not stick with the Catholic Church but with Pelagius. You have Pelagius for your father and not the Church for your Mother.
False, I love the Catholic Church. I detest heresy, including the one you are professing.
So say ALL the heretics.
False, I love the Catholic Church. I detest heresy, including the one you are professing.