Author Topic: John 3:5 (Read 33070 times)

DZ PLEASE · « **Reply #320 on:** August 13, 2017, 11:44:29 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 13, 2017, 09:03:28 PM

Is say, pretty clearly, that condemns BOD. And no quote from ANY saint or pope can outweigh a council.

With all due, yes water is the matter of the sacrament. So what? Also, even granting this means what you seem to think, how would it be a direct and explicit condemnation?

To be fair, his demands seem arbitrary, red-herring irrelevant, and dishonestly constrictive. At least he didn't demand we "stand and deliver" on a second Monday in a leap year in the form of a haiku…

That said, you could puppet a demo of his lot's hypocrisy and snake-tongued standards by putting him on the gallows of his own standards, like asking for express condemnations of what he hates yet don't exist.

TL;DR: big fat "so what?" all round.

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #321 on:** August 14, 2017, 09:04:44 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on August 13, 2017, 05:25:47 PM

CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.

Yes, I agree, this Canon very clearly identifies that water is necessary for a baptism. No one is saying anything contrary to this. But this is in no way contradicts the Church's teaching on Baptism of Desire. I simply asked for an explicit Church condemnation of Baptism of Desire (because I honestly don't believe one exists). In my experience, the Church has repeatedly taught Baptism of Desire.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #322 on:** August 14, 2017, 09:11:18 AM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie on August 12, 2017, 07:51:12 PM

Again, the request was simple, please provide a Church reference that explicitly condemns Baptism of Desire.

Explicit Church teaching, no conjecture, no reasoning, no appeals, just a reference where the Church condemns Baptism of Desire.

They can't but won't grant the point because they don't want the Church of Feeney to be proven wrong. There is a reference by a sainted Doctor of the Church that teaches BOD is de fide. Of course the feeneyites are so bent on their heresy they won't make the logical deduction.

Stubborn · « **Reply #323 on:** August 14, 2017, 09:17:02 AM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie on August 14, 2017, 09:04:44 AM

Yes, I agree, this Canon very clearly identifies that water is necessary for a baptism. No one is saying anything contrary to this. But this is in no way contradicts the Church's teaching on Baptism of Desire. I simply asked for an explicit Church condemnation of Baptism of Desire (because I honestly don't believe one exists). In my experience, the Church has repeatedly taught Baptism of Desire.

There is no explicit decree condemning a BOD by name, nor has an explicit condemnation of a BOD ever been needed. The Church has very good reasons for this, none of which I expect avid BODers to accept, because if they could accept such reasons, they would not be asking for a condemnation explicitly naming a BOD in the first place.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #324 on:** August 14, 2017, 09:40:18 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on August 14, 2017, 09:17:02 AM

There is no explicit decree condemning a BOD by name, nor has an explicit condemnation of a BOD ever been needed. The Church has very good reasons for this, none of which I expect avid BODers to accept, because if they could accept such reasons, they would not be asking for a condemnation explicitly naming a BOD in the first place.

???

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: John 3:5 (Read 33070 times)

DZ PLEASE

Re: John 3:5

JohnAnthonyMarie

Re: John 3:5

Lover of Truth

Re: John 3:5

Stubborn

Re: John 3:5

Lover of Truth

Re: John 3:5