Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: JoeZ on March 21, 2018, 08:25:33 PM

Title: Ladislaus, Drew, Subborn, Please proof read
Post by: JoeZ on March 21, 2018, 08:25:33 PM
I have been asked by my priest to defend my rejection of BOD. I have borrowed from you fellas on this forum and would appreciate a critique of my work. I know it's alot to ask but I have almost no options and must beg your time. Thank you.



Dear Father XXXXXX, please pray a Hail Mary for me.
The following is my position on baptism of desire and blood. Please allow a definition of terms and a statement of fundamental philosophy of my argument style.
1.    Infallibly defined dogmas are categorical universal propositions in the order of truth-falsehood. This means they are formal objects of our Divine and Catholic Faith, they cannot change or be changed, and no extrinsic qualification can alter their meaning, applicability, status or truth value.
2.    Sacred Scripture is guaranteed to be without error, and must be taken literally unless reason proves otherwise. The Ordinary Magesterium, the guarantor of Scripture, and the unanimous consent of the Fathers gives the final judgment on the meaning of Scripture.
3.    I insist on using the laws of thought, especially the law of non-contradiction.[/url] (#post__edn1)
4.    The Catholic Church is that society of Christian believers united in the profession of the one Christian faith and the participation in the one sacramental system under the government of the Roman Pontiff.[ii][/iurl]
5.    I have elected to use a classic syllogistic style argument because of its simplicity and ease of identifying and combating the deconstruction of dogma which has been condemned by Pius IX[iurl=#_edn3][iii][/iurl], the Vatican I Council[iurl=#_edn4][iv][/iurl], and St. Pius X[iurl=#_edn5][v][/iurl], especially in Lamentabili  "The dogmas of the faith are to be held only according to a practical sense, that is, as preceptive norms for action, but not as norms for believing." (Condemned)  An example is in order and I will use an imagined support for baptism of desire as one: The scripture verse John 3:5 (“except a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven”) and John 6:53  (“Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you”) are similar and we know baptized children who have not reached the age of reason are excused from the necessity of the precept John 6:53 by their inability to commune, therefore, John 3:5 must not apply to those who cannot comply. This argument fails in its major premise; the two are solemn statements of Our Lord Jesus Christ concerning salvation but the similarity ends there. First, those who are subject to the proposition posited in John 3:5 are all men while in John 6:53 the precept binds only you, which is a different and smaller group. This is enough to break the argument as a presumptive fallacy but if you look deeper the difference is much more substantial. John 3:5 (which Trent tells us to take literally[iurl=#_edn6][vi][/iurl]) is a proposition concerning the truth-falsity of a certain quality or condition of any given man, is he baptized in water and the Holy Ghost or not? John 6:53 is a law commanding a behavior, you (we) must commune. Now reread the St Pius X quote above and you see that he condemned this linguistic deconstruction of a dogmatic truth. Its status as a true-false proposition has been eliminated in favor of an authority-obedience law or precept, which can be mitigated by circumstance. "The dogmas of the faith are to be held only according to a practical sense, that is, as preceptive norms for action, but not as norms for believing." (Condemned). The Holy Ghost knows exactly what we need to combat Modernism and He delivers. 

 (http://#_edn2)
 

Concerning Original Sin:

The Council of Trent infallibly teaches that the only remedy for Original Sin is “the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made us unto justice, sanctification, and redemption” and that “the merit of Jesus Christ is applied…by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church.”[vii] (#post__edn7) To help maintain the context of the above, the remedy is spoken of in the singular both in the introduction and the third verse and there is no mention of an “extraordinary” application method or form in the entire Decree Concerning Original Sin even though the stated purpose of the decree was to clear up “dissentions concerning original sin and the remedy thereof.” Assuming no argument concerning the first part, Christ’s merit, baptism of desire must be either a different method of application of Christ’s blood or the sacrament of baptism has more than one mode which is rightly administered in the form of the church.

1.    To hold BOD is a different method of the application of Christ’s blood is to deny that baptism is necessary for salvation, which is anathema[viii] (#post__edn8), or that somehow the fathers at Trent are not speaking of the sacrament of baptism in the canons on baptism, which is ridiculous.

2.    To hold BOD is a different method of the application of Christ’s blood is to deny the papal decree of St. Siricius who declared that the sacrament of baptism is “the unique help of the faith” when he ordered the bishops to baptize “those who in any necessity will need the holy stream of baptism..if the saving font be denied to those desiring it and every single one of them exiting this world lose both the Kingdom and life.”[ix] (#post__edn9)

3.    To hold BOD is a different method of the application of Christ’s blood is to hold that salvation is possible without the sacraments, which is anathema to the fathers of Trent.
  • [/iurl]
(#post__edn10)
4.    To hold BOD is a different method of the application of Christ’s blood is to deny that the sacrament of baptism is the instrumental cause of justification.[xi] (#post__edn11)

5.    To hold BOD is a different mode or type of baptism or that the grace of baptism is received “in voto” (like the sacrament of penance), thus preserving the instrumentation of the sacrament of baptism[xii] (#post__edn12) in the application of the blood of Christ to our justification, one must separate necessarily (by his own admission) the water from the sacrament. Now one denies the testimony of the three,  “in other words, the Spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption and the water of baptism. These three are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others.”[xiii] (#post__edn13)

6.    To hold BOD is a different mode etc, is to hold that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism which is anathema to Trent.[xiv] (#post__edn14)

 

 

 

 

 

Concerning Justification:

The council of Trent defines Justification in the Sixth Session, Chapter IV as “a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.” This is often quoted in support of BOD with the illusion that the Trent fathers meant to say that either condition, the laver of regeneration or the will to receive it, are sufficient for justification. This chapter in Trent is sometimes deceptively mistranslated (Denzinger) to support BOD. Trent also teaches that justification’s “instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism. “

1.    To hold BOD is to deny the literal meaning of John 3:5, the immediate scriptural support for the dogma, which the fathers at Trent commanded us to hold “as it is written”[xv] (#post__edn15) and to reject any “sort of metaphor.”[xvi] (#post__edn16)

2.    To hold that either condition is sufficient for justification is to hold that the laver of regeneration, the form and matter of the sacrament, absent the will to receive it is sufficient for justification. This position is falsified immediately in chapter V, if one were to simply keep reading Trent and not attempt to take parts of chapter IV out of context.

3.    To hold BOD is to deny the instrumental cause of justification is the sacrament of baptism, or to invent some new formula on what instrumentation is, both are constructs of man and not revelations from God.

4.    Baptism of blood must be reduced to BOD no matter how you read this chapter in Trent or the preceding canon IV of the same Session, which is similarly worded. The sacraments and the will to receive them are necessary for salvation. To deny this is anathema.

 

Concerning the Sacrament of Baptism:

The Council of Vienne teaches “one baptism which regenerates all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as ‘one God and one faith’ [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be commonly the perfect remedy for salvation…” The Council of Florence teaches, “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.” Trent teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation and that water is necessary for baptism in the canons on baptism.[xvii] (#post__edn17) The Nicene Creed states “I confess one baptism for the remission of sin” and Pope St. Siricius defined the sacrament of baptism as the unique or singular help of the faith.

1.    To hold BOD is to deny the unique help of the faith, that is one baptism, solemnized in water, which is necessary for salvation because it regenerates all who are baptized in Christ and makes us members of the Church we must persevere in.

The denial I’m referring to in all these points is not overt or blatant as from one outside the Church but rather it is of the condemned modernist type which posits a dogma of the faith and then alters or qualifies the meaning or alters dogma’s status to that of precept. Those propositions that are revealed to us to assent to as true-false are altered by man to that of authority-obedience which can then be mitigated through circumstance. This is a modernist error which I will not be guilty of and this is why I reject the manmade idea of BOD. Again I thank you for your time and priestly solicitude toward myself and my family.

 

God bless,

JoeZ




[/url] 1- Law of identity: Everything is the same as itself; or a statement cannot remain the same and change its truth-value.
2- Law of non-contradiction: Nothing can exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect; or no statement is both true and false.
3- Law of excluded middle: Something either exists or not exists; or every statement is either true or false.
 
[ii] (http://#_ednref)
(#post__ednref) St. Robert Bellarmine
 
[iii] (#post__ednref) Pope Pius IX; Dnz 1636 and Syllabus, Dnz 1705, 1708, 1709, 1715, 1716, 1717
 
[iv] (#post__ednref) Vatican I Council; Dnz 1792, 1797, 738
 
[v] (#post__ednref) Pope St. Pius X; Dnz 2026, 2022, 2079, and 2095 but the Dnz omitted some and butchered its subsidiary ref Dnz 1800 so I have pasted it here: from PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS:
    28. Thus then, Venerable Brethren, for the Modernists, both as authors and propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor indeed are they without precursors in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our Predecessor Pius IX wrote: These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts. On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new - we find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX., where it is enunciated in these terms: Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence the sense, too, of the sacred dogmas is that which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth. Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, impeded by this pronouncement - on the contrary it is aided and promoted. For the same Council continues: Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries - but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html
 
[vi] (#post__ednref) Trent Seventh Session; on Baptism, canon II
 
[vii] (#post__ednref) Trent Fifth Session; Decree on Original Sin 3rd verse
 
[viii] (#post__ednref) Trent Seventh Session; on Baptism, canon V
 
[ix] (#post__ednref) Pope St. Siricius, Decree to Himerius, A.D. 385:
 LATIN: “Sicut sacram ergo paschalem reverentiam in nullo dicimus esse minuendam, ita infantibus qui necdum loqui poterunt per aetatem vel his, quibus in qualibet necessitate opus fuerit sacra unda baptismatis, omni volumus celeritate succurri, ne ad nostrarum perniciem tendat animarum, si negato desiderantibus fonte salutari exiens unusquisque de saeculo et regnum perdat et vitam.
 
 “Therefore just as we say that the holy paschal observance is in no way to be diminished, we also say that to infants who will not yet be able to speak on account of their age or to those who in any necessity will need the holy stream of baptism, we wish succor to be brought with all celerity, lest it should tend to the perdition of our souls if the saving font be denied to those desiring it and every single one of them exiting this world lose both the Kingdom and life.”
 
 Quicumque etiam discrimen naufragii, hostilitatis incursum, obsidionis ambiguum vel cuiuslibet corporalis aegritudinis desperationem inciderint, et sibi unico credulitatis auxilio poposcerint subveniri, eodem quo poscunt momento temporis expetitae regenerationis praemia consequantur. Hactenus erratum in hac parte sufficiat; nunc praefatam regulam omnes teneant sacerdotes, qui nolunt ab apostolicae petrae, super quam Christus universalem construxit Ecclesiam, soliditate divelli.”
 

 Whoever should fall into the peril of shipwreck, the incursion of an enemy, the uncertainty of a siege or the desperation of any bodily sickness, and should beg to be relieved by the unique help of faith, let them obtain the rewards of the much sought-after regeneration in the same moment of time in which they beg for it. Let the previous error in this matter be enough; [but] now let all priests maintain the aforesaid rule, who do not want to be torn from the solidity of the apostolic rock upon which Christ constructed His universal Church.

From cathinfo.com   or use
Pope St. Siricius  http://www.historyandapologetics.com/2015/02/letter-of-pope-siricius-to-bishop.html (http://www.historyandapologetics.com/2015/02/letter-of-pope-siricius-to-bishop.html)
 
(#post__ednref)
Title: Re: Ladislaus, Drew, Subborn, Please proof read
Post by: Stubborn on March 22, 2018, 04:57:49 AM
Excellent job and articulated extremely well JoeZ! Seems that should do it, but I doubt it.

For me, (and this is only a personal request), I would love to see you add an additional heading, call it: "Concerning Divine Providence", which would likely take you in other directions away from Trent, but this is just a personal request for myself, not necessarily asking you to add to your post above - and that's just because of how well you explained the other points!

Aside from the sacrament itself, the other thing "intrinsic to the doctrine of a BOD", is the necessity to eliminate God providing the minister and the water.

Good job!



Title: Re: Ladislaus, Drew, Subborn, Please proof read
Post by: JoeZ on March 22, 2018, 09:17:21 PM
Thank you,

I should lay out some of the behind the scene happenings here. A meeting was held at my house with Fr. and my family to discuss this. The meeting went almost no where, but while at the meeting and in an email exchange since we have agreed to meet again. Fr. did lay out some recommendations and warnings to me, some of which was an attempt to pre-empt some of my possible arguments.

1. Sola Scriptura is a Protestant error like Sola Trent is a Catholic error because it is to the exclusion of the Universal Ordinary Magesterium and the Catholic puts his interpretation above the Church's.

2.Faulty judgment/discernment in matters to always emphasize the law above love. 
 
3. In logic there are propositions that are universal complete, universal incomplete, and universal exceptive.

4.-       Weak Faith: It’s a supernatural virtue founded on Truth and insofar as something ‘proxima fidei’ is denied, it stunts a person’s Faith.

A heading "Concerning Divine Providence" would work well to combat his point #4. St Augustine has a good quote that would work "perish the thought that a person predestined to eternal life could be allowed to end this life without the sacrament of the mediator", but if you have something more authoritative that would be better.



Title: Re: Ladislaus, Drew, Subborn, Please proof read
Post by: happenby on March 22, 2018, 10:11:24 PM
Hang in there, JoeZ.  You're doing the right thing and you've covered a lot.

You might consider giving the priest this list:


The Fruits of Baptism of Desire

Baptism of desire (BOD) denies the necessity of the sacrament of baptism for salvation.

BOD mocks the sacrament of baptism because it is not a sacrament. It is not an outward sign instituted by Christ. It is not a gateway to the other sacraments, does not remit sin, does not impart the baptismal character, all things the church teaches are part of justification and necessary for salvation, and which are the very characteristics of true baptism.

BOD promotes the Protestant heresy that faith alone saves.

BOD leads many Catholics to believe abortion is a source of hope for infants since infants are not guilty of actual sin.

BOD contradicts the Catholic teaching: One Lord, one faith, one baptism, since, BOD, by definition, is not the same as baptism, but something entirely different.

Advocates admit BOD does not make anyone a member of the Church. Since the church teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church, BOD cannot save.

BOD promotes laxity and indifferentism because many Catholics often rest in a person's desire for heaven rather than do the work to help get the person baptized.

BOD is nothing like baptism because the grace is not assured.

BOD is not true baptism because the water and words are missing.

BOD  rewards perseverance in sin.

BOD is not a sacrament, nor has it been defined, yet BOD is said to replace baptism, the one sacrament that is necessary for salvation.

BOD suggests the God is impotent, because due to circumstance, the Almighty is unable to provide the elements for certain individuals.

BOD implies God is not author of life and death because people meet their death in an untimely manner, before they can receive true baptism.

BOD makes liars of popes and saints who teach no one who dies outside the Catholic Church is saved.

BOD is said to save some outside the Church, making the doctrine of "No Salvation Outside the Church" a false teaching.

BOD mocks the Holy Spirit Who tells us in scripture to be washed for the remission of sins.

BOD makes Jesus a liar, Who says: "Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost...let him be anathema".

BOD mocks scripture 1 Peter 3:21 a verse that says "baptism now saves you" by suggesting that an unprovided death can do the same.

BOD undermines the Council of Trent which took great care to define the form and matter of baptism in very specific detail.

BOD denies the teaching that a person must be baptized by another.

BOD denies this canon in Trent: "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema' by removing the need for water.

BOD is a fine example of how one twists into a metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, "unless one is born of water and the Holy Spirit, let him be anathema."

BOD voids another infallible canon in Trent that states: "If anyone says that Baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema."

BOD by its very definition undermines Christ's missionary mandate.

BOD suggests God is unmerciful unless He contradicts His Word and Church teaching and provide salvation without baptism.

BOD is a nothing more than Satan's counterfeit substitute for a necessary sacrament.

BOD is no baptism
Title: Re: Ladislaus, Drew, Subborn, Please proof read
Post by: Stubborn on March 23, 2018, 05:05:38 AM
Thank you,

I should lay out some of the behind the scene happenings here. A meeting was held at my house with Fr. and my family to discuss this. The meeting went almost no where, but while at the meeting and in an email exchange since we have agreed to meet again. Fr. did lay out some recommendations and warnings to me, some of which was an attempt to pre-empt some of my possible arguments.

1. Sola Scriptura is a Protestant error like Sola Trent is a Catholic error because it is to the exclusion of the Universal Ordinary Magesterium and the Catholic puts his interpretation above the Church's.

2.Faulty judgment/discernment in matters to always emphasize the law above love.
 
3. In logic there are propositions that are universal complete, universal incomplete, and universal exceptive.

4.-       Weak Faith: It’s a supernatural virtue founded on Truth and insofar as something ‘proxima fidei’ is denied, it stunts a person’s Faith.

A heading "Concerning Divine Providence" would work well to combat his point #4. St Augustine has a good quote that would work "perish the thought that a person predestined to eternal life could be allowed to end this life without the sacrament of the mediator", but if you have something more authoritative that would be better.
When it comes to a BOD and the doctrine of Divine Providence, I think I would place it under the heading of your #1 above since the doctrine itself most certainly falls under the infallibility of the Universal Magisterium as it harmoniously agrees with Trent.

IOW, there is no solemn definition on the doctrine, least ways not that I am aware of, rather, the inescapable truth that God will never fail to provide for us that which He made essential to our salvation, is something that the Church has always taught and all the faithful (and most prots, even most with no religion at all) have believed always and everywhere since the time of the Apostles. I believe this doctrine in and of itself perfectly exemplifies what the Universal Magisterium is.

I made this post (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/divine-providence/msg508764/?topicseen#msg508764) a while back that may be of some help you if you decide to go that route. I hope you do and I would look forward to reading your refutation of a BOD in light of this doctrine.  
Title: Re: Ladislaus, Drew, Subborn, Please proof read
Post by: Ladislaus on March 23, 2018, 08:34:58 AM
3.    I insist on using the laws of thought, especially the law of non-contradiction.

Abelard famously appealed to the law of non-contradiction also in his rejection of BoD.
Title: Re: Ladislaus, Drew, Subborn, Please proof read
Post by: st bonosa on March 29, 2018, 05:22:50 AM
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins..."
Title: Re: Ladislaus, Drew, Subborn, Please proof read
Post by: Last Tradhican on March 29, 2018, 09:14:47 AM
Excellent defense.

When some time passes in your discussions with him, at the right time, I'd shift to attack mode and ask him if he believes that non-Catholics can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards if he agrees with Pope Francis and Abp. Lefebvre, for this is the heart of the problem, not a catechumen who dies by accident before he is baptized. Here's an old posting of mine which explains it more thoroughly:


Quote
"I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience". (Pope Francis)

That is nothing more than the theory of implicit faith which is believed by 99% of you believers of baptism of desire. It is providential that now Pope Francis is openly teaching it. Maybe this will convert the 99% of you believers in baptism of desire who stubbornly stick with your belief that implicit faith is true. I am presently discussing implicit faith on two other threads with two believers of the implicit faith theory. I keep describing it rather than calling it by its name (of implicit Faith), so as to avoid any wiggle room for those adherents:


The belief that a person who has no explicit desire to be a Catholic, or be baptized, or belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation can be saved.


I keep repeating that this belief is opposed to ALL of tradition and revelation, that is, opposed to ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, and the Athanasian Creed (of the Fathers!). I keep repeating that No Father, Doctor, Saint, ever taught that. Yet, I am fought at every turn by the believers in baptism of desire.

There is no reason for the SSPX to write all those books about BOD if it was about a catechumen who died by accident before he was baptized. They wrote all those books because they want to defend their variant of BOD, salvation for non-Catholics by their belief in a God that rewards.

If they were just going to defend the belief of BOD of a catechumen, they didn’t need to write all those books, they just needed on sentence, like this:

"You strict interpreters of the Council of Trent-Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, Canons 2 and 5, are only putting up this long debate over a catechumen who dies by accident before being baptized? This is a waste of ink!"

----------------------------------------------------------

The SSPX writes all of those books for a reason. I think that two of the reasons are:

1) they don't want to be further "stigmatized' by Rome as "Feeneyites", so they use the Feeneyites as whipping boys to show Rome that the SSPX is  liberal, just like the conciliar church with regard to EENS.

2) All the priests of the SSPX have been taught in their seminaries that non-Catholics can be saved, even if they are not baptized nor have a desire to be baptized (implicit faith, the complete opposite of baptism of desire).


Well, above you have Pope Francis teaching the same as the SSPX and what 99% of BODers fight me at every turn to defend,  this dark side in the minds of baptism of desire adherents and they now complain about what Pope Francis said.  Why aren't you defending Pope Francis like you defend Abp. Lefebvre (AB) and all of the traditionalist priests that learned from AB or teach the same as AB (Fr. Cekada, SSPV, SSPX, CMRI)?


From the book Against the Heresies, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:


1. Page 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”


2.Page 217: “One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions…”


Pages 217-218: “This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned. It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church: ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’ When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell. Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This must be preached.”
__________________________________________

Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Co., Feb. 18, 2006: “We know that there are two other baptisms, that of desire and that of blood. These produce an invisible but real link with Christ but do not produce all of the effects which are received in the baptism of water… And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)

---------------------------------------------------------

So much for desire to be baptized, or desire to be a Catholic, or a catechumen, or a martyr, or belief in the Holy Trinity and Jesus Christ , the Incarnation!

This is the Achilles heal of all the traditional priests ordained by the SSPX. If they can be led to accept even in implicit faith, then the accepting of the teaching that Vatican II contains no errors when interpreted accrding to tradtion, is an easy step.
Title: Re: Ladislaus, Drew, Subborn, Please proof read
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on March 29, 2018, 09:37:54 AM
" I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins..."

Yes. Even Sr. Lucy wrote in 1944:


Quote
Around four o’clock in the afternoon on January 3rd 1944, in the convent chapel of Tuy, in front of the Tabernacle, Our Lady urged Sister Lucia to write the text of the Third Secret and Sister Lucia recounts:
“I felt my spirit inundated by a mystery of light that is God and in Him I saw and heard the point of a lance like a flame that is detached touch the axis of the earth and it trembles: mountains, cities, towns and villages with their inhabitants are buried. The sea, the rivers and clouds exceed their boundaries, inundating and dragging with them in a vortex, houses and people in a number that cannot be counted; it is the purification of the world from the sin in which it is immersed. Hatred, ambition, provoke the destructive war. After I felt my heart racing and in my spirit a soft voice that said: ‘In time, one faith, one baptism, one Church, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic. In eternity, Heaven!’ This word ‘Heaven’ filled my heart with peace and happiness in such a way that, almost without being aware of it, I kept repeating to myself for a long time: Heaven, Heaven!!”
Um Caminho sob o olhar de Maria (A Path Under the Eyes of Mary), published in 2013 by the sisters of the Carmel of Coimbra

Title: Re: Ladislaus, Drew, Subborn, Please proof read
Post by: Theosist on April 16, 2018, 04:14:51 AM
Quote
He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)  ---------------------------------------------------------  So much for desire to be baptized
There you have it. This isn’t even baptism of desire anymore. There are so many heresies implicit in that statement, where does one even begin? Moral relativism in “following ones conscience”, the denial of the need to already be in a state of sanctifying grace in order to keep the “laws which God has put in his heart”, the ignoring of the doctrine of original sin, and the making of baptism redundant, for the translation it is supposed to effect apparently occurs in life before the actual reception of the sacrament!
If following ones conscience and keeping the law were sufficient for    sanctification, all persons below the age of reason would be living in a state of grace as a vacuous truth!
Title: Re: Ladislaus, Drew, Subborn, Please proof read
Post by: Theosist on April 16, 2018, 04:19:46 AM
Wrong! Even Vatican II documents  and the CCC do not teach what Fellay teaches there!

You will not find the claim that such persons may already be sanctified and justified! You will not find the claim that those who die as such might still be saved! It only states that they might be saved: it does not relate how this is to happen or that they might be saved if they die as such!
Title: Re: Ladislaus, Drew, Subborn, Please proof read
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 14, 2018, 11:07:27 AM
.
I was reading another website and found a link to this thread in one article of the blog:
.
http://catholicvox.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-fruits-of-baptism-of-desire.html
.
The blog post is dated Sept. 11, 2018 ------- just 3 days ago.
.
Tuesday, September 11, 2018
The Fruits of Baptism of Desire ? (http://catholicvox.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-fruits-of-baptism-of-desire.html)

[editor- Because of the recent scandals, many priests are trying to convince people not leave. Among them, is Bishop Barron, who has a weak argument. But since he thinks  de facto: "all are [saved]"-- why not leave? If you are saved anyway faith and it doesn't matter what you believe. (?) Baron's argument is to stay Catholic because it is "nice." But let's consider the problems with BoD. 

We take this from a [forum] on the topic https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-drew-subborn-please-proof-read/ ] (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-drew-subborn-please-proof-read/)
Title: Re: Ladislaus, Drew, Subborn, Please proof read
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 14, 2018, 12:17:56 PM

Quote from: JoeZ on March 21, 2018, 06:25:33 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/ladislaus-drew-subborn-please-proof-read/msg600796/#msg600796)
Quote
3.    I insist on using the laws of thought, especially the law of non-contradiction.

Abelard famously appealed to the law of non-contradiction also in his rejection of BoD.
.
It's not a "law." It has been known for at least 2,400 years in the Western world as the principle of non-contradiction. 
.
I've never heard of anyone making it into a law. If you can cite a reference that would be most welcome.
.
The ancient Greek philosophers, who had nothing but natural reason upon which to base their conclusions, recognized that the principle of non-contradiction was fundamental to all sound thinking. Without any divine revelation or influence from the Scriptures of the true faith (at that time the Pentatuch had been written but not disseminated to the world) they were able to apply diligent and patient effort to first principles as they recognized them using natural thought and reflection, that the moment one denies this principle of non-contradiction, all right reason goes out the window. The only possible consequence is total chaos and ultimately anarchy. 
.
Title: Re: Ladislaus, Drew, Subborn, Please proof read
Post by: Pax Vobis on September 14, 2018, 12:28:04 PM
Quote
I've never heard of anyone making it into a law.
It's a philosophical principle, or a foundational aspect of logic.  Sometimes foundational principles are referred to as "laws" (i.e. law of thermodynamics, the law of gravity, etc).
Title: Re: Ladislaus, Drew, Subborn, Please proof read
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 14, 2018, 12:57:22 PM
It's a philosophical principle, or a foundational aspect of logic.  Sometimes foundational principles are referred to as "laws" (i.e. law of thermodynamics, the law of gravity, etc).
.
Okay, in that sense it would be a law then. If it is acknowledged as a law, then Pope Benedict XVI becomes a lawbreaker when he published his "hermeneutic of continuity." Should have been called the hermeneutic of non-continuity
Title: Re: Ladislaus, Drew, Subborn, Please proof read
Post by: Ladislaus on September 14, 2018, 05:17:03 PM
.
Okay, in that sense it would be a law then. If it is acknowledged as a law, then Pope Benedict XVI becomes a lawbreaker when he published his "hermeneutic of continuity." Should have been called the hermeneutic of non-continuity.

Well, if I weren't a "Feeneyite", I could easily do a hermeneutic of continuity from Suprema Haec right into Vatican II ... without stretching in the least bit.
Title: Re: Ladislaus, Drew, Subborn, Please proof read
Post by: JoeZ on September 14, 2018, 08:56:46 PM
I suppose now is a good time to add the second part of my letter to Father. I titled this one Common Objections to the Necessity of Baptism: 


1.     Proposed; The Council of Trent supports BOD in Session VII, the canons on the sacraments in general, Canon 4. (Dnz 847). Answer; This canon is two exclusive propositions which are so closely related they are joined with a conjunction and share a common qualifier but they are different enough to have differing subjects and the predicate of the second is more precise. In their logical form they are quite simple, the first being; all those saved are participants in the sacraments (all S are P) and the second is; all those justified are willing participants in the sacraments (all S are P) and of course both are qualified such that each person participates in a different number of the sacraments. The only way this can support BOD is that either reception of the sacraments or the desire to receive the sacraments is sufficient for justification which changes the second proposition into some of those justified are not participants in the sacraments (some S are not P) which makes the two propositions contradictories, or a logical fallacy. In other words, Trent is teaching that the sacraments are necessary for salvation and then clarifying that the form, matter, and intent are necessary for justification (basic Catholic theology concerning the sacraments of baptism and penance) but the BOD proponent says that the sacraments are necessary for salvation and then contradicts himself and says that the sacraments are not necessary for justification which is of course that prerequisite first step of our salvation. Remember here that St. Thomas Aquinas (and Fr Laisney) state that BOD is not a sacrament. (In defense of the Angelic Doctor I must state that he lived before Trent.) The truth is, this canon from Trent anathematizes the possibility of BOD and those who use this to support BOD are being illogical either from ignorance or dishonesty.
2.     Proposed; The Council of Trent in Session VI, the Decree on Justification; chapter 4 supports BOD. First I must state that the Dnz 796 of this decree is a willful mistranslation to favor BOD and that is a serious sin. Knowing this and still using it is a deception, and depending on circumstances (who your trying to deceive) could be a serious sin as well. The latin word sine which means ‘without’ in English and has been mistranslated to ‘except through’ giving a different meaning. Now on to the meaning. The fathers at Trent were battling the practice of forced baptisms, most recently in Spain, which is why they defined the remedy for original sin as they did. Trent states that justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration or the will to receive it. Notice that in using the term “laver of regeneration” they specify the form and matter alone and they did not say baptism or the will thereof. This is because they are stating unequivocally, that form, matter, and intent are necessary for the sacrament. The fathers then go on to quote John 3:5 as support and command us to take it literally. Think of any two things you know go together and then substitute them into the sentence and it makes perfect sense. A man cannot be married without a woman or the will to marry her. The BOD of desire proponent claims this chapter means either the laver of regeneration or the will to receive it are sufficient for justification so that the will alone (votum means will not desire) is sufficient but this means then that the laver alone, absent the will, is sufficient and this is falsified in the very next chapter in Trent. Rather than supporting BOD this chapter in Trent is actually denies its possibility.
3.     Proposed; the Martyrology supports BOB. This is an argument of necessity, ie these stories don’t prove BOB directly but because there are no other possibilities, BOB must necessarily exist. All I have to do here is introduce other possibilities. First of all, I insist we use the definition of Baptism of Blood as Christ Himself used it (Mark 10:38), the martyrdom of a baptized Christian, so we must understand that when the early church mentions the Baptism of Blood we know they may be speaking of initiation into martyrdom and may not necessarily be mistaken for justification. Next, the term catechumen does not always mean unbaptized as the early church would occasionally baptize them in times of persecution. Pope St. Siricius and +St. Ambrose testify to this. Finally, we must concede some of the authors of the stories are simply mistaken, such as the Venerable Bede and his relaying of the story of St. Albanus and his companion. As St. Albanus ascended the hill he stopped to pray and a spring of water was miraculously produced. Here we see there is means (water and a minister), motive (St. Albanus is a Christian who knows baptism is a necessity for salvation), and opportunity (the soldiers allowed a stoppage in the process of execution). Means, motive, and opportunity is proof enough beyond a reasonable doubt for any prosecution. The same goes for the 40 martyrs on the frozen lake. The means (there is another person available to minister to the soldier and they are on a lake), motive (they are Christians who believe in the necessity of baptism), and opportunity (freezing to death takes time) are all supplied by Providence which is why St. Augustine says “Perish the thought that a person predestined to eternal life could be allowed to end this life without the sacrament of the mediator”. In sum, these stories are sometimes misunderstood by us or by their own authors, in which case proponents of BOB detract from the author’s reputation by continuing their error.
4.     Proposed; the catechisms teach BOB and BOD. Answer; Catechisms are not protected by infallibility. Introduction XXXVI from the Fifteenth Printing of The Catechism of the Council of Trent states: “Official documents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine, and is addressed to the whole Church. Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de fide.”

Since catechisms are not infallible, there is a possibility that erroneous theories such as baptism of desire and baptism of blood could make their way into them. Moreover, the original edition of The Catechism of the Council of Trent did not contain baptism of blood or baptism of desire. This is attested to by Fr. Wathen in his work Who Shall Ascend (p.225), where he states, “In the original edition of The Catechism, there is no mention of either term. In fact, one will not find the insertion of these terms [baptisms of desire and blood] until the late nineteenth century.” Modernists (Modernism is the synthesis of all error) have recently inserted these ideas into the catechisms and other Catholic publications like the Denzinger with an eye to the end goal of attacking the dogma of no salvation outside the Catholic Church. In their ancient form, BOD and BOB concerned only the catechumen and as such they are a theological speculation that is in error only of only a minor theological note, but in their modern form, that of the “anonymous Christian” variety by Karl Rahner, the idea of implicit desire was introduced and taken to heretical extremes, ie baptism doesn’t even have to be desired to place one in the Church. The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office, which may well actually be faked by +Cushing, has been elevated to dogma, placed in the Denzinger, and is even used in Vatican 2 as support for its worst heresy. If one holds the idea of implicit BOD then one cannot argue against Vatican 2’s new ecclesiology, one must respect as deeply profound John Paul 2’s subsistence theology, and one cannot condemn the interfaith ceremonies of Assisi.
5.     Proposed; the condemnations of Michael du Bay supports BOD (Dnz 1031 & 1033). Answer; concerning the first of these two, St Pius V has stated that perfect and sincere charity cannot be in catechumens or in penitents without the remission of sins. The BOD proponent presupposes the catechumen can have perfect and sincere charity and thereby gain the remission of sin but this position falsifies itself as it renders the condemnation meaningless. If perfect and sincere charity remits sin in the catechumen (BOD), to state that they cannot have it in them without the remission of sin is useless. No, rather, St. Pius is stating that the catechumen cannot have perfect and sincere charity until the remission of his sin, ie baptism; the pope is actually condemning an operating principle of BOD. Concerning the second, which is much like the above condemnation but deals more specifically about the catechumen and his justification, St. Pius lays out du Bay’s argument for the justification of the catechumen prior to the remission of sin. In order to clarify what du Bay means by the catechumen “fulfills the law through charity” St. Pius interjects the true statement “which is only received in the laver of baptism”. The BOD proponent misreads this and claims that the pope is condemning the idea that the law is only fulfilled through baptism but that reading makes the whole passage unintelligible. The whole thing is one single sentence, one thought, with the reason for the condemnation built right into it as a clarification of the false position. Pope St Pius V is actually condemning the idea of BOD because fulfillment of the law can only be through the sacrament of baptism.
6.     Proposed; the unanimous consent of the Church Fathers proves BOD. Answer; this argument easily falls to anyone with a minimal amount of study on the topic. Pope St Siricius held no possibility of BOD or BOB when he bound all the bishops of the church by the oldest surviving papal decree to baptize any catechumen who asked for it if they were in any danger, including persecution, because without it “every single one of them exiting this world would lose both the kingdom and life”. Pope St Leo the Great, when teaching that sanctification is only through the sprinkling of Christ’s blood wrote definitively to the Council of Chalcedon “the spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption and the water of baptism. These three are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others”.  Along these same lines St Ambrose says; “You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.” And again; "then you should realize that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated." And again; “… no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.” And again; “’Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity. They may, however, have an undisclosed exemption from punishments; but I do not know whether they can have the honor of the kingdom.”  The BOD proponent will point to St Ambrose’ funeral oration for the murdered emperor Valentinian as proof of BOD but a critical look at the oration itself, balanced with the other writings of St Ambrose show quite the contrary. During the oration, St Ambrose assured the grieving crowd that Valentinian received what he asked for. This does allow for a BOD but can’t prove it because another possibility exists and is more likely. St Ambrose was privy to the circumstances of Valentinian’s murder, knew the emperor was actually baptized before it happened but because it was a state secret, St Ambrose could not reveal he knew because he would then be forced to reveal the identity of the murderers and a civil war could ensue. Also remarkable is that the faithful were mourning Valentinian because they thought he was not baptized and therefore lost. They would not believe this way if St Ambrose had previously taught them BOD. Also, in St Augustine’s earlier work that promoted BOD, he never mentions St Ambrose, his very mentor, as support for the BOD position. St Augustine in his early writing does propose BOD but later in his life he leaves no possibility of it. In fact, the arch modernist, Mr Anonymous Christian himself, Karl Rahner says, “Fathers such as Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa deny altogether the justifying power of love or of the desire for baptism. Hence it will be impossible to speak of a consensus dogmaticus in the early Church regarding the possibility of salvation for the non-baptized, and especially for someone who is not even a catechumen. In fact, even St. Augustine, in his last (anti-pelagian) period, no longer maintained the possibility of a baptism by desire.”  St Augustine says, “How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized, and are thus lost forever! ...When we shall have come into the sight of God, we shall behold the equity of His justice. At that time, no one will say: Why did He help this one and not that one? Why was this man led by God's direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster and not baptized? Look for rewards, and you will find nothing but punishments! ….For of what use would repentance be, even before Baptism, if Baptism did not follow? ...No matter what progress a catechumen may make, he still carries the burden of iniquity, and it is not taken away until he has been baptized.”  Also,  : “What is the Baptism of Christ? A washing in the word. Take away the water, and there is no Baptism. It is, then, by water, the visible and outward sign of grace, and by the Spirit, Who produces the inward gift of grace, which cancels the bond of sin and restores God’s gift to human nature, that the man who was born solely of Adam in the first place is afterwards re-born solely in Christ.”  Here I will quote St Augustine again as a better written conclusion then I could ever write, “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” Amen.
Thank you for your time and may God bless,
JoeZ
Title: Re: Ladislaus, Drew, Subborn, Please proof read
Post by: Neil Obstat on September 14, 2018, 09:02:38 PM
Well, if I weren't a "Feeneyite", I could easily do a hermeneutic of continuity from Suprema Haec right into Vatican II ... without stretching in the least bit.
.
Don't worry -- there are plenty of "anti-Feeneyites" around who think all the problems began with Vat.II; so they'll have no problem doing that hermeneutic of continuity from 122/49 (without any AAS number or papal signature) right into Vat.II FOR YOU, without stretching in the least bit.  A good number of them are CMRI sedevacantists.
.
It's noteworthy that so long as one thinks the pre-Vat.II Church was squeaky clean, that the problems Fr. Feeney faced must therefore have been of his OWN MAKING and not coming from Rome, the Vatican or the local Chancery office, since, well, the Church was squeaky clean (false premise). When you begin with a false premise, your thinking will be clouded and you will come to wrong conclusions, and you won't know why they could be wrong. 
Title: Re: Ladislaus, Drew, Subborn, Please proof read
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 13, 2018, 01:13:32 AM
Well, if I weren't a "Feeneyite", I could easily do a hermeneutic of continuity from Suprema Haec right into Vatican II ... without stretching in the least bit.
.
Substitute terms:
.
Well, if I were not a slave of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I could easily do a hermeneutic of continuity from Suprema Haec right into Vatican II ... without stretching in the least bit.
.
Does it still mean the same thing? Because the substituted term has the same meaning.
.
Don't forget that the nefarious termite Karl Rahner is the guilty party responsible for inserting the 122/49 private letter into the Enchridion Symbolorum as if it were on par with other documents, many of which are infallible definitions, while the private letter is no such thing by any stretch!
Title: Re: Ladislaus, Drew, Subborn, Please proof read
Post by: Pax Vobis on November 13, 2018, 08:45:16 AM
Neither 'Suprema Haec' nor 'Mystici corporis Christi', which is quoted by 'Suprema Haec', issue any definitive or infallible statements.  They are like pre-V2, here's-what's-coming-in-the-next-few-years gibberish.  Since we don't have to accept these documents with a 'certainty of faith' we only have to accept them with a CONDITIONAL 'religious submission'.  And, obviously, I have many questions on how these 2 documents agree with past infallible statements on EENS.  So from my personal salvation's standpoint, they are meaningless and don't affect me in the least.

Just more modernist garbage.
Title: Re: Ladislaus, Drew, Subborn, Please proof read
Post by: Ladislaus on November 13, 2018, 09:09:13 AM
Don't forget that the nefarious termite Karl Rahner is the guilty party responsible for inserting the 122/49 private letter into the Enchridion Symbolorum as if it were on par with other documents, many of which are infallible definitions, while the private letter is no such thing by any stretch!

Sure, and the fact that it's referred to be the first two Latin words, Superma Haec, makes it sound like an Encyclical or something.
Title: Re: Ladislaus, Drew, Subborn, Please proof read
Post by: Ladislaus on November 13, 2018, 03:10:25 PM
Don't forget that the nefarious termite Karl Rahner is the guilty party responsible for inserting the 122/49 private letter into the Enchridion Symbolorum as if it were on par with other documents, many of which are infallible definitions, while the private letter is no such thing by any stretch!

Well, at least Rahner had the honesty to admit that the Church Fathers largely opposed any possibility of salvation without the Sacrament of Baptism, and for the few that did entertain it, only for catechumens who were already considered part of the visible Church through their formal initiation.  Modern BoDers, including Traditional Catholics, falsely claim that the Church Fathers were unanimous in their support of BoD.
Title: Re: Ladislaus, Drew, Subborn, Please proof read
Post by: Hermenegild on November 13, 2018, 03:56:33 PM
Well, if I weren't a "Feeneyite", I could easily do a hermeneutic of continuity from Suprema Haec right into Vatican II ... without stretching in the least bit.
Wait, what? There were errors before Vatican II?
Title: Re: Ladislaus, Drew, Subborn, Please proof read
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 21, 2018, 10:36:55 PM
I suppose now is a good time to add the second part of my letter to Father. I titled this one Common Objections to the Necessity of Baptism:

[I have inserted a few changes, such as semicolons replaced with colons, latin capitalized Latin, and Answer on its own line for clarity.]


1.    Proposed: The Council of Trent supports BOD in Session VII, the canons on the sacraments in general, Canon 4. (Dnz 847). 
       Answer: This canon is two exclusive propositions which are so closely related they are joined with a conjunction and share a common qualifier but they are different enough to have differing subjects and the predicate of the second is more precise. In their logical form they are quite simple, the first being; all those saved are participants in the sacraments (all S are P) and the second is; all those justified are willing participants in the sacraments (all S are P) and of course both are qualified such that each person participates in a different number of the sacraments. The only way this can support BOD is that either reception of the sacraments or the desire to receive the sacraments is sufficient for justification which changes the second proposition into some of those justified are not participants in the sacraments (some S are not P) which makes the two propositions contradictories, or a logical fallacy. In other words, Trent is teaching that the sacraments are necessary for salvation and then clarifying that the form, matter, and intent are necessary for justification (basic Catholic theology concerning the sacraments of baptism and penance) but the BOD proponent says that the sacraments are necessary for salvation and then contradicts himself and says that the sacraments are not necessary for justification which is of course that prerequisite first step of our salvation. Remember here that St. Thomas Aquinas (and Fr Laisney) state that BOD is not a sacrament. (In defense of the Angelic Doctor I must state that he lived before Trent.) The truth is, this canon from Trent anathematizes the possibility of BOD and those who use this to support BOD are being illogical either from ignorance or dishonesty. 
.
2.     Proposed: The Council of Trent in Session VI, the Decree on Justification; chapter 4 supports BOD. 
       [Answer: ] First, I must state that the Dnz 796 of this decree is a willful mistranslation to favor BOD and that is a serious sin. Knowing this and still using it is a deception, and depending on circumstances (who your trying to deceive) could be a serious sin as well. The Latin word sine which means ‘without’ in English and has been mistranslated to ‘except through’ giving a different meaning. Now on to the meaning. The fathers at Trent were battling the practice of forced baptisms, most recently in Spain, which is why they defined the remedy for original sin as they did. Trent states that justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration or the will to receive it. Notice that in using the term “laver of regeneration” they specify the form and matter alone and they did not say baptism or the will thereof. This is because they are stating unequivocally, that form, matter, and intent are necessary for the sacrament. The fathers then go on to quote John 3:5 as support and command us to take it literally. Think of any two things you know go together and then substitute them into the sentence and it makes perfect sense. A man cannot be married without a woman or the will to marry her. The BOD of desire proponent claims this chapter means either the laver of regeneration or the will to receive it are sufficient for justification so that the will alone (votum means will not desire) is sufficient but this means then that the laver alone, absent the will, is sufficient and this is falsified in the very next chapter in Trent. Rather than supporting BOD this chapter in Trent is actually denies its possibility.
.
3.     Proposed: the Martyrology supports BOB. 
       [Answer:] This is an argument of necessity, i.e., these stories don’t prove BOB directly but because there are no other possibilities, BOB must necessarily exist. All I have to do here is introduce other possibilities. First of all, I insist we use the definition of Baptism of Blood as Christ Himself used it (Mark 10:38 ), the martyrdom of a baptized Christian, so we must understand that when the early church mentions the Baptism of Blood we know they may be speaking of initiation into martyrdom and may not necessarily be mistaken for justification. Next, the term catechumen does not always mean unbaptized as the early church would occasionally baptize them in times of persecution. Pope St. Siricius and +St. Ambrose testify to this. Finally, we must concede some of the authors of the stories are simply mistaken, such as the Venerable Bede and his relaying of the story of St. Albanus and his companion. As St. Albanus ascended the hill he stopped to pray and a spring of water was miraculously produced. Here we see there is means (water and a minister), motive (St. Albanus is a Christian who knows baptism is a necessity for salvation), and opportunity (the soldiers allowed a stoppage in the process of execution). Means, motive, and opportunity is proof enough beyond a reasonable doubt for any prosecution. The same goes for the 40 martyrs on the frozen lake. The means (there is another person available to minister to the soldier and they are on a lake), motive (they are Christians who believe in the necessity of baptism), and opportunity (freezing to death takes time) are all supplied by Providence which is why St. Augustine says “Perish the thought that a person predestined to eternal life could be allowed to end this life without the sacrament of the mediator”. In sum, these stories are sometimes misunderstood by us or by their own authors, in which case proponents of BOB detract from the author’s reputation by continuing their error.
.
4.    Proposed: the catechisms teach BOB and BOD. 
      Answer: Catechisms are not protected by infallibility. Introduction XXXVI from the Fifteenth Printing of The Catechism of the Council of Trent states: “Official documents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine, and is addressed to the whole Church. Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de fide.”

Since catechisms are not infallible, there is a possibility that erroneous theories such as baptism of desire and baptism of blood could make their way into them. Moreover, the original edition of The Catechism of the Council of Trent did not contain baptism of blood or baptism of desire. This is attested to by Fr. Wathen in his work Who Shall Ascend (p.225), where he states, “In the original edition of The Catechism, there is no mention of either term. In fact, one will not find the insertion of these terms [baptisms of desire and blood] until the late nineteenth century.” Modernists (Modernism is the synthesis of all error) have recently inserted these ideas into the catechisms and other Catholic publications like the Denzinger with an eye to the end goal of attacking the dogma of no salvation outside the Catholic Church. In their ancient form, BOD and BOB concerned only the catechumen and as such they are a theological speculation that is in error only of only a minor theological note, but in their modern form, that of the “anonymous Christian” variety by Karl Rahner, the idea of implicit desire was introduced and taken to heretical extremes, ie baptism doesn’t even have to be desired to place one in the Church. The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office, which may well actually be faked by +Cushing, has been elevated to dogma, placed in the Denzinger, and is even used in Vatican 2 as support for its worst heresy. If one holds the idea of implicit BOD then one cannot argue against Vatican 2’s new ecclesiology, one must respect as deeply profound John Paul 2’s subsistence theology, and one cannot condemn the interfaith ceremonies of Assisi.
.
5.    Proposed: the condemnations of Michael du Bay supports BOD (Dnz 1031 & 1033). 
      Answer: concerning the first of these two, St Pius V has stated that perfect and sincere charity cannot be in catechumens or in penitents without the remission of sins. The BOD proponent presupposes the catechumen can have perfect and sincere charity and thereby gain the remission of sin but this position falsifies itself as it renders the condemnation meaningless. If perfect and sincere charity remits sin in the catechumen (BOD), to state that they cannot have it in them without the remission of sin is useless. No, rather, St. Pius is stating that the catechumen cannot have perfect and sincere charity until the remission of his sin, ie baptism; the pope is actually condemning an operating principle of BOD. Concerning the second, which is much like the above condemnation but deals more specifically about the catechumen and his justification, St. Pius lays out du Bay’s argument for the justification of the catechumen prior to the remission of sin. In order to clarify what du Bay means by the catechumen “fulfills the law through charity” St. Pius interjects the true statement “which is only received in the laver of baptism”. The BOD proponent misreads this and claims that the pope is condemning the idea that the law is only fulfilled through baptism but that reading makes the whole passage unintelligible. The whole thing is one single sentence, one thought, with the reason for the condemnation built right into it as a clarification of the false position. Pope St Pius V is actually condemning the idea of BOD because fulfillment of the law can only be through the sacrament of baptism.
.
6.     Proposed: the unanimous consent of the Church Fathers proves BOD. 
       Answer: this argument easily falls to anyone with a minimal amount of study on the topic. Pope St Siricius held no possibility of BOD or BOB when he bound all the bishops of the church by the oldest surviving papal decree to baptize any catechumen who asked for it if they were in any danger, including persecution, because without it “every single one of them exiting this world would lose both the kingdom and life”. Pope St Leo the Great, when teaching that sanctification is only through the sprinkling of Christ’s blood wrote definitively to the Council of Chalcedon “the spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption and the water of baptism. These three are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others”.  Along these same lines St Ambrose says; “You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”
And again; "then you should realize that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated."
And again; “… no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.”
And again; “’Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity. They may, however, have an undisclosed exemption from punishments; but I do not know whether they can have the honor of the kingdom.”  The BOD proponent will point to St Ambrose’s funeral oration for the murdered emperor Valentinian as proof of BOD but a critical look at the oration itself, balanced with the other writings of St Ambrose show quite the contrary. During the oration, St Ambrose assured the grieving crowd that Valentinian received what he asked for. This does allow for a BOD but can’t prove it because another possibility exists and is more likely. St Ambrose was privy to the circumstances of Valentinian’s murder, knew the emperor was actually baptized before it happened but because it was a state secret, St Ambrose could not reveal he knew because he would then be forced to reveal the identity of the murderers and a civil war could ensue. Also remarkable is that the faithful were mourning Valentinian because they thought he was not baptized and therefore lost. They would not believe this way if St Ambrose had previously taught them BOD. Also, in St Augustine’s earlier work that promoted BOD, he never mentions St Ambrose, his very mentor, as support for the BOD position.
.
St Augustine in his early writing does propose BOD but later in his life he leaves no possibility of it. In fact, the arch modernist, Mr Anonymous Christian himself, Karl Rahner says, “Fathers such as Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa deny altogether the justifying power of love or of the desire for baptism. Hence it will be impossible to speak of a consensus dogmaticus in the early Church regarding the possibility of salvation for the non-baptized, and especially for someone who is not even a catechumen. In fact, even St. Augustine, in his last (anti-pelagian) period, no longer maintained the possibility of a baptism by desire.”  St Augustine says, “How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized, and are thus lost forever! ...When we shall have come into the sight of God, we shall behold the equity of His justice. At that time, no one will say: Why did He help this one and not that one? Why was this man led by God's direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster and not baptized? Look for rewards, and you will find nothing but punishments! ….For of what use would repentance be, even before Baptism, if Baptism did not follow? ...No matter what progress a catechumen may make, he still carries the burden of iniquity, and it is not taken away until he has been baptized.”  

Also, [St. Augustine says] : “What is the Baptism of Christ? A washing in the word. Take away the water, and there is no Baptism. It is, then, by water, the visible and outward sign of grace, and by the Spirit, Who produces the inward gift of grace, which cancels the bond of sin and restores God’s gift to human nature, that the man who was born solely of Adam in the first place is afterwards re-born solely in Christ.”  
.
Here I will quote St Augustine again as a better written conclusion then I could ever write, “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” Amen.
Thank you for your time and may God bless,
JoeZ
.
I realize I'm commenting late on this, JoeZ, but I just now noticed a few typos. 
.
You have "then" where you should have "than" --  When I first read this sentence, I had no idea what the meaning was, until I found that error, and when I mentally made the correction suddenly the whole sentence made sense! I added a comma after again, a hyphen between better-written, and changed the comma to a colon after "could ever write:"
.
Also, there is no open single quotation mark preceding the close quote mark that follows predestined which means the reader has no idea who is being quoted or where the quote begins. Your double quotation marks open at write, If... and close at mischief. Amen
.
I inserted a single open-quote between that and they, if that is where it ought to be, just in case, and added italics for that sub-quote, in this your final paragraph, above (St. Augustine didn't have the benefit of italics, otherwise he would have used them!) :
.
.
Here I will quote St Augustine again, as a better-written conclusion  then  [than] I could ever write: If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that, 'they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined. There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief. Amen.

Thank you for your time and may God bless,
JoeZ
Title: Re: Ladislaus, Drew, Subborn, Please proof read
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 21, 2018, 10:44:42 PM
.
JoeZ, could you provide the source of this excerpt from your post above?
.
.
And again; “… no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.”

And again; “’Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity. They may, however, have an undisclosed exemption from punishments; but I do not know whether they can have the honor of the kingdom.”  

The BOD proponent will point to St Ambrose’s funeral oration for the murdered emperor Valentinian as proof of BOD but a critical look at the oration itself, balanced with the other writings of St Ambrose show quite the contrary. During the oration, St Ambrose assured the grieving crowd that Valentinian received what he asked for. This does allow for a BOD but can’t prove it because another possibility exists and is more likely.

St Ambrose was privy to the circumstances of Valentinian’s murder, knew the emperor was actually baptized before it happened but because it was a state secret, St Ambrose could not reveal he knew because he would then be forced to reveal the identity of the murderers and a civil war could ensue. Also remarkable is that the faithful were mourning Valentinian because they thought he was not baptized and therefore lost. They would not believe this way if St Ambrose had previously taught them BOD. Also, in St Augustine’s earlier work that promoted BOD, he never mentions St Ambrose, his very mentor, as support for the BOD position.
.
.
Is this your own composition, or are you summarizing the words of another author?  
Title: Re: Ladislaus, Drew, Subborn, Please proof read
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 21, 2018, 11:13:21 PM
.
ETA -- the system timed me out:
.
[I have inserted a few changes, such as semicolons replaced with colons, latin capitalized as Latin, placed Answer on its own line for clarity, inserted a RETURN for several lines where I thought it would help readability, added periods and comma for i.e., and inserted the reference to I John 5:7-8.]
.
I suppose now is a good time to add the second part of my letter to Father. I titled this one Common Objections to the Necessity of Baptism:


1.    Proposed: The Council of Trent supports BOD in Session VII, the canons on the sacraments in general, Canon 4. (Dnz 847).
   Answer: This canon is two exclusive propositions which are so closely related they are joined with a conjunction and share a common qualifier but they are different enough to have differing subjects and the predicate of the second is more precise. In their logical form they are quite simple, the first being; all those saved are participants in the sacraments (all S are P) and the second is; all those justified are willing participants in the sacraments (all S are P) and of course both are qualified such that each person participates in a different number of the sacraments. The only way this can support BOD is that either reception of the sacraments or the desire to receive the sacraments is sufficient for justification which changes the second proposition into some of those justified are not participants in the sacraments (some S are not P) which makes the two propositions contradictories, or a logical fallacy. In other words, Trent is teaching that the sacraments are necessary for salvation and then clarifying that the form, matter, and intent are necessary for justification (basic Catholic theology concerning the sacraments of baptism and penance) but the BOD proponent says that the sacraments are necessary for salvation and then contradicts himself and says that the sacraments are not necessary for justification which is of course that prerequisite first step of our salvation. Remember here that St. Thomas Aquinas (and Fr Laisney) state that BOD is not a sacrament. (In defense of the Angelic Doctor I must state that he lived before Trent.) The truth is, this canon from Trent anathematizes the possibility of BOD and those who use this to support BOD are being illogical either from ignorance or dishonesty.
.
2.    Proposed: The Council of Trent in Session VI, the Decree on Justification; chapter 4 supports BOD.
  [Answer: ] First, I must state that the Dnz 796 of this decree is a willful mistranslation to favor BOD and that is a serious sin. Knowing this and still using it is a deception, and depending on circumstances (who your trying to deceive) could be a serious sin as well. The Latin word sine which means ‘without’ in English and has been mistranslated to ‘except through’ giving a different meaning. Now on to the meaning. The fathers at Trent were battling the practice of forced baptisms, most recently in Spain, which is why they defined the remedy for original sin as they did. Trent states that justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration or the will to receive it. Notice that in using the term “laver of regeneration” they specify the form and matter alone and they did not say baptism or the will thereof. This is because they are stating unequivocally, that form, matter, and intent are necessary for the sacrament. The fathers then go on to quote John 3:5 as support and command us to take it literally. Think of any two things you know go together and then substitute them into the sentence and it makes perfect sense. A man cannot be married without a woman or the will to marry her. The BOD of desire proponent claims this chapter means either the laver of regeneration or the will to receive it are sufficient for justification so that the will alone (votum means will not desire) is sufficient but this means then that the laver alone, absent the will, is sufficient and this is falsified in the very next chapter in Trent. Rather than supporting BOD this chapter in Trent is actually denies its possibility.
.
3.    Proposed: the Martyrology supports BOB.
  [Answer:] This is an argument of necessity, i.e., these stories don’t prove BOB directly but because there are no other possibilities, BOB must necessarily exist. All I have to do here is introduce other possibilities. First of all, I insist we use the definition of Baptism of Blood as Christ Himself used it (Mark 10:38 ), the martyrdom of a baptized Christian, so we must understand that when the early church mentions the Baptism of Blood we know they may be speaking of initiation into martyrdom and may not necessarily be mistaken for justification. Next, the term catechumen does not always mean unbaptized as the early church would occasionally baptize them in times of persecution. Pope St. Siricius and +St. Ambrose testify to this. Finally, we must concede some of the authors of the stories are simply mistaken, such as the Venerable Bede and his relaying of the story of St. Albanus and his companion. As St. Albanus ascended the hill he stopped to pray and a spring of water was miraculously produced. Here we see there is means (water and a minister), motive (St. Albanus is a Christian who knows baptism is a necessity for salvation), and opportunity (the soldiers allowed a stoppage in the process of execution). Means, motive, and opportunity is proof enough beyond a reasonable doubt for any prosecution. The same goes for the 40 martyrs on the frozen lake. The means (there is another person available to minister to the soldier and they are on a lake), motive (they are Christians who believe in the necessity of baptism), and opportunity (freezing to death takes time) are all supplied by Providence which is why St. Augustine says “Perish the thought that a person predestined to eternal life could be allowed to end this life without the sacrament of the mediator”. In sum, these stories are sometimes misunderstood by us or by their own authors, in which case proponents of BOB detract from the author’s reputation by continuing their error.
.
4.   Proposed: the catechisms teach BOB and BOD.
  Answer: Catechisms are not protected by infallibility. Introduction XXXVI from the Fifteenth Printing of The Catechism of the Council of Trent states: “Official documents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine, and is addressed to the whole Church. Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de fide.”

Since catechisms are not infallible, there is a possibility that erroneous theories such as baptism of desire and baptism of blood could make their way into them. Moreover, the original edition of The Catechism of the Council of Trent did not contain baptism of blood or baptism of desire. This is attested to by Fr. Wathen in his work Who Shall Ascend (p.225), where he states, “In the original edition of The Catechism, there is no mention of either term. In fact, one will not find the insertion of these terms [baptisms of desire and blood] until the late nineteenth century.” Modernists (Modernism is the synthesis of all error) have recently inserted these ideas into the catechisms and other Catholic publications like the Denzinger with an eye to the end goal of attacking the dogma of no salvation outside the Catholic Church. In their ancient form, BOD and BOB concerned only the catechumen and as such they are a theological speculation that is in error only of only a minor theological note, but in their modern form, that of the “anonymous Christian” variety by Karl Rahner, the idea of implicit desire was introduced and taken to heretical extremes, ie baptism doesn’t even have to be desired to place one in the Church. The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office, which may well actually be faked by +Cushing, has been elevated to dogma, placed in the Denzinger, and is even used in Vatican 2 as support for its worst heresy. If one holds the idea of implicit BOD then one cannot argue against Vatican 2’s new ecclesiology, one must respect as deeply profound John Paul 2’s subsistence theology, and one cannot condemn the interfaith ceremonies of Assisi.
.
5.    Proposed: the condemnations of Michael du Bay supports BOD (Dnz 1031 & 1033).
   Answer: concerning the first of these two, St Pius V has stated that perfect and sincere charity cannot be in catechumens or in penitents without the remission of sins. The BOD proponent presupposes the catechumen can have perfect and sincere charity and thereby gain the remission of sin but this position falsifies itself as it renders the condemnation meaningless. If perfect and sincere charity remits sin in the catechumen (BOD), to state that they cannot have it in them without the remission of sin is useless. No, rather, St. Pius is stating that the catechumen cannot have perfect and sincere charity until the remission of his sin, ie baptism; the pope is actually condemning an operating principle of BOD. Concerning the second, which is much like the above condemnation but deals more specifically about the catechumen and his justification, St. Pius lays out du Bay’s argument for the justification of the catechumen prior to the remission of sin. In order to clarify what du Bay means by the catechumen “fulfills the law through charity” St. Pius interjects the true statement “which is only received in the laver of baptism”. The BOD proponent misreads this and claims that the pope is condemning the idea that the law is only fulfilled through baptism but that reading makes the whole passage unintelligible. The whole thing is one single sentence, one thought, with the reason for the condemnation built right into it as a clarification of the false position. Pope St Pius V is actually condemning the idea of BOD because fulfillment of the law can only be through the sacrament of baptism.
.
6.     Proposed: the unanimous consent of the Church Fathers proves BOD.
   Answer: this argument easily falls to anyone with a minimal amount of study on the topic. Pope St Siricius held no possibility of BOD or BOB when he bound all the bishops of the church by the oldest surviving papal decree to baptize any catechumen who asked for it if they were in any danger, including persecution, because without it “every single one of them exiting this world would lose both the kingdom and life”. Pope St Leo the Great, when teaching that sanctification is only through the sprinkling of Christ’s blood wrote definitively to the Council of Chalcedon “the spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption and the water of baptism. These three are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others”.  
.
Along these same lines, St Ambrose says: “You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit [ I Jn 5:7-8 ] ; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘...unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”
And again; "then you should realize that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated."
And again; “… no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.”
And again; “’Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity. They may, however, have an undisclosed exemption from punishments; but I do not know whether they can have the honor of the kingdom.”  The BOD proponent will point to St Ambrose’s funeral oration for the murdered emperor Valentinian as proof of BOD but a critical look at the oration itself, balanced with the other writings of St Ambrose show quite the contrary. During the oration, St Ambrose assured the grieving crowd that Valentinian received what he asked for. This does allow for a BOD but can’t prove it because another possibility exists and is more likely. St Ambrose was privy to the circumstances of Valentinian’s murder, knew the emperor was actually baptized before it happened but because it was a state secret, St Ambrose could not reveal he knew because he would then be forced to reveal the identity of the murderers and a civil war could ensue. Also remarkable is that the faithful were mourning Valentinian because they thought he was not baptized and therefore lost. They would not believe this way if St Ambrose had previously taught them BOD. Also, in St Augustine’s earlier work that promoted BOD, he never mentions St Ambrose, his very mentor, as support for the BOD position.
.
St Augustine in his early writing does propose BOD but later in his life he leaves no possibility of it. In fact, the arch modernist, Mr Anonymous Christian himself, Karl Rahner says, “Fathers such as Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa deny altogether the justifying power of love or of the desire for baptism. Hence it will be impossible to speak of a consensus dogmaticus in the early Church regarding the possibility of salvation for the non-baptized, and especially for someone who is not even a catechumen. In fact, even St. Augustine, in his last (anti-pelagian) period, no longer maintained the possibility of a baptism by desire.”  St Augustine says, “How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere catechumens die unbaptized, and are thus lost forever! ...When we shall have come into the sight of God, we shall behold the equity of His justice. At that time, no one will say: Why did He help this one and not that one? Why was this man led by God's direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster and not baptized? Look for rewards, and you will find nothing but punishments! ….For of what use would repentance be, even before Baptism, if Baptism did not follow? ...No matter what progress a catechumen may make, he still carries the burden of iniquity, and it is not taken away until he has been baptized.”  

Also, [St. Augustine says] : “What is the Baptism of Christ? A washing in the word. Take away the water, and there is no Baptism. It is, then, by water, the visible and outward sign of grace, and by the Spirit, Who produces the inward gift of grace, which cancels the bond of sin and restores God’s gift to human nature, that the man who was born solely of Adam in the first place is afterwards re-born solely in Christ.”  
.
Here I will quote St Augustine again as a better written conclusion then I could ever write, “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” Amen.

Thank you for your time and may God bless,

JoeZ
.
I realize I'm commenting late on this, JoeZ, but I just now noticed a few typos.
.
You have "then" where you should have "than" --  When I first read this sentence, I had no idea what the meaning was, until I found that error, and when I mentally made the correction suddenly the whole sentence made sense! In fact, a whole two months had passed between readings, because I had thought that the whole thing was nonsense; you see, I had read your last paragraph first and didn't bother to read the rest when this one sentence stumped me, all because of the "e" that should have been an "a." Now that I fixed the problem, I see what you have written here is very interesting!

I added a comma after again, a hyphen between better-written, and changed the comma to a colon after "could ever write:"
.
Also, there is no open single quotation mark preceding the close quote mark that follows predestined which means the reader has no idea who is being quoted or where the quote begins. Your double quotation marks open at write, If... and close at mischief. Amen.
.
I inserted a single open-quote between that and they, if that is where it ought to be, just in case, and added italics for that sub-quote, in this your final paragraph, above (St. Augustine didn't have the benefit of italics, otherwise he would have used them!) :
.
.
Here I will quote St Augustine again, as a better-written conclusion then [than] I could ever write: If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that, 'they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined. There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief. Amen.

Thank you for your time and may God bless,

JoeZ
Title: Re: Ladislaus, Drew, Subborn, Please proof read
Post by: JoeZ on November 22, 2018, 07:18:04 PM
First: thx Neil, corrections have been made.



St. Ambrose:

“… no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.”
Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2: 1323



“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity. They may, however, have an undisclosed exemption from punishments; but I do not know whether they can have the honor of the kingdom.



Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2: 1324
Title: Re: Ladislaus, Drew, Subborn, Please proof read
Post by: JoeZ on November 22, 2018, 07:28:46 PM
.
JoeZ, could you provide the source of this excerpt from your post above?
.
.
And again; “… no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.”

And again; “’Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity. They may, however, have an undisclosed exemption from punishments; but I do not know whether they can have the honor of the kingdom.”  

The BOD proponent will point to St Ambrose’s funeral oration for the murdered emperor Valentinian as proof of BOD but a critical look at the oration itself, balanced with the other writings of St Ambrose show quite the contrary. During the oration, St Ambrose assured the grieving crowd that Valentinian received what he asked for. This does allow for a BOD but can’t prove it because another possibility exists and is more likely.

St Ambrose was privy to the circumstances of Valentinian’s murder, knew the emperor was actually baptized before it happened but because it was a state secret, St Ambrose could not reveal he knew because he would then be forced to reveal the identity of the murderers and a civil war could ensue. Also remarkable is that the faithful were mourning Valentinian because they thought he was not baptized and therefore lost. They would not believe this way if St Ambrose had previously taught them BOD. Also, in St Augustine’s earlier work that promoted BOD, he never mentions St Ambrose, his very mentor, as support for the BOD position.
.
.
Is this your own composition, or are you summarizing the words of another author?  
The first two are quotes from St Ambrose and I've cited the source above. The third paragraph in this forum quote above is my composition and the fourth is me simply positing a very real possibility and therefore negating the argument that the only possibility St Ambrose could be speaking of is BOD. I read something along these lines somewhere, I just don't remember where.
Title: Re: Ladislaus, Drew, Subborn, Please proof read
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 23, 2018, 12:44:46 AM
.
The first two are quotes from St Ambrose, and I've cited the source above. The third paragraph in this forum quote above is my composition and the fourth is me simply positing a very real possibility, and therefore negating the argument that the only possibility St Ambrose could be speaking of is BOD. I read something along these lines somewhere, I just don't remember where.
.
Thank you, JoeZ. It's important to keep track of who it was who said what. So is it the case, that where you have "...another possibility exists and is more likely," then follows the fourth paragraph: is what follows in the fourth paragraph the "another possibility" that "exists and is more likely?"
.
Because the way you have written it, I can't be sure if that is what you mean to say.
.
When you are using the subjunctive case it's easy to forget details and slip into telling a story with the perfect tense instead. But then the reader can't be sure if you are talking about what really happened, or if you are referring to what might have happened under some other conditions, or what should have happened if someone or something else had acted otherwise. This gets very vague very fast, so I'll stop here.
.
In any event, do you see the way I have broken up the text into paragraphs? Don't you think that makes the content more easily understood?
I mean, here you are able to answer my question precisely by referring to the first, second, third and fourth paragraphs, whereas without the paragraph breaks, you would never be able to do that. You know?
Title: Re: Ladislaus, Drew, Subborn, Please proof read
Post by: JoeZ on November 23, 2018, 03:44:17 PM
I do agree with your assessment. Your help is appreciated so thank you.
Title: Re: Ladislaus, Drew, Subborn, Please proof read
Post by: Neil Obstat on November 23, 2018, 08:32:02 PM
.
I do agree with your assessment. Your help is appreciated so thank you.
.
You're welcome.
.
Maybe you didn't understand my question (because you didn't answer it).
.
Allow me to suggest revising the last 2 paragraphs. Here is what you have, but I will propose a revision below:
.
.

The BOD proponent will point to St Ambrose’s funeral oration for the murdered emperor Valentinian as proof of BOD but a critical look at the oration itself, balanced with the other writings of St Ambrose show quite the contrary. During the oration, St Ambrose assured the grieving crowd that Valentinian received what he asked for. This does allow for a BOD but can’t prove it because another possibility exists and is more likely.

St Ambrose was privy to the circumstances of Valentinian’s murder, knew the emperor was actually baptized before it happened but because it was a state secret, St Ambrose could not reveal he knew because he would then be forced to reveal the identity of the murderers and a civil war could ensue. Also remarkable is that the faithful were mourning Valentinian because they thought he was not baptized and therefore lost. They would not believe this way if St Ambrose had previously taught them BOD. Also, in St Augustine’s earlier work that promoted BOD, he never mentions St Ambrose, his very mentor, as support for the BOD position.

.
.
My question was:  I'm not sure if the beginning of the second paragraph is supposed to exemplify the first. But that's what it seems you're trying to say. Therefore, IF IT IS what you're trying to say, here is a more deliberate way of saying it to remove suspicion or misinterpretation (I'm using a different font to distinguish this revision) :
.
.
The BOD proponent will point to St. Ambrose's funeral oration for the murdered emperor Valentinian as proof of BOD, but a critical look at the oration itself, balanced with the other writings of St. Ambrose, shows quite the contrary. For example,  during the oration, St. Ambrose assured the grieving crowd that Valentinian received what he had asked for. This does allow for a BOD, but cannot prove it, because another possibility exists -- one that is more likely than the case of a BOD.
.
That other possibility would be according to the following. St. Ambrose had been privy to the circumstances of Valentinian's murder, and would have known that the emperor had been truly baptized with water before the murder; but because his baptism had been a state secret, St. Ambrose could not reveal he knew this because then he would have been forced to reveal the identity of the murderers and a civil war could have ensued. Also remarkable is that the faithful were mourning Valentinian because they had thought he was NOT baptized, and therefore lost! They would not have believed this way if St. Ambrose had previously taught them BOD! Also, in St. Augustine's earlier work that promoted BOD, he never mentioned St. Ambrose, his very mentor, as support for the BOD position. This is circumstantial evidence that St. Ambrose had not been one who had held the BOD position, and would explain why St. Augustine didn't mention him, because if he had, St. Ambrose would have openly refuted such a claim by St. Augustine.
.
.
Do you think this version does a better job of conveying what you were trying to say, JoeZ?
.