Author Topic: Ladislaus, Drew, Subborn, Please proof read (Read 4098 times)

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]

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 circuмstance. "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.

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] 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], 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]

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]

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]

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] 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]

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]

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] and to reject any “sort of metaphor.”[xvi]

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] 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 circuмstance. 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] St. Robert Bellarmine

[iii] Pope Pius IX; Dnz 1636 and Syllabus, Dnz 1705, 1708, 1709, 1715, 1716, 1717

[iv] Vatican I Council; Dnz 1792, 1797, 738

[v] 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/docuмents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html

[vi] Trent Seventh Session; on Baptism, canon II

[vii] Trent Fifth Session; Decree on Original Sin 3^rd verse

[viii] Trent Seventh Session; on Baptism, canon V

[ix] 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.”

Quicuмque 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

[/iurl] Trent Seventh Session; Decree on the Sacraments, canon IV

[iurl=#_ednref][xi][/iurl] Trent Sixth Session; Decree on Justification, chapter VII

[iurl=#_ednref][xii][/iurl] Trent Sixth Session; Decree on Justification, chapter VII

[iurl=#_ednref][xiii][/iurl] Pope St Leo the Great [url=http://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecuм04.htm]http://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecuм04.htm[/url]

[iurl=#_ednref][xiv][/iurl] Trent Seventh Session; on Baptism, canon II

[iurl=#_ednref][xv][/iurl] Trent Sixth Session, chapter IV

[iurl=#_ednref][xvi][/iurl] Trent Seventh Session; on Baptism, canon II

[iurl=#_ednref][xvii][/iurl] Trent Seventh Session, canon II and V[/i][/i]

Stubborn · « **Reply #1 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!

JoeZ · « **Reply #2 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.

happenby · « **Reply #3 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 circuмstance, 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

Stubborn · « **Reply #4 on:** March 23, 2018, 05:05:38 AM »

Quote from: 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.

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 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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** March 23, 2018, 08:34:58 AM »

Quote from: JoeZ on March 21, 2018, 08:25:33 PM

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.

st bonosa · « **Reply #6 on:** March 29, 2018, 05:22:50 AM »

" I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins..."

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #7 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.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #8 on:** March 29, 2018, 09:37:54 AM »

Quote from: st bonosa on March 29, 2018, 05:22:50 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 3^rd 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

Theosist · « **Reply #9 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!

Theosist · « **Reply #10 on:** April 16, 2018, 04:19:46 AM »

Wrong! Even Vatican II docuмents 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!

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #11 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 ?

[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/ ]

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #12 on:** September 14, 2018, 12:17:56 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 23, 2018, 08:34:58 AM

Quote from: JoeZ on March 21, 2018, 06:25:33 PM
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.
.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #13 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).

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #14 on:** September 14, 2018, 12:57:22 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on September 14, 2018, 12:28:04 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.