Nadie,

I am taking your advice you just gave to another to post a separate topic so it would be easier for you to see and answer. So far, it is like pulling teeth to get a simple answer out of you on this, and I have asked multiple times, where you still reply in the same thread but avoid answering.

Do you reject what the Catechism of the Council of Trent taught about how adults may die by accident before receiving water baptism and still be saved?

Read my thread "Dying by "Accident" before being baptized, and BOD"? You'll find me answering this question quite a few times.

Besides, what do you care, you don't believe that desire is necesary for salvation.

Dear Cupertino,

Let's deal in reality, the reality is that you don't really believe that desire for baptism is necessary to save a non-Catholic. So, you are only fooling yourself by calling it baptism of desire. What is the point of debating about the desire for baptism of a catechumen, when people like you don't even believe that desire is necessary to save non-Catholics?

So much for explicit desire to be a baptized Catholic, or a catechumen, or a martyr (baptism of blood), anyone can be saved in your belief system!

Your Belief system is Schizophrenic

The Fathers were unanimously against BOD of the catechumen. The Fathers and St. Thomas, and St. Alphonsus are all against invincible ignorance being salvific, and against implicit faith. They were also opposed to any implicit desire that did not explicitly include a desire to be a Catholic. Therefore, your belief system pits your very own sources of evidence one against the other, your beliefs are schizophrenic. You only quote St. Thomas when he suits you, and ignore him when he opposes your beliefs.

Quote from: nadieimportante

Quote from: Cupertino

Nadie, your position is patently absurd. I don't need to write much, nor scream my words, as you do.

Everyone knows and accepts the solemn teaching there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Quotes have been given for that here.

It is also known that anyone who calls into doubt solemn teaching has fallen away completely from the Faith.

Nadie, your position makes the Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus Liguouri and Pius IX all call into doubt previous solemn teaching...but nobody in the whole Church noticed, and it was never an issue!!

You are smarter than them all! Your position is absurd.

Below is quoted a previous posting response which sums up my position on baptism of desire of the catechumen, and baptism of blood. My position is clear, it is out in the light for all to see.

Your position on the other hand is hidden, either due to ignorance, or on purpose, I can't judge hearts.

Cupertino said: "Everyone knows and accepts the solemn teaching there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church (EENS). Quotes have been given for that here."

Nadie answers: All the quotes on EENS were posted by me.

Cupertino said: It is also known that anyone who calls into doubt solemn teaching has fallen away completely from the Faith.

Nadie responds: Yes, EENS is dogmatic, and anyone who calls it into doubt has completely lost the faith

Cupertino said Nadie, your position makes the Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus Liguouri and Pius IX all call into doubt previous solemn teaching...but nobody in the whole Church noticed, and it was never an issue!!

Nadie responds: That is a perfect example of Protestant self opinion on your part. Not one authoritative quote from you, just your opinions. Are we supposed to take your word for it?

What previous "solemn teaching", dogmatic teaching, that can't be denied, are you referring too? Not even BOD of the catechumen has been solemnly declared, infallible declared, nor declared by the universal ordinary magisterium! More importantly, you have not clearly limited your "baptism of desire", to the (only real) baptism of desire which finds support from St. Alphonsus Ligouri, and St. Thomas. You are hiding behind baptism of desire of the catechumen,  of the Catechism of Trent, St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus, when you really believe in all the MUTANT false forms, which are actually opposed by The Catechism of Trent, St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus. Read below, and come out into the light and explain yourself.

Quote from: nadieimportante

Quote from: curiouscatholic23

Question for Nadie:

Were there not many and numerous medieval saints who believed in baptism of blood and desire? According to your logic, they would had to have been heretics.

Don't mix baptism of blood with baptism of desire of the catechumen, and all the other modern offshoots of it. That is just a tactic to FIND the support of some saints. A few saints don't make doctrine. Read all the dogmatic decrees I posted, not one mention of an excuse like BOD or BOB, not one in the history of the Church.

 There are maybe like 10 examples of baptism of blood saints in the 2000 year history. Not one can be proved not to have been baptized. Now, there are thousands upon thousands of examples of people who are incomprehensible just hanging on to life for the longest time, then they are baptized and immediately die. Fr. DeSmet  details thousands of such infant and elderly baptisms he administered himself in his book written in the 1850's. There are hundreds of examples of people sent back from the dead just to be baptized.

Why would God not provide any examples of baptism of blood except like 10 back 1800 years ago, and then God provides hundreds of thousands of examples of persons who scarcely held on to life and died by the groves (as described by Fr. Smet), immediately upon being baptized? Why would God provide so many examples of people sent back from the dead just to be baptized?

That's baptism of blood, and as for baptism of desire of the catechumen (forget all the other offshoots of it, they have no support from the medieval saints )there is not one single example in 2000 years.

Read all the dogmatic decrees I posted, not one mention of an excuse like BOD or BOB, not one in the history of the Church. Catholics follow dogma, not a story here and there over 2000 years.

As for calling anyone a heretic, I don't do that, not for BOB or BOD of the catechumen.  If a person wants to believe in baptism of blood, it's no big deal, a non-baptized person who dies wanting to be a baptized Catholic, where are they? I've never seen one. BOD of the catechumen, how many catechumens who died before being baptized can there be? One hear one there? Those theoretical loopholes, are not the problem, the problem is today that there are scarcely any believers in BOD and BOB that restrict their belief to just baptism of blood and baptism of desire of the catechumen, ALL of them believe in all the other offshoots to different levels, offshoots like implicit desire of those that don't even want to be Catholics or baptized, implicit faith, invincible ignorance, an invisible church that includes non-Catholic "good" people, and universal salvation for all. THAT IS THE PROBLEM, that seed brought us the false ecuмenism of Assisi, and Vatican II, what Catholics believe today, that basically outside of the church there IS salvation. That's the root cause of why we are in the predicament that we are in.

 :applause:  :applause:

When I asked the question in the other thread you said you wouldn't answer until I explained my "brand" of BOD, which implies both that you didn't, and that you would once I fulfilled that requirement. Now you say you did answer it before, and won't now.

You spend all you time typing and pasting information when all you have to do is say YES, or say NO to whether you accept the Catechism of the Council of Trent's teaching about how it is possible for a catechumen to be saved if he accidentally dies before being baptized with water.

I say YES. Very easy.

What do you say?

Post here where you "asked the question in the other thread and I  said I wouldn't answer". The whole thread is about that Catechism of Trent quote. Read the thread. You are playng games again.

Nadie,

I am taking your advice you just gave to another to post a separate topic so it would be easier for you to see and answer. So far, it is like pulling teeth to get a simple answer out of you on this, and I have asked multiple times, where you still reply in the same thread but avoid answering.

Do you reject what the Catechism of the Council of Trent taught about how adults may die by accident before receiving water baptism and still be saved?

The catechism never said any such thing - http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=16991&min=10&num=10

You abandoned the discussion where I tried to show you that it never said any such thing.

St. Augustine: “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.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)


Descending into the Vortex of Confusion

SSPX Fr. Rulleau's Baptism of Desire, A Patristic Commentary
Page 43

"The existence of baptism of desire is, then, a truth which, although it has not been defined as a dogma by the Church, is at least proximate to the faith. Historically, the Fathers of the Church only the case of a catechumen who died before he could receive the sacrament without being guilty of any negligence or contempt of the sacrament. Following the same reasoning, however, should we not include in this category of saved by baptism of desire converts not yet catechumens who might desire baptism? If so, what kind of desire is necessary? Would a simple attraction towards the Catholic religion suffice? Again, following the same reasoning, should we not include someone who had never heard of the Faith for want of preachers to make it known? It becomes clear that by following this line of reasoning you would end by extending baptism of desire to every decent man seeking God. Consistent with the same reasoning, should we not go so far as to call "anonymous Christians" everyman whose vague belief in the beyond would take the place of "baptism"? When the Church was only confronted by a waning paganism, these questions did not come up. Since the beginning of the Modern Age, however, as the Church has found herself confronted by entire nations which do not know Christ, and, in the former Christendom, by Christians benighted by ignorance and unbelief, these questions have become unavoidable" END

Back to Reality:

Excerpts of the Nine Dogmatic Decrees that all agree with St. Augustine


Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire ..and that nobody can be saved, … even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ[/b], unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, …

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“… this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, … every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
“… one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”
 
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.”

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”

Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”

What those dogmatic Decrees Mean

From: Who Shall Ascend, by Fr. Waltham

Being ex cathedra definitions, they must be taken literally, unequivocally, and absolutely. Hence, to attempt to modify or qualify them in any way is to deny them.

3. The doctrine says clearly that only Catholics go to Heaven; all others are lost, that is, they do not go to Heaven, but to Hell. All who are inclined to dispute this dogma should have the good sense to realize that if this is not what the words of the definitions mean, the Church would never have promulgated such a position. To give any other meaning to these words is to portray the Church as foolish and ridiculous.
4. The pronouncements indicate that, by divine decree, those only will be saved who are members of the Church when they die. This membership must be formal, real, explicit, and, in those of the (mental) age of reason, deliberate. There is no such thing as "potential" membership in the Church, or "implicit" membership, or "quasi-membership," or "invisible membership," or anything of the kind. Neither can those who are catechumens, that is, those who are preparing to enter the Church, be considered members.

12. Let the reader accept the reasonable fact that the Pontiffs who pronounced these decrees were perfectly literate and fully cognizant of what they were saying. If there were any need to soften or qualify their meanings, they were quite capable of doing so.[/size] They were not regarded as heretics or fanatics at the time of their pronouncements, and have never been labelled such by the Church to this very day. It is an easy thing for the people of this "enlightened" age to fall into the modern delusion that the men of former times, especially those of the Middle Ages, were not as bright as we are, so that they sometimes said they knew not what.
13. The dates of these definitions are extremely important. They mark the time when the Church terminated speculation and discussion among theologians on the subject of the conditions of salvation. All writings on this subject, therefore, which predate these definitions have value only in so far as they corroborate these definitions.


15. Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine by explaining it away. He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecclesiam, etc., and ends by denying it while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so. He seems to think it a clever thing to state the formula, then to weasel out of it. What he ought to do is one of two things: either admit that he does not believe this dogma (and also in the same breath, that he does not believe in the Dogma of the Church's lnfallibility); or he should allow for the possibility that there is something about the Catholic Doctrine of Salvation of which he is unaware, or which he refuses to accept, or has been misled into denying.

Nadie, you wrote all that stuff and you can't simply put down a YES or a NO to my question. Why?

Do you accept the New Catechism?

Nadie,

I am taking your advice you just gave to another to post a separate topic so it would be easier for you to see and answer. So far, it is like pulling teeth to get a simple answer out of you on this, and I have asked multiple times, where you still reply in the same thread but avoid answering.

Do you reject what the Catechism of the Council of Trent taught about how adults may die by accident before receiving water baptism and still be saved?

It does not say "how adults may die by accident before receiving water baptism and still be saved.". So why would I answer yes or no to that? I was the one that did a entire thread on that quote from the catechism, I doubt anyone could have written more on the matter than what I wrote.

Dying by "Accident" before being baptized, and BOD?

Catechism of the Council of Trent p. 179:

“On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time.  The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”

VS.

St. Augustine: “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.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)

In short I believe as St.Augustine says "they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can't be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined".

The catechism can be correct, however, there is no such thing as an unforeseen accident  that makes it impossible for God to get the adults washed in the salutary waters.

As a matter of fact, I wish that you would believe in what the whole catechism says on salvation. Read it.  If Catholics believed in everything that's taught in that catechism on salvation, and what St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus believed, I would not post one word on the subject. The reason why I write, is because of a problem, "your group" believes that no desire to be baptized or a Catholic,  is necessary for salvation. Your groups teachings are opposed to that catechism , and what St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri taught.

I have never had any problem having a theological  discussion on salvation with the true  followers of that catechism, and of St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri, it's just rare to ever find such a person in the USA.

My reason for writing is to bring out into the light the liberal false teachers of BOND (baptism of no desire to be Catholic) , "the group", the hypocrites and schizophrenics who only give lip service to  "desire", the catechism, and of St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri.

No, Nadie, stop contradicting me. I said categorically that desire is necessary, and I emphasized that.

Now, back to the matter at hand. What is the "accident" and how does it "deprive" an adult of baptism, if not death? Please explain a scenario you think fits the Catechism.

You are in denial. Here is what you wrote:

Quote from: nadieimportante

What you wrote does not explain what you believe.

Yes, it does.

Now, my comments in blue...

Quote from: nadieimportante

----------------------------
Do you believe in BOD of "the catechumen,who died before he could receive the sacrament without being guilty of any negligence or contempt of the sacrament"?

Yes, but not necessarily in every catechumen.

Do you believe in  the salvation of "converts not yet catechumens who might desire baptism, if so, what kind of desire is necessary"?

Yes, and it is called baptism "of (the) desire" because it is truly baptism pertaining to "the will", not water (though it is implicitly part of the Sacrament by water).  So we are not merely talking of any common "desire" as if intending or wishing for something in the future. The terminology "baptism of (the) desire" means that a person, by an act of perfect love & contrition of the will (now, not in the future), with the added grace of God, cleanses his soul of all mortal sin (including original sin).

Do you believe in the salvation of "those who had never heard of the Faith for want of preachers to make it known"?

The Church teaches that (while being invincibly ignorant of explicit particulars) a generic belief in a Supreme Being can suffice to be present for "baptism of (the) desire" to take place. Such a one would have implicit Faith in Catholicism. It is expected to be a rare thing only known to God.

Do you believe in the salvation of a "decent man seeking God".

Not every person who appears "decent", no way. However, if someone fits in the category of my previous answer, then that particular man is truly a decent man.

Do you believe in (Implicit Faith) that "everyman whose vague belief in the beyond would take the place of "baptism"?

No, and my previous explanations already give the answer to this question.

Here was my response.

Dear Cupertino,

Let's deal in reality, the reality is that you don't really believe that desire for baptism is necessary to save a non-Catholic. So, you are only fooling yourself by calling it baptism of desire. What is the point of debating about the desire for baptism of a catechumen, when people like you don't even believe that desire is necessary to save non-Catholics?

So much for explicit desire to be a baptized Catholic, or a catechumen, or a martyr (baptism of blood), anyone can be saved in your belief system!

Your Belief system is Schizophrenic

The Fathers were unanimously against BOD of the catechumen. The Fathers and St. Thomas, and St. Alphonsus are all against invincible ignorance being salvific, and against implicit faith. They were also opposed to any implicit desire that did not explicitly include a desire to be a Catholic. Therefore, your belief system pits your very own sources of evidence one against the other, your beliefs are schizophrenic. You only quote St. Thomas when he suits you, and ignore him when he opposes your beliefs.

I'm just dying with anticipation.