AGAIN, dogmatic magisterial teaching of the Church consists of A. The Pope + B. General Councils + C. Ordinary magisterium. All 3 components are considered infallible. It's right there in black and white above, docuмented from the First Vatican Council. You already have your "highest magisterial authority". Open your eyes!

You seem to think that you can treat your non-doctrine of the mythical non-sacrament, a BOD, without any reference whatsoever to any other doctrine.

Only the sacrament enjoys the teaching of the UOM which agrees with infallible definitions as well as the literal words of Our Lord. This is how we know that the sacrament is a part of the deposit of faith. Every single saint, father, theologian, doctor, catechism and etc. teach and have always taught what the sacrament is and that it is a necessity for every human being - this teaching is constant even among those authorities who also teach of a BOD.

Your real problem is that you do not admit that the mythical non-sacrament on the other hand, only has *some* teachers, but *a near universal following* of believers. This is how you think a BOD is a universal teaching, when the truth is that it is nearly universally believed.  

A BOD is not a part of the deposit of faith because regardless of the fact that a BOD has never been defined, the overwhelming majority of Fathers, saints and  theologians never taught it -  and it contradicts that which has been defined infallibly.

If a BOD were a teaching of the UOM, there would be a singular universal understanding of what it even is. For example, the sacrament of baptism has a formula that the whole world, even non-Catholics understand - and have always understood since the time of the Apostles.

The mythical non-sacrament, a BOD on the other hand, has as many different formulas as there are protestant sects - this fact is indefensible. This fact proves that a BOD is not a part of the deposit of faith. This fact condemn the whole idea that a BOD is de fide.


Now please, do your duty and defend your doctrine of a BOD by providing it's complete formula once and for all!

This should be interesting - will see how long before all the BODers  end up debating amongst themselves.


 

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: saintbosco13

AGAIN, dogmatic magisterial teaching of the Church consists of A. The Pope + B. General Councils + C. Ordinary magisterium. All 3 components are considered infallible. It's right there in black and white above, docuмented from the First Vatican Council. You already have your "highest magisterial authority". Open your eyes!

You seem to think that you can treat your non-doctrine of the mythical non-sacrament, a BOD, without any reference whatsoever to any other doctrine.

Only the sacrament enjoys the teaching of the UOM which agrees with infallible definitions as well as the literal words of Our Lord. This is how we know that the sacrament is a part of the deposit of faith. Every single saint, father, theologian, doctor, catechism and etc. teach and have always taught what the sacrament is and that it is a necessity for every human being - this teaching is constant even among those authorities who also teach of a BOD.

Your real problem is that you do not admit that the mythical non-sacrament on the other hand, only has *some* teachers, but *a near universal following* of believers. This is how you think a BOD is a universal teaching, when the truth is that it is nearly universally believed.  

A BOD is not a part of the deposit of faith because regardless of the fact that a BOD has never been defined, the overwhelming majority of Fathers, saints and  theologians never taught it -  and it contradicts that which has been defined infallibly.

If a BOD were a teaching of the UOM, there would be a singular universal understanding of what it even is. For example, the sacrament of baptism has a formula that the whole world, even non-Catholics understand - and have always understood since the time of the Apostles.

The mythical non-sacrament, a BOD on the other hand, has as many different formulas as there are protestant sects - this fact is indefensible. This fact proves that a BOD is not a part of the deposit of faith. This fact condemn the whole idea that a BOD is de fide.


Now please, do your duty and defend your doctrine of a BOD by providing it's complete formula once and for all!

This should be interesting - will see how long before all the BODers  end up debating amongst themselves.

I don't believe you are a Catholic. Your rule of faith is no different than that of a Protestant.

If you're going to flap your lips, why not actually do something productive for once - - - - Now please, do your duty and defend your doctrine of a BOD by providing it's complete formula once and for all!

This should be interesting - will see how long before all the BODers  end up debating amongst themselves.

If "Feeneyism" was as big of "error" as you say that it is, one must wonder (out loud) why Father Feeney's Bread of Life was not placed on the Index.  There was plenty of time from its publication (January 1, 1952) until the death of Pope Pius XII (October 9, 1958) for this to have had happened:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007ELXAA/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B0007ELXAA&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20

P.S.  Read the reviews at Amazon.  By the way, SJB, have you ever read Bread of Life?

If "Feeneyism" was as big of "error" as you say that it is, one must wonder (out loud) why Father Feeney's Bread of Life was not placed on the Index.  There was plenty of time from its publication (January 1, 1952) until the death of Pope Pius XII (October 9, 1958) for this to have had happened:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007ELXAA/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B0007ELXAA&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20

P.S.  Read the reviews at Amazon.  By the way, SJB, have you ever read Bread of Life?

SJB is another one who has no idea what he is even arguing about - so long as he can call names and attempt insults toward those who defend the necessity of the Sacrament, he accomplishes his purpose in posting on CI.

 

SJB,
Matthew knows that a BOD is not a dogma and in the rules, he has posted so. Your attempt at insulting me for defending the necessity of the  Sacrament (which is a dogma) is lamentable, but still, I think one day there's always that chance that you may accept the teaching on the Sacrament from of Our Lord, Apostles, Councils, popes, saints, catechisms  and theologians who universally mean what they teach when they echo the words of Our Lord in Mat 3:5.  

Now there is nothing to debate -  try very hard to actually do what was asked - provide the complete formula for a BOD. Be sure and try not to leave anything out.

Then Matthew is wrong because the argument isn't that BOD is a dogma, it's that Catholics are required to hold much more than just defined dogmas.

I'm not sure Matthew understands the issue. I know you don't.

Quote

Now there is nothing to debate - try very hard to actually do what was asked - provide the complete formula for a BOD. Be sure and try not to leave anything out.

Quote from: St. Alphonsus

baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water.

Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue.

The proposition all Catholics must assent to, under pain of mortal sin, is that there are indeed souls that have been saved by baptism of desire and blood.

I am okay with this proposition, however, is it also de fide (in your opinion) that these souls lack the character of sacramental Baptism?  And, must we believe that these souls lack the character of sacramental Bapitsm under pain of mortal sin?  If so, how many such souls are we required to believe that are in Paradise?  If I assert, if only as a theological opinion, that only at most a few dozen such souls are in Paradise, am I a heretic?  By the way, was it (or, is it) heretical to believe that the Emperor Trajan was raised from the dead five hundred years after his death by Saint Pope Gregory I so that he could receive Christian Baptism?  Is it heretical to believe that such could have occurred with others, also?  More here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan#Trajan.27s_legacy