You have still not answered - and I said "infidel", not "heretic".

I will number both questions so you may answer them by the numbers:

1) How is it that your infidel* can have prefect contrition, receive a BOD and be saved, but the prot infidel who even goes above and beyond what your infidel does by explicitly (and usually publicly) making an act of perfect contrition *and* accepting the lord jesus as his personal savior, does not receive a BOD and is therefore, not saved?

*infidel = "the name infidel is given to those who have not been baptized. The term applies not only to all who are ignorant of the true God, such as pagans of various kinds, but also to those who adore Him but do not recognize Jesus Christ, as Jews, Mohammedans; strictly speaking it may be used of catechumens also,"  Source

Your next dilemma is that two catechisms, which you believe are infallible,  "define" a BOD as two different things.


First off, Pope St. Pius X did not define a BOD, you took that quote from the catechism - which you deem to be infallible, but the pope was not the author nor does the catechism quote the pope.

You said: "Baptism of Desire is defined by Pope St. Pius X as "an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition" along with the desire for the Sacrament of Baptism, a definition that follows St. Alphonsus word for word."

Yet the catechism I quoted from teaches that one receives a BOD *without* desiring the sacrament - the infidel receives a BOD "even though he has never heard of the existence of the Sacrament of Baptism."

So question #2 is:
2) How can your "infallible definition" require the desire for the sacrament of baptism to receive a BOD while the other "infallible" catechism specifically makes desire for the sacrament of baptism a non-requirement for the  infidel to receive a BOD?

 

Ask a Protestant if their baptism was for initiation.  Baptism is to remove Original Sin.  Ask them if their baptism was to remove that.  Chances are protestants are initiated into their club.  IF I was swept off my feet and wanted Catholic baptism, than that is just what I want.  Conditional baptism is in order.

I already told you Protestants are already baptized, so BOD doesn't apply to them, it is Penance that is necessary for their salvation.

I had no idea that you still don't know even what an Infidel is - even after I supplied the definition of what an infidel is for you.

A prot infidel cannot "already be baptized" any more than your infidel can be "already baptized". Since they are both unbaptized, they both share the title of "Infidel". They will both share that title of "Infidel" until one or both of them get sacramentally baptized.

I told you the prot was an infidel. This means he was *not* already baptized. This means that, like your infidel, he was never sacramentally baptized. Both your infidel and my infidel are *not* already baptized.

So since you now hopefully understand the prot never has been baptized, which means he is *not* already baptized when he performs his act of perfect love, you can explain how the prot infidel does *not* receive a BOD after performing his explicit perfect act of love - but your infidel, who implicitly performs his perfect act of love receives a BOD.

 I also explained clearly why both unbaptized infidels and baptized Protestants cannot have contrition, but only natural love, until they repent of infidelity and Protestantism respectively, which you did not address in the least.

An infidel is an infidel. *If* an infidel cannot make a perfect act of love, then there cannot be any such a thing as a BOD - period. There is no difference whatsoever between a prot infidel making a perfect act of love and any other infidel making a perfect act of love. They both are quite capable of making the same perfect act of love.

No one - not you, not LoE, not JAM, not Ambrose - not anyone here and not ever - has anyone supplied any source which differentiates between a prot infidel's and any other infidel's capability to make a perfect act of love.

There is certainly no difference taught in your "definition" from the catechism and there is certainly nothing mentioned about it in "Trent's definition" and certainly the catechism I gave you the link to speaks of no difference.

Yet now you make this brand new unsubstantiated and contradictory claim to your own "definition", that a prot infidel is incapable of making the exact same perfect act of love as your infidel.

Neither need to desire the sacrament of baptism according to the "infallible" catechism I linked to. But both need to make a perfect act of love according to the "infallible" catechism you referenced.

Perhaps you are unaware that:

Prot infidels, often times after years of contemplating it, often spend 15 or more minutes *publicly* making this perfect act of contrition and love, begging forgiveness from the lord with tears of sorrow streaming down their cheeks as they publicly accept the lord as their personal savior - and like your a BOD, they believe because of this act, they are saved.

OTOH, your infidel is supposed to be making this same perfect act of love, nano seconds before death while at the same time dealing with being surprised by an unforeseen accidental death.

Which infidel actually received your a BOD? - the prot infidel who, being of sound mind purposefully took the time to formally and publicly proclaim his fidelity to the lord and publicly made the act of perfect love..........or your infidel who was caught by surprise off guard and is presumed to have made the same act of love while attempting to fend off death as he is breathing his last breath?

According to everything you have written about a BOD here on CI - both the prot infidel and your infidel receive a BOD because they both did what they needed to do - according to everything you have posted.

According to everything posted here on CI from pro BODers, the fact of the matter is that we can be more sure of the prot infidel's salvation than we can of your infidel's salvation because unlike your infidel, the prot infidel often times makes a proud and public spectacle of his repentance and act of perfect love.    

Innocent II taught about the "priest not baptized", that he would have been saved by faith in the Sacrament.  Interesting since presumably this priest never knew he had not been baptized.  Given his ignorance, how exactly could he have desired Baptism?  So Innocent II was teaching "Baptism of Faith" rather than Baptism of Desire.  Strange that St. Alphonsus gave dogmatic weight this this very poorly-formulated opinion, something which appeared in a letter of dubious origins, when similar letters contain obvious errors.  Fail.

Innocent III referred to the self-baptizing Jew and said that this Jew would have gone immediately to heaven, and this contradicts St. Alphonsus (and St. Thomas) on the point that BoD recipients would not remit all the temporal punishment due to sin.  Another Fail.

One of these (I can't remember which) clearly appealed to the "authority" of St. Augustine and Ambrose, evidently unaware that St. Augustine had retracted the opinion and misinterpreting the ambiguous passage in the Valentinian oration.  He never asserted his own papal authority and clearly sounds like he's speculating as a private theologian.

That's ALL that we have in the first 1200 years or so of Church history to back BoD; BoD evaporates into smoke.  There's no Tradition here for it at all.  Most of the BoB Church Fathers rejected BoD, but interestingly Trent evidently flipped this and reduced BoB to BoD, making BoD the only real "substitute" for receiving Baptism in re.

I do not believe that Trent taught BoD.  Certainly Trent did not DEFINE BoD; its mention appears in the narrative portion of the Treatise on Justification and is not reinforced by any canon.  Even if you read Trent that way most people do (and I have weighty arguments that have never been refuted to show that this reading is absurd on its face), it can clearly be read in the negative sense of allowing the opinion and saying that one would be a heretic if he didn't say that Baptism was necessary at least in voto for salvation, i.e. tolerating that opinion as absolving from the heresy of rejecting the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.  Fail.  On ever count.

It's nothing but contradiction and vapor.  BoD has ZERO good fruits, only bad, the horrific fruits of religious indifferentism.  And so by its fruits I know it.  BoD has never been defined; pretty much every person who believes in it has a different explanation of its scope and what it can supply for and what it can't supply for.

Sigh. Really? Do I have to explain why your reading of St. Ambrose won't work once more? You did not really address the argument last time. Anyway, I will do that later.

Now, as for all your claims, GJC - First of all, the case in question was of a Jєωιѕн woman whose son had become a Christian priest and offered prayers for her conversion. His name was Fr. Herman Cohen. She did not commit ѕυιcιdє, but rather, gave no visible sign of conversion. In disquiet, Fr. Herman confided to St. John Vianney his thoughts and the rest is as I related them. It was later made known to him that on account of Mary's prayers, the Lord gave her the grace to repent of her Judaism, and her soul was saved by baptism of desire near death, and went to purgatory, and knowing this, Fr. Herman prayed for his mother with renewed hope.

This is credibly attested by many independent sources, you can believe it or disbelieve it, just as you like. But you say that to deny God of any right would be an act of lunacy and then proceed to do exactly that.

St. Therese expressed an identical view about conversions known to God alone, and this is recorded by her own pen in her autobiography "Story of a Soul". She was a victim soul, and her prayers had great merit in the sight of God. More than we can imagine. And so no one can say she had no love for souls or zeal for God's glory. The same is true of St. Catherine, to whom Christ the Lord Himself taught the doctrine of Baptism of Desire and Blood.

 When St. Therese "adopted" her first sinner, she said she had so much faith in her Lord that she would have believed He answered her prayer even if the subject for whom she prayed gave no visible sign of repentance. Later, Christ the Lord enlightened her about the fate of the uneducated and illiterate souls who never hear the Gospel preached to them by men, how He the Lord sees fit to enter their hearts, enlighten and save them. Again, take it or leave it as you choose.

But your reasoning above concealed a misunderstanding of the sheer gratuitousness of justification. You made it out as if a person would not go to heaven if he had not had good works done in grace. That is completely wrong.

That is why I gave the example of Valentian, his baptism of desire near death was for him his first entrance into the supernatural life of grace. Nonetheless, he inherited heaven, even though he had no other good works done in grace, and no other strict merit (only works done in grace, after justification, are meritorious) to call his own. This proves your view of justification to be entirely wrong.

The 1950s have nothing to do with this and I've not cited anything from the 1950's, but St. Alphonsus, Innocent II, St. Ambrose and other traditional sources such as Church approved Catholic commentaries on Sacred Scripture.

That being said, do you deny the Holy Office Letter, or Pope Pius XII's other statements from the 1950s about BOD? If you did, you would be mistaken and misled, and more like the Dimonds than you think.

The Dimonds think Pope Pius XII was practically a heretic, they just think there is insufficient evidence to "conclude he was a public heretic". Something they conveniently apply when it suits them. They also reject the teaching of Pius IX on the plea that it is a fallible letter, then proceed to misinterpret it anyway.

Pius IX clearly teaches that souls are saved without water baptism, and are enlightened by God about what they must believe to be saved, as St. Thomas said they would be. This is not compatible with Feeneyism, and condemns it.

Contrary to the information posted on this thread, the Fathers of Vatican I followed the teaching of Pius IX, approved it in their own name, and prepared a dogmatic definition containing it, which suffices to prove that it is a doctrine. Fr. Hardon relates,

the two docuмents of Pius IX on invincible ignorance were quoted in extenso and the essential terms were fully explained. “By the words, ‘those who labor in invincible ignorance’ is indicated the possibility that a person may not belong to the visible and external communion of the Church, and yet may attain to justification and eternal life.” (Acta Concilii Vaticani, Collectio Lacensis, vol. VII, col. 591.) Moreover the saving clause on invincibility was incorporated into a proposed definition, namely, “It is a dogma of faith that no one can be saved outside the Church. However, those who labor in invincible ignorance of Christ and His Church are not to be punished for this ignorance with eternal pains, since they are not burdened with guilt on this account in the eyes of God, who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, and who does not deny His grace to the person who does what he can, to enable him to attain to justification and eternal life. But this salvation no one attains, who leaves this life culpably separated from the unity of faith and communion of the Church.” (Acta Concilii Vaticani, Collectio Lacensis, vol. VII, col. 569) Consequently, although the doctrine of Pius IX remained part of the unfinished business of the Vatican Council and was not formally defined, it is certainly definable and may be called proxima fidei or “practically of faith.”

And if you deny souls are saved by Baptism of Desire, which they can receive at any point before the end of their lives, then you would sin mortally. It is a heresy to say that in a justified soul, whether justified for the first time, or who has recovered the grace of justification after it was lost, anything is lacking for ultimate entrance to the beatific vision, other than departure in the state of grace.

A justified soul has entered the Church, he is covered in the merits of Christ, he is a child of God and a heir of heaven. Cantate Domino infallibly lists the point up until which a person can still be reconciled to the Church and enter Her as "before the end of their lives". So, you are wrong, and I'll take the Church and Her Saints over you any day of the week.

Thanks to Suprema Sacra, the new ecclesiology of the Novus Ordo and Traditional Latin Mass are now the same. They both share the factual error contained in such letter, which states that there is no need to formally enter the Catholic Church for salvation.  This factual error is indeed the real root of the whole Modernist crisis as Fr. Feeney predicted. This error of Pope Pius XII made its way over Vatican II. In fact, by the time Vatican II came along, all the stage was already set up for the liberals (and the leftist Jewry) to completely take over the Church.

Thanks to Suprema Sacra, the new ecclesiology of the Novus Ordo and Traditional Latin Mass are now the same. They both share the factual error contained in such letter, which states that there is no need to formally enter the Catholic Church for salvation.  This factual error is indeed the real root of the whole Modernist crisis as Fr. Feeney predicted. This error of Pope Pius XII made its way over Vatican II. In fact, by the time Vatican II came along, all the stage was already set up for the liberals (and the leftist Jewry) to completely take over the Church.

There was no error of Pius XII.  The teaching as given by the Holy Office is not the same as the Conciliar church.  Your pretending this is true does not make it true.  

Quote from: Ambrose

There was no error of Pius XII.

Correct.  Pius XII had nothing to do with Suprema Haec.

Incorrect, Pope Pius XII approved Sumprema Haec.  

As usual, you show your inability to comprehend.