And yet St. Alphonsus in his own tract on the Matter of Baptism says that "blood is certainly invalid matter" of the sacrament, materia certe invalida est, sanguis. So let me get this straight, I cannot baptize someone with blood, but if I am unbaptized, I am able to baptize myself in my own blood. He says that martyrdom is not a sacrament because it was not an "action instituted by Christ," quia martyrium non esse actio instituta a Christo. Christ instituted the sacraments, and the sacraments are necessary for salvation, period, end of story.
And he also says that martyrdom does not strictly operate as the sacraments do, and that neither martyrdom nor baptismus flaminis "baptism of desire" confers the character. He says that "flaminis" means impulse of the Holy Spirit, impulsum Spiritus Sancti. Once again, this is vague and can mean many things.
You raise an interesting point. St. Cyprian was perhaps the first to articulate the theory of "Baptism of Blood", per St. Augustine's testimoney even.
Now, the Dimond Brothers point out the error he made in referring to BoB as a Sacrament.
I actually think that he may not have just slipped up there, since at one point I found him describing BoB as a sitution where the martyrs are baptized in their blood while the angels say the words. He actually appears to have considered blood to be a valid substitute matter for the Sacrament in the case of martyrdom, with angels supplying the form.
If St. Alphonsus claims blood is not valid matter, then where does he get off saying that no matter at all is required? With all due respect to the great saint and Doctor of the Church, he's really all over the map on this issue, and I believe it was, quite frankly, due to some human respect, where he gave too much credit to some of the neo-Pelagians who are floating around already during his time posing as theologians, clowns like the heterodox Jesuit De Lugo. He's say things like how he personally believed that explicit faith is required, but then claim that the IMO-heretical opinion of De Lugo in favor of implicit BoD made it probable (a word in scholastic terms which means possible, not probable in the sense of likely).
He completely fabricates out of thin air this notion that can't be excused as anything short of heretical, that BoD can leave behind temporal punishment due to sin. Proof for this? Bueller? Bueller? There is none. Comletely made up, as is all of BoD.
Our Lord very clearly taught that a REBIRTH is required for entry into the Kingdom of Heaven, and the Council of Trent dogmatically affirms the interpretation that there can be no initial justification without rebirth, since the two are synonymous. THEN, Trent rightly defines rebirth as a COMPLETE RESET. Anything short of a complete reset would be absurd to refer to as a rebirth. Trent clearly states that rebirth means a total expunging of all guilt of sin and punishment due to sin, so that no obstacles remain to immediate entrance into Heaven.
On top of that, one of the Pope Innocent docuмents states that someone who died with this "BoD" rushed immediately and without delay to his heavenly home.
Complete fabrication that contradicts the dogmatic teaching of Trent.
On top of that, we keep reading over and over again in his devotional works how EVERY SINGLE PERSON who died in countries without exposure to the Catholic faith ... were lost. So, what? ... pious hyperbole to scare people, while at the same time claiming that De Lugo's opinion was "probable"? Which one is it?
Topic: Possible strict-EENS chapel (Read 238798 times)