Quote from: ggreg

So how are severely mentally handicapped people baptised then if it works ONLY in conjuction?

They have the water poured over their head but one can only assume desire or project it onto them and it some cases the mental handicap is so profound that, realistically speaking, one could not assume desire for anything much at all.

Could you baptise an adult in a coma?

Does someone else's desire count even if there is no evidence, whatsoever, that you desire it?

You're not getting it.

If your BAPTIZE an infant, and the Church supplies via the desire / intention of the parents & godparents, then the infant has supplied desire.

What you cannot do is just look at the infant and desire that they be baptized.

Desire BY ITSELF does not and cannot count.

Seems to make a mockery of free will to me.

Your own desire "does not count", but the Church can "supply" YOUR desire without knowing your will in the matter.

'Supplying desire' seems somewhat oxymoronic.  If I don't desire something, in what sense is it "desired" by me.  And if it is not desire by me then how am I involved in the baptism?

Quote from: Ambrose

Who is the better expert on Trent, untrained 21st century laymen and laywomen with an agenda or St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Doctor of the Church?

Yes, it's been well established what St. Alphonsus taught.  Please address my arguments as to why he was wrong.

Do you know what hubris means?  If not look it up, it may help you to understand why you think you can correct St. Alphonsus' theology.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Ambrose

Who is the better expert on Trent, untrained 21st century laymen and laywomen with an agenda or St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Doctor of the Church?

Yes, it's been well established what St. Alphonsus taught.  Please address my arguments as to why he was wrong.

Do you know what hubris means?  If not look it up, it may help you to understand why you think you can correct St. Alphonsus' theology.

Yes, you've demonstrated to me the meaning of hubris.  Now address my arguments.

Please explain to me how you have the audacity to correct the Church Fathers (7 or 8 of them) who reject Baptism of Desire.

.

The incessant rhetorical disrespect from sedevacantists on this topic is demonstrative.  So-called 'baptism of desire' is not a dogma.  When you say it is, you are lying through your teeth.  It's not even a doctrine.  it's just a theological speculation, and nothing more.  You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

What is 'heretical' about reading what the Fathers of the Church have said?  

What is 'heretical' about reading the Scriptures and the Canons of the infallible councils as they are written?  

And above all, why are these pertinacious maledictions of yours hurled over and over again presuming that it is any of our business to know what God has done even if He has not given to us to know, e.g., what the eternal fate is of anyone who for whatever reason dies without the sacrament of Baptism?  Since when do we have any right to know that?

Don't you have something useful to do with your time and energy besides calling other Catholics "heretics?"  

Some of you BoD-ers must be infiltrators or satanists to be acting this way.


These ridiculous and repetitive threads all belong in their own sub-forum instead of polluting the general boards with their drivel.  This is unsightly and a bad example of what the Church is.  It's dragging CathInfo down, lower and lower.


.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Ambrose

Who is the better expert on Trent, untrained 21st century laymen and laywomen with an agenda or St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Doctor of the Church?

Yes, it's been well established what St. Alphonsus taught.  Please address my arguments as to why he was wrong.

Do you know what hubris means?  If not look it up, it may help you to understand why you think you can correct St. Alphonsus' theology.

Yes, you've demonstrated to me the meaning of hubris.  Now address my arguments.

Please explain to me how you have the audacity to correct the Church Fathers (7 or 8 of them) who reject Baptism of Desire.

That has already been answered many times, so if I tell you again, will you finally believe it and put an end to this heretical uprising?

This has never been done.  You simply keep pointing out how I am in disagreement with various authorities.  You have never addressed why the arguments themselves are wrong.  That should be easy to do if in fact I am wrong.

.

Post

Quote from: ggreg

Quote from: SenzaDubbio

I thought there was an implicit desire, and the godparents speaks on behalf of the infant?

So another person having the desire for you, without any consent on your part, suffices with water, but desire on your own part, without water, does not suffice?

Makes very little sense to me.

No, the desire only works in CONJUNCTION with the Sacrament of Baptism.

This is absolutely TRUE.  It works in conjunction with the Sacrament.  The desire for the Sacrament cannot be separated from the Sacrament itself.  They are two entities but they work as a single unit, and cannot be separated.

A very important principle of philosophy is at work here: We distinguish but we do not separate.

Every defender of BoD/BoB I have ever met has never heard of this principle.  
Nor are they interested in learning about it.
It has implications all throughout the Catholic Faith, even penetrating into our comprehension of the processions of the Blessed Trinity.  

This is something that sedevacantists are typically ignorant of, as well, which goes a long way to explaining why they're sedevacantists in the first place.

We distinguish between the sacrament of Baptism and the desire for the sacrament, but we do not separate the sacrament from the desire for it.  

This is the reason that the thread starter, Ad Jesum per Mariam, insists on the "or" meaning "or" -- because he does not recognize that separating the desire for the sacrament from the sacrament itself is an improper outlook on the sacramental theology of Holy Baptism.  It is okay to distinguish the two, but it is improper to SEPARATE the two, which he insists in doing with one little word, "or," which the Council Fathers of Trent never so much as hinted that was their intent.  They were in complete adherence to the perennial principle at hand that we distinguish but we do not separate.  Nor was that expressed anywhere, any more that the HIGHEST LAW OF THE CHURCH, THE SALVATION OF SOULS, was expressed anywhere in the 1914 Code of Canon Law, even though it pervades all of the canons.  It is ubiquitous.

And so too, the principle that, we distinguish but we do not separate, pervades all of the Faith, and especially sacramental theology.  

Otherwise you could supply vicarious desire to unbaptized infants.

In fact, I know some Novus Ordites who "desire baptize" babies being killed at abortion mills.

That's another argument AGAINST Baptism of Desire.

A friend of mine was an anesthesiologist who baptized something like 100 babies just before they died, with or without their parents' permission.  Many of the parents were Jєωιѕн or other non-Christians.  I told him, "You realize that you have a small army of saints in heaven just because of your courageous work?"  He replied, "Yes, I know that."  

Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam

If a person receives the grace of justification and dies in that grace without receiving water Baptism where does his soul go? Heaven or Hell?

The real question is, why do you think it's your right to know one way or the other?  

Who died and left you judge of all that God does?

What makes you able to know whether someone in particular received the grace of justification or not?

Father Feeney made the distinction between justification and salvation.  While such a distinction obviously exists (salvation is the final state after receiving the grace of final perseverance in justification), I don't personally feel that it applies here.  Father Feeney said that he really didn't know where such people went; at the end of the day, I don't think that he believed that this scenario actually existed, for he believed that God would bring the Sacrament of Baptism to His elect.

The infinite providence of God was the bottom line all along.  

BoD-ers seem to presume (but they refuse to admit it) that God is not capable of infinite providence, and that it's our place to step in and inform God of what He should do and what He should not do.

.

I want to tell God what to do and what not to do?  :confused1:

You're understandably confused because you're not paying attention.

Read and learn, for a change.

Title is a lie???

I'd use a larger font but you'd probably complain about that, too.

The title is a lie.  That is not a typo.  It is the truth.

Nobody here on Cathinfo (you hope!) denies BoD or BoB?

Nobody here on CathInfo denies BoD or BoB, unless they're C-Z Dimond bros. lemmings.  

Read it and weep.

Are you feeling okay???

So you're a woman, okay, now I understand.  

.

.

Post

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: ggreg

Quote from: SenzaDubbio

I thought there was an implicit desire, and the godparents speaks on behalf of the infant?

So another person having the desire for you, without any consent on your part, suffices with water, but desire on your own part, without water, does not suffice?

Makes very little sense to me.

No, the desire only works in CONJUNCTION with the Sacrament of Baptism.

This is absolutely TRUE.  It works in conjunction with the Sacrament.  The desire for the Sacrament cannot be separated from the Sacrament itself.  They are two entities but they work as a single unit, and cannot be separated.

A very important principle of philosophy is at work here: We distinguish but we do not separate.

Every defender of BoD/BoB I have ever met has never heard of this principle.  
Nor are they interested in learning about it.
It has implications all throughout the Catholic Faith, even penetrating into our comprehension of the processions of the Blessed Trinity.  

This is something that sedevacantists are typically ignorant of, as well, which goes a long way to explaining why they're sedevacantists in the first place.

We distinguish between the sacrament of Baptism and the desire for the sacrament, but we do not separate the sacrament from the desire for it.  

This is the reason that the thread starter, Ad Jesum per Mariam, insists on the "or" meaning "or" -- because he does not recognize that separating the desire for the sacrament from the sacrament itself is an improper outlook on the sacramental theology of Holy Baptism.  It is okay to distinguish the two, but it is improper to SEPARATE the two, which he insists in doing with one little word, "or," which the Council Fathers of Trent never so much as hinted that was their intent.  They were in complete adherence to the perennial principle at hand that we distinguish but we do not separate.  Nor was that expressed anywhere, any more that the HIGHEST LAW OF THE CHURCH, THE SALVATION OF SOULS, was expressed anywhere in the 1914 Code of Canon Law, even though it pervades all of the canons.  It is ubiquitous.

And so too, the principle that, we distinguish but we do not separate, pervades all of the Faith, and especially sacramental theology.  

Quote

Otherwise you could supply vicarious desire to unbaptized infants.

In fact, I know some Novus Ordites who "desire baptize" babies being killed at abortion mills.

That's another argument AGAINST Baptism of Desire.

A friend of mine was an anesthesiologist who baptized something like 100 babies just before they died, with or without their parents' permission.  Many of the parents were Jєωιѕн or other non-Christians.  I told him, "You realize that you have a small army of saints in heaven just because of your courageous work?"  He replied, "Yes, I know that."  

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Ad Jesum per Mariam

If a person receives the grace of justification and dies in that grace without receiving water Baptism where does his soul go? Heaven or Hell?

The real question is, why do you think it's your right to know one way or the other?  

Who died and left you judge of all that God does?

What makes you able to know whether someone in particular received the grace of justification or not?

Quote

Father Feeney made the distinction between justification and salvation.  While such a distinction obviously exists (salvation is the final state after receiving the grace of final perseverance in justification), I don't personally feel that it applies here.  Father Feeney said that he really didn't know where such people went; at the end of the day, I don't think that he believed that this scenario actually existed, for he believed that God would bring the Sacrament of Baptism to His elect.

The infinite providence of God was the bottom line all along.  

BoD-ers seem to presume (but they refuse to admit it) that God is not capable of infinite providence, and that it's our place to step in and inform God of what He should do and what He should not do.

.

Take a deep breath and read a little more closely. I am not referring to any certain person in particular so as to judge their soul. I'm referring to a teaching of the Catholic Church in regards to the grace of justification and if he dies in that state. No one is forcing you to participate in this thread if you don't like the topic. There are plenty of others who do.