Sedevacantism is a satanic snare?

I think adhering to a false Pope would be more of a snare than that.

And trying convince oneself that it's possible to adhere and resist at the same time is a delusion.

   Only to a simple mind that lacks the ability to make and recognize such subtle distinctions as are found in theology.

Quote from: Raoul76

Quote

I read about baptism of desire/blood in the Baltimore catechism, this article on Mr. Griff Ruby's site, Fr. Anthony Cekada's article y here, and more. I just don't know what to do. I care only for holding the Faith and going to Heaven. Its just that the Dimond argument is so strong. Its so clearly spelled out, dogmatically.

No they don't.  They just have their Pharisee-like misinterpretation of dogma.  

If a decree says "You must be baptized" that doesn't mean there aren't exceptions.  Imagine if you read everything literally, like in the Apocalypse where it says "murderers, adulterers, liars" and so on won't reach the kingdom of heaven.  If you read that literally, then you're damned if you tell one lie, and can't be forgiven.

Being able to grasp the SPIRIT of the law is of the highest importance.  That is why you have to trust real theologians and not amateurs which is what the Dimonds are, not to mention spiritually occluded.  Can you imagine St. Thomas spitting constant venom and claiming everyone is a heretic, cartoonishly, like these guys?  Why would you trust people who think that pretty much no one in the world except their one or two disciples will be saved?  That is a personal cult, not the Catholic cult.

These guys are preying on scruples.  Pray to a saint or to Mary to end your scruples.  I am convinced if more people did the consecration to Mary of St. Louis de Montfort this would not be happening.  We go about it all backwards, trying to work things out with our brains instead of through the light of faith and humility.  Probably the greatest spiritual leap I've ever taken is since beginning this consecration.  It fills you with a sense of your own unworthiness and from this perspective you get far sharper vision.  God does not reveal his secrets to the proud; He abhors pride.  That is why so many arrogant young bucks are going stone-blind.  And though they may not think they're arrogant, they are, because there is almost zero emphasis put on prayer and true spiritual progress these days, on mysticism.  

Brilliant and reposting so it gets emphasis to read.

Sedes and EENSers lack common sense.

End of argument.

Quote from: Emerentiana

 Listen Seraphim! ALL of the trad groups, including the SSPX, all believe in baptism of desire and water.   The sedes are not to blame for this.
I wouldnt classify the Diamond brother heretics  in the same category as the trad priests and bishops.
/
The longer this inter regnum lasts, the more confusion there will be!  

God has not left his church, but has at present  provided us with priests to say mass and to give us the sacraments.
Try and look at things simply.  We will soon be in the catacombs with no priests to say mass, as they will be hunted and killed by the NWO.
Then we can be home aloners.

   Inter regnum?

   You people crack me up.

   Have you identified the lone bishop in the woods yet?

Shows your ignorence, Seraphim.  We have been without a true pope since John XX111.  Where have you been?  
Maybe  you should educate yourself before you come on here and make stupid statements!

Thanks everyone for responding. Raoul, thanks for the words. I'm gonna have myself consecrated.

I do have scruples, you were right. Anyways, I do see what both "sides" are saying. However:

Why wasn't Mons. Joseph C. Fenton, St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, et alia ever condemned by the Holy Office or a true pontiff? Alfred de Loisy was condemned, so was Arnold hαɾɾιs Matthew for his illicit consecrations, as well as the Brazillian schismatics. Yet not a word of condemnation for those supporting Baptismo fluminis or baptismo sanguinis.


No one founded their monastery. No abbot or prior or Benedictine motherhouse, with ordinary jurisdiction founded the Most Holy Family Monastery of New York. Bros. Michael and Peter were not trained in a Pontifical University, and do not hold degrees from a Pontifical Institute in say, dogmatic theology, moral theology, etc. In addition, do they fluently know Latin?

I also appeal to eternal Rome. If this were normal times, I would write H.H. Pius XII (of blessed memory) himself and submit these troubles to His Holiness. The Dimonds, who do not possess ordinary jurisdiction, cannot judge me to be a manifest and pertinacious heretic or denier of the Faith, just as Mons. Fenton, Sts. Alphonsus, Thomas, and all the many saints were never condemned vitandi or otherwise.

Why did essentially no one, besides the Dimonds, hold their interpretation of the axiom E.E.N.S. Fr. Feeney did, but was corrected by the Holy Office. The Prefect of the Holy Office at the time was H.H. Pius XII.

The shepherd is struck, and the sheep are scattered. I hope that a truly Catholic pope (whether the sedevacantist thesis, sedeprivationist thesis, SSPX "Rome must convert thesis" be correct), will one day, Deo volente, definitively settle this issue.

All of these sources, pre-Vatican II, were not condemned. Yet the Dimonds, whose only jurisdiction can be supplied jurisdiction claim that:

THE SUPREME SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE
From the Headquarters of the Holy Office
August 8, 1949
Protocol Number 122/49


Baltimore Catechism No.3
A Catechism of Christian Doctrine prepared and enjoined by order of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore
IMPRIMATURS:
Archbishop John McCloskey of New York 1885
Archbishop Gibbons Baltimore 1885
Archbishop Michael Augustine N.Y. 1901
Archbishop Patrick Hayes N.Y. 1921
NIHIL OBSTATS:
Rev. Remigius LaFort, Censor Librorum 1901
Arthur Scanlan, Censor Librorum 1921


P. Pius IX Solemn Allocution
Singulari Quadam
December 9, 1854


P. Pius IX Encyclical
QUANTO CONFICIAMUR
August 10, 1863


Vol. 2, BAPTISM, William H.W. Fanning

A Catholic Dictionary, Attwater
(Imprimatur/Nihil obstat 1946)

THE CATECHISM EXPLAINED
Rev. Francis Spirago, Professor of Theology
(c) 1899, 1921, by Benziger Bros. (Printers to the Apostolic See)
Nihil Obstat: Scanlon. Imprimatur: Archbishop Hayes, D.D.NY



And that men such as Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, member of the Pontifical Roman Theological Academy, counselor of the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries and Universities, professor of fundamental dogmatic theology, Catholic University of America, are wrong, yet they two monks vagans, with no credentials or training, are correct.

That Pius XII, Pius XI, Benedict XV, St. Pius X, Leo XIII, Pius IX, et al, censors, professors, seminaries, sacred congregations, systematically failed to condemn and eradicate, or at least attempt to condemn and attempt to eradicate what they say is the "heresy of baptism of desire and of blood." So very high ranking churchmen, from the time of the late 18th cent. (time of St. Alphonsus, to 1958,) systematically failed.

Practically all the Fathers of the Church, and today The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary teach/taught the same thing as Dimond regarding the absolute necessity of baptism, and EENS as it is written, and they have not been condemned either. The Slaves offer the Latin Mass every week with the approval of the local diocese bishop and Rome.

The theories of BOD and all it's offshoots have absolutely no support from dogma. If we are to read dogma as it is clearly written, then the strict EENSers are right and all those fallible catechism and fallible loose quote found here and there are wrong.

The Patristic Scholar Fr. William Jurgens, who has literally read thousands of texts from the fathers, was forced to admit the following in his three volume set on the Fathers.

Fr. William Jurgens: “If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility.  But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”

   See what I mean?

   Keep this foolishness up, and you will conclude we haven't had a pope since the 1st century (which would make your lone bishop in the woods about 2000 years old....better elect him pope quick).

   

Dear Seraphim,
Please, lets limit this thread to Baptismo fluminis et baptismo sanguinis. Not an argument of sedevacantism.

St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part 3, Question 66, Article 11

Article 11. Whether three kinds of Baptism are fittingly described--viz. Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit?

Objection 1. It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Ephesians 4:5): "One Faith, one Baptism." Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.

Objection 2. Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above (Question 65, Article 1). Now none but Baptism of Water is a sacrament. Therefore we should not reckon two other Baptisms.

Objection 3. Further, Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) distinguishes several other kinds of Baptism. Therefore we should admit more than three Baptisms.

On the contrary, on Hebrews 6:2, "Of the doctrine of Baptisms," the gloss says: "He uses the plural, because there is Baptism of Water, of Repentance, and of Blood."

I answer that, As stated above (Question 62, Article 5), Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this it is written (Isaiah 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): "The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable."

Reply to Objection 1. The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.

Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (Question 60, Article 1), a sacrament is a kind of sign. The other two, however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not sacraments.

Reply to Objection 3. Damascene enumerates certain figurative Baptisms. For instance, "the Deluge" was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of the salvation of the faithful in the Church; since then "a few . . . souls were saved in the ark [Vulgate: 'by water'," according to 1 Peter 3:20. He also mentions "the crossing of the Red Sea": which was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of our delivery from the bondage of sin; hence the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 10:2) that "all . . . were baptized in the cloud and in the sea." And again he mentions "the various washings which were customary under the Old Law," which were figures of our Baptism, as to the cleansing from sins: also "the Baptism of John," which prepared the way for our Baptism.