CathInfo.com

Sorry I seem rude but I am tired of this three baptism cope and invincible ignorance heresy, even my sspx priest has mentioned it and sending him infallible quotes didn't help him. They just ignore and regurgitate the same fallible statements....

Here's the sum total of all "evidence" in favor of BoD:

1) youthful speculation of St. Augustine (later retracted)
2) unclear statement from St. Ambrose (where he still says that neither BoD/BoB result in crowning)
3) Innocent II/III opining in its favor (one docuмent is of disputed authenticity, another a letter written to a bishop, not a teaching of his office ... and in a similar letter he promoted a seriously erroneous opinion ... relying on "authority" of Augustine / Ambrose, which is tentative at best -- see above, and ignores the 5-6 Church Fathers who rejected the idea)
4) after a 600-year complete silence about BoD, debate among pre-scholastics (Abelard vs. Hugh of St. Victor), where St. Bernard tentatively sides with Hugh in saying "I'd rather err with Augustine than be right on my own.").  Peter Lombard then goes with that.
5) from there, St. Thomas opines in its favor
6) alleged interpretation of Trent, which IMO was clearly NOT trying to teach BoD and at best left the issue open
7) Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus opine in its favor (without any theological proof, but, for Bellarmine, going with it because the contrary "seems too harsh")
8) theologians who are at the same time undermining/denying EENS jumping on the BoD bandwagon
9) no theological (syllogistic) proof ever offered for BoD, just gratuitous statements along the lines of "yep, BoD"
10) misinterpreted 1917 Code of Canon Law, which is saying nothing more than that Catechumens may received Christian burial (contrary to earlier Church practice)

In order for something to be definable, it has to either ...
1) be known to have been revealed through unanimous dogmatic consensus of the Church Fathers (more Fathers reject BoD than tentatively and temporarily accepted it)
2) derive logically and necessarily from other revealed dogma (no theological proof for BoD has ever been produced)

BoD is nothing but pure speculation.

Pope St. Sulpicius dogmatically condemned it when he wrote that each and every one of those desiring Baptism would lose the Kingdom if they did not receive the Sacrament before they died (here he was urging emergency Baptism for those in danger of death).  Nothing could be more clear.  But somehow this one is ignored by the BoDers, who rely instead on some confusing and dubious nonsense by one or another of the Innocent popes, who also were known to have opined erroneous in various letters about other subjects as well as their reading of BoD into Trent, and there's no evidence that it's there, and certainly no positive statement that it's required belief, but merely leaving it open as a speculative possibility (even if you believe that it had BoD in mind with the votum passage).

You won't listen to reason. I know having discussed this with you, and others here, and others elsewhere. I know, because I once had the same uncompromising belief that I was right on this and all the BODers were wrong. I wouldn't listen.

Here's some reason.

The Catechism, quoted by Angelus, says:


The "since," for infants, is a mark of distinction, making them some sort of exception, marking them as apart from another group for whicn there may be another means of salvation. Infants are being compared to what there? Trees? Rocks? Be sensible and rational.

The Catechism is only being consistent here with the Council of Florence (1442), which in the very bull, Cantate Domino, which asserts the dogma of EENS, also marks infants as distinct in respect to the means of salvation:



This is also consistent with Pius XII in his address to midwives:


In other words, Pius XII is saying that as to infants there is "no other means of salvation" or "no help can be brought to them by another remedy."

But we know you won't listen in your echo chamber.

There is no other means for children because for some other men, not trees, not rocks, but some other humans (only humans can be "saved" or partake of the "remedy" for original sin), namely non-infant adults, have another means that may, under certain circuмstances and exceptions, be available.

In your reliance on an exclusive and literal reading of John 3:5 you're unfortunately like a Jehovah Witness who denies the divinity of Christ and His equality with the Father by citing John 14:28 ("the Father is greater than I") as dispositive and settling the question.

The JWs are unreasonable and wrong, and so are you.

DR, it seems to us,  is participating in libelous behavior.  Libel, unlike its opposite, Slander, is a "published, untrue, defamatory statement."  Slander is similar, but the act is done behind the person's back, not publicly. DR claims that Lad is "like a Jehovah Witness."  This is akin to telling a woman that she is "like a prostitute."  She may or may not be a prostitute, but the statement suggests that if she is not so in fact, her behavior (her will) is such that she would easily lend herself to the lifestyle of a prostitute. If I suspected that a Catholic woman was immodest, it would occur to me to suggest to her politely that a particular action was immodest.  And we add that it is better to be a prostitute than a Jehovah Witness. The sin of libel requires a public retraction, especially when the matter is grave.      

While I clearly disagree with some of you on the subject EENS, I would never impute to anyone on this forum the label of "Jehovah Witness."  JW's are notorious heretics who, in large part, deny the divinity of Christ.  JW's are divided among themselves, as I have had some of them agree to Christ's divinity, and others not.  Most JW's have no idea what they believe when seriously questioned.  Most JW's are "pertinacious" in heresy, meaning that once it has been made known them that there is a Catholic Church, and this same Church has always, from the time of the apostles,  taught the divinity of Christ, they are obligated to investigate it.  I always invite JW's to my house to discuss the Truth, especially when they attempt to walk away in droves.  I have had some who seem more honest than others, as I often engage several at a time, employing the classic Vin Lewis tactics of asking simple yes/no questions.  I remind the JW's that they have a moral obligation to investigate what I tell them, that on the Last Day, they will not have the excuse, "I did not know the truth" or some other such lie, and that they will be damned should they fail to heed what I tell them.  We want to be sure that we "clear the way," and not allow any room for any "invincible ignorance."        

No Decem, Lad is not at all like the JW's.   And like it or not Decem, Lad has a very good idea of what he believes, unlike the JW's.