To be honest I didn't read your posts, they were long winded and seemed like fallible cope. Short and concise is easier on the attention span.

The Church has never taught Baptism of blood, and even refutes the very notion.

BoB is infallibly destroyed by Pope Eugene IV at Florence in Cantate Domino. You can quote hundreds of fallible statements of theological speculation, but unless you have infallible statements, then I do not care. Because the Church infallibly says, No/Cope to Baptism of blood.

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....

As blessed Eugene IV stated. No 'good' produces eternal reward for a person if they aren't united in the Church. Even shedding blood does not avail you to the beatific vision (which is certainly an eternal reward).

I don't know how ladislaus goes through walls of text of the same exact arguments over and over... But I'm glad he does.

According to St. Ambrose, there's a state of washing without crowning.  You do realize, right?, the the notion of CROWNing referred to entering the KINGdom of Heaven.

Pope St. Sulpicius dogmatically taught that ALL those who while desiring the Sacrament of Baptism died before receiving it would lose the Kingdom of Heaven.

5-6 Church Fathers rejected Baptism of Desire, several explicitly.  St. Augustine floated the idea in his youth but then later forcefully retracted it (he published an entire large book later in life called Corrections).  St. Ambrose speculated about a state of being washed without being crowned, while elsewhere declaring that Catechumens who die before initiated cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.  Pope St. Sulpicius dogmatically rejected Baptism of Desire (a quote, like many others, that is strangely ommitted by BoDers).  You'll never see a BoDer quote the contrary evidence, but they selectively cherry-pick the one or two tenuous and tentative sources they can find in support of their speculation.

False.  A valid sacramental baptism saves.


Here's your problem.  You are incorrectly using these terms, and causing confusion.

1.  The common understanding of "baptism of water" implies that it is valid, which further implies the person was properly disposed, which further implies they had natural faith.
2.  If one has been properly baptized, then they have received Supernatural Faith, which saves.
3.  One cannot have Supernatural/salvific Faith before/without the sacrament of baptism.
4.  If you are arguing that one can have Faith before/outside/without the sacrament, this is heresy.
5.  If you are using the phrase "baptism of water" to simply mean the pouring of water upon a person who doesn't want to be baptized, then your phrase is wrong and confusing.

There is natural faith and supernatural faith.  Supernatural Faith ONLY comes from the sacrament of baptism.  Ergo, only those who are baptized can be in the bosom of the Church.


"Having Faith" refers to natural faith, which, as Scripture says, "comes from hearing".  This is also akin to "having the will/desire" to be a member of the Church.  But no one can WILL to do anything supernatural; this is heresy.  All things supernatural are a gift from God, which we can ONLY get from the Church, through the sacraments.

If by "having Faith" you mean being sacramentally baptized, then I agree.  But again, your language is imprecise.

An unrepentent heretic, I agree.  Typically, a heretic refers to a former member of the Church, which means they were already baptized, so all that they need to do to be saved is repent and confess.  I doubt an unrepentent heretic would die for the Church.  Seems contradictory.  But if they did, yes, they would not be saved.

Instead of name calling how about you show that YOUR POSITION is Compatible with Trent and Catholic teaching. How can one be Justified but not saved? Save the name calling for someone who is not of good will. I am trying to have a discussion.

We've spent pages on this ... in this very thread.  Then you jump on at the end and insist on our reposting everything.  Go back and read the thread.

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 shurch 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.       

It is evident, both from Bellarmine and Billuart, that no one can be saved unless he belongs to the visible communion of the Church, either actually or virtually, and also that the salvation of catechumens can be asserted only because they do so belong ; that is, because they are in the vestibule, for the purpose of entering,  have already entered in their will and proximate disposition. St. Thomas teaches with regard to these, in case they have faith working by love, that all they lack is the reception of the visible sacrament in re ; but if they are prevented by death from receiving it in re before the Church is ready to administer it, that God supplies the defect, accepts the will for the deed, and reputes them to be baptized. If the defect is supplied, and God reputes them to be baptized, they are so in effect, have in effect received the visible sacrament, are truly members of the external communion of the Church, and therefore are saved in it, not out of it. *(footnote: * Summa 3, Q. G8, a. 2. corp. ad 2. et ad 3.)



Bellarmine, Billuart, Perrone, &c, in speaking of persons as belonging to the soul and not to the body, mean, it is evident, not persons who in no sense belong to the body, but simply those who, though they in effect belong to it, do not belong to it in the full and strict sense of the word, because they have not received the visible sacrament in re. All they teach is simply that persons may be saved who have not received the visible sacrament in re ; but they by no means teach that persons can be saved without having received the visible sacrament at all. There is no difference between their view and ours, for we have never contended for any thing more than this ; only we think, that, in these times especially, when the tendency is to depreciate the external, it is more proper to speak of them as belonging in effect to the body, as they certainly do, than it is to speak of them simply as belonging to the soul; for the fact the most important to be insisted on is, not that it is possible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament in re, but that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament at least in voto et proximo, disposition.

http://orestesbrownson.org/210.html

what Brownson1847 wrote regarding the possibility of justification/salvation