Author Topic: the desire thereof (Read 17498 times)

Gregory I · « **Reply #165 on:** January 28, 2012, 08:23:13 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: Gregory I
Baptism alone justifies. desire merely predisposes us to justice, but we are not thereby justified.

Precisely the error of Fr Feeney!

Perfect contrition justifies, and has nothing to do with water baptism.

Your slogan should not be EENS, but NSWWB (no salvation without water baptism).

You also seem to be out of step with your errant brethren Feenyites, who all admit that one can be justified without water baptism (they just deny, quite heretically against the canon of the council of Trent, that those justified without water baptism are saved).

You need to read up if you want to be a more effective heretic,

no, I believe Fr. Feeney was in error on his understanding of justification. Obviously one cannot die justified and NOT go to heaven!

Your assertion about perfect contrition is only true for those who are already baptized, as all the fathers teach. You misinterpret Trent. As do all BOD'ers.

AS St. Augustine himself says;

"God remits sins only to the baptized."

nadieimportante · « **Reply #166 on:** January 29, 2012, 03:21:44 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: nadieimportante
Quote from: Seraphim
Quote from: nadieimportante
Quote from: Seraphim
Thanks anyway.

I think I will stick with St Alphonsus.

Do you believe that someone who has no explicit desire to be baptized, or explicit desire to be a Catholic, or knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, can be saved by their invincible ignorance and "implicit faith" in a God that rewards?

Let me turn it around:

Do you believe it is possible for those who die justified to be damned?

I've never yet had one BODer answer my question directly the first time I asked, it's always like pulling teeth from them. The record still stands. I asked first. Just answer my simple question.

In other words, you recognize you are trapped, but show your ill disposition by clinging to your position despite it.

That's the second time you've avoided my question. Answer my question. You are falling right in line with all BODers, avoiding the revealing of your beliefes. State your position, come out into the light.

(P.S- you didn't invent sliced bread)

nadieimportante · « **Reply #167 on:** January 29, 2012, 03:56:51 PM »

Quote

Nishant posted:
Catechism of St.Pius X:

27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?
A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.

29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation

This translation is heretical. You'll have to do more research if you want to find what the Catechism of Pius X really said in Italian (it was not published in Latin), it's your evidence so, it's up to you to do the research. By the way, the original would not be called The Catechism of St.Pius X, since he was not a Saint at the time.

Q. 27: “Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?
A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church,
just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which
was a figure of the Church.”

Here the Catechism attributed to Pope St. Pius X reaffirms the defined dogma. But it proceeds to deny this dogma just two questions later!

The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Apostles’ Creed, “The Church in Particular,”
Q. 29: “Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved? A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best as he can, such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of
salvation.”

Here we see this fallible Catechism word for word denying the dogma Outside the
Church There is No Salvation! It teaches that there can be salvation “outside” the
Church, which directly denies the truth it taught in Question 27. This statement is so heretical, in fact, that it would be repudiated even by most of the crafty progressivists of our day, who know that they cannot say that people are saved “outside,” so they argue that non‐Catholics are not “outside” but are “inside” somehow. So even those crafty progressivists who reject the true meaning of Outside the Church There is No Salvation would have to admit that the above statement is heretical!

Further, notice that the English "translation" of the catechism attributed to St. Pius X teaches the heresy that persons can be united to the “Soul” of the Church, but not the Body. As shown in my thread on the contradictions of BODers, the Catholic Church is a Mystical Body. Those who are not part of the Body are no part at all. This is no theologian has ever said that persons who are justified without baptism are part of the Mystical Body, but they argue that non‐Catholics are are “inside” somehow.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “For since
the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical
body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were
foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made
up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad:
whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no
member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its
head.”

You are like 0 for 4 on your evidence for BOD.

nadieimportante · « **Reply #168 on:** January 29, 2012, 04:27:05 PM »

Quote

Nishant2011- I asked you another question. Can God operate through extraordinary means to bring such a pagan to salvation? Either through an Angel or an internal enlightenment?

You are like a radio disc jockey playing the same songs every hour. You are not learning anything, you just stick to your few "BOD cliches", and repeat them over and over. This question you've asked before and here I'll answer again:

Only God grace can convert someone, it is the difficult part. Getting someone to baptize another is simple. Yet in your mind God can send an angel or enlighten a person internally to teach him the Trinity and the Incarnation (extremey complex teachings), but this same God can't teach the person that he needs to be baptized, nor keep him alive till He enlightens someone to pour water on the person's head?

In your mind, God created and placed a person in a place where He could not later reach him with water, or reach him with a person to teach him the faith, so, as a last minute solution, He sends an angel or enlightens him internally, BUT can't get anyone to baptize him because time He ran out, or He just can't do it.

You are in a Vortex of confusion:

Quote

St. Augustine:
“If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition [/u]to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into
which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)

In my world, "they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can't be snatched away from His predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined".

God predestines those that are to be saved and placedthem in the way of His ordinary salvation from the beginning of time, and if He so chooses to save someone by an extraordinary means like sending an angel, He can do it, within the laws He has established. AND of course internally enlighten them (that's what His grace does, which St. John the Baptist said "can change these very stones into sons of Abraham"). God can get baptism to all of His elect without having to have an "alternative plan".

If what you believe were true, then your God is disordered, for He would have preordained thousands of people to be returned to life to be baptized, for no reason, and others preordained to be saved unbaptized, and his dogmas to not mean what they clearly say. You are in the Vortex of confusion.

nadieimportante · « **Reply #169 on:** January 29, 2012, 11:56:23 PM »

Nadie wrote: So you are telling us that St. Thomas taught that: "someone who has no explicit desire to be baptized, or explicit desire to be a Catholic, or knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, can be saved by their invincible ignorance and "implicit faith" in a God that rewards"?

Why don't you quote him for us?

Cupetino responds: I don't think you know what the word "implicit" means. It keeps showing by the way you carry on and acting as if you didn't hear the answers before.

Nadie answers: You made the comment that St. Thomas taught that "someone who has no explicit desire to be baptized, or explicit desire to be a Catholic, or knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, can be saved by their invincible ignorance and "implicit faith" in a God that rewards". I asked you to post his quote where he taught it. Even if I didn't know what implicit faith is, your response is irrelevant, since I'm asking you to provide me with the information from St. Thomas. He has the credentials to teach. So, post it, or take up your argument with Nishant2011, who disagrees with you, for he says that St. Thomas opposed the theory that "someone who has no explicit desire to be baptized, or explicit desire to be a Catholic, or knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, can be saved by their invincible ignorance and "implicit faith" in a God that rewards"?

You have your choice, either post where St. Thomas taught "that "someone who has no explicit desire to be baptized, or explicit desire to be a Catholic, or knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, can be saved by their invincible ignorance and "implicit faith" in a God that rewards"

or

Take up your debate with Nishant2011 (who, as opposed to you, at least knows his St. Thomas in this case).

Nishant · « **Reply #170 on:** January 31, 2012, 06:35:48 AM »

Quote

You are not learning anything, you just stick to your few "BOD cliches", and repeat them over and over.

Heh. Charming as ever, aren't you? You must think I enjoy repeating myself, but I wouldn't have to, if you'd have answered the first time. And no, again you did not.

My question was, what practical difference does it make to you? How do you practically know the difference between someone who is baptized in water secretly in a distant land and someone who merely receives an internal illumination? It makes no practical difference.

Quote

BUT can't get anyone to baptize him because time He ran out, or He just can't do

Not at all. The Holy Ghost can baptize the man by bringing him to the right dispositions of belief, but without the need for any human instruments.

When you teach the contrary dogmatically, you make it out that God is bound to the sacraments. And that is erroneous and possibly heretical, as St.Thomas says.

You may believe that God will always bring those baptized by desire to water, but you cannot believe either that those who die justified are lost or that God is bound to the sacraments.

While I have no objection to discussing my difference of opinion with Cupertino if he wants it, maybe you should take your own advice, Nadie, and you and Gregory should sort out the issue of justification first. He says, "Obviously one cannot die justified and NOT go to heaven!" Do you agree? You have maintained since the first post that "Trent says nothing about what happens to a person who is justified, but dies before he can receive baptism"

Because of his understanding, Gregory is forced to do violence to the text of St.Luke that talks about Cornelius. I take it as it is written. When St.Peter discoursed on the Trinity, the Incarnation and even the Passion and Resurrection, the Holy Ghost fell on his listeners in like measure as He had fallen on the Apostles. This is baptism of desire in the deposit of revelation.

So, come on guys, which is it?

Augustinian · « **Reply #171 on:** January 31, 2012, 06:56:39 AM »

Your mangling of Scripture regarding Cornelius falls under the condemnation of Peter.

Do you believe Caiaphas the Christ-killing Pharisee was justified when the Holy Ghost descended upon him in John?

nadieimportante · « **Reply #172 on:** January 31, 2012, 08:32:25 AM »

Nashant2011:
My question was, what practical difference does it make to you? How do you practically know the difference between someone who is baptized in water secretly in a distant land and someone who merely receives an internal illumination? It makes no practical difference.

Nadie responds:
It makes a huge theological difference, for one is 100% in line with EENS and Trents teaching on the absolute need of water baptism for salvation. The other BOD, contradicts EENS in that the person is not part of the Mystical Body, and contradicts Trent (and the universal magisterium) on the absolute need of water baptism for salvation. BOD opens the door to all manner of rationalization, and speculation, and ends in "no practical difference" between it and outside the Church there is salvation.

Nadie wrote:
BUT can't get anyone to baptize him because time He ran out, or He just can't do

Nashant answered: Not at all. The Holy Ghost can baptize the man by bringing him to the right dispositions of belief, but without the need for any human instruments. When you teach the contrary dogmatically, you make it out that God is bound to the sacraments. And that is erroneous and possibly heretical, as St.Thomas says.

Nadie responds: You hang your whole sytem on this "God is not bound to the sacraments"? Yet it is you who bounds God to do the difficult "send a preacher or an angel, or enlighten a person internally, all to teach him the Trinity and the Incarnation (extremey complex teachings), but then you restrict God from teaching by the same means to the person that he needs to be baptized, nor keep him alive till He enlightens someone to pour water on the person's head?

And yet you say that I bound God? You go against God's predestination and providence, and the clear teachings of EENS, with your erroneous application of
"God is not bound to the sacraments".

In your mind, God created and placed a person in a place where He could not later reach him with water, or reach him with a person to teach him the faith, so, as a last minute solution, He sends an angel or enlightens him internally, BUT can't get anyone to baptize him because time He ran out, or He just can't do it.

You are in a Vortex of confusion, read carefully:

St. Augustine:
“If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination[/b], or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)

In my world, "they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can't be snatched away from His predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined".

God predestines those that are to be saved and placed them in the way of His ordinary salvation from the beginning of time, and if He so chooses to save someone by an extraordinary means like sending an angel, He can do it, within the laws He has established. AND of course internally enlighten them (that's what His grace does, which St. John the Baptist said "can change these very stones into sons of Abraham"). God can get baptism to all of His elect without having to have an "alternative plan".

If what you believe were true, then your God is disordered, for He would have preordained thousands of people to be returned to life to be baptized, for no reason, and others preordained to be saved unbaptized, while He wasted His baptism on millions who died in mortal sin, and his dogmas do not mean what they clearly say. You are in the Vortex of confusion.

Nishant2011 said You may believe that God will always bring those baptized by desire to water,

Nadie answers: I do.

Nishant2011 said but you cannot believe either that those who die justified are lost

Nadie answers: I never said that. If you asked me: "What happens to a catechumen who is justified before he receives the sacrament of baptism, but dies before he can get baptized?"

I would tell you that, that is the ridiculous question, for whomever God has predestinated for baptism can't be snatched away from his predestination. You are splitting two things that go together, like splitting the body and the soul., and then asking the ridiculous question. The end result of your ridiculous question we see today, in all manner of rationalization, and speculation, that has ended in "no practical difference" between it and outside the Church there is salvation.

nadieimportante · « **Reply #173 on:** January 31, 2012, 08:51:55 AM »

Quote

Nishant2011 said:
you and Gregory should sort out the issue of justification first. He says, "Obviously one cannot die justified and NOT go to heaven!" Do you agree? You have maintained since the first post that "Trent says nothing about what happens to a person who is justified, but dies before he can receive baptism"

There is nothing to sort out, Gregory does not ask the ridiculous question:

"What happens to a catechumen who is justified before he receives the sacrament of baptism, but dies before he can get baptized?"

Gregory believes that Trent says you must have both desire and the sacrament. I don't necessarily disagree with him, but , I don't go that route with BODers because even if it says that desire justifies, what BODers claim, it does not ask, nor answer, nor mention, the ridiculous question.

You see, I answer all questions, without fear, because this is not about winning a debate, it's about finding truth.

Gregory I · « **Reply #174 on:** January 31, 2012, 09:27:36 PM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

Quote
You are not learning anything, you just stick to your few "BOD cliches", and repeat them over and over.

Heh. Charming as ever, aren't you? You must think I enjoy repeating myself, but I wouldn't have to, if you'd have answered the first time. And no, again you did not.

My question was, what practical difference does it make to you? How do you practically know the difference between someone who is baptized in water secretly in a distant land and someone who merely receives an internal illumination? It makes no practical difference.

Quote
BUT can't get anyone to baptize him because time He ran out, or He just can't do

Not at all. The Holy Ghost can baptize the man by bringing him to the right dispositions of belief, but without the need for any human instruments.

When you teach the contrary dogmatically, you make it out that God is bound to the sacraments. And that is erroneous and possibly heretical, as St.Thomas says.

You may believe that God will always bring those baptized by desire to water, but you cannot believe either that those who die justified are lost or that God is bound to the sacraments.

While I have no objection to discussing my difference of opinion with Cupertino if he wants it, maybe you should take your own advice, Nadie, and you and Gregory should sort out the issue of justification first. He says, "Obviously one cannot die justified and NOT go to heaven!" Do you agree? You have maintained since the first post that "Trent says nothing about what happens to a person who is justified, but dies before he can receive baptism"

Because of his understanding, Gregory is forced to do violence to the text of St.Luke that talks about Cornelius. I take it as it is written. When St.Peter discoursed on the Trinity, the Incarnation and even the Passion and Resurrection, the Holy Ghost fell on his listeners in like measure as He had fallen on the Apostles. This is baptism of desire in the deposit of revelation.

So, come on guys, which is it?

Lol. Nishant, it is not doing violence to ANYTHING to acknowledge an ACTUAL grace, no matter how tremendous. Heck, I was told this by NOVUS ORDO traditionalist priests. Cornelius experienced an actual grace of the Holy Spirit. There was NOTHING to indicate that this was an occasion of either spiritual regeneration or an infusion of SANCTIFYING grace.

It's not gymnastics. ESPECIALLY not if Novus Ordites are teaching it...

The text does NOT claim what you want it to claim, i.e. that This occasion provided Cornelius with Formal Justification and Spiritual Regeneration. It was merely a sign of God's election and predestination.

nadieimportante · « **Reply #175 on:** February 01, 2012, 07:35:53 AM »

Quote from: Augustinian

Your mangling of Scripture regarding Cornelius falls under the condemnation of Peter.

Do you believe Caiaphas the Christ-killing Pharisee was justified when the Holy Ghost descended upon him in John?

How about Balaam'a ass talking?

[21] Balaam arose in the morning, and saddling his ass went with them. [22] And God was angry. And an angel of the Lord stood in the way against Balaam, who sat on the ass, and had two servants with him. [Numbers 22:22] [Latin] [23] The ass seeing the angel standing in the way, with a drawn sword, turned herself out of the way, and went into the field. And when Balaam beat her, and had a mind to bring her again to the way, [24] The angel stood in a narrow place between two walls, wherewith the vineyards were enclosed. [25] And the ass seeing him, thrust herself close to the wall, and bruised the foot of the rider. But he beat her again:

[26] And nevertheless the angel going on to a narrow place, where there was no way to turn aside either to the right hand or to the left, stood to meet him. [27] And when the ass saw the angel standing, she fell under the feet of the rider: who being angry beat her sides more vehemently with a staff. [28] And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said: What have I done to thee? Why strikest thou me, lo, now this third time? [29] Balaam answered: Because thou hast deserved it, and hast served me ill: I would I had a sword that I might kill thee. [30] The ass said: Am not I thy beast, on which thou hast been always accustomed to ride until this present day? tell me if I ever did the like thing to thee. But he said: Never.

[28] Opened the mouth: The angel moved the tongue of the ass, to utter these speeches, to rebuke, by the mouth of a brute beast, the brutal fury and folly of Balaam.

[31] Forthwith the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel standing in the way with a drawn sword, and he worshipped him falling flat on the ground. [32] And the angel said to him: Why beatest thou thy ass these three times? I am come to withstand thee, because thy way is perverse, and contrary to me: [33] And unless the ass had turned out of the way, giving place to me who stood against thee, I had slain thee, and she should have lived. [34] Balaam said: I have sinned, not knowing that thou didst stand against me: and now if it displease thee that I go, I will return. [35] The angel said: Go with these men, and see thou speak no other thing than what I shall command thee. He went therefore with the princes.

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #176 on:** February 01, 2012, 10:06:23 AM »

Quote from: Gregory I

Quote from: Nishant2011
Quote
You are not learning anything, you just stick to your few "BOD cliches", and repeat them over and over.

Heh. Charming as ever, aren't you? You must think I enjoy repeating myself, but I wouldn't have to, if you'd have answered the first time. And no, again you did not.

My question was, what practical difference does it make to you? How do you practically know the difference between someone who is baptized in water secretly in a distant land and someone who merely receives an internal illumination? It makes no practical difference.

Quote
BUT can't get anyone to baptize him because time He ran out, or He just can't do

Not at all. The Holy Ghost can baptize the man by bringing him to the right dispositions of belief, but without the need for any human instruments.

When you teach the contrary dogmatically, you make it out that God is bound to the sacraments. And that is erroneous and possibly heretical, as St.Thomas says.

You may believe that God will always bring those baptized by desire to water, but you cannot believe either that those who die justified are lost or that God is bound to the sacraments.

While I have no objection to discussing my difference of opinion with Cupertino if he wants it, maybe you should take your own advice, Nadie, and you and Gregory should sort out the issue of justification first. He says, "Obviously one cannot die justified and NOT go to heaven!" Do you agree? You have maintained since the first post that "Trent says nothing about what happens to a person who is justified, but dies before he can receive baptism"

Because of his understanding, Gregory is forced to do violence to the text of St.Luke that talks about Cornelius. I take it as it is written. When St.Peter discoursed on the Trinity, the Incarnation and even the Passion and Resurrection, the Holy Ghost fell on his listeners in like measure as He had fallen on the Apostles. This is baptism of desire in the deposit of revelation.

So, come on guys, which is it?

Lol. Nishant, it is not doing violence to ANYTHING to acknowledge an ACTUAL grace, no matter how tremendous. Heck, I was told this by NOVUS ORDO traditionalist priests. Cornelius experienced an actual grace of the Holy Spirit. There was NOTHING to indicate that this was an occasion of either spiritual regeneration or an infusion of SANCTIFYING grace.

It's not gymnastics. ESPECIALLY not if Novus Ordites are teaching it...

The text does NOT claim what you want it to claim, i.e. that This occasion provided Cornelius with Formal Justification and Spiritual Regeneration. It was merely a sign of God's election and predestination.

I'd like to understand justification and Grace better than I do. I think this is an excellent illustration for that.

Nishant · « **Reply #177 on:** February 03, 2012, 06:08:05 AM »

The passage from St.Luke I'm afraid does indeed prove the point. Here's why. St.Peter, the first Pope, confirms this when he says "They have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" and "And God, who knows the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us" But what is your position other than the claim that those who desire baptism cannot receive the Holy Ghost just as baptized Christians can, even before the administering of the sacrament?

In very simple terms, it shows St.Peter believed in baptism of desire. The parallels with Balaam fail for this reason. And I don't agree that it was merely a Holy Ghost. St.Peter was comparing Cornelius to himself and other baptized Christians.

Nadie,

Quote

It makes a huge theological difference

I meant between the view of Doctors like St.Thomas and St.Alponsus (which you admit is not your view) and your own view. It makes no practical difference in distant lands where none of us know what happens anyway.

As for both "bound to the sacraments" and "meaningless question" and even anecdotal incidents, I've already shown you that St.Thomas quotes St.Ambrose and says Valentian died a catechumen but with the grace of the sacrament. So it is not meaningless and this is an incident of the kind you cite when the contrary is shown, and where God shows He is not bound to the sacraments, not in my understanding only, but in that of the Angelic Doctor as well. St.Thomas teaches this is a demonstration of His power as well, so your other objection is answered.

Finally, I've already mentioned this to be the view of even Hugh of St.Victor, St.Bernard, St.Robert Bellarmine. Gregory tells me it was St.Catherine of Sienna's view. Why would you side with Peter Abelard's view who was directly opposed on this over theirs, I wonder?

nadieimportante · « **Reply #178 on:** February 03, 2012, 09:39:29 AM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

The passage from St.Luke I'm afraid does indeed prove the point. Here's why. St.Peter, the first Pope, confirms this when he says "They have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" and "And God, who knows the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us" But what is your position other than the claim that those who desire baptism cannot receive the Holy Ghost just as baptized Christians can, even before the administering of the sacrament?

In very simple terms, it shows St.Peter believed in baptism of desire. St.Peter was comparing Cornelius to himself and other baptized Christians.

If EENSers used this type of "evidence", they'd be laughed out of the place.

Whether Cornelius was or was not justified before he was baptized is not "revealed" by this "sign". But, most importantly, Cornelius was baptized, he did not die justified and unbaptized as BOD is defined. This just shows the lack of real evidence that BODers have, that they have to stoop to using personal scripture interpretation, and a long stretch of a personal scripture interpretation at that.

nadieimportante · « **Reply #179 on:** February 03, 2012, 09:49:51 AM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

I've already shown you that St.Thomas quotes St.Ambrose and says Valentian died a catechumen but with the grace of the sacrament.

We can read the eulogy for Valentinian ourselves today, and analize it ourselves, and it is by no means clear. Secondly, we have St. Ambrose's clear teaching s against BOD, in fact, he is the biggest opponent of BOD. Anyone that quotes St. Ambrose as a proponent of BOD, does not have all the docuмentation we have available today.

St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391 A.D.:

“You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”

St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:
“The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed he must circuмcise himself from his sins so that he can be saved;...for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.”

St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:
“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity.”