Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: happenby on July 27, 2016, 05:14:55 PM
-
The one good "fruit" of baptism of desire (BOD) they say, is salvation. But can it deliver? BOD is not a formal teaching of the Catholic Church. It is not a doctrine. Consider some of the other fruits of BOD, all plainly destructive to the faith. Below is a partial list of the fruits of BOD.
By their fruits you will know them.... Mathew 7:16
THE FRUITS OF BAPTISM OF DESIRE
Baptism of desire (BOD) denies the necessity of the sacrament of baptism for salvation.
BOD mocks the sacrament of baptism because it is not a sacrament. It is not an outward sign instituted by Christ. It is not a gateway to the other sacraments, does not remit sin, does not impart the baptismal character, all of which are intrinsic to justification wrought by the sacrament of baptism and necessary for salvation.
BOD promotes the Protestant heresy that faith alone saves.
BOD leads many Catholics to believe abortion is a source of hope for infants since infants are not guilty of actual sin.
BOD contradicts the Catholic teaching: One Lord, one faith, one baptism, since, BOD, by definition, is not baptism.
Advocates admit BOD does not make anyone a member of the Church. Since the Church teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church, BOD cannot save.
BOD promotes laxity and indifferentism because people often rest in a person's desire for heaven rather than do the work to help get them baptized.
BOD is nothing like Baptism because the grace is not assured.
BOD is foreign to true Baptism because the water and words are not used.
BOD rewards perseverance in sin.
BOD is not a sacrament, nor has it been defined, yet BOD is said to replace Baptism, the one sacrament that is necessary for salvation.
BOD suggests the God is impotent, because due to circuмstance, the Almighty is unable to provide Baptism for certain individuals.
BOD implies God is not author of life and death because certain problems prevent God from providing Baptism.
BOD makes liars of popes and saints who teach no one who dies outside the Catholic Church is saved.
BOD is said to save some outside the Church, making the doctrine of "No Salvation Outside the Church" a false teaching.
BOD mocks the Holy Spirit Who tells us in scripture to be washed for the remission of sins.
BOD makes Jesus a liar, Who says: "Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema".
BOD mocks scripture 1 Peter 3:21 a verse that says "baptism now saves you" by suggesting that an unprovided death can do the same.
BOD undermines the Council of Trent which took great care to define the form and matter of baptism in very specific detail.
BOD denies Catholic teaching that a person must be baptized by another.
BOD denies this canon in Trent: "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema'.
BOD is a fine example of how one twists into a metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, "unless one is born of water and the Holy Spirit, let him be anathema."
BOD voids another infallible canon in Trent that states: "If anyone says that Baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema."
BOD undermines Christ's missionary mandate.
BOD suggests God is unmerciful unless He contradicts Himself, Church teaching and provide salvation without Baptism.
BOD is a nothing more than Satan's counterfeit substitute for a necessary sacrament.
-
BoD CAN do all this when abused by the likes of LoT. When understood in the Thomistic sense, it doesn't have to.
Father Feeney said it best. BoD actually undermines the possibility of BoD because if people think they can be saved that way, they do not yearn as ardently as necessary for the Sacrament. In fact, they begin to desire the desire for Baptism rather than Baptism itself.
-
If I were the pope, I would solemnly ban all mention of BoD among Catholics. Its fruits are all bad. I don't agree with all the points in your post, and BoD CAN be understood in a sense which does not lead to all of the bad fruits listed above, but in practice it can do no good. If people don't believe in BoD, but God does in fact will that some be saved that way, then there's actually a GREATER chance that they will be saved that way because they would more ardently desire the Sacrament of Baptism. So, in other words, believing in BoD doesn't help people be saved but could very well hinder them from being saved. On the other hand, belief in BoD has led inexorably to religious indifferentism. NOTHING GOOD HAS EVER COME OF BELIEF IN BOD.
-
BoD CAN do all this when abused by the likes of LoT. When understood in the Thomistic sense, it doesn't have to.
Father Feeney said it best. BoD actually undermines the possibility of BoD because if people think they can be saved that way, they do not yearn as ardently as necessary for the Sacrament. In fact, they begin to desire the desire for Baptism rather than Baptism itself.
Baptism of desire rests on the premise that God CANNOT otherwise get Baptism to His elect. That is impossible.
-
If I were the pope, I would solemnly ban all mention of BoD among Catholics. Its fruits are all bad. I don't agree with all the points in your post, and BoD CAN be understood in a sense which does not lead to all of the bad fruits listed above, but in practice it can do no good. If people don't believe in BoD, but God does in fact will that some be saved that way, then there's actually a GREATER chance that they will be saved that way because they would more ardently desire the Sacrament of Baptism. So, in other words, believing in BoD doesn't help people be saved but could very well hinder them from being saved. On the other hand, belief in BoD has led inexorably to religious indifferentism. NOTHING GOOD HAS EVER COME OF BELIEF IN BOD.
Not one of my points is false. If so, please show why. Even if Bod can be understood in another way, what effect does understanding have to do with bod? Bod is not effected by my belief. The problem with bod is that if I believe it, it changes nothing for the person some say will get it. If I don't believe it, it changes nothing for the person some say will get it. The ONLY thing bod does is undermine my own apostolic zeal.
-
I have an example of a bad fruit of believing in BOD. I have heard of priests denying the sacrament of Baptism to Muslims and Jews because their conversion will cause difficulties. Instead of Baptizing them they assure the Muslims and Jews that they will be saved by Baptism of Desire so they really don't need to be Baptized. I think this is presumption.
-
I have an example of a bad fruit of believing in BOD. I have heard of priests denying the sacrament of Baptism to Muslims and Jews because their conversion will cause difficulties. Instead of Baptizing them they assure the Muslims and Jews that they will be saved by Baptism of Desire so they really don't need to be Baptized. I think this is presumption.
I have seen the same thing. The thought of it is so aggravating! But it happens all the time. Try to correct them, too. Bod'ers don't go after those people, they just insist bod exists...their way. Well, good luck, bod'ers. You got a lot of clean up to do pushing non- baptism to the point people beyond your control have taken a ridiculous belief to the destruction of millions.
-
BoD CAN do all this when abused by the likes of LoT. When understood in the Thomistic sense, it doesn't have to.
Father Feeney said it best. BoD actually undermines the possibility of BoD because if people think they can be saved that way, they do not yearn as ardently as necessary for the Sacrament. In fact, they begin to desire the desire for Baptism rather than Baptism itself.
Because you cannot control how people believe in bod, you have no business ever saying there is a way that it can work. Bod is not baptism. It is non baptism. It is no baptism. No matter who believes what.
-
BoD CAN do all this when abused by the likes of LoT. When understood in the Thomistic sense, it doesn't have to.
Father Feeney said it best. BoD actually undermines the possibility of BoD because if people think they can be saved that way, they do not yearn as ardently as necessary for the Sacrament. In fact, they begin to desire the desire for Baptism rather than Baptism itself.
Baptism of desire rests on the premise that God CANNOT otherwise get Baptism to His elect. That is impossible.
I perfectly agree. I consider this premise to be heretical. Cushingites claim that God cannot be bound by the Sacraments and yet assert at the same time that God can be bound by "impossibility". That's heretical.
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 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. Now these are your words: “We say that some such method as this must be had recourse to in the case of infants who, being predestinated for baptism, are yet, by the failing of this life, hurried away before they are born again in Christ.” Is it then really true that any who have been predestinated to baptism are forestalled before they come to it by the failing of this life? And could God predestinate anything which He either in His foreknowledge saw would not come to pass, or in ignorance knew not that it could not come to pass, either to the frustration of His purpose or the discredit of His foreknowledge? You see how many weighty remarks might be made on this subject; but I am restrained by the fact of having treated on it a little while ago, so that I content myself with this brief and passing admonition.
-
BoD CAN do all this when abused by the likes of LoT. When understood in the Thomistic sense, it doesn't have to.
Father Feeney said it best. BoD actually undermines the possibility of BoD because if people think they can be saved that way, they do not yearn as ardently as necessary for the Sacrament. In fact, they begin to desire the desire for Baptism rather than Baptism itself.
Because you cannot control how people believe in bod, you have no business ever saying there is a way that it can work.
I'm talking about how it CAN be UNDERSTOOD in a way that does not necessarily and directly contradict Catholic dogma.
-
I have an example of a bad fruit of believing in BOD. I have heard of priests denying the sacrament of Baptism to Muslims and Jews because their conversion will cause difficulties. Instead of Baptizing them they assure the Muslims and Jews that they will be saved by Baptism of Desire so they really don't need to be Baptized. I think this is presumption.
That is insane. Who were these Priest? Having an erroneous belief in BOD that causes bad fruits. Simply believing what the Church teaches on it (nothing more and nothing less) does not cause bad fruits.
-
I have an example of a bad fruit of believing in BOD. I have heard of priests denying the sacrament of Baptism to Muslims and Jews because their conversion will cause difficulties. Instead of Baptizing them they assure the Muslims and Jews that they will be saved by Baptism of Desire so they really don't need to be Baptized. I think this is presumption.
That is insane. Who were these Priest? Having an erroneous belief in BOD that causes bad fruits. Simply believing what the Church teaches on it (nothing more and nothing less) does not cause bad fruits.
Every example of the "bad fruits" of baptism of desire is based on a straw man rather than reality.
-
Every example of the "bad fruits" of baptism of desire is based on a straw man rather than reality.
Yes and no. Most of them are based on the distorted notion of BoD that 99% of all BoDers have rather than on Thomistic BoD ... which very few hold. So it's certainly a REALITY ... in the sense that almost everyone who believes in BoD believes in the distorted heretical notion of BoD.
-
Your notion is distorted Ladislaus. TKGS knows what he is talking about. He doesn't need you to tell him.
-
I have an example of a bad fruit of believing in BOD. I have heard of priests denying the sacrament of Baptism to Muslims and Jews because their conversion will cause difficulties. Instead of Baptizing them they assure the Muslims and Jews that they will be saved by Baptism of Desire so they really don't need to be Baptized. I think this is presumption.
That is insane. Who were these Priest? Having an erroneous belief in BOD that causes bad fruits. Simply believing what the Church teaches on it (nothing more and nothing less) does not cause bad fruits.
You think it is insane? Then I will tell you one priest who did this. Archbishop Lefebvre. I bet many posters on this site will not believe me but I heard this by listening to Charles Coulombe videos on youtube. Coulombe claims that in one of Lefebvre's books he admits this. I forget which video it was in because I saw many but I imbedded it on Cathinfo a while back so you might be able to find it if you do a search. This is what was claimed in the Coulombe video: He claimed that Archbishop Lefebvre, when he was a missionary in Africa was approached by a group of Muslims who wanted to convert and be Baptized. He was worried because he thought if he Baptized the Muslims and the other Muslims found out they would retaliate with violence. So he told the Muslims they didn't need to be baptized because they would be saved by Baptism of Desire. I believed the story and it is, TKGS, based on reality (Unless Coulombe lied about it).
P.S. I said "Coulombe claims", but I don't remember if it was Coulombe or Professer Biersach, but it was one of them and you can watch their videos at this youtube channel. (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiYNKjd0Xvj5GE5dr-9n65A/videos).
-
I have an example of a bad fruit of believing in BOD. I have heard of priests denying the sacrament of Baptism to Muslims and Jews because their conversion will cause difficulties. Instead of Baptizing them they assure the Muslims and Jews that they will be saved by Baptism of Desire so they really don't need to be Baptized. I think this is presumption.
That is insane. Who were these Priest? Having an erroneous belief in BOD that causes bad fruits. Simply believing what the Church teaches on it (nothing more and nothing less) does not cause bad fruits.
You think it is insane? Then I will tell you one priest who did this. Archbishop Lefebvre. I bet many posters on this site will not believe me but I heard this by listening to Charles Coulombe videos on youtube. Coulombe claims that in one of Lefebvre's books he admits this. I forget which video it was in because I saw many but I imbedded it on Cathinfo a while back so you might be able to find it if you do a search. This is what was claimed in the Coulombe video: He claimed that Archbishop Lefebvre, when he was a missionary in Africa was approached by a group of Muslims who wanted to convert and be Baptized. He was worried because he thought if he Baptized the Muslims and the other Muslims found out they would retaliate with violence. So he told the Muslims they didn't need to be baptized because they would be saved by Baptism of Desire. I believed the story and it is, TKGS, based on reality (Unless Coulombe lied about it).
If what you say about ABL is true he was bonkers. All are obliged to be sacramentally baptized when they are aware of the necessity though they do have to be properly schooled as adults first. If they tragically die before this happens then BOD would apply so long as they were sincere having a supernatural Faith and perfect Charity.
I don't believe he did it. But if he did I am not sure how he could have escaped a harsh judgement from God.
If he meant they needed to be taught more before being baptized and if they died before they could be baptized having the manifest intention to become Catholic they could be saved by BOD so long as the other requisites were present.
-
Again this "fruit" would be based on an error. A very grave error by ABL:. He was not a theologian in the real since but I was pretty sure he had a deep rooted Catholic sense about him. If what you say is true then he did not. At least not in the aspect you mention.
-
I don't believe he did it. But if he did I am not sure how he could have escaped a harsh judgement from God.
He may not have, but if he did not, either Charles Coulombe or Professor Biersach is a liar. I really wanted to post the exact video in which this was claimed but I do not remember which it was so all I can say for those who won't believe me and want to see the video themselves is that they can search Cathinfo for "Biersach and Coulombe" because I embedded it on Cathinfo a few months ago, or they can try to find it by watching the videos in the link I gave.
-
Before we continue caling Archbishop Lefebvre "bonkers", "heretical ", "cushingite" or whatever other insults could be hurled at him (if he said it), let's look at what the man actually said:
"If this is the case, then the Church is merely useful; she is no longer indispensible. She is only one of the means of salvation.
We must say it clearly: such a concept is radically opposed to Catholic dogma. The Church is the one ark of salvation, and we must not be afraid to affirm it. You have often heard it said, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”--a dictum which offends contemporary minds. It is easy to believe that this doctrine is no longer in effect, that it has been dropped. It seems excessively severe.
Yet nothing, in fact, has changed; nothing can be changed in this area. Our Lord did not found a number of churches: He founded only One. There is only one Cross by which we can be saved, and that Cross has been given to the Catholic Church. It has not been given to others. To His Church, His mystical bride, Christ has given all graces. No grace in the world, no grace in the history of humanity is distributed except through her.
Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian's formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.
Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.
The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth."
-
Before we continue caling Archbishop Lefebvre "bonkers", "heretical ", "cushingite" or whatever other insults could be hurled at him (if he said it), let's look at what the man actually said:
"If this is the case, then the Church is merely useful; she is no longer indispensible. She is only one of the means of salvation.
We must say it clearly: such a concept is radically opposed to Catholic dogma. The Church is the one ark of salvation, and we must not be afraid to affirm it. You have often heard it said, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”--a dictum which offends contemporary minds. It is easy to believe that this doctrine is no longer in effect, that it has been dropped. It seems excessively severe.
Yet nothing, in fact, has changed; nothing can be changed in this area. Our Lord did not found a number of churches: He founded only One. There is only one Cross by which we can be saved, and that Cross has been given to the Catholic Church. It has not been given to others. To His Church, His mystical bride, Christ has given all graces. No grace in the world, no grace in the history of humanity is distributed except through her.
Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian's formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.
Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.
The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth."
Okay. That is better. Thank you. He should mention they cannot be saved without a supernatural Faith. Not sure how a Buddhist would have supernatural Faith. I'm not sure how a Muslim would have a supernatural Faith. He seemed fine until the third and the last two paragraphs. Was this off the cuff when he was tired? Remember for it to be a supernatural Faith it cannot be based upon an opinion or what one you look up says or the koran, it must be based upon God revealing and he reveals through the Catholic Church. The Bible is part of that revelation. People can have a natural faith in a Prime Mover or First Cause just by looking at the world around them but a supernatural Faith is essential, there cannot be salvation apart from that and perfect charity.
-
Okay. That is better. Thank you. He should mention they cannot be saved without a supernatural Faith. Not sure how a Buddhist would have supernatural Faith. I'm not sure how a Muslim would have a supernatural Faith. He seemed fine until the third and the last two paragraphs. Was this off the cuff when he was tired? Remember for it to be a supernatural Faith it cannot be based upon an opinion or what one you look up says or the koran, it must be based upon God revealing and he reveals through the Catholic Church. The Bible is part of that revelation. People can have a natural faith in a Prime Mover or First Cause just by looking at the world around them but a supernatural Faith is essential, there cannot be salvation apart from that and perfect charity.
Should read:
Okay. That is better. Thank you. He should mention they cannot be saved without a supernatural Faith. Not sure how a Buddhist would have supernatural Faith. I'm not sure how a Muslim would have a supernatural Faith. He seemed fine until the third and the last two paragraphs. Was this off the cuff when he was tired? Remember for it to be a supernatural Faith it cannot be based upon an opinion or what one you look up to says, or the koran, it must be based upon God revealing and he reveals through the Catholic Church. The Bible is part of that revelation. People can have a natural faith in a Prime Mover or First Cause just by looking at the world around them but a supernatural Faith is essential, there cannot be salvation apart from that and perfect charity.
-
Before we continue caling Archbishop Lefebvre "bonkers", "heretical ", "cushingite" or whatever other insults could be hurled at him (if he said it), let's look at what the man actually said:
"If this is the case, then the Church is merely useful; she is no longer indispensible. She is only one of the means of salvation.
We must say it clearly: such a concept is radically opposed to Catholic dogma. The Church is the one ark of salvation, and we must not be afraid to affirm it. You have often heard it said, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”--a dictum which offends contemporary minds. It is easy to believe that this doctrine is no longer in effect, that it has been dropped. It seems excessively severe.
Yet nothing, in fact, has changed; nothing can be changed in this area. Our Lord did not found a number of churches: He founded only One. There is only one Cross by which we can be saved, and that Cross has been given to the Catholic Church. It has not been given to others. To His Church, His mystical bride, Christ has given all graces. No grace in the world, no grace in the history of humanity is distributed except through her.
Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian's formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.
Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.
The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth."
Okay. That is better. Thank you. He should mention they cannot be saved without a supernatural Faith. Not sure how a Buddhist would have supernatural Faith. I'm not sure how a Muslim would have a supernatural Faith. He seemed fine until the third and the last two paragraphs. Was this off the cuff when he was tired? Remember for it to be a supernatural Faith it cannot be based upon an opinion or what one you look up says or the koran, it must be based upon God revealing and he reveals through the Catholic Church. The Bible is part of that revelation. People can have a natural faith in a Prime Mover or First Cause just by looking at the world around them but a supernatural Faith is essential, there cannot be salvation apart from that and perfect charity.
Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong, "The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire; They are saved in their religion but not by it." No one is saved without Faith and Baptism which incorporates them into the Church.
-
Before we continue caling Archbishop Lefebvre "bonkers", "heretical ", "cushingite" or whatever other insults could be hurled at him (if he said it), let's look at what the man actually said:
"If this is the case, then the Church is merely useful; she is no longer indispensible. She is only one of the means of salvation.
We must say it clearly: such a concept is radically opposed to Catholic dogma. The Church is the one ark of salvation, and we must not be afraid to affirm it. You have often heard it said, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”--a dictum which offends contemporary minds. It is easy to believe that this doctrine is no longer in effect, that it has been dropped. It seems excessively severe.
Yet nothing, in fact, has changed; nothing can be changed in this area. Our Lord did not found a number of churches: He founded only One. There is only one Cross by which we can be saved, and that Cross has been given to the Catholic Church. It has not been given to others. To His Church, His mystical bride, Christ has given all graces. No grace in the world, no grace in the history of humanity is distributed except through her.
Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian's formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.
Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.
The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth."
Okay. That is better. Thank you. He should mention they cannot be saved without a supernatural Faith. Not sure how a Buddhist would have supernatural Faith. I'm not sure how a Muslim would have a supernatural Faith. He seemed fine until the third and the last two paragraphs. Was this off the cuff when he was tired? Remember for it to be a supernatural Faith it cannot be based upon an opinion or what one you look up says or the koran, it must be based upon God revealing and he reveals through the Catholic Church. The Bible is part of that revelation. People can have a natural faith in a Prime Mover or First Cause just by looking at the world around them but a supernatural Faith is essential, there cannot be salvation apart from that and perfect charity.
Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong, "The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire; They are saved in their religion but not by it." No one is saved without Faith and Baptism which incorporates them into the Church.
Technically speaking the Church recognizes an implicit desire to be baptized and to be within the Church. A non-member who dies in a state of sanctifying grace, having a supernatural faith dies within the Church and is saved in it. Again this can only be the case when one is not baptized or a member of the Church through no fault of his own and has a supernatural Faith and perfect charity. That is clearly taught by the Church. You can do with it whatever you like but the fact remains.
-
"implicit baptism of desire" is imprecise. One can have an implicit desire to be baptized and or to be a member of the true Church. But that is different than dying within the Church through desire which the inculpably ignorant who die with a supernatural Faith and perfect charity certainly have. It would be impossible to be in a state of sanctifying grace if one refused to enter the Church or be baptized.
-
Technically speaking the Church recognizes an implicit desire to be baptized and to be within the Church. A non-member who dies in a state of sanctifying grace, having a supernatural faith dies within the Church and is saved in it. Again this can only be the case when one is not baptized or a member of the Church through no fault of his own and has a supernatural Faith and perfect charity. That is clearly taught by the Church. You can do with it whatever you like but the fact remains.
I believe in BOD for Catechumens and others who believe in Christ and the Blessed Trinity. I do not believe that those who do not know or do not believe can be saved.
-
No one can be saved without a supernatural Faith and perfect charity. There is no exception to that.
-
No one can be saved without a supernatural Faith and perfect charity. There is no exception to that.
No one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism either (dogma taught by Trent). Some Doctors hold that this can be received in voto.
-
Trent teaches that.
-
Trent teaches that.
Then why do you keep saying that people can be saved without Baptism?
-
Trent teaches that.
Then why do you keep saying that people can be saved without Baptism?
I find this issue confusing and I think in this area there is a fine line between believing in BOD as St Thomas did and St Alphonsus did and in believing in BOD in a way that might be heretical. I find it hard to speak about it without saying things that might be heretical. And I think others do also. Recently I thought something LOT said was heretical and I said so, but thinking about it, he may have been just making an honest mistake in this difficult subject.
-
I have an example of a bad fruit of believing in BOD. I have heard of priests denying the sacrament of Baptism to Muslims and Jews because their conversion will cause difficulties. Instead of Baptizing them they assure the Muslims and Jews that they will be saved by Baptism of Desire so they really don't need to be Baptized. I think this is presumption.
That is insane. Who were these Priest? Having an erroneous belief in BOD that causes bad fruits. Simply believing what the Church teaches on it (nothing more and nothing less) does not cause bad fruits.
You saw the fruits. They were bad. Not one of them was erroneous at all. You cannot control how a lie affects people, no matter how good your intentions are.
-
I have an example of a bad fruit of believing in BOD. I have heard of priests denying the sacrament of Baptism to Muslims and Jews because their conversion will cause difficulties. Instead of Baptizing them they assure the Muslims and Jews that they will be saved by Baptism of Desire so they really don't need to be Baptized. I think this is presumption.
That is insane. Who were these Priest? Having an erroneous belief in BOD that causes bad fruits. Simply believing what the Church teaches on it (nothing more and nothing less) does not cause bad fruits.
Every example of the "bad fruits" of baptism of desire is based on a straw man rather than reality.
Nope. These are self evident facts. Please show which of these rotten fruits are not true and why.
-
I have an example of a bad fruit of believing in BOD. I have heard of priests denying the sacrament of Baptism to Muslims and Jews because their conversion will cause difficulties. Instead of Baptizing them they assure the Muslims and Jews that they will be saved by Baptism of Desire so they really don't need to be Baptized. I think this is presumption.
That is insane. Who were these Priest? Having an erroneous belief in BOD that causes bad fruits. Simply believing what the Church teaches on it (nothing more and nothing less) does not cause bad fruits.
You think it is insane? Then I will tell you one priest who did this. Archbishop Lefebvre. I bet many posters on this site will not believe me but I heard this by listening to Charles Coulombe videos on youtube. Coulombe claims that in one of Lefebvre's books he admits this. I forget which video it was in because I saw many but I imbedded it on Cathinfo a while back so you might be able to find it if you do a search. This is what was claimed in the Coulombe video: He claimed that Archbishop Lefebvre, when he was a missionary in Africa was approached by a group of Muslims who wanted to convert and be Baptized. He was worried because he thought if he Baptized the Muslims and the other Muslims found out they would retaliate with violence. So he told the Muslims they didn't need to be baptized because they would be saved by Baptism of Desire. I believed the story and it is, TKGS, based on reality (Unless Coulombe lied about it).
If what you say about ABL is true he was bonkers. All are obliged to be sacramentally baptized when they are aware of the necessity though they do have to be properly schooled as adults first. If they tragically die before this happens then BOD would apply so long as they were sincere having a supernatural Faith and perfect Charity.
This is not true. The Church has declared infallibly that baptism is necessary for salvation. Desire is not baptism. Faith alone is not baptism. Baptism is baptism and it is necessary.
-
Before we continue caling Archbishop Lefebvre "bonkers", "heretical ", "cushingite" or whatever other insults could be hurled at him (if he said it), let's look at what the man actually said:
"If this is the case, then the Church is merely useful; she is no longer indispensible. She is only one of the means of salvation.
We must say it clearly: such a concept is radically opposed to Catholic dogma. The Church is the one ark of salvation, and we must not be afraid to affirm it. You have often heard it said, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”--a dictum which offends contemporary minds. It is easy to believe that this doctrine is no longer in effect, that it has been dropped. It seems excessively severe.
Yet nothing, in fact, has changed; nothing can be changed in this area. Our Lord did not found a number of churches: He founded only One. There is only one Cross by which we can be saved, and that Cross has been given to the Catholic Church. It has not been given to others. To His Church, His mystical bride, Christ has given all graces. No grace in the world, no grace in the history of humanity is distributed except through her.
Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian's formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.
Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.
The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth."
Okay. That is better. Thank you. He should mention they cannot be saved without a supernatural Faith. Not sure how a Buddhist would have supernatural Faith. I'm not sure how a Muslim would have a supernatural Faith. He seemed fine until the third and the last two paragraphs. Was this off the cuff when he was tired? Remember for it to be a supernatural Faith it cannot be based upon an opinion or what one you look up says or the koran, it must be based upon God revealing and he reveals through the Catholic Church. The Bible is part of that revelation. People can have a natural faith in a Prime Mover or First Cause just by looking at the world around them but a supernatural Faith is essential, there cannot be salvation apart from that and perfect charity.
Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong, "The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire; They are saved in their religion but not by it." No one is saved without Faith and Baptism which incorporates them into the Church.
Technically speaking the Church recognizes an implicit desire to be baptized and to be within the Church. A non-member who dies in a state of sanctifying grace, having a supernatural faith dies within the Church and is saved in it. Again this can only be the case when one is not baptized or a member of the Church through no fault of his own and has a supernatural Faith and perfect charity. That is clearly taught by the Church. You can do with it whatever you like but the fact remains.
No the Church does not recognize any other baptism than Her own. Your other baptism is a false notion forwarded by modernists to destroy baptism.
-
Before we continue caling Archbishop Lefebvre "bonkers", "heretical ", "cushingite" or whatever other insults could be hurled at him (if he said it), let's look at what the man actually said:
"If this is the case, then the Church is merely useful; she is no longer indispensible. She is only one of the means of salvation.
We must say it clearly: such a concept is radically opposed to Catholic dogma. The Church is the one ark of salvation, and we must not be afraid to affirm it. You have often heard it said, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”--a dictum which offends contemporary minds. It is easy to believe that this doctrine is no longer in effect, that it has been dropped. It seems excessively severe.
Yet nothing, in fact, has changed; nothing can be changed in this area. Our Lord did not found a number of churches: He founded only One. There is only one Cross by which we can be saved, and that Cross has been given to the Catholic Church. It has not been given to others. To His Church, His mystical bride, Christ has given all graces. No grace in the world, no grace in the history of humanity is distributed except through her.
Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian's formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.
Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.
The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth."
Not even the greatest saints were completely without error and the good ABL was wrong here. There is no salvation outside the Church. Or...there is salvation outside the Church. He thinks there is salvation outside the Church as he states above. He is wrong. The Church says NO ONE outside is saved...saved outside what? The Church and baptism.
-
I searched and found the video I was talking about where the claim was made about Archbishop Lefebve. it is here. (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/About-Archbishop-Lefebvre-and-BOD)
-
Every example of the "bad fruits" of baptism of desire is based on a straw man rather than reality.
Nope. These are self evident facts. Please show which of these rotten fruits are not true and why.
You don't seem to understand what a "straw man argument" is.
The examples that are provided are facts; they simply have nothing to do with the Catholic doctrine of Baptism of Desire.
If you believe a Catholic Doctrine has "bad fruits", then you are not a Catholic. (By the way, no Catholic can dispute this last statement as a stand-alone statement. You can only dispute whether Baptism of Desire is a Catholic Doctrine.)
-
Every example of the "bad fruits" of baptism of desire is based on a straw man rather than reality.
Nope. These are self evident facts. Please show which of these rotten fruits are not true and why.
You don't seem to understand what a "straw man argument" is.
The examples that are provided are facts; they simply have nothing to do with the Catholic doctrine of Baptism of Desire.
If you believe a Catholic Doctrine has "bad fruits", then you are not a Catholic. (By the way, no Catholic can dispute this last statement as a stand-alone statement. You can only dispute whether Baptism of Desire is a Catholic Doctrine.)
The bad fruits are self evident, not straw men. Calling them that doesn't make it so. Bod is not doctrine, it isn't even a teaching, it is heresy. If you believe in bod you are not a Catholic.
-
Before we continue caling Archbishop Lefebvre "bonkers", "heretical ", "cushingite" or whatever other insults could be hurled at him (if he said it), let's look at what the man actually said:
"If this is the case, then the Church is merely useful; she is no longer indispensible. She is only one of the means of salvation.
We must say it clearly: such a concept is radically opposed to Catholic dogma. The Church is the one ark of salvation, and we must not be afraid to affirm it. You have often heard it said, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”--a dictum which offends contemporary minds. It is easy to believe that this doctrine is no longer in effect, that it has been dropped. It seems excessively severe.
Yet nothing, in fact, has changed; nothing can be changed in this area. Our Lord did not found a number of churches: He founded only One. There is only one Cross by which we can be saved, and that Cross has been given to the Catholic Church. It has not been given to others. To His Church, His mystical bride, Christ has given all graces. No grace in the world, no grace in the history of humanity is distributed except through her.
Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian's formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.
Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.
The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth."
Okay. That is better. Thank you. He should mention they cannot be saved without a supernatural Faith. Not sure how a Buddhist would have supernatural Faith. I'm not sure how a Muslim would have a supernatural Faith. He seemed fine until the third and the last two paragraphs. Was this off the cuff when he was tired? Remember for it to be a supernatural Faith it cannot be based upon an opinion or what one you look up says or the koran, it must be based upon God revealing and he reveals through the Catholic Church. The Bible is part of that revelation. People can have a natural faith in a Prime Mover or First Cause just by looking at the world around them but a supernatural Faith is essential, there cannot be salvation apart from that and perfect charity.
Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong, "The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire; They are saved in their religion but not by it." No one is saved without Faith and Baptism which incorporates them into the Church.
Technically speaking the Church recognizes an implicit desire to be baptized and to be within the Church. A non-member who dies in a state of sanctifying grace, having a supernatural faith dies within the Church and is saved in it. Again this can only be the case when one is not baptized or a member of the Church through no fault of his own and has a supernatural Faith and perfect charity. That is clearly taught by the Church. You can do with it whatever you like but the fact remains.
No. Not technically. Not actually. Not at all. People SAY the Church recognizes implicit desire, but She clearly never says anything of the kind. It is not clearly taught by the Church, it is clearly taught by people who refuse to believe the Church. There is no salvation outside the Church. Baptism is the gate of entry, without it all are lost.
-
Again this "fruit" would be based on an error. A very grave error by ABL:. He was not a theologian in the real since but I was pretty sure he had a deep rooted Catholic sense about him. If what you say is true then he did not. At least not in the aspect you mention.
Very good. You can see that the bad fruit is based on bod, which is an error. Bod is an error so epic it is destroying the sacrament of baptism with the help of Catholics and encouraging laxity for evangelization and baptism. There is no arguing it. It is a fact. I've encountered is so many times its a travesty just in my corner alone.
-
Technically speaking the Church recognizes an implicit desire to be baptized and to be within the Church. A non-member who dies in a state of sanctifying grace, having a supernatural faith dies within the Church and is saved in it. Again this can only be the case when one is not baptized or a member of the Church through no fault of his own and has a supernatural Faith and perfect charity. That is clearly taught by the Church. You can do with it whatever you like but the fact remains.
I believe in BOD for Catechumens and others who believe in Christ and the Blessed Trinity. I do not believe that those who do not know or do not believe can be saved.
Catholic Encyclopedia
Besides these clear testimonies of the fathers against the theory of baptism of desire, perhaps most striking is the fact that in the history of the Catholic Church there is not a single tradition that can be cited for praying for – or giving ecclesiastical burial to – catechumens who died without baptism. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1907) had the following to say about the actual Tradition of the Church in this regard:
“A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere… The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga (572 AD): ‘Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.’”[ccxxix
-
Trent teaches that.
Trent does not teach that
-
Every example of the "bad fruits" of baptism of desire is based on a straw man rather than reality.
Nope. These are self evident facts. Please show which of these rotten fruits are not true and why.
You don't seem to understand what a "straw man argument" is.
The examples that are provided are facts; they simply have nothing to do with the Catholic doctrine of Baptism of Desire.
If you believe a Catholic Doctrine has "bad fruits", then you are not a Catholic. (By the way, no Catholic can dispute this last statement as a stand-alone statement. You can only dispute whether Baptism of Desire is a Catholic Doctrine.)
I very well know what a straw man argument is. Mine is not a straw man argument. The fruits of bod are self evident and they are bad and they belong squarely in bod's court.
-
Every example of the "bad fruits" of baptism of desire is based on a straw man rather than reality.
Nope. These are self evident facts. Please show which of these rotten fruits are not true and why.
You don't seem to understand what a "straw man argument" is.
The examples that are provided are facts; they simply have nothing to do with the Catholic doctrine of Baptism of Desire.
If you believe a Catholic Doctrine has "bad fruits", then you are not a Catholic. (By the way, no Catholic can dispute this last statement as a stand-alone statement. You can only dispute whether Baptism of Desire is a Catholic Doctrine.)
I very well know what a straw man argument is. Mine is not a straw man argument. The fruits of bod are self evident and they are bad and they belong squarely in bod's court.
See happenby, this is one of the things we deal with here. The main argument you will really ever encounter here from certain BODers, is one that is against your person. They typically bring up and accuse you of 'irrelevant to the subject at hand' issues against your intelligence, which never have anything to do with the subject - this, as you no doubt already know, is a diversionary tactic.
They try to make it seem as if you are the cause of the problem, the problem here being a BOD. This is how they divert the attention away from the problem which you did not cause, while they never even offer any answers to your questions or observations. I think that it won't be long and you will find yourself faced with admitting that you're dealing with bad willed individuals who would not believe "should one rise from the dead..."
A BOD is not a doctrine, it is not even a teaching of the Church. Some saints and Fathers and catechisms after Trent's catechism, which did not teach it, have taught it, and because a BOD is not a sacrament, it cannot be reconciled with Trent's decrees.
Anyway, I enjoy your posts, carry on!
-
Every example of the "bad fruits" of baptism of desire is based on a straw man rather than reality.
Nope. These are self evident facts. Please show which of these rotten fruits are not true and why.
You don't seem to understand what a "straw man argument" is.
The examples that are provided are facts; they simply have nothing to do with the Catholic doctrine of Baptism of Desire.
If you believe a Catholic Doctrine has "bad fruits", then you are not a Catholic. (By the way, no Catholic can dispute this last statement as a stand-alone statement. You can only dispute whether Baptism of Desire is a Catholic Doctrine.)
I very well know what a straw man argument is. Mine is not a straw man argument. The fruits of bod are self evident and they are bad and they belong squarely in bod's court.
See happenby, this is one of the things we deal with here. The main argument you will really ever encounter here from certain BODers, is one that is against your person. They typically bring up and accuse you of 'irrelevant to the subject at hand' issues against your intelligence, which never have anything to do with the subject - this, as you no doubt already know, is a diversionary tactic.
They try to make it seem as if you are the cause of the problem, the problem here being a BOD. This is how they divert the attention away from the problem which you did not cause, while they never even offer any answers to your questions or observations. I think that it won't be long and you will find yourself faced with admitting that you're dealing with bad willed individuals who would not believe "should one rise from the dead..."
A BOD is not a doctrine, it is not even a teaching of the Church. Some saints and Fathers and catechisms after Trent's catechism, which did not teach it, have taught it, and because a BOD is not a sacrament, it cannot be reconciled with Trent's decrees.
Anyway, I enjoy your posts, carry on!
Yep. I was just thinking that if Jesus Himself came down, they'd say, "Nope, not you."
-
Argument Against Baptism of Desire based on the Council of Trent
First, a few Catholic premises:
1. If saints contradict a Catholic Council, who is the final authority? The obvious answer is: a true Council trumps the opinion of all the saints. All Catholics agree Trent was a true Council, so if any, or even if all the saints disagree with Trent, they are simply wrong. Only the Church, councils and pope can be infallible when there is a controversy. Catechisms, saints and theologians when opposed to Church teaching, are not infallible.
2. The Occult Law of Reversal is the first law, and the crux of Satanism. The action of writing, reading, thinking and doing things backwards serves a purpose as an action against truth. It is the written untruth, a pointed attack on The Word, which is Christ.
3. Modernism is a related attack on the Faith. By finesse of language and false notions of man as source of revelation by experience, modernism reverses Catholic truth through backward thinking while it gave birth to the Novus Ordo, the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr religion.
For the sake of brevity and clarity, after I provide the pertinent infallible statement from the Council of Trent, in its own words, I will prove baptism of desire (bod) to be false. Bod is a product of modernistic mistranslations, with purposeful change of meanings of words to instigate heretical notions in the minds of Catholics. Bod is a relatively new take (in its present form, about 200 years old) on an old idea that never flew until modern Catholics ran away with it.
At the heart of bod is clever Satanic reversal, an interpretation with the purpose of undermining the Faith whether proponents of bod know it or not. The Council of Trent already condemned baptism of desire unequivocally. So, if that condemnation can be proven, we must follow the Council of Trent, no matter who wrote what. The following statement in Trent is the focal point of the teaching of bod. So let’s start there.
The Council of Trent teaches infallibly:
…This justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof.
We will address the bod version of the argument in a moment, but firstly, this one:
The Trent statement (above) says one cannot have justification without laver of regeneration, or without desire thereof. So you have to ask the sentence:
Can one have justification without laver? The Trent sentence says you cannot.
Can one have justification without desire? The Trent sentence says you cannot.
This is not my imagination. It is not sophistry. Please stop and examine these two questions one at a time using the Trent sentence to answer them. Just for the moment, disregard anything contrary. What we are trying to do is establish not what people say it says, but what Trent is actually saying.
The word ‘without’ necessarily applies to both laver and desire because the sentence says, “This justification cannot be effected without….”
Without what? Without laver. Without desire. It does not say, without laver, but with desire. If one cannot have justification without laver, or without desire, then laver and desire are both necessary for justification, according to the sentence. The word ‘or’ acts as a delineator between laver and desire, showcasing each term, specifically highlighting what is necessary for justification to occur. Most importantly, the original Latin supports this interpretation.
Now, here’s the opposing argument:
Baptism of desire (bod) proponents insist the Trent statement says that either water or desire are sufficient for justification because the word “or,” specifically means either/or. One or the other, water (being baptism) or desire, are all that’s necessary for salvation.
If the bod interpretation is true, the “or” can only mean “either/or”, but that means that water is not necessary for justification since “desire” can do the job, and since “desire” can do the job on its own, water is not necessary for justification. That would mean that a person gets justification with desire only (bod), and conversely, one could get justification with laver only (baptism). Bod folks see nothing wrong with this, and would agree that it is what they believe. Unfortunately, there is plenty wrong as it makes the sentence read the opposite of what it says. Watch. Water is able to effect justification. Desire alone can get justification. So the statement in Trent is now rendered, “This justification CAN be effected without the laver of regeneration, or without the desire…” If you don’t see it, that’s the exact opposite of what the sentence actually says. Bod’s “or” interpretation reverses the meaning of Trent’s words and makes them backwards. It’s a mystery that those so keen on the crisis in the Church do not smell the stench of Satan in this.
If the sentence really works this ‘either/or’ way as many stubbornly insist (because folks who are way smarter than us have said so), individually, water and desire become less than necessary.
Now this is where the fun begins. As many traditionalists know, modernism subtly infects with lies before it takes full control from those who fell into the lure. Modernists pulled a mighty switcheroo at Vatican II using their own slippery terminology so everything could be interpreted wrongly, starting their trickery with something similarly as insignificant as an ‘or’ at first, but nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr sized after. Michael Davies called these seemingly unimportant changes and new interpretations “time bombs”. And indeed they were. He warned the world, but most didn’t listen. This is the exact same thing, but with Trent already established, no creature on earth could physically fiddle with any part of the sentence, so Evil proceeded to resort to the next best thing: foster a false interpretation of the source itself.
How can we believe something is a false interpretation if nearly every priest and prelate say otherwise? Not to mention, saints! Because truth is self-evident. Even if it takes coaxing out to see it. This same problem happened at Vatican II, and only a couple of bishops stood up and said, “NO!” How could those anti-VII bishops dare challenge a Council or Pope on so little evidence? How could their ideas override their authorities? Because the authorities were wrong and the two bishops were right. Truth was at stake. Indeed only two spoke out, but all had a duty to resist. Still, most missed it.
Back to the subject. If bod’ers insist they would never say desire and water are both not necessary, we will take them at their word. It won’t help tho’ because the statement has already been destroyed with their interpretation as the bod version flips the Trent statement upside down and backwards.
When the culprits start to expand this reformulated notion that has been so subtly changed while they laud the actual words, the trouble really begins. Trent’s conditions for justification (laver and desire) went from necessary for justification, to semi-necessary, depending on which condition is used. The conditions for baptism went from certain to uncertain. From true to semi-false. And yes, like a time bomb in VII ready to explode, the conditions for true Baptism now in doubt, will eventually be rendered obsolete and Trent’s sentence will be cited to prove it. Soon the conditions for Baptism will finally be relegated to the round file and the Sacrament of Baptism will be destroyed.
The Trent sentence was written in the negative sense, using absolutes like ‘cannot’ followed by a precise terminology for the conditions by great Catholic minds of the day under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. They protected the meaning of the words, within the words themselves. Not only does the tiny, little change of interpreting the “or” as an “either/or” destroy the true meaning, this seemingly innocent boo boo quickly makes the Sacrament of Baptism subject to modernist mauling. For now this has caused only from a few problems I have personally witnessed:
*People now shy away from the expense, trouble and formality of getting the Sacrament of Baptism.
*People count on bod for relatives and friends they feel they are unable to approach with the truth.
*People hold hope in bod for non-Catholics dying all over the world, but do little else to help.
*People actually pray that abortion somehow triggers bod to save innocent souls even though we are told it can’t (for now).
*Bod’ers insist God will be merciful to those outside the Church, whether or not they fulfill the missionary mandate of Christ.
*People have become convinced that it is possible that all, or at least most men, will be saved.
*People no longer see the necessity of the Catholic Church since God is merciful enough to provide bod for those who don’t deserve to go to hell, but have not been baptized.
These are only some of the current nightmares and consequent collateral damage of bod. And if the above isn’t enough, justification by desire alone automatically means you can have justification without water. And since you can have justification without water, then you could also have justification without desire, because the ‘or’ says so. Can someone really get justification without desire? That is what the sentence says if ‘or’ is exclusive, yet we all know such a thing is clearly impossible. Even a child must be represented by proxy for the necessary ‘desire’ for true baptism according to Church teaching. And everyone knows it is forbidden to baptize the unwilling. But there you have it, baptism whether you want it or not, courtesy of the exclusive “or”.
Interpreting the statement to say that desire without water can obtain justification, denies the words and reverses the Trent sentence de facto, because the word ‘cannot’ in Trent’s statement is instantly rendered, ‘can’. Bod interpretation teaches that you can have justification without water, even though the actual statement says you cannot. The Council backs up the true meaning of its statement in Council of Trent, Canon 2, on Baptism, when it insists water is necessary for baptism and places anyone saying otherwise under anathema. Bod’ers weasel out of this saying the canon applies only to “formal” baptism. So now we have formal and informal Baptism? Sounds like ordinary and extraordinary Mass. A lovely example of the hermeneutics of continuity, the art of going from one belief to another by way of denial of truth. Can Catholics playing this game not see the direction this is heading?
Many proponents of bod try to recover from the chaos of bod and insist that ‘desire’ somehow includes ‘water’ and vice versa. More hermeneutics. But if water alone is effective, or desire alone is effective, then they specifically do not include each other! The proof text used to pretend water and desire remain united after being separated, is made false by the exclusive “or” in Trent’s statement. That means their interpretation undermines their interpretation, which ought to be the nth clue that they are dead wrong. Trents words are firm and unchangeable, sounding the alarm against faulty reasoning, but if people refuse to hear this, unfortunately, with truth obscured and unprotected, the entire sacramental system collapses. Oh well, the Church was crashing anyway.
All the tying of loose ends by those who took the bait because it suited them to do so, even against severe warnings, begin to unravel even faster when things are put into high gear by the more shameless modernists. (see proof: Because the meaning of Trent on justification has been revamped, we can now watch the dominoes, like “No salvation outside the Church” and “Sacramental Baptism” tumble down. Soon, the good intentioned believers of baptism of desire will find no leg to stand on when the modernists cut the line to the truth entirely and finally throw Baptism out with the bath water. Why stop now? If laver, at times, is not necessary and desire, at times, is not necessary, (because the two have become mutually exclusive with the mistranslation of the word ‘or’) what is to protect laver and desire as a team? If each is not necessary, they aren’t necessary. Next thing you know, baptism becomes some “extended rite celebrated in water”. Oh, don’t scoff now. This was a quote from Novus Ordo’s Father John Hardon trying to explain bod. Remember, you were warned.
Interpreted as the Church intended, Trent showcases the Divine Mind in a beautiful, self-protected statement as the bulwark of the Sacrament of Baptism and of the dogma of the Faith that there is no salvation outside the Church, because She encased the truth in beautiful words of armor intended to be understood as they are written and not against reason. Words of truth provided so sweetly by God for those who love Him yet which suffer cruelly from Satanic back-masking against infallible teachings. The truth is self evident.
-
Trent teaches that.
Then why do you keep saying that people can be saved without Baptism?
I find this issue confusing and I think in this area there is a fine line between believing in BOD as St Thomas did and St Alphonsus did and in believing in BOD in a way that might be heretical. I find it hard to speak about it without saying things that might be heretical. And I think others do also. Recently I thought something LOT said was heretical and I said so, but thinking about it, he may have been just making an honest mistake in this difficult subject.
Indeed, there is a fine line. LoT has many times crossed the line over into heresy. I try to correct him without even trying to force him to abandon his belief in BoD, but he won't do it. That's because his agenda has nothing to do with BoD but with EENS in general. But I don't want to digress.
Trent taught that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation. If Trent meant to teach ANYTHING about the Sacraments, it was that they are NECESSARY for salvation ... this against the prevalent Protestant heresies of the day. You see this same heresy having resurfaced in Novus Ordo circles. I listen to the "conservative" apologists on Catholic Answers and they always talk about how the Sacraments are a HELP to salvation, that they make it easier. So, for instance, in talking about Confession, they say that one can receive forgiveness through perfect contrition but that the Sacrament makes it possible to be forgiven even without that, plus it gives you the assurance that you've been forgiven, the warm fuzzies of KNOWING you've been forgiven, rather than just hoping that you've made a perfect act of contrition.
In fact the Pope demanded at Trent that in the passage regarding Confession the Fathers made sure to state that restoration to justification after fall into mortal sin can happen with a combination of perfect contrition TOGETHER with a votum for the Sacrament. It's not enough to have perfect contrition alone. And the pope argued that there can be no forgiveness of sins without reference to the power of the keys ... in the Sacrament of Confession (administered with appropriate jurisdiction).
Similarly with Baptism. After Trent, theologians (like St. Robert) were very careful to state that people who received BoD received the Sacrament in voto rather than that they were justified "without" the Sacrament. That Thomistic language was rejected after Trent's dogmatic definition. There must be SOME connection, at least an in voto connection, with the SACRAMENT in order for there to be salvation. Otherwise, justification and salvation would come ex opere operantis through the dispositions of the subject rather than ex opere operato by the unmerited grace of the Sacrament. That's Pelagianism.
So long as one holds a view of BoD where the Sacrament remains the instrumental cause of justification, operating through the votum, then the Church has considered this an acceptable opinion that does not violate the dogma that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation.
-
Trent teaches that.
Then why do you keep saying that people can be saved without Baptism?
I find this issue confusing and I think in this area there is a fine line between believing in BOD as St Thomas did and St Alphonsus did and in believing in BOD in a way that might be heretical. I find it hard to speak about it without saying things that might be heretical. And I think others do also. Recently I thought something LOT said was heretical and I said so, but thinking about it, he may have been just making an honest mistake in this difficult subject.
There is no way to accept bod without going heretical. Take a moment and read my article. Bod is the key to the destruction of baptism.
-
Trent teaches that.
Then why do you keep saying that people can be saved without Baptism?
I find this issue confusing and I think in this area there is a fine line between believing in BOD as St Thomas did and St Alphonsus did and in believing in BOD in a way that might be heretical. I find it hard to speak about it without saying things that might be heretical. And I think others do also. Recently I thought something LOT said was heretical and I said so, but thinking about it, he may have been just making an honest mistake in this difficult subject.
Indeed, there is a fine line. LoT has many times crossed the line over into heresy. I try to correct him without even trying to force him to abandon his belief in BoD, but he won't do it. That's because his agenda has nothing to do with BoD but with EENS in general. But I don't want to digress.
Trent taught that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation. If Trent meant to teach ANYTHING about the Sacraments, it was that they are NECESSARY for salvation ... this against the prevalent Protestant heresies of the day. You see this same heresy having resurfaced in Novus Ordo circles. I listen to the "conservative" apologists on Catholic Answers and they always talk about how the Sacraments are a HELP to salvation, that they make it easier. So, for instance, in talking about Confession, they say that one can receive forgiveness through perfect contrition but that the Sacrament makes it possible to be forgiven even without that, plus it gives you the assurance that you've been forgiven, the warm fuzzies of KNOWING you've been forgiven, rather than just hoping that you've made a perfect act of contrition.
In fact the Pope demanded at Trent that in the passage regarding Confession the Fathers made sure to state that restoration to justification after fall into mortal sin can happen with a combination of perfect contrition TOGETHER with a votum for the Sacrament. It's not enough to have perfect contrition alone. And the pope argued that there can be no forgiveness of sins without reference to the power of the keys ... in the Sacrament of Confession (administered with appropriate jurisdiction).
Similarly with Baptism. After Trent, theologians (like St. Robert) were very careful to state that people who received BoD received the Sacrament in voto rather than that they were justified "without" the Sacrament. That Thomistic language was rejected after Trent's dogmatic definition. There must be SOME connection, at least an in voto connection, with the SACRAMENT in order for there to be salvation. Otherwise, justification and salvation would come ex opere operantis through the dispositions of the subject rather than ex opere operato by the unmerited grace of the Sacrament. That's Pelagianism.
So long as one holds a view of BoD where the Sacrament remains the instrumental cause of justification, operating through the votum, then the Church has considered this an acceptable opinion that does not violate the dogma that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation.
The saints who spoke on bod were mistaken. That happens you know. Most of them were gone before the Council of Trent... but everything the Council teaches is anti-bod. Faith alone will not save. You have to be baptized. Its stupid to say faith alone and desire alone are different since neither are sacraments. The Council even said water is necessary for baptism and baptism is necessary for salvation. Either its necessary, or its not. There is no sort of, kind of, maybe or but. Cracking that door open and trying to hold it only a little cracked is an exercise in futility. They will blast it wide open if you so much as turn the knob. Run from bod, denounce bod, it is making a zombie nation of la de da modernists out of people who should be busting their chops to get every last possible person educated and baptized.
-
Trent teaches that.
Then why do you keep saying that people can be saved without Baptism?
I find this issue confusing and I think in this area there is a fine line between believing in BOD as St Thomas did and St Alphonsus did and in believing in BOD in a way that might be heretical. I find it hard to speak about it without saying things that might be heretical. And I think others do also. Recently I thought something LOT said was heretical and I said so, but thinking about it, he may have been just making an honest mistake in this difficult subject.
The next time you think "it could go either way", remember the dogma: “It is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” This requirement for salvation, particularly for the non-catechumen, is not found even implicitly anywhere in a BOD.
-
There is no way to accept bod without going heretical.
False. See my posts. St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus Liguori were no heretics.
-
The saints who spoke on bod were mistaken. That happens you know.
I agree. I don't believe in BoD.
Its stupid to say faith alone and desire alone are different since neither are sacraments. The Council even said water is necessary for baptism and baptism is necessary for salvation. Either its necessary, or its not. There is no sort of, kind of, maybe or but.
You are correct that it's stupid (actually it's heretical) that the faith alone or even the desire save. Neither of these saves. How the post-Tridentine Doctors who believed in BoD worked through this is to state that it isn't the desire, working ex opere operantis, that's salvific (that would be Pelagianism and a heretical denial of Trent), but that in BoD the SACRAMENT of Baptism saves, operating on the subject through their votum for it. I don't agree with this, but it's not heretical because it maintains the dogma that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now whether or not it can operate through a votum for it ... in the way the Confession can, that's what I dispute. I don't agree with that. There's no proof that it can work this way. But the Church HAS NOT CONDEMNED this opinion, and the best we can do at this point to argue against it based on reason and with only the force of our own arguments (rooted in private judgment).
-
The saints who spoke on bod were mistaken. That happens you know.
I agree. I don't believe in BoD.
Its stupid to say faith alone and desire alone are different since neither are sacraments. The Council even said water is necessary for baptism and baptism is necessary for salvation. Either its necessary, or its not. There is no sort of, kind of, maybe or but.
You are correct that it's stupid (actually it's heretical) that the faith alone or even the desire save. Neither of these saves. How the post-Tridentine Doctors who believed in BoD worked through this is to state that it isn't the desire, working ex opere operantis, that's salvific (that would be Pelagianism and a heretical denial of Trent), but that in BoD the SACRAMENT of Baptism saves, operating on the subject through their votum for it. I don't agree with this, but it's not heretical because it maintains the dogma that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now whether or not it can operate through a votum for it ... in the way the Confession can, that's what I dispute. I don't agree with that. There's no proof that it can work this way. But the Church HAS NOT CONDEMNED this opinion, and the best we can do at this point to argue against it based on reason and with only the force of our own arguments (rooted in private judgment).
Oh, but the Church has condemned this opinion in the emphatic persistent and never ending tradition of rant on baptism. Baptism is a sacrament, physical, in water, etc. It is necessary. The rest is made up. Vows from reprobate Original Sinners remain vaporware, wishful thinking. No saint has the authority to write up doctrine so it doesn't matter who said what about non-sacramental baptism. The very premise of bod is blasphemous because it means God is too impotent to manage baptism and has to break his own command. That's a gutsy position to take and they all do it.
-
There is no way to accept bod without going heretical.
False. See my posts. St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus Liguori were no heretics.
I mean these days. The Church has spoken so loud and clear that for ppl to say the opposite of what the Church teaches is beyond balsy. Saints who favored bod were only attempting to carry on what Augustine started. But Augustine recanted, withdrew, took back what he said about faith alone saving and it appears the other saints never got the memo. Most of the saints contradicted themselves on the issue--St. Ambrose is the worst offender in that matter. The Catholic Encyclopedia says there is no vestige of tradition in the Church for praying/chanting/ecclesiastical burying catechumens, and catechumens are the first in the line of possible hopefuls. Why not give some latitude if bod existed? But it didn't exist and the Church backed up Her position with a mandate, probably to put an end to the speculation about bod. If any dying person gets anything because they were duly prepared and acceptable to God they get the sacrament of baptism, perhaps miraculously, flying missionary, whatever, but the conditions are met or the person doesn't go up. Death is God's game and He isn't caught flat footed, let alone to the point He has to deny Himself or His Church. No one dies on God.
-
There is no way to accept bod without going heretical.
False. See my posts. St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus Liguori were no heretics.
I mean these days. The Church has spoken so loud and clear that for ppl to say the opposite of what the Church teaches is beyond balsy.
I disagree. At no point has the Church condemned BoD theory.
Saints who favored bod were only attempting to carry on what Augustine started. But Augustine recanted, withdrew, took back what he said about faith alone saving and it appears the other saints never got the memo.
Agreed. They all explicitly trace their authority back to St. Augustine. St. Augustine himself was admittedly speculating, saying that, after going back and forth, he found that ... Clearly not repeating received Tradition here but tentatively speculating (going back and forth). He drew his inspiration from St. Cyprian's BoB theory and said that St. Cyprian inferred BoB from the Good Thief example. Two problems with that --
1) the Good Thief died before Baptism became mandatory
and
2) the Good Thief did NOT died a martyr but was being killed justly for his crimes.
St. Cyprian himself considered BoB a different mode of administering the Sacrament, with blood supplying the matter and angels pronouncing the words. Thus he called BoB a "Sacrament" (which modern theologians wrongly say is an error); St. Cyprian did not see BoB as an exception to the requirement for Sacramental Baptism but simply a different mode of administering the Sacrament.
Most of the saints contradicted themselves on the issue--St. Ambrose is the worst offender in that matter.
I disagree. St. Ambrose on Valentinian is extremely ambiguous and unclear. Before the days of instant news via Twitter, the details surrounding Valentinian's death could well have been unclear. Perhaps St. Ambrose believed that someone close to Valentinian could have administered emergency Baptism or else it may have been administered by angels. He also could have seen it as a case of BoB, since Arians killed Valentinian because he had gone with the Catholics on that matter. It's impossible to say. St. Ambrose elsewhere makes clear anti-BoD statements.
-
There is no way to accept bod without going heretical.
False. See my posts. St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus Liguori were no heretics.
I mean these days. The Church has spoken so loud and clear that for ppl to say the opposite of what the Church teaches is beyond balsy.
I disagree. At no point has the Church condemned BoD theory.
Oh, but it has. Water is necessary for baptism, baptism is necessary for salvation, according to the Council of Trent.
Saints who favored bod were only attempting to carry on what Augustine started. But Augustine recanted, withdrew, took back what he said about faith alone saving and it appears the other saints never got the memo.
Agreed. They all explicitly trace their authority back to St. Augustine. St. Augustine himself was admittedly speculating, saying that, after going back and forth, he found that ... Clearly not repeating received Tradition here but tentatively speculating (going back and forth). He drew his inspiration from St. Cyprian's BoB theory and said that St. Cyprian inferred BoB from the Good Thief example. Two problems with that --
1) the Good Thief died before Baptism became mandatory
and
2) the Good Thief did NOT died a martyr but was being killed justly for his crimes.
The missionary mandate had not been commanded, but further, there's no proof the Good Thief was not already baptized, which is why he repented to Christ.
St. Cyprian himself considered BoB a different mode of administering the Sacrament, with blood supplying the matter and angels pronouncing the words. Thus he called BoB a "Sacrament" (which modern theologians wrongly say is an error); St. Cyprian did not see BoB as an exception to the requirement for Sacramental Baptism but simply a different mode of administering the Sacrament.
Again, the Church teaches baptism is necessary.
Most of the saints contradicted themselves on the issue--St. Ambrose is the worst offender in that matter.
I disagree. St. Ambrose on Valentinian is extremely ambiguous and unclear. Before the days of instant news via Twitter, the details surrounding Valentinian's death could well have been unclear. Perhaps St. Ambrose believed that someone close to Valentinian could have administered emergency Baptism or else it may have been administered by angels. He also could have seen it as a case of BoB, since Arians killed Valentinian because he had gone with the Catholics on that matter. It's impossible to say. St. Ambrose elsewhere makes clear anti-BoD statements.
You just said St. Ambrose makes clear anti-bod statements. He contradicted himself. Yet you say you disagree that he contradicted himself. It is impossible to get out of the Council of Trent statement "...this justification cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof." I've proven in my article that misinterpretation of this line in Trent is Satanic backmasking and purposeful twisting of the teaching on baptism. Bod'ers cannot refer to this statement and insist it says what it does not.
-
You just said St. Ambrose makes clear anti-bod statements. He contradicted himself.
Where does he contradict his anti-BoD statements and state a belief in BoD?
-
You just said St. Ambrose makes clear anti-bod statements. He contradicted himself.
Where does he contradict his anti-BoD statements and state a belief in BoD?
His Valentinian II speech.
-
You just said St. Ambrose makes clear anti-bod statements. He contradicted himself.
Where does he contradict his anti-BoD statements and state a belief in BoD?
His Valentinian II speech.
I just explained that there's no proof of what he meant by that. Did you even bother to read my post?
-
You just said St. Ambrose makes clear anti-bod statements. He contradicted himself.
Where does he contradict his anti-BoD statements and state a belief in BoD?
His Valentinian II speech.
I just explained that there's no proof of what he meant by that. Did you even bother to read my post?
I did, I even agree with you. But that is the impression by those who use Valentinian speech to prove bod. In other words, if it does support bod, St. Ambrose cannot be used to prove bod because he said other things that prove he didn't believe in it. Its a fine line, but you see what I mean. Impression is everything with bod'ers because they have no doctrine, no proof.
-
More modern fruits of BOD and how it dilutes EENS by spreading the following errors:
1.One can be saved outside the Church.
2.One can be saved without having the Catholic Faith.
3.Baptism is not necessary for salvation.
4.To confess the supremacy and infallibility of the Roman Church and of the Roman Pontiff is not necessary for salvation.
5.One can be saved without submitting personally to the authority of the Roman Pontiff.
6.Ignorance of Christ and His Church excuses one from all fault and confers justification and salvation.
7.One can be saved who dies ignorant of Christ and His Church.
8.One can be saved who dies hating Christ and His Church.
9.God, of His Supreme Goodness and Mercy, would not permit anyone to be punished eternally unless he had incurred the guilt of voluntary sin.
10.A man is sure of his salvation once he is justified.
11.One can be saved by merely an implicit desire for Baptism.
12.There are two Churches, the one visible, the other invisible.
13.There are two kinds of membership in the Church.
14.Membership in the Church can be invisible or even unconscious.
15.To know and love the Blessed Virgin is not necessary for salvation.
.....And then we ask, how is it we got to the point of Vatican II ecclesiology when these errors are widely promoted and believed by all, even by the vast majority of "Traditionalists"? These false trads do not have a leg to stand on condemning the many "heresies" of Vatican II Council when they themselves hold the same heresies at the core.
-
St. Ambrose on Valentinian is extremely ambiguous and unclear. Before the days of instant news via Twitter, the details surrounding Valentinian's death could well have been unclear. Perhaps St. Ambrose believed that someone close to Valentinian could have administered emergency Baptism or else it may have been administered by angels.
I think so too. I believe that that was St. Ambrose meant when he says referring to the catechumen: "Did not he obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for?...certainly because he asked for it he obtained it" What did the catechumen Valentinian wanted? to enter the Church. This is only possible through the Sacrament of Baptism. Because there cannot be any "accidents" in the hand of God when someone just dies unexpectedly before his time (as God could not do anything to prevent it), we can conclude that Valentinian received the water Baptism somewhere, somehow, before he died. There is no reason why God in his Infinite providence could not provide the catechumen with which he so much desired, as St. Ambrose says.
-
Even in the very first part of that speech, St. Ambrose confirms that BOD was actually not a Catholic doctrine taught everywhere in the early Church as the BODers falsely pretend. He says to his audience: "but I hear you grieve because he did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism"... Now...why would they grieve about this? the answer is obvious: because they firmly believed, as they had been correctly taught, that catechumens are still not part of the Church and that to enter Heaven is necessary to receive the water Baptism. They grieved because they knew that Valentinian was oriented to Hell if dying in such an unbaptized state given that such was the Catholic doctrine taught everywhere since Our Lord walked the earth. In other words, their grief was because they took the words of Jesus Christ in John 3:5 literally, as it is the correct position of the Church.
And after all this misunderstanding, we have St. Ambrose undoubtedly defending the necessity of water Baptism for salvation, even for catechumens, as one of the Fathers who were more vehement about it. In The Mysteriies he says:
One is the Baptism the Church administers: the Baptism of water and the Holy Ghost...with which catechumens need to be baptized...Nor, again, is there the Sacrament of Regeneration without water: “For except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” John 3:5 Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, wherewith he too 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 remission of sins nor gain the gift of spiritual grace.
-
More modern fruits of BOD and how it dilutes EENS by spreading the following errors:
1.One can be saved outside the Church.
2.One can be saved without having the Catholic Faith.
3.Baptism is not necessary for salvation.
4.To confess the supremacy and infallibility of the Roman Church and of the Roman Pontiff is not necessary for salvation.
5.One can be saved without submitting personally to the authority of the Roman Pontiff.
6.Ignorance of Christ and His Church excuses one from all fault and confers justification and salvation.
7.One can be saved who dies ignorant of Christ and His Church.
8.One can be saved who dies hating Christ and His Church.
9.God, of His Supreme Goodness and Mercy, would not permit anyone to be punished eternally unless he had incurred the guilt of voluntary sin.
10.A man is sure of his salvation once he is justified.
11.One can be saved by merely an implicit desire for Baptism.
12.There are two Churches, the one visible, the other invisible.
13.There are two kinds of membership in the Church.
14.Membership in the Church can be invisible or even unconscious.
15.To know and love the Blessed Virgin is not necessary for salvation.
.....And then we ask, how is it we got to the point of Vatican II ecclesiology when these errors are widely promoted and believed by all, even by the vast majority of "Traditionalists"? These false trads do not have a leg to stand on condemning the many "heresies" of Vatican II Council when they themselves hold the same heresies at the core.
Yes, these notions are all widely accepted although wording is different so the heresy doesn't appear this brazen and they use all manner of fancy explanations to support each so that they don't exactly contradict Church teaching as these clearly show. Yet boders absolutely do contradict Church teaching. And they say with their lips, "I'm not contradicting anything!" while they contradict everything. And they think we are all supposed to drop our brains off at the laundromat for wringing out and respond, "Aye!"
NO!!!
I actually heard a resistance priest tell my daughter in law (who was about to be received into the Church and anxious about getting it done) The priest said: "Its wonderful you are coming into the Church, but you needn't worry. If you died today, your desire is the same thing as the baptism. YOU ALREADY HAVE IT!"