Quote from: Matto

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.

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Matto

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:

Quote from: Archbishop Lefebvre

"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."

Quote from: TKGS

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.

Quote from: happenby

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Centroamerica

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:

Quote from: Archbishop Lefebvre

"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.

Quote from: Lover of Truth

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.

Quote from: happenby

Quote from: TKGS

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.)

Quote from: happenby

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: happenby

Quote from: TKGS

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!