Author Topic: What's with the Dimond brothers? (Read 32263 times)

forlorn · « **Reply #20 on:** April 11, 2018, 01:54:09 PM »

Quote from: Hank Igitur Orate Fratre on April 11, 2018, 08:07:14 AM

Since you believe that Pope Pius IX was not speaking of BOD, then I will go back even further in Church history and cite a Canon from The Council of Trent affirming BOD (and as we all know canon law must be obeyed).

Session 7, Canon 4 of Canons on the Sacraments in General (Denzinger 847) clearly states the following:

"If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the DESIRE of them through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."

Trent uses in its canon the word "DESIRE" so, frankly, how ignorant or insincere do you have to be to NOT SEE that BOD was taught at The Council of Trent and that to deny BOD makes one "anathema"? You can quote as many church fathers as you want to in order to justify your denial of BOD but I have just proven that BOD is canonical law.

No that is a nonsense interpretation that no Pope has EVER taught. By your twisted logic that desire can replace sacrament because of that one quote you misinterpret, I could "desire" Holy Orders and then be a valid Priest, because according to you desire for a sacrament can replace it. So clearly, to any discerning Catholic, that quote is NOT saying that all sacraments can be fulfilled by a desire for them, but just that SOME of them can be. Which is true. It applies to the sacrament of Penance for example, as it states in another Canon of Trent.

But just as the desire of Holy Orders cannot replace the actual sacrament, the desire of Baptism cannot replace it either. As Trent teaches:
"If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema."

This canon addresses your view directly. It clearly states that true and natural water is required. Where is the water involved in Baptism of Desire? As the Canon clearly states, anyone who twists that into allowing metaphorical baptism as BODers do, is anathema.

Hank Igitur Orate Fratre · « **Reply #21 on:** April 11, 2018, 03:45:27 PM »

Quote from: forlorn on April 11, 2018, 01:54:09 PM

No that is a nonsense interpretation that no Pope has EVER taught.

You sound like a typical Protestant who believes there is more than one way to interpret even the most obviously clear and concise parts of canon law. The canon advocating BOD uses the word "desire"....It does not get any clearer than that. You do not have to be an amateur theologian or a theological Sherlock Holmes and begin an in-depth exegesis of this unambiguous canon law.

Do you think that's the only time Trent used the word "desire?" Think again. Check out Session 6 Chapter 4 (Denzinger 796):

“Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”

If you're still too stubborn with your Protestant mindset, I also recommend that you check out Canon 737.1 and Canon 1239.1 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law where BOD is also stated. Also, The Catechism of St. Pius X teaches BOD.

Bottom Line: Baptism of Desire is all over Church doctrine!

How many more examples of Baptism of Desire do I have to give you? It's in plain English throughout Church doctrine. No need to play the theological Sherlock Holmes. This debate is over and has been over for many many years. Just admit Father Leonard Feeney was wrong.

Jeremiah2v8 · « **Reply #22 on:** April 11, 2018, 04:03:18 PM »

Quote from: Hank Igitur Orate Fratre on April 11, 2018, 03:45:27 PM

You sound like a typical Protestant who believes there is more than one way to interpret even the most obviously clear and concise parts of canon law. The canon advocating BOD uses the word "desire"....It does not get any clearer than that. You do not have to be an amateur theologian or a theological Sherlock Holmes and begin an in-depth exegesis of this unambiguous canon law.

Do you think that's the only time Trent used the word "desire?" Think again. Check out Session 6 Chapter 4 (Denzinger 796):

“Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”

If you're still too stubborn with your Protestant mindset, I also recommend that you check out Canon 737.1 and Canon 1239.1 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law where BOD is also stated. Also, The Catechism of St. Pius X teaches BOD.

Bottom Line: Baptism of Desire is all over Church doctrine!

How many more examples of Baptism of Desire do I have to give you? It's in plain English throughout Church doctrine. No need to play the theological Sherlock Holmes. This debate is over and has been over for many many years. Just admit Father Leonard Feeney was wrong.

Hank,

And the Magisterium - sorry, ah, hierarchy - has gone along with this in its universal catechisms, and even Pius X in his, and all the theologians, the manualists, etc. to a man have agreed with BoD and all read Trent exactly as you do.

And yet the hierarchy - sorry, Magisterium - was "indefectible" until Vatican II, and "unable to be mistaken" . . . except as to the absolute necessity of the receipt of the sacrament of water baptism for salvation. That minor point.

Hank Igitur Orate Fratre · « **Reply #23 on:** April 11, 2018, 04:12:00 PM »

Quote from: Jeremiah2v8 on April 11, 2018, 04:03:18 PM

Hank,

And the Magisterium - sorry, ah, hierarchy - has gone along with this in its universal catechisms, and even Pius X in his, and all the theologians, the manualists, etc. to a man have agreed with BoD and all read Trent exactly as you do.

Thank you for bringing both common sense and honesty to this discussion, Jeremiah.

graceseeker · « **Reply #24 on:** April 12, 2018, 01:07:11 PM »

Quote from: trad123 on April 10, 2018, 10:49:01 PM

I can't find fault in a Catholic who believes what is printed in My Catholic Faith or the Baltimore Catechism, regarding Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. I think there is abundant good faith among traditional Catholics; a desire to be faithful to Holy Mother Church.

This quickness to toss accusations of the sin of heresy, and mortal sins against the faith, and accusations of bad will are. . . terrifying to say the least.

I sense acts of inquisition without the authority to condemn, if that makes sense.

We live in strange times.

4 sure

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: What's with the Dimond brothers? (Read 32263 times)

forlorn

Re: What's with the Dimond brothers?

Hank Igitur Orate Fratre

Re: What's with the Dimond brothers?

Jeremiah2v8

Re: What's with the Dimond brothers?

Hank Igitur Orate Fratre

Re: What's with the Dimond brothers?

graceseeker

Re: What's with the Dimond brothers?