Author Topic: What's with the Dimond brothers? (Read 32271 times)

forlorn · « **Reply #25 on:** April 12, 2018, 01:59:58 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.

The only one insisting on double meanings, metaphors and multiple interpretations if you. Once again:
"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."

2Vermont · « **Reply #26 on:** April 12, 2018, 03:48:34 PM »

So I take it that no one really knows which liturgy the DB's attend?

Hank Igitur Orate Fratre · « **Reply #27 on:** April 12, 2018, 03:52:15 PM »

Quote from: forlorn on April 12, 2018, 01:59:58 PM

The only one insisting on double meanings, metaphors and multiple interpretations if you. Once again:
"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."

Thank you, Thank You, Thank You for this canonical citation!!! I am personally giving you a thumbs up myself on your post!

So you quote Session 7 Canon 2 on Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism [Denzinger 858] and, therefore, you associate Baptism of Desire as a"some sort of metaphor" or distortion of Catholic doctrine.

So, using this logic, Trent flip-flops on this issue. First, it advocates Baptism of Desire in Dz. 796 and then again in Dz. 847 and then suddenly Trent pulls a 180 with Dz. 858 (your above quote). Then, almost 400 years later, the Church goes back to reaffirming Baptism of Desire in Canons 737.1 and 1239.1 in the 1917 Code of Canon Law.

So either Trent and the early 20th Century Church flip-flopped or Baptism of Desire is part of Church Doctrine.

forlorn · « **Reply #28 on:** April 12, 2018, 04:03:55 PM »

Quote from: Hank Igitur Orate Fratre on April 12, 2018, 03:52:15 PM

Thank you, Thank You, Thank You for this canonical citation!!! I am personally giving you a thumbs up myself on your post!

So you quote Session 7 Canon 2 on Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism [Denzinger 858] and, therefore, you associate Baptism of Desire as a"some sort of metaphor" or distortion of Catholic doctrine.

So, using this logic, Trent flip-flops on this issue. First, it advocates Baptism of Desire in Dz. 796 and then again in Dz. 847 and then suddenly Trent pulls a 180 with Dz. 858 (your above quote). Then, almost 400 years later, the Church goes back to reaffirming Baptism of Desire in Canons 737.1 and 1239.1 in the 1917 Code of Canon Law.

So either Trent and the early 20th Century Church flip-flopped or Baptism of Desire is part of Church Doctrine.

Nowhere does it advocate Baptism of Desire. As I already explained, your position is untenable as your quote mentioned ALL SACRAMENTS, and as we know, desire is NOT a substitute for all sacraments even according to BODers. Holy Orders and Matrimony, for example.
You are the one insisting that Trent flip-flopped, as it clearly says that Baptism is not a metaphor. BOD is literally all about a metaphorical baptism being substitute for a real one.

Hank Igitur Orate Fratre · « **Reply #29 on:** April 12, 2018, 05:27:05 PM »

Quote from: forlorn on April 12, 2018, 04:03:55 PM

Nowhere does it advocate Baptism of Desire.

Even if someone were to agree with you on Trent not teaching Baptism of Desire (which I do not), then can you please explain the Church canons 737.1 and 1239.1 in the Code of Canon Law?

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: What's with the Dimond brothers? (Read 32271 times)

forlorn

Re: What's with the Dimond brothers?

2Vermont

Re: What's with the Dimond brothers?

Hank Igitur Orate Fratre

Re: What's with the Dimond brothers?

forlorn

Re: What's with the Dimond brothers?

Hank Igitur Orate Fratre

Re: What's with the Dimond brothers?