@Lover of Richard Cushing

Like i said before "baptism" of desire/blood is a man made doctrine and was never taught by the Church. Some saints taught it and they all contradicted each other. Some specifically taught desire others blood.


Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: "This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.'"


But NONE of them taught it like the diabolical modernists preach it today, which according to them can be applied to ANYONE. Virtually all who believe in desire/blood also believe in invincible ignorance. Instead of actually trying to convert people to the one true Faith in this time of supreme darkness and promoting the flawless work of MHFM. These dunces are dedicated specifically to promote desire/blood and invincible ignorance.

Council of Trent obliterates desire simply by saying:

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, Ex Cathedra:  "If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost' [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema."

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, Ex Cathedra: "If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema."

The passage that lovers of Cushing bring up where Trent mentions desire is simply referring to adult justification.

Catholics during these times were 'baptizing' Jєωs by force! Invalid.

That's why Trent mentions desire. Same reason that Florence mentions the words of consecration is because during the time of Florence some priests weren't saying the right words! St.Bernardino calling their Masses 'Masses of ignorance'.

Same way the lovers of Cushing twist Trent is the same way that the puffed up with diabolical pride schismatic Greeks twist Constantinople I and say that it never mentions the Filioque.

How can the Church anathematize someone for saying Baptism is optional, then go and 'teach' desire? This is why Lovers of Cushing ALWAYS contradict themselves. Here is a perfect example from Brother Peter's book:

Another example would be the famous book, The Catechism Explained, by Fr. Spirago and Fr. Clarke.  Like Dr. Ott’s book, The Catechism Explained taught baptism of desire and that there is salvation “outside” the Church. Yet despite this fact, these "theologians" (Frs. Spirago and Clarke) were compelled to admit the following truth, which is confessed universally by all purported Catholic theologians.
 
Fr. Francis Spirago and Fr. Richard Clarke, The Catechism Explained, 1899, Baptism: "3.  BAPTISM IS INDISPENSABLY NECESSARY TO SALVATION. Hence children who die unbaptized cannot enter heaven. Our Lord says: 'Unless a man be born again of water and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven' (John 3:5). He makes no exception, not even in the case of infants... Baptism is no less indispensable in the spiritual order than water in the natural order..."

This shows, again, how the universal teaching of theologians is that baptism of water is absolutely necessary for salvation, and that Our Lord’s words in John 3:5 have no exceptions. The fact that Frs. Spirago and Clarke proceed to contradict this statement and teach baptism of desire (and the heresy of salvation "outside" the Church) just shows their own inconsistency – and the inconsistency of all who favor baptism of desire.
 
Fr. Francis Spirago and Fr. Richard Clarke, The Catechism Explained, 1899, Baptism: "... for adults the simple desire is sufficient, if actual baptism is impossible."

 How can water baptism be indispensably necessary for salvation (as they just told us), if the simple desire for it is sufficient in its place?  That is a direct contradiction. And anyone who says that it is not simply denies the law of non-contradiction.  One cannot say that:
 
Water Baptism is indispensably necessary for salvation
 
And at the same time....
 
Water Baptism is not indispensably necessary for salvation (desire can replace it)
 
   These two statements are contradictory, but this is exactly what people were being taught all over the world in catechisms since the late 1800’s. They were being taught the truth (1st proposition), while simultaneously they were taught the opposite of that truth (2nd proposition). This shows that even in the time of growing apostasy, heresy and modernism that was the period from approximately 1850 to 1950, all theologians and catechisms still affirmed the universally taught truth on the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation, even though they did not remain consistent with it.

The miraculous baptisms throughout history also annihilate desire/blood.

Michael Malone who was a member of the Harlot of Babylon [The modern day 'Church' in Rome and the prophesied end times counter-church] says:

"The Fathers of the Church, therefore, taken as a whole, can only be said to have verified definitively the official and authentic teaching of the one true Church that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be baptized in the water of the actual sacrament instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ.  On the other hand, it is intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise.  And to exalt the personal theological opinions of a handful – even an impressive and well-known handful – to the rank of ecclesiastical Tradition or even magisterial infallibility is not only an exercise in sophomoric legerdemain [verbal sleight of hand], but also a brand of facile short-sightedness unconscionable in any serious study of Patristic Theology." [Michael Malone, The Only-Begotten, p. 404.]

What Spirago and Clarke said regarding Baptism being impossible was condemned by Trent!


Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 11 on Justification, Ex Cathedra: "... no one should make use of that rash statement forbidden under anathema by the Fathers, that the commandments of God are impossible to observe for a man who is justified. ‘FOR GOD DOES NOT COMMAND IMPOSSIBILITIES, but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do..."

Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism, Tan Books, p. 171: "Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave to His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved."

As proven above, God commanded all men to be baptized. The supporters of the theory of baptism of desire argue that for some people the command to be baptized is impossible to fulfill.

True Catholics actually try to convert and baptize non-Catholics. Lovers of Cushing [SSPX, CMRI, SSPV etc] are hellbent on promoting desire/blood and invincible ignorance and trying to exalt fallible statements to the levels of the Magisterium and make exceptions to Dogmas!

“I have just about made up my mind to start a new book. I shall write on the notion of the Church. Nothing like this has appeared since the Council. Within the book I hope to have quite a bit to say about the Council. I must be very careful. If a sincere Catholic writes a book it’s either ignored or brutally attacked. I must make no mistakes. My main thesis will have to be that the Catholic theology on the Church has been improved but in no way changed by the Council. 

I have just about made up my mind to start a new book. I shall write on the notion of the Church. Nothing like this has appeared since the Council. Within the book I hope to have quite a bit to say about the Council. I must be very careful. If a sincere Catholic writes a book it’s either ignored or brutally attacked. I must make no mistakes. My main thesis will have to be that the Catholic theology on the Church has been improved but in no way changed by the Council. 

from Lover of Heresy's great Catholic "authority" on Catholic ecclesiology ...

Fenton Diaries ( November 23, 1968 ):