It is precisely the point of this thread: the entire discussion regarding "baptism of desire" is beyond the grasp of the average Catholic layman. If one finds the text I presented to be too "convoluted" or complex then one should not enter into such discussions.

It is not beyond the grasp of anyone. Either one needs the sacrament or one does not need the sacrament.

The confusion and convolution come in when one tries to wrest the words of Our Lord as though He was speaking a parable as they add exceptions to ex cathedra teachings.

So what label should I use? Seriously, it seems this is a sensitive issue and I do not wish to offend anyone, so what nomenclature am I supposed to use?

Those Catholics who believe in what the theologians and the Popes say about "baptism of desire" have a lot in common with you: think about that, is all I ask.

I don't care what you call those of us who reject interpretations which contradict the literal teachings of the Church, but how would you like to be labeled a Conciliarist for believing in a BOD as the NOers do?

The theologians and popes and doctors who may have taught a BOD *before* Trent have an excuse - Rome had not yet spoken on the matter. *After* Trent,  Roma locuta est, causa finita est  - and if they were unclear about what Trent taught, they are in error no matter who they are or what their title is - such is the authority of the Council of Trent in perpetuity.

It is the same old argument - - -the new mass cannot be wrong because it comes from the Church . . . . . BOD cannot be wrong because saints taught it.

When does "Error is error no matter where it is found" apply?



Why is it that people think they are not understanding explicit teaching from the Council and Our Lord - but they think they understand as truth that which contradicts both the Council and the words of Our Lord?

If I must choose between a bunch of layfolk who derogate the memory of Thomists or even go so far as to speculate that Pope Pius XII "lost" the Papacy and such theologians as Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange and Pope Pius IX, the choice is not really that difficult.

Are you a sede?  If not, why not accept the teachings of the late Father Karl Rahner?  He was a "luminary," wasn't he?  A prominent figure at the Second Vatican Council?  A theologian who was in good standing at that Council?  Why not accept his teachings as authentically representing the Magisterium of the Catholic Church?

Quote from: Jehanne

If Pope Pius XII were, in fact, an anti-Pope, then that would, of course, nullify the 1949 Holy Office Letter.  As others have already pointed out, Pope Pius XII, in many respects, set the foundation for Vatican II.

That would also nullify the dogmatic definition of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Furthermore, you have to fast from midnight from all solid and liquid nourishment in order to receive Holy Communion.

I do not claim this (that Pope Pius XII was an anti-Pope), but some traditionalist Catholics do.

Quote from: stubborn

I don't care what you call those of us who reject interpretations (from real authorities) which contradict the literal teachings (stubborn and bowler's interpretations) of the Church

You reject ALL authorities that contradict your lonely "literal" interpretations.  

You got that right.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

Gal 1:8 - But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

Now you probably need a theologian to interpret the above Scripture for you, but I OTOH will take it upon myself and tell you that if St. Michael the Archangel  himself were to come down from heaven and try to tell me that baptism was optional, or that the sacrament was not necessary unto salvation, and that a BOD really is a substitute for the sacrament and it saves souls just like the sacrament can, I would be obliged not to believe him because I understand why Trent taught us the infallible truth, literally.

Besides, why do you reject all the quotes that bowler has posted from dozens of saints and Fathers and popes explicitly teaching that without the sacrament, no one at all can be saved?
Oops, there goes another question that'll go unanswered.

Those mystics outside the Church were not in God's grace and cannot be in Heaven.

You have to die a Catholic to get into Heaven. Any other belief is heresy.

:jumping2:

The last time I read a modernist theologian (the kind demanded by SJB) he was stating in an approved book of moral theology that sodomy was okay as long as the act of sodomy ended in a natural manner. I don't remember the author or the title of the book but it was posted on cathinfo.

You are a disgusting person.

 Is St. Alphonsus a modernist theologian?

However in reflecting on that passage I did come to an important conclusion for which I thank you.  I now clearly understand how futile and potentially dangerous it is for a me as an uneducated layman to treat theology (or philosophy) as an interesting hobby.  I see better now why these things are best left (like for example, the manufacture of explosives or nuclear power generation) to those professionals with the aptitude and education to tackle them.  It is so very easy to find yourself out of your depth in these subjects.  Consider how many heresies have been started by self-proclaimed theologians or philosophers or even clergymen.  A certain Father Martin Luther jumps immediately to my mind...

I think from now on I will limit myself to reading those simple books either by the Saints or basic catechisms that by long use Holy Mother Church has found most edifying and recommends to us simple layfolk for our sanctification.  I will leave reading about theology/philosophy (and especially BoD threads) alone.

This precisely the reason why I posted this thread, for those servants of Jesus and Mary who need to be reminded that their focus should be the service of Jesus and Mary: the perfect renovation of their Baptismal vows and their cultivation and progress in holy grace by means of prayer, penance, self-abnegation, works of piety and mercy, &c. There is especially devotion and total consecration to Our Lord, Eternal Wisdom, through His Most Holy Mother, as taught by St. Louis-Marie, to enliven the resolve of all Catholics to live in more perfect conformity to the designs of Our Lord "cujus providentia in sui disposìtione non fallitur" ["whose providence faileth not in its designs"] (Collecta, Dom. vii. post Pent., Missale Romanum).

As I had written at the commencement of this post: How is it that so many Catholics have failed in attaining to the sanctity and prayer of a soul like the Little Flower, St. Teresa of Jesus, St. John of the Cross, St. Louis-Marie, &c., when they have everything in their disposal to achieve the mystical graces of union and contemplation and nothing to excuse tepidity and laxity? How could the clergy be better trained and disposed in spiritual direction in order to remedy this universal catastrophe? How could Catholics tread upon theological matters regarding the mysteries of grace and predestination when there is grave neglect and error (on the part of both laity and clergy) regarding the means of salvation and perfection in an epoch of the grossest materialism and error?

All one needs to do is make acts of faith, and be resolved to conform one's mind to the teaching's of the Church's sacred magisterium:

Quote from: Matto

The last time I read a modernist theologian (the kind demanded by SJB) he was stating in an approved book of moral theology that sodomy was okay as long as the act of sodomy ended in a natural manner. I don't remember the author or the title of the book but it was posted on cathinfo.

You are a disgusting person.

 Is St. Alphonsus a modernist theologian?

Not at all.  But he also said this:

Still we answer the Semipelagians, and say, that infidels who arrive at the use of reason, and are not converted to the Faith, cannot be excused, because though they do not receive sufficient proximate grace, still they are not deprived of remote grace, as a means of becoming converted.  But what is this remote grace?  St. Thomas explains it, when he says, that if anyone was brought up in the wilds, or even among brute beasts, and if he followed the law of natural reason, to desire what is good, and to avoid what is wicked, we should certainly believe either that God, by an internal inspiration, would reveal to him what he should believe, or would send someone to preach the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius.  Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas], God, at least remotely, gives to infidels, who have the use of reason, sufficient grace to obtain salvation, and this grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul. (St. Alphonsus, The History of Heresies, Refutation 6, #11, p. 457

The above quote should end any and all discussion that "baptism of desire" and/or "baptism of blood" could ever be applied to anyone but a Catholic catechumen.