MyrnaM said:
Mabel, not only this one particular book, but like I said these people that are taken in with the Dimond Brothers false teachings better pray for the truth, before they find themselves outside the ark, because of the sin of omittance.
You are just like others who condemn the Dimond Brothers, always telling people they are horrible or starting a new religion but never providing any proof to refute them with. Please stick to the argument at hand and deal with the teachings.
MyrnaM said:
I advise those to do the research, not only on the Internet, but collect old Catholic books in thrift stores, libraries, garage sales, anywhere they can, and look up baptism. Every one of them teaches there is BOD/BOB, from Radio replies (First Volumn; page 167) to an approved Catholic dictionary.
If you could give a definition for Baptism of Desire, I can show you where the Catholic Church teaches the contrary. Is that Pride or is it confidence in God and His Church.
Who's authority do you reject the Vatican II church? Is it Churchmen who you refer to or is it the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church to prove the V II "church" is false? Just like the Churchmen throughout the history of Baptism of Desire are the only ones that advance it. The Church condemns it by it's teaching on Baptism.
Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”
I want you to show everyone where the Infallible Magisterium teaches BOD only applies to those that die (let alone that the Magisterium teaches it at all).
After all, we are supposed to always refer to the Magisterium when there is a conflict between theologians and when the teachings of theologians are at odds with Church teachings.
MyrnaM said:
The Dimond brothers, like Vatican II, began a new religion. They are filled with Pride, who dare say the Catholic church, Doctors of the Church, Councils were all mistaken, but they have it right now. Who ever entertains their false teachings are playing with fire.
Why do you accept some theologians and not others.
St. Gregory nαzιanz, 381 AD: “Of those who fail to be baptized some are utterly animal and bestial, according to whether they are foolish or wicked. This, I think, they must add to their other sins, that they have no reverence for this gift, but regard it as any other gift, to be accepted if given them, or neglected if not given them. Others know and honor the gift; but they delay, some out of carelessness, some because of insatiable desire.
Still others are not able to receive it, perhaps because of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circuмstance which prevents them from receiving the gift, even if they desire it…
“
If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder, solely by his intention and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one who desired Baptism, without having received Baptism. But, since you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter? I cannot see it. If you prefer, we will put it like this:
if in your opinion desire has equal power with actual Baptism, then make the same judgment in regard to glory. You will then be satisfied to long for glory, as if that longing itself were glory. Do you suffer any damage by not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have a desire for it?”
St. Gregory totally rejected BOD. What do you say to that? Is he in League with the "evil Dimond Brothers"?
Topic: Baptism Again? (Read 1449 times)