Your argument is the one that fails. You are attempting to refute a dogmatic definition.
Your "understanding" of a definition is what fails. NOBODY sees things the way you do and NOBODY has ever "noticed" what you do and this fact alone should cause you concern.
It's amazing how you only want fallible sources for me to prove my point. It doesn't even matter that the Church defines it. You just keep saying that no one sees it the way I do. I should be ignoring your statement after showing you proof so many times but here are some fallible sources that reiterate what the Dogmas teach (even though the dogmas are plain language and enough to prove the point).
--Pope St. Siricius, Letter to Himerius, 385:“As we maintain that the observance of the holy Paschal time should in no way be relaxed, in the same way we desire that infants who, on account of their age, cannot yet speak, or those who, in any necessity,
are in want of the water of holy baptism, be succored with all possible speed, for fear that,
if those who leave this world should be deprived of the life of the Kingdom for having been refused the source of salvation which they desired, this may lead to the ruin of our souls. If those threatened with shipwreck, or the attack of enemies, or the uncertainties of a siege, or those put in a hopeless condition due to some bodily sickness,
ask for what in their faith is their only help, let them receive at the very moment of their request the reward of regeneration they beg for. Enough of past mistakes! From now on, let all the priests observe the aforesaid rule if they do not want to be separated from the solid apostolic rock on which Christ has built his universal Church.”
This pope, speaking in a private letter, explains the need for actual Baptism, just like I DO.
--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?”
BOOM!!! St. Gregory, a fallible man, not the Magisterium, is here teaching that there isn't any way that a person is Baptised if he desires it only.
--St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And plainly must we grieve for our own
catechumens, should they, either through their own unbelief or through their own neglect, depart this life without the saving grace of baptism.”
--St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Io. 25, 3: “For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful… One has Christ for his King; the other sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes… Since then we have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion?… Let us then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city above…
for if it should come to pass (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.”
St. John Chrysostom says the catechumen is a stranger to the faithful goes to hell if he doesn't receive Baptism.
--St. Augustine, 391: “When we shall have come into His [God’s] sight, we shall behold the equity of God’s justice. Then no one will say:… ‘
Why was this man led by God’s direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster, and was not baptized?’ Look for rewards, and you will find nothing except punishments.”St. Augustine in his fallible capacity taught that catechumens who were killed without receiving Baptism will go to the punishment.
--St. Francis Xavier, May, 1546: “Here there are altogether seven towns of Christians, all of which I went through and baptized all the newborn infants and the children not yet baptized.
A great many of them died soon after their baptism, so that it was clear enough that their life had only been preserved by God until the entrance to eternal life should be opened to them.”
The great, but fallible, St Francis Xavier that Baptism was the only way to gain eternal life.
St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391 A.D.:“You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5]
Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”The fallible St. Ambrose teaches that there is no remission of sins or spiritual grace without receiving Baptism first.
--St. Cyril of Jerusalem, 350 A.D.:“He says, ‘Unless a man be born again’ – and He adds the words ‘of water and the Spirit’ – he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God…..
if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but does not receive the seal by means of the water, shall he enter into the kingdom of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine;
for it is Jesus who has declared it.”
--St. Gregory of Elvira, 360 A.D.:“Christ is called Net, because through Him and in Him the diverse multitudes of peoples are gathered from the sea of the world,
through the water of Baptism and into the Church, where a distinction is made between the good and the wicked.”
--St. Ambrose, 387 A.D.:“‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’
No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity.”
--Theophylactus, Patriarch of Bulgaria, c. 800 A.D.:“He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved. It does not suffice to believe;
he who believes, and is not yet baptized, but is only a catechumen, has not yet fully acquired salvation.”
--Fr. William Jurgens: “
If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there;
and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”
Here the fallible Fr. Jurgens says that even though he believes in II and BOD, the CONSTANT TRADITION of the fathers did not teach it. The teaching of the fathers that John 3:5 is absolute and literal is so constant as to appear to constitute revelation. Even though he doesn't believe it he still admits the Truth.
How providential!!
--Catholic Encyclopedia, 1907:“A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere… The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga (572 AD):
‘Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without baptism.’I hope that you read all of these fallible sources so that you can see how many men have seen it the way I do. There's more if you need it.
Topic: Original Sin (Read 12000 times)