Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: SJB

Quote

Do you suppose Our Lord did not actually mean what He explicitly said?
Do you suppose that "or the desire thereof" means BOD even though Trent authoritatively and infallibly proclaimed that the Sacrament was "necessary for *all* - as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven"?

Quote from: John Ch. 6

[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

It seems quite clear that Our Lord is saying the reception of the Eucharist in both forms is required by all for salvation.

The Church has already taught us that we receive both, the Body *and* Blood when we receive The Body alone.

Same as the Church has taught that that the words of Our Lord are to be understood literally when it comes to the necessity for the Sacrament of Baptism - this is why Trent said: "......or the desire thereof, as it is written: [john 3:5]...."

Do you suppose Our Lord did not actually mean what He explicitly said?  

Also, you still have the problem that the reception of this Sacrament is not required in all cases, yet Our Lord "clearly says it is."

Did you read what I wrote? Go back and actually reply to what I wrote.

You reject the teachings of Holy Mother in regard to the necessity of the sacrament of Baptism, so do not try to weasel out of admitting it by your puerile attempt at steering away from the subject with something completely unrelated.

It's not unrelated; it exposes your method of private interpretation.

Quote from: SJB

It's not unrelated; it exposes your method of private interpretation.

It is not my private interpretation. I am reading what is right there, you are adding exceptions which change what was defined, while you deny you are doing it.

I won't go back to your earlier posts but what ever happened to you touting the authority of the catechism?

I have given you the link, I supplied you with quotes from the catechism - yet you continue to reject what is taught in the catechism via falsely claiming it is my private interpretation.

Are you doing this on purpose or can you not see you are doing this or what?

 

You reject a detailed explanation from two doctors of the Church and countless others including a moral unaniminity of theologians. That is the teaching of the Church, not your reading of Trent.

Extract from St Alphonsus Liguori: Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7.
Concerning Baptism

Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water ["fluminis"], of desire ["flaminis" = wind] and of blood.

We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved "without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it".

Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality ["non ita stricte"] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from Baptism of blood – translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.

It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ.


St. Robert Bellarmine, Of The Church Militant, III, 3, “Of those who are not baptized"

*“Martyrdom is rightly called, and is, a certain baptism.” (On the Sacrament of Baptism, Bk. I, Ch. VI, (Tom. 3, p. 120A))
“Concerning catechumens there is a greater difficulty, because they are faithful [have the faith] and can be saved if they die in this state, and yet outside the Church no one is saved, as outside the ark of Noah. […] I answer therefore that, when it is said outside the Church no one is saved, it must be understood of those who belong to her neither in actual fact nor in desire [desiderio], as theologians commonly speak on baptism. Because the catechumens are in the Church, though not in actual fact, yet at least in resolution [voto], therefore they can be saved. (Of The Church Militant, III, 3, “Of those who are not baptized”)

You reject a detailed explanation from two doctors of the Church and countless others including a moral unaniminity of theologians. That is the teaching of the Church, not your reading of Trent.

"A moral unaniminity of theologians"? Is that a new catch phrase you have there?

The only teaching in regards to Baptism, which is constant (from the time of the Apostles), common (universally taught by all theologians, doctors and fathers of the Church) and has been defined infallibly, is the necessity of sacramental baptism *for all*.

BOD does not enjoy the status of being a Universal teaching because of the simple fact that there are numerous different theories about what it even is, let alone it was not taught by *all* the Doctors etc - - -only Sacramental Baptism enjoys that privilege.



CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous;


You are saying that the sacrament are unnecessary for salvation, that they are superfluous - because if you'll note what I did to the following sentence, you make the exception to the dogma, you're exception says that the sacrament are unnecessary FOR SOME for salvation.

Whether or not you learned this exception from saints is irrelevant considering that *it actually is* an exception added to the dogma.




Read what is written in the rest of the canon without exceptions.........

and [If any one saith] that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

Quote from: Stubborn

"A moral unaniminity of theologians"? Is that a new catch phrase you have there?

No, it's a common term, but not to you, obviously.

It is common to you only.

I see you ignored the rest of that post because it is clear truth you have nothing able to logically dispute it - not that that fact has held you back in the past.

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Stubborn

"A moral unaniminity of theologians"? Is that a new catch phrase you have there?

No, it's a common term, but not to you, obviously.

It is common to you only.

I see you ignored the rest of that post because it is clear truth you have nothing able to logically dispute it - not that that fact has held you back in the past.

Look it up. It means unanimous but not numerically unanimous. It is understood by all reasonable persons, yet you seem not to understand it.

Why must we always take your word for everything.
*YOU* look it up, then post it for all to see.

And don't worry about answering the post I wanted you to answer - I should have realized that asking too much from you.

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Stubborn

"A moral unaniminity of theologians"? Is that a new catch phrase you have there?

No, it's a common term, but not to you, obviously.

It is common to you only.

I see you ignored the rest of that post because it is clear truth you have nothing able to logically dispute it - not that that fact has held you back in the past.

Look it up. It means unanimous but not numerically unanimous. It is understood by all reasonable persons, yet you seem not to understand it.

Why must we always take your word for everything.
*YOU* look it up, then post it for all to see.

I know what it means. You don't. Go look it up then come back and apologize.

You're the only one who knows what it means it is what it sounds like i.e. you made it up.

Mary sincerely and explicitly desires to do whatever God wishes, a desire which really involves the reception of Baptism though she does not know this, and therefore, in her ignorance, refuses Baptism. She has, in fact, two conflicting wishes, but to do God's Will is the prevailing one.

Yet another and different teaching on BOD - shoots the whole bogus theory of "A moral unaniminity of theologians" right in the foot hey?

Come on... no offense is intended here, fratres, but all of the speculation that goes on surrounding this issue is not very edifying.

This woman Mary read anti-Christian tracts. They obviously influenced her sufficiently for her to refuse baptism as Romish superstition. This attitude therefore serves to define her "belief" in g-d (not the Catholic God) and 'hevven' (certainly not the Beatific Vision of the Most Holy Trinity).

All that aside, we need to remember that unless God grants a very special grace indeed, a person who is not Catholic on their deathbed is very likely going to die that way.

Evangelization and personal zeal for sanctity are the attributes in us that God will use to lead people. Spending thread after thread on subjects like this isn't making anyone more holy.

Encourage people in the Faith from the beginning and you won't often find yourself having desperate last-minute arguments with dying people.

The English-language idiom is wrong. "Hail Mary" isn't the prayer of last-second desperation; it's the weapon of the faithful. Pray the Most Holy Rosary for the salvation of souls!

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.