Quote from: Ambrose

I do not read the CCC, but I do keep a copy for reference.  It is heretical and it is not a catechism from the Church.  

You say that the CCC is heretical but it says pretty much exactly as you believe.

Quote

You are presuming that Baptism of Desire and EENS somehow contradict. There is no contradiction. They are both part of the Church's teaching, and both must be believed.

Quote

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

No contradiction?
You are saying that the Desire for Baptism supplies the fruits of sacramental Baptism, i.e. remission of all types of sin and the punishment due to it and membership into the Church. Since we cannot enter into heaven with original sin and without membership in the Church then you have to say that BOD/BOB have the same sacramental effect of water Baptism.
In effect this means that there is more than one Baptism which is condemned.

If you think what I (and all Catholics except Feeneyites) believe is the same as the CCC, then you really do not understand this at all.

The part that would be amusing about your position if it were not so grave is that you ignore the reality of the last approximately 1,000 years in which Baptism of desire and blood has been consistently taught and believed by Catholics.  So, all the Popes, including St. Pius V and St. Pius X all missed this contradiction and they all according to you allowed heresy to be publicly taught and published throughout the Church.

If you are right then the Church has allowed evil and heresy to infect Catholics and has officially supported heresy by authorizing catechisms and books against the Faith.  But, you are not right, the Church has done no such thing, she is holy and pure and will remain so until the end of the world.

There is only one baptism, one sacrament.  Bod and Bob are not sacraments.  Where have you read that we cannot enter Heaven without membership in the Church?  The last I read, the axiom was "Outside the Church no salvation," not, "without membership in the Church, no salvation.   Nice try, but you stand alone with this idea, the Church has not taught it.

There is only one baptism, one sacrament.  Bod and Bob are not sacraments.  Where have you read that we cannot enter Heaven without membership in the Church?  The last I read, the axiom was "Outside the Church no salvation," not, "without membership in the Church, no salvation.  Nice try, but you stand alone with this idea, the Church has not taught it.

When you say that BOD can be a way to enter into salvation you are saying they produce the same effect as the sacrament, therefore YOU believe in more than one Baptism no matter what you say otherwise.

The history of teaching in the church from scripture and the magisterium that Baptism make us members in the Church and without Baptism we cannot be saved.  So simple logic tells me you must be a member to be saved because member equals inside.
This heresy from Msgr. Fenton more or less, is ridiculous that we don't have to be members to be saved. This idea is the one that has no backing in history or teaching authority in the church.
I have posted many dogmatic statements that show my position but you have not shown one dogmatic pronouncement that teaches "within but not a member".
Just give me one dogmatic/infallible statement from a Pope or Council that teaches a person can be inside the church without being a member and on top of that show where it says these can be saved in this state.

When you say that BOD can be a way to enter into salvation you are saying they produce the same effect as the sacrament, therefore YOU believe in more than one Baptism no matter what you say otherwise.

Yes, the desire for the sacrament produces the same effect as baptism itself with regard to the translation from the state of original or mortal sin to the state of sanctifying grace.

No, this does not make "more than one baptism". Baptism is Trinitarian and threefold, that is Catholic doctrine all are obliged to confess, it is how the Doctors and Saints explain it in depth.

The history of teaching in the church from scripture and the magisterium that Baptism make us members in the Church and without Baptism we cannot be saved.

Yes. In fact or at least in desire. Sacred Scripture plainly teaches that perfect charity secures the remission of sins, and the spiritual regeneration that is the proper effect of baptism, as the Baltimore Catechism explains.

So simple logic tells me you must be a member to be saved because member equals inside.

All those who are are in the state of sanctifying grace are plainly and evidently inside the Church, therefore those baptized by desire are inside the Church. To say otherwise is to say there can be sanctifying grace outside the Church, which is to say there can be salvation outside the Church, which is heresy.

This heresy from Msgr. Fenton

Talk about presumptuous.

Msgr. Fenton did more for the cause of the Catholic Faith, it's defense and propagation, than you will ever do.

There is no doctrine of BOD or BOB (which are essentially the same) and in fact, pope Eugene IV condemned the error infallibly -

Which claim is the very height of absurdity, though indeed an absurdity quite common in Feeneyite reasoning. Those words were first composed by St. Fulgentius, who taught baptism of blood as certain Catholic doctrine, which Pope Eugene here Magisterially affirms and makes his own.  

It is heretics devoid of supernatural faith, who give alms or shed blood, who cannot be saved, not martyrs who as yet only catechumens for the sake of the Church and trusting her certain teaching, have indeed gone to their deaths without water baptism, knowing on her authority that they will be saved.

yet you believe the sacrament itself is superfluous - which is condemned by Trent

Another empty claim contrary to reason and sense. The Summa lay on the Altar next to Holy Writ at the great Council of Trent and as the Angelic Doctor explains and the Catholic Church has before and after and indeed always and everywhere held, "The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed". It is the sacramental effect viz. justification and the translation to the state of grace that is always necessary.

Quote

There is no doctrine of BOD or BOB (which are essentially the same) and in fact, pope Eugene IV condemned the error infallibly -

Which claim is the very height of absurdity, though indeed an absurdity quite common in Feeneyite reasoning. Those words were first composed by St. Fulgentius, who taught baptism of blood as certain Catholic doctrine, which Pope Eugene here Magisterially affirms and makes his own.

I will take your word for it that those words were first composed by St. Fulgentius, but you should be able to admit that Pope Eugene condemned BOB - there is no way around that without outright rejecting the dogma no matter how you say it.

It is heretics devoid of supernatural faith, who give alms or shed blood, who cannot be saved, not martyrs who as yet only catechumens for the sake of the Church and trusting her certain teaching, have indeed gone to their deaths without water baptism, knowing on her authority that they will be saved.

This is an exception that you make - it is not found anywhere in the Pope's pronouncement - and we are not allowed to make exceptions to dogma - how do you think heretical teachings get started any way?

Quote

yet you believe the sacrament itself is superfluous - which is condemned by Trent

Another empty claim contrary to reason and sense. The Summa lay on the Altar next to Holy Writ at the great Council of Trent and as the Angelic Doctor explains and the Catholic Church has before and after and indeed always and everywhere held, "The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed". It is the sacramental effect viz. justification and the translation to the state of grace that is always necessary.

The Summa teaches both the necessity for the sacrament and the possibility of it being unnecessary - which is why Trent  stepped in to clarify the teaching infallibly for all time  - just because you and many others believe that the angelic Doctor has more authority than de fide declarations does not make it so.

Your quote above is Novus Ordo definition of BOD - - Trent, as well as the Catechism which came from Trent does not reward anyone salvation without the Sacrament.

Please explain how one who desires Baptism is rewarded salvation using Trent's catechism's explanation below:

On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

I will take your word for it that those words were first composed by St. Fulgentius, but you should be able to admit that Pope Eugene condemned BOB - there is no way around that without outright rejecting the dogma no matter how you say it.

No, there is no way around you admitting Pope Eugene IV was fully approving St. Fulgentius' doctrine on this point. Saint Fulgentius is speaking particularly in the passage quoted of individuals guilty of heresy or schism.
 
On the other hand, St. Fulgentius always taught, and that very excerpt reflects, that one could be joined to the Church by the baptism of blood and therefore be saved, and this is the precise meaning of the words expressed by "unless before death they are joined with Her" in Florence that is, at least by desire in blood.

This is an exception that you make - it is not found anywhere in the Pope's pronouncement - and we are not allowed to make exceptions to dogma - how do you think heretical teachings get started any way?

Heretical teachings get started when one ignores all Doctors, Saints and the Magisterium and without any license to teach theology or preach the faith in the Church and without due recourse to any authority whatsoever presents one's own private judgment as the ultimate norm to which everyone else must submit.

In short, the novelty that is modern dogmatic Feeneyism presents a good case study of the same.

The Summa teaches both the necessity for the sacrament and the possibility of it being unnecessary

Ridiculous. The Angelic Doctor was not a bumbling fool, to contradict himself in that way. He only contradicts you as Trent does. I explained and you ignored - it is the sacramental effect that is always necessary. The root error of the Feeneyites, as both Frs. Pfeiffer and Laisney have written in the past, is the lack of proper Thomistic theology. You don't know or don't want to know the res sacramenti or ultimate reality of the sacrament that is always necessary, which is sanctifying grace. And as St. Thomas says it belongs to the excellence of Christ's power to bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the exterior sacrament. All this is lost on Feeneyites who are not interested in sound doctrine or scholastic theology at all.

- which is why Trent  stepped in to clarify the teaching infallibly for all time

Yes, and as seen, fully in his favor, proclaiming dogmatically what he had taught.

But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic Doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of conclave to lay upon the altar, together with sacred Scripture and the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration.

Your quote above is Novus Ordo definition of BOD

Gee, I never knew St. Thomas made "the Novus Ordo definition of BOD". I quoted St. Thomas only, not the CCC. It was you brought the CCC into it.

Trent, as well as the Catechism which came from Trent does not reward anyone salvation without the Sacrament.

Totally false. Trent was not a "pastoral Council" but a dogmatic one and dogmatically affirmed

(1) Desire produces the sacramental effect i.e. justification and the translation to grace.

(2) All who die in the state of grace are saved.

So Trent completely refutes you and completely agrees with the Angelic Doctor

On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

Exactly, for adults, the danger present for infants if they die is not there, because it is certain that desire will avail for adults in that case, which therefore no man may ever lawfully call into question, without being offensive to the Church.

Quote

I will take your word for it that those words were first composed by St. Fulgentius, but you should be able to admit that Pope Eugene condemned BOB - there is no way around that without outright rejecting the dogma no matter how you say it.

No, there is no way around you admitting Pope Eugene IV was fully approving St. Fulgentius' doctrine on this point. Saint Fulgentius is speaking particularly in the passage quoted of individuals guilty of heresy or schism.

You make quite the leap by going from the pope declaring the dogma of exclusive salvation all the way to the pope not declaring anything at all. This is typical of BODers who explain the dogma by explaining it away - while insisting the are doing no such thing.

On the other hand, St. Fulgentius always taught, and that very excerpt reflects, that one could be joined to the Church by the baptism of blood and therefore be saved, and this is the precise meaning of the words expressed by "unless before death they are joined with Her" in Florence that is, at least by desire in blood.

Whatever it was that St. Fulgentius "always taught", it was corrected via solemn declaration by the pope. You - or anyone - are not permitted to add your own exceptions to dogma because by doing so the meaning of dogma is changed into something it does not say. Were the pope to have said "as St. Fulgentius always taught...." it might be different, but he didn't - so you can't.  

Quote

This is an exception that you make - it is not found anywhere in the Pope's pronouncement - and we are not allowed to make exceptions to dogma - how do you think heretical teachings get started any way?

Heretical teachings get started when one ignores all Doctors, Saints and the Magisterium and without any license to teach theology or preach the faith in the Church and without due recourse to any authority whatsoever presents one's own private judgment as the ultimate norm to which everyone else must submit.

Oh really? Lets see, Bishop Arius started the world wide heresy of Arianism. Fr. Martin Luther, Professor of Theology started Protestantism.

In your zeal to reward non-catholics into heaven, you completely blind yourself to reality of who start heretical teachings among Catholics. You are not on a prot forum you know - what you said above does apply to the prots, not Catholics.

In short, the novelty that is modern dogmatic Feeneyism presents a good case study of the same.

If you will pay attention to this ond other threads, it has already been proved that the dogma of Trent was never questioned until the Archbishop of Boston, who was later promoted to Cardinal Cushing, whose sister was married to a Jew, launched the attack against the dogma.

At the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) Cushing played a vital role in drafting Nostra Aetate, the docuмent that officially absolved the Jews of deicide charge. His emotional comments during debates over the drafts were echoed in the final version. . . . . . He was deeply committed to implementing the Council's reforms and promoting renewal in the Church. In an unprecedented gesture of ecuмenism, he even encouraged Catholics to attend Billy Graham's crusades.

AFTER the slanderous campaign launched by Cushing against the dogma and Fr. Feeney was a success, they even came out with a New Catechism
that suddenly taught three baptisms - it made the news - see the link.

But you go ahead and keep following Cushing - let us know when you go to the next Billy Graham Crusade.

As for the rest of your post, you will never be able to change what has been defined, declared and promulgated as de fide no matter how many different exceptions you make.

If you will admit your admiration of Cardinal Cushing, the man who "exposed Fr. Feeney", at least you will be showing your honesty - still wrong but at least honest, but you cannot have it both ways.

Wasn't it Cushing who bragged that in his whole life he never made a convert?

Here's another doozy:

“When I die and go to Heaven, if I don’t find you there, I’ll know it’s because you’re not dead yet.”

Quote from: Nishant

Quote from: Isaac

Prove from magisterial, infallible pronouncements, that the desire ONLY for the sacrament of Baptism remits original sin without actual reception.

Easy. Trent says "And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected...without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof"

So the desire of baptism has the same effect as the sacrament itself with regard to the translation from the state of original or actual mortal sin to the state of grace.

First of all, it seems rather subversive that you did not quote the whole passage.
The rest of the sentence in Session 6, Chapter 4 of Trent is "AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5)."

So as an honest person can see that this declaration is obviously not saying what you claim. If it did, it would contradict itself in the very same sentence. If desire were all that was necessary then John 3:5 would definitely not be "AS IT IS WRITTEN".
A man would be able enter the kingdom of heaven without being born again of water and the Holy Spirit.
Second, it is using the word "or" (aut) and in this context means "and",which it did also in other councils. It's like saying this wedding cannot take place without the bride or groom. It's not that the wedding can take place with one or the other, it needs both, bride and groom. This is the meaning of Trent, that both are necessary because the desire for the laver is just as necessary as the laver itself for a person above the age of reason.

The Church has always interpreted John 3:5 literally. Your interpretation of the dogma of Baptism twists John 3:5 into some sort of metaphor.
So actually your quoting of this passage in Trent actually disproves your heretical belief in BOD.
Try again.