Hi I.G.

I had asked you earlier if you believe a person who is willing tortured to death for Christ before having a chance to be baptized burns in Hell forever.

You did not answer the question.  So I ask it again in case you missed.

Can you provide a solemn declaration that such a person would burn in Hell for all eternity.  That is all I need.

Thank you very much,
LOT

I asked you, if all the missionaries who were tortured beyond belief by the natives, just to have a chance to baptize people before they died, because they believed those people would be lost, did the missionaries do this in vain?

Most certainly not.

It's amazing how a lot of these people would die immediately after Baptism. Seems as though these natives were kept alive just long enough, by some supernatural intervention. I wonder why.

It's amazing how the saints would actually bring people back to life just to baptize them. I wonder why? Or why water would spring up from the ground where there was none, just when it was needed for baptism? Apparently someone else (God) believes that Baptism is ABSOLUTELY necessary.

One answer to this may be that these people, being natives and just barely instructed in the Faith, were utterly incapable of making an act of perfect contrition, required for BOD.

But of course perfect contrition is not required to receive the Sacrament.

Getting baptized made it 100% certain they would not be lost, since if they couldn't have been baptized, perhaps they would have failed to make the act of perfect contrition and end up in Hell.

As regards people being brought back to life just to get baptized, same thing here. They probably didn't have perfect contrition so they would have been lost.

If you say, "then why not just desire baptism and die again? why get baptized?" well of course if they are brougt back to life and are able to be baptized, why not? Perfect contrition as i have read is very rare and difficult, so of course you don't want to rely on that and gamble with your eternity.

Since when does perfect contrition supply the effects of Sacramental Baptism?

That is what BOD is, in case you didn't know already.

You are just spreading the Dimonds material here, and you certainly seem to have been deceived by them.

Tell me, do you believe that BOD/BOB are heretical?

You just disregard how miraculous these things are. Amazing! Maybe you don't believe these things happened anyway and that's why you explain it away (but not really).

I did no such thing. I gave a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why these miraculous things might have happened, but you are the one who seems to be unable to answer what i said so you resort to simply assert that i "explained things away".

How exactly did i do that?

I have been where you are and i'll just tell you right now: drop it, the Dimonds are wrong.

I.J., what do you think about baptized Catholics who die before they receive their First Holy Communion?

Cathedra said:

Well then, St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope St. Pius V, St. Alphonsus, St. Charles Borromeo, St. Robert Bellarmine, and pretty much all the Saints after the Council of Trent have all been heretics for teaching this heresy.

BOD is in the Roman Catechism, so you are saying the Church has been teaching a heresy to the entire Church for centuries.

Don't tell me "oh it's all good because it's not infallible".

All those saints and that catechism  said that Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation but contradicted themselves on this point.
This shows they are not infallible.

Cathedra said:

The Council of Trent said "or the vow to receive baptism" justifies a man.

You're just repeating what the Dimonds say, it's so obvious.

Like them, you also dismiss the Ordinary Magisterium and think that, just because this hasn't been dogmatically or explicitly defined, you are free to reject it. You're not.

The Council of Trent did not say that.
The Ordinary Magisterium is infallible. Popes are not infallible all the time. Did you know that?

Also, so what if I use the quotes from the Dimond Brothers site. They post Dogmas and where to find them. Their material is like a handy tool against satan, and it's all in one site so I don't have to look around.

Cathedra said:

Did i say the miracle didn't take place? I said the MIRACLE happened probably because the person had no perfect contrition.

You just don't seem to get what i am telling you.

You obviously don't get what I'm telling you. I didn't say that you said the miracles didn't happen. I said that you explain them away. You totally distort the significance and meaning of why those miracles happened.
It's amusing (almost) how you just add your BOD nonsense to explain the miracles. If anything those miracles happened because the individuals had perfect contrition, not because they lacked it.
Think about it. If these pagans didn't have perfect contrition, why would God go to those lengths to save them? What would make them different from the other pagans that weren't miraculously baptized?

Cathedra said:

Quote

Isaac Jogues said:
You don't even believe in the Words of Christ.

Typical Dimond vocabulary.

And why do you say this anyways? Because i don't take John 3:5 literally, like a Protestant does?

This is very interesting. If you will notice, you have just denied dogma and  are anathematized by the Catholic Church.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra:  “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”

If you do not take it literally, which you said you don't, then you are anathematized.
By the way, I don't know ANY protestants who take John 3:5 literally. Really?

I don't really need to say anything else to you.

All those saints and that catechism  said that Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation but contradicted themselves on this point.
This shows they are not infallible.

Don't try to evade the question: has the Catechism and all those saints been teaching soul-damning heresy for centuries to all the flock?

The Council of Trent did not say that.

"And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof, as it is written: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5]"

The original latin is: "…lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto…".

A classic Latin textbook tells us that ‘votum’ means a “vow; prayer, desire” (Latin Grammar by Scanlon & Scanlon, A.M., as originally published by B. Herder Book Co. in 1944 at St. Louis, Missouri. Later republished by TAN Books & Publishers in 1976 & 1982 in Rockford, Illinois. Quote found on p.328.)

"Desire" is in last place in this definition, after ‘vow’ and ‘prayer’. Also see how ‘vow’ is first and followed by a semicolon. The order of the list tells us ‘vow’ is most likely to be a correct rendering, the semicolon that ‘vow’ is almost always the best translation.

The Ordinary Magisterium is infallible. Popes are not infallible all the time. Did you know that?

Did you know that just because something "is not infallible" you are still not free to reject it much less call it heretical?

Also, so what if I use the quotes from the Dimond Brothers site.

You don't merely "post quotes" from their site: you use their very own arguments and you preach their very own errors. If you can't see that, "you're in a spiritual fog", as they like to say.

They post Dogmas and where to find them. Their material is like a handy tool against satan, and it's all in one site so I don't have to look around.

Yeah and then they interpret them by themselves and come up with their own "understanding" of dogmas and then presume to pontificate and bind the whole world to their new-found understandings under pain of damnation.

You obviously don't get what I'm telling you. I didn't say that you said the miracles didn't happen. I said that you explain them away. You totally distort the significance and meaning of why those miracles happened.
It's amusing (almost) how you just add your BOD nonsense to explain the miracles. If anything those miracles happened because the individuals had perfect contrition, not because they lacked it.
Think about it. If these pagans didn't have perfect contrition, why would God go to those lengths to save them? What would make them different from the other pagans that weren't miraculously baptized?

The only nonsense here is your own explanation.

How do you know they all had perfect contrition? Where you there when all that happened?

This is very interesting. If you will notice, you have just denied dogma and  are anathematized by the Catholic Church.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra:  “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”

If you do not take it literally, which you said you don't, then you are anathematized.
By the way, I don't know ANY protestants who take John 3:5 literally. Really?

I don't really need to say anything else to you.

The only anathematized heretical schismatic is yourself.

According to your ramblings, which are only the ramblings of the Dimond boys, you have just "anathematized" all the Saints and Popes that taught BOD.

In fact, you have just "anathematized" the Catholic Church by the Catholic Church Herself, for letting this "heresy" be taught everywhere and by so many Saints.

Do you realize that?

Of course you don't. Your mind is seared and will not reason.

And the only thing that is "very interesting", is how you didn't address what i said here:

<<This is the case: NO ONE in the history of the Church has ever called BOD/BOB heretical, or a heresy, and much less the ones who have taught them and believe in them, heretics.

Can you quote any Saint or any Catholic of repute saying that BOD/BOB are heretical?

Of course not. It's only been 2 self-professed "monks" born in the 70's that have made such a statement.

Was the Church in darkness for centuries until 2 self-made "monks" born in the 70's came along with their torches to the rescue?>>

Answer this: are you in 100% "agreement" with the Dimonds?

Hi I.G.

I had asked you earlier if you believe a person who is willing tortured to death for Christ before having a chance to be baptized burns in Hell forever.

You did not answer the question.  So I ask it again in case you missed.

Can you provide a solemn declaration that such a person would burn in Hell for all eternity.  That is all I need.

Thank you very much,
LOT

Speaking as a follower of Father Feeney, such a soul, if he/she died without sacramental Baptism, would go to Heaven.  Answer this for me:

Would it be at least possible for the omnipotent One and Triune God to miraculously provide sacramental Baptism to a "person who is willing to be tortured to death for Christ before having a chance to be baptized"?  If not, why not?

Are you aware of the Golden Legend:

Ancient sources on Trajan's personality and accomplishments are unanimously positive. Pliny the Younger, for example, celebrates Trajan in his panegyric as a wise and just emperor and a moral man. Dio Cassius added that he always remained dignified and fair.[37] The Christianisation of Rome resulted in further embellishment of his legend: it was commonly said in medieval times that Pope Gregory I, through divine intercession, resurrected Trajan from the dead and baptized him into the Christian faith. An account of this features in the Golden Legend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan#Trajan.27s_legacy

A person who suffers and dies for Christ goes to Heaven. If he was not baptized in water his baptism would be in blood. One of the companions of Sts Perpetua and Felicity is an example of just such a situation.

I would agree with this, however, with respect to the "examples," you're trying to "prove a negative" (that is, that someone was not sacramentally baptized) with respect to an omnipotent God.  As the late Carl Sagan used to say, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."  Granted, Sagan was an agnostic, and should have been open to the reality of God's existence if he had taken his own advice seriously, but that's another topic for another thread.  Still, what Sagan said is true -- one cannot disprove the miraculous action of God in and within His own creation.