St Ambrose, St Basil, St John Chrysostom, St Thomas Aquinas, saint Bonaventure, and St Robert Bellarmine all teach explicitly baptism of desire.

These men are all doctors of the church. They all agree on this topic. If one were to disagree with these men, on this particular topic, it would seem that they were against the Tradition, capital t, of the Church.

Please stop saying that you are defending one of the dogmas of the church . Because in reality, you are attacking one of the dogmas of the church.

St Ambrose, St Basil, St John Chrysostom, St Thomas Aquinas, saint Bonaventure, and St Robert Bellarmine all teach explicitly baptism of desire.

These men are all doctors of the church. They all agree on this topic. If one were to disagree with these men, on this particular topic, it would seem that they were against the Tradition, capital t, of the Church.

Please stop saying that you are defending one of the dogmas of the church . Because in reality, you are attacking one of the dogmas of the church.

Falsehoods and lies:

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.”

Ambrose: "...then you should realize that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated."


Now if you want to read actual dogma and doctrine:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441
ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jєωs or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Catechism of the Council of Trent (16th century): The Sacraments, Baptism: "...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."

Paul,

You're a newbie here.  Matthew has set certain rules concerning the topic of EENS/BoD/BoD and has designated a specific part of the forum for discussions of these issues.  I'll even provide a  link to that.  There you will find hundreds of threads that answer every conceivable objection you can drudge up.

The topic of this thread is in reference to Our Lady of the Pillar.  If you're local and don't feel you can attend, then that's between you and God. Perhaps you hold an ecclesiastical office that empowers you to pontificate to the rest of us about Mass attendance at a "Feeneyite" chapel?  What'd I'd like to hear from you is either a condemnation of, or explanation for,  Bishop Williamson and Fr. Voigt, both of whom said Mass for us at Our Lady of the Pillar, and administered the other sacraments.  I'd also like to hear a condemnation of Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko for inviting Fr. Bitzer down to Boston, knowing full-well his position, to assist at a pontifical high Mass with Bishop Williamson.  Be consistent, please.  And since these priests are clearly eccuмenists, engaged in communicatio in sacris by worshiping and saying Mass with and for "heretics", any objection you have to assisting at Mass at OLP would equally apply to assisting at Mass with any of the above-mentioned resistance priests.  

You are also unaware of the relationship and history of Fr. Bitzer and Bishop Faure, which I find amusing.

And your drinking buddy, Ecclesiae, condemns going to Mass at Fr. Bitzer's and advocates flying around the world rather than assist at Mass here.  Yet, he's more than willing to go to the Institute of Christ the King, the priests of which embrace the errors of Vatican II, ecuмenism, the New Mass, etc.

I would certainly go for example, to the holy mass of a good and kindly priest of the Institute Christ the King. Most priests became Priests in this Institute with good intentions!

Ecclesiae is willing to give the benefit of the doubt, attributing "good intentions" to the Institute/Novus Ordo priests, but because of his rabid hatred of Fr. Feeney, he can't extend the same courtesy to that priest or Fr. Bitzer.  

You're silent about that.  Those wretched Feeneyites are the real enemy!

That being said, all of your canned objections to the Church's teaching regarding baptism and salvation have been answered, in extreme detail, numerous times, ad nauseam, in the forum mentioned above.  Perhaps you think you're some white knight coming to defeat the barbarian hordes, but I assure you, you bring nothing new to the table.  And rehashing the same arguments over and over again is extremely boring for most of us, and it serves no purpose but to derail the thread.  

What'd I'd like to hear from you is either a condemnation of, or explanation for,  Bishop Williamson and Fr. Voigt, both of whom said Mass for us at Our Lady of the Pillar, and administered the other sacraments.  

I'd think twice about using Fr. Voigt in this example, because he also said the daily Masses plus 1 or 2 Sundays at Holy Family Chapel in Melbourne, Fl. for 2 weeks around this time last year.

Quote from: Paul FHC

St Ambrose, St Basil, St John Chrysostom, St Thomas Aquinas, saint Bonaventure, and St Robert Bellarmine all teach explicitly baptism of desire.

Neither St. John Chrysostom nor St. Basil taught anything of the sort.  St. Ambrose's opinion is arguable at best,

Quote

These men are all doctors of the church. They all agree on this topic. If one were to disagree with these men, on this particular topic, it would seem that they were against the Tradition, capital t, of the Church.

As per usual with all Cushingites you fail to cite the 7 or 8 Church Fathers who REJECT Baptism of Desire.  You pretend to paint a picture of "unanimous consensus" by selectively citing only the one or two who agree with you.

I could just as lyingly claim:  "St. Augustine, St. Gregory of nαzιanzen, St. Fulgentius, St. John Chrysostom all explicitly reject baptism of desire.  These men are all doctors of the Church.  They all agree on this topic.  If one were to disagree with these men, on this particular topic, it would seem that they were againt Traditional, capital t, of the Church".

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Quote

Please stop saying that you are defending one of the dogmas of the church . Because in reality, you are attacking one of the dogmas of the church.

Diabolical garbage.

Perhaps, but we must remember that it is the product of modern sentimental theology.

When there are such controversies always return to antiquity, this is not to be found in the ancient Fathers who were so much closer to the pure doctrines before theologians began to ponder them.

If we look at "21st century theologians" the list is absurd, is so many..
We can't trust almost none of them. Where they are formed? in protestant universities? in masonic lodges? you bet most of them are.

Francisco Suárez (1548-1617) is one good example when consider a theologian thesis. He had good Catholic background (studying in good places since he was 16 years old), still many of his writing were censured because of heresy. Most of his works didn't teach heresy and were published at the time he was alive.
He was indeed very talented and has many merits (and was highly praised in universities) but still none of his years of studying have prevented him teaching heresy. That's why their doctrine is to be considered with caution.

NNOCENT XI 1676-1689
http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma12.php
http://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/suorces-of-catholic-dogma/sources-of-catholic-dogma-1100-1200/

See at the bottom

One of the greatest mistakes of last 200 years was re-allowing  Society of Jesus to gain power. After the death of its founder the Society gave us saints and good work but at some point they started to focus on political influence rather than God. I think we can see clearly what kind of formation Jesuits receive with Francis being "a good Jesuit".

Quote from: ihsv

Oh, and a condemnation of Archbishop Lefebvre would also be in order.  He ordained Fr. Bitzer, knowing his position.  

I'll wait.

It is also known that Archbishop Lefebvre and Brother Francis Maluf, M.I.C.M, former Superior of the "Feeneyite" Slaves of the Immaculate Heart Monastery in Richmond, New Hampshire had a cordial and friendly relationship at all times. It seems then than the SSPX general disdain towards Fr. Feeney and the Saint Benedict Center came later on, fueled perhaps for the SSPX Fr. Fr. François Laisney's book is Feeneyism Catholic? widely marketed and spread by the Society.

I believe that it has always been there however it, was in full bloom when Father Laisney's liberal treatise was being promoted by the Society.  The astute eye could see back then that they were gravitating towards the conciliar ideas about salvation.  That now seems to be no obstacle to union with the conciliar church.

Father Wathen made a very competent rebuttal of Father Laisney's propositions on which he based the book.