It doesn’t take a Feeneyite to see that Pope Eugene IV is shooting down the idea that a Jew, pagan, heretic, or schismatic can be saved by some kind of Baptism of desire. To force that idea into the text is to read a preconceived idea that is not there and is plainly contradicted by any objective person.Ah yes, because we’ve never come across this Papal Bull before. Clearly I guess the Church hasn’t either, since it teaches invincible ignorance and Baptism of Desire. You should call the Holy See and tell them about this Papal Bull. Of course only in the mind of a Feeneyite do invincible ignorance and Baptism of Desire contradict the above. If the Feeneyites are right, then the Church has been in error for a really long time. Fortunately they’re not, so I guess we’re safe.
SemperFidelis declared that there are two options for the truth...and I agree: Either there must be Baptism of Desire, and salvation for the Ignorant Native....or...The past heirarchy of the Church has been corrupted, and many of the recent popes where not really popes...
Now...It would seem that there is no way for the heirarchy to be so since Our Lord promised that the Church would last until the end of time. Also...Popes are infallible, and so they COULD NOT proclaim a heresy. Therefore, there must be Baptism of Desire, and salvation for the Ignorant Native.
However...I am sure that you do remember that Our Dearest Lord said that His Church would last until the end of time. Well, he did not say that there would always be a ruler over His Divine Church. We all know (I think) that there have been times when it took quite awhile for popes to be elected...
We also know from the saint, and popes that there have been popes who were heretics and so became ipso facto, and that the saints that realized that they were so did not listen to them. We also know that much older popes told us that if a pope were to teach or hold anything contrary to the Sacred Traditions or even customs of the Church that he was not to be followed, listened to, and even to prevent his thoughts and words from being spread.
Now...Concerning Baptism...This may shock many of you, and probubly all of you..............There is such a thing as Baptism of Desire. Many do not agree with this, and others do, some are confused, and last of all...wherin so many are...Some understand this because of long hours of research...
According to many hours of research with many people, and many almost sleapless night I have come to find what I believe is the truth because everything goes together, and thus all of the popes and saints agree...
For Baptism, as we know...It is neccesary to have the right words, matter, and such...Now, since we all understand what these are (I think)...I do not think that I need to go there...However...I will do so a little...
Basicly...For a valid baptism the following is needed: A minister with the intent of baptizing the person. The right words must be used that have the meaning that the person is baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Also, natural water is needed to make this sacrament valid. Mark you..not rose water or such, but natural ad pure water.
Here now is the part werein most people fail to agree...Baptism of Desire, Water, AND Blood IS NECCESARY for a valid Baptism...
Baptism of Blood is known to be not an actual Baptism, but actually the fact that without Christ's Blood Baptism is not possible...(Which I hope that most of you know)...
Baptism of Desire is known by St. Thomas in his Summa Theologia as an intention to be Baptized, a wish to be so, and the coming of the Holy Spirit upon one with such a Desire.
Baptism of Water is a material thing. Which, with the help of the other two is sanctified and made possible.
I do understand that this argument has been going on for some time, and that I was the starter or it. Since then I have learned more...and have been granted many great gifts from Our Dearest Lord...I would wish to pass one of these gifts on to you, yet you are the one that it depends on.
If you make yourself agreeable and trusting in the Lord, all will fall through. However, if you are not willing to listen, continue to contradict the truth, and lead souls astray ...May God have pity on you soul!
Now...If you really want the truth...Carefully, and with the mind of a child, consider these words. Also, consider the fact that they are never meant to be altered in the slightest: I must go know....I pray that you God shall help you to understand...May God bless you who are His true children!Well you didn’t come right out and say it but I’m assumingA.C.J. ICXC A.M.D.G. MPOV A.C.M.
+ ------- J.M.J. --------- +
+
To Whom It May Concern,
“Unless one be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (St. John 3:5)Code:SemperFidelis declared that there are two options for the truth...and I agree: Either there must be Baptism of Desire, and salvation for the Ignorant Native....or...The past heirarchy of the Church has been corrupted, and many of the recent popes where not really popes... Now...It would seem that there is no way for the heirarchy to be so since Our Lord promised that the Church would last until the end of time. Also...Popes are infallible, and so they COULD NOT proclaim a heresy. Therefore, there must be Baptism of Desire, and salvation for the Ignorant Native. However...I am sure that you do remember that Our Dearest Lord said that His Church would last until the end of time. Well, he did not say that there would always be a ruler over His Divine Church. We all know (I think) that there have been times when it took quite awhile for popes to be elected... We also know from the saint, and popes that there have been popes who were heretics and so became ipso facto, and that the saints that realized that they were so did not listen to them. We also know that much older popes told us that if a pope were to teach or hold anything contrary to the Sacred Traditions or even customs of the Church that he was not to be followed, listened to, and even to prevent his thoughts and words from being spread. Now...Concerning Baptism...This may shock many of you, and probubly all of you..............There is such a thing as Baptism of Desire. Many do not agree with this, and others do, some are confused, and last of all...wherin so many are...Some understand this because of long hours of research... According to many hours of research with many people, and many almost sleapless night I have come to find what I believe is the truth because everything goes together, and thus all of the popes and saints agree... For Baptism, as we know...It is neccesary to have the right words, matter, and such...Now, since we all understand what these are (I think)...I do not think that I need to go there...However...I will do so a little... Basicly...For a valid baptism the following is needed: A minister with the intent of baptizing the person. The right words must be used that have the meaning that the person is baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Also, natural water is needed to make this sacrament valid. Mark you..not rose water or such, but natural ad pure water. Here now is the part werein most people fail to agree...Baptism of Desire, Water, AND Blood IS NECCESARY for a valid Baptism... Baptism of Blood is known to be not an actual Baptism, but actually the fact that without Christ's Blood Baptism is not possible...(Which I hope that most of you know)... Baptism of Desire is known by St. Thomas in his Summa Theologia as an intention to be Baptized, a wish to be so, and the coming of the Holy Spirit upon one with such a Desire. Baptism of Water is a material thing. Which, with the help of the other two is sanctified and made possible. I do understand that this argument has been going on for some time, and that I was the starter or it. Since then I have learned more...and have been granted many great gifts from Our Dearest Lord...I would wish to pass one of these gifts on to you, yet you are the one that it depends on. If you make yourself agreeable and trusting in the Lord, all will fall through. However, if you are not willing to listen, continue to contradict the truth, and lead souls astray ...May God have pity on you soul! Now...If you really want the truth...Carefully, and with the mind of a child, consider these words. Also, consider the fact that they are never meant to be altered in the slightest:
Yours in Christ through Mary,Code:I must go know....I pray that you God shall help you to understand...May God bless you who are His true children!
AMGDJMJ2
“Omnia ad Majorium Dei Gloriam”
(“All to the Greater Glory of God”)
So the Council of Trent taught error then?It doesn’t take a Feeneyite to see that Pope Eugene IV is shooting down the idea that a Jew, pagan, heretic, or schismatic can be saved by some kind of Baptism of desire. To force that idea into the text is to read a preconceived idea that is not there and is plainly contradicted by any objective person.
Try more than just the most recent Popes if Feeneyism and Sedevacantism are right. Try Pius XII, Pius X, Pius IX, Pius V, Innocent III, the Fathers of Trent, etc., etc., etc.SemperFidelis declared that there are two options for the truth…and I agree: Either there must be Baptism of Desire, and salvation for the Ignorant Native…or…The past heirarchy of the Church has been corrupted, and many of the recent popes where not really popes…
I think that Trent left the door open for Baptism of desire for catechumens but doesn’t say anything regarding the ignorant that I’m aware of. Cantate Domino does not mention catechumens so Pope Eugene left that door open as well. But the door for the so called invincibly ignorant was certainly closed by Cantate Domino and any pope that says otherwise is in clear contradiction to Pope Eugene. Anyone who can’t see that doesn’t want to see it.So the Council of Trent taught error then?
A.C.J. ICXC A.M.D.G. MPOV A.C.M.Well you didn’t come right out and say it but I’m assuming
we can file you under “S” for sedevacantist. The Most Holy Family Monastery must have a heck of a website.
------ J.M.J. ---------- +
+I have seen you over and over again quote fallible saints and doctors and fallible statement by popes. The one thing I haven’t seen is an Ex Cathedra statement by a Pope. Here are someTry more than just the most recent Popes if Feeneyism and Sedevacantism are right. Try Pius XII, Pius X, Pius IX, Pius V, Innocent III, the Fathers of Trent, etc., etc., etc.
The answer to the question of whether or not the saints are in hell because of their positions is this: NOTry more than just the most recent Popes if Feeneyism and Sedevacantism are right. Try Pius XII, Pius X, Pius IX, Pius V, Innocent III, the Fathers of Trent, etc., etc., etc.
Ah, so I guess the Council of Trent was just speculation then. Good to know, thanks.Why: What these people are doing is called theological speculation.
You act like I’ve never read these or heard of these before. I used to think Feeneyism was right. Now though, I think I’m knowledgeable enough on the subject to know Feeneyism is wrong. I see no problem reconciling the above statements with the fact that there is implicit Baptism of Desire for the invincibly ignorant. I can show you just as many traditional websites that do so, even sedevacantist ones, so you quoting the above is in no way going to change my mind.I have seen you over and over again quote fallible saints and doctors and fallible statement by popes. The one thing I haven’t seen is an Ex Cathedra statement by a Pope. Here are some
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra:
“There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which
nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”1
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic
Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this
Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin…
Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature
that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman
Pontiff.”2
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311‐1312, ex cathedra:
“Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects,
for exempt and non‐exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there is no
salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”3
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless
each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in
eternity.”4
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 Jews 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.”5
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non‐exempt,
belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and
they all have one Lord and one faith.”6
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, “Iniunctum nobis,” Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra:
“This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess
and truly hold…”7
Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith
of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my
own accord I now profess and truly hold…”8
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra:
“This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now
freely profess and truly hold…”9
from [mostholyfamilymonastery.com/EENS_ma(name removed by moderator)age.html](http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/EENS_ma(name removed by moderator)age.html)
They claim to be devout Catholics but really they appear on anti-catholic programs as the “token” Catholic most of their topics and books are just for money. They might make some good arguments that should be looked into and they make some off the wall arguments that should be ignored. They are just another agent in the world used to promote disunity amongst Christians.Hi, I was wondering what others think of MHFM mostholyfamilymonestary.comAfter visiting their website, it seems many of their arguments are valid, especially their counterarguments to those who do not agree with them.
They are sedevacantist, but also believe strongly that there is no salvation outside the Church, as taught by all of the Popes and church elders prior to Vatican II.
Does anyone on the forum affiliate with them, agree with them, or know anything about them? What are your opinions on the organization?
Please tell me which part of Trent you are referring toAh, so I guess the Council of Trent was just speculation then. Good to know, thanks.
If you truly believe that dogmatic pronouncements are the end-all of a point of doctrine then there is no reconciling these dogmatic quotes with non dogmatic quotes that appear to teach the contrary.You act like I’ve never read these or heard of these before. I used to think Feeneyism was right. Now though, I think I’m knowledgeable enough on the subject to know Feeneyism is wrong. I see no problem reconciling the above statements with the fact that there is implicit Baptism of Desire for the invincibly ignorant. I can show you just as many traditional websites that do so, even sedevacantist ones, so you quoting the above is in no way going to change my mind.
A. They (MHFM) are devout Catholics and they are standing up against the false church of the vatican ii sect (novus ordo). Just as Athanasius was against Arius and Euseibius stood up to Nestorius.They claim to be devout Catholics but really they appear on anti-catholic programs as the “token” Catholic most of their topics and books are just for money. They might make some good arguments that should be looked into and they make some off the wall arguments that should be ignored. They are just another agent in the world used to promote disunity amongst Christians.
A. They (MHFM) are devout Catholics and they are standing up against the false church of the vatican ii sect (novus ordo). Just as Athanasius was against Arius and Euseibius stood up to Nestorius.Hi, I was wondering what others think of MHFM mostholyfamilymonestary.comAfter visiting their website, it seems many of their arguments are valid, especially their counterarguments to those who do not agree with them.
They are sedevacantist, but also believe strongly that there is no salvation outside the Church, as taught by all of the Popes and church elders prior to Vatican II.
Does anyone on the forum affiliate with them, agree with them, or know anything about them? What are your opinions on the organization?
Baptism of Desire:Please tell me which part of Trent you are referring to
Please, they’re not even consistent with their own beliefs. If you’re going to be a sedevacantist, you have to be CONSISTENT with your own beliefs, or else your whole “theology” falls down around you, and the Dimond “Brothers” are definitely not consistent. Point being if Feeneyism is right, and you’re a sedevacantist, then the Chair of Peter is going to have to be vacant WAY before John XXIII. Try starting with at least Bl. Pius IX, if not the Popes who participated at the Council of Trent, or even all the way back to Innocent III.A. They (MHFM) are devout Catholics and they are standing up against the false church of the vatican ii sect (novus ordo). Just as Athanasius was against Arius and Euseibius stood up to Nestorius.
B. Just so you know, they only charge shipping on most the products they produce (eg. 100 DVD’s for $6) They rely on donations to keep their Catholic Truth ministry going
C. All the arguments they make are not their own opinions but truths taught by the Catholic Church. None of the arguments should be ignored.
D.The Catholic Church teaches that only Catholics are truly Christians and since The Catholic Church is ONE, meaning unified, then there can be no disunity among Christians. This is because to be Christian, i.e. Catholic, one has to believe every point of doctrine taught by Christ through the Catholic Church. To disbelieve or even doubt a point of doctrine places a person outside of the Church:thumbsup:
Baptism of Desire:
Trent: “And this translation [to the state of justification], since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be EFFECTED, WITHOUT THE LAVER OF REGENERATION, AT LEAST IN THE DESIRE THEREOF [aut eius voto], as it is written; “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”” (Denz. 796)
Maybe look at these quotes from Trent:
- Baptism of Desire- every translation I’ve seen of Sess.6 Ch. 4 of Trent, including my copy of Denzinger says **“the laver of regeneration (aut) or/and **the desire for it”. This means someone must desire to be water baptized. One cannot do anything willingly without a desire to do it. Besides, BOD and John 3:5 are mutually exclusive. They cannot be reconciled.
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of
Baptism, Session 7, canon 2, 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.”
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of
Baptism, canon 5, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism is
optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let
him be anathema.”
How does one reconcile these statements with BOD. The Sacrament of Baptism with water is necessary for salvation.
Unless one believes in 9 sacraments including baptism of blood and baptism of desire. They are most certainly not Sacraments. One might as well believe in the Charismatics “Baptism in the Spirit” as a sacrament as well.
To believe in BOD makes one incapable of professing the part of the creed that says “I beleive in **one **Baptism.”
Baptism of Desire:
Trent: “And this translation [to the state of justification], since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be EFFECTED, WITHOUT THE LAVER OF REGENERATION, AT LEAST IN THE DESIRE THEREOF [aut eius voto], as it is written; “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”” (Denz. 796)
Confession can actually be received by desire according to Trent: