St. Louis de Montfort, True Devotion to Mary, #158: "Show me a new road to our Lord, pave it with all the merits of the saints, adorn it with their heroic virtues, illuminate and enhance it with the splendor and beauty of the angels,
1/2
#CatholicTwitter#Catholic
@velikovec Just as forced baptisms are invalid (baptism without desire) so is 'baptism of desire (desire without baptism). Therefore, Trent means both are necessary. And the ablative case carries the meaning of 'without' to both proving that both are necessary.
@velikovec What you're implying is that one can be justified by being baptized without the desire for baptism. That's a forced baptism, and you know it's invalid. Likewise, you're implying one can be justified by desire alone without being baptized. It's not valid. One needs both.
@velikovec@cinnamonrib343@RomanGarza111@IgnacioLemmi@ReginaCaeli3in1@MonasteryOCarm No, it doesn't appear to teach BOD. You've tried to prove it from theologians, but have ignored the Magisterial teachings that in no way allow for BOD. The theologians and Saints who believed it were wrong. Besides, it laid the foundation for the Great Apostasy.
@velikovec God never deprives those who are worthy of the sacrament of baptism. If they died without it they weren't worthy. No one dies without His permission.
"Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father."
[Matt. 10:29]
@velikovec Trent nor the Magisterium ever uses the term, 'baptism of desire.' So, it's neither specifically taught nor condemned. But the teachings on the necessity of: the sacraments, regeneration, water as matter, membership in the Church, etc. prove BOD has no place in Church teaching.
@velikovec You implied it by ignoring more authoritative teaching from the Magisterium and concluding they were right to accept BOD.
And you know very well that where there is confusion the more authoritative teachings win, i.e. the Magisterium, not theologians.
More dishonesty...
@velikovec No, you're being dishonest. One must believe in both the Trinity and Incarnation to be Catholic. Likewise one must have both baptism and desire to be justified. Baptism alone without desire doesn't justify. Likewise, desire alone without baptism doesn't justify.
@velikovec No, you've blundered. Believing in either 'alone' (meaning without believing in the other) is sufficient to make one a non-Catholic. You inverted it by saying 'not believing... alone' which simply means 'believing in both is sufficient to make one a non-Catholic,' which is false.
Aren't you the unbaptized guy (living in a Muslim country) who purports to be a Catholic when you aren't? Also, the idea that any Muslim can be saved (without conversion to the faith) is directly opposed to definitive papal teaching and the express teaching of many theologians. See the attached screenshot from Juan de Torquemada. Also, the fact that there were some heretical theologians before Vatican II doesn't prove anything. What matters is what the popes have definitively taught on the matter.
@velikovec@cinnamonrib343@RomanGarza111@IgnacioLemmi@ReginaCaeli3in1@MonasteryOCarm No, it's actually charitable to rebuke and condemn people who obstinately reject Catholic dogma. You're putting theologians in the place of the Papacy and a theological error in the place of dogma. You're not a Catholic at this time. You're a schismatic and heretic.
@velikovec@cinnamonrib343@RomanGarza111@IgnacioLemmi@ReginaCaeli3in1@MonasteryOCarm You're completely wrong. It also says this:
"... if the saving font be denied to those desiring it and every single one of them exiting this world lose both the Kingdom and life.”
So, they must both desire and receive the saving font of water baptism.
@velikovec You're inverting the meaning of Christ's words and the Church's infallible interpretation of them. No one is born of desire. St. John refutes your man-made nonsense: "Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." [John 1:13]