Dealing with the Deceptive Dimond Demimonde
#38
I don't hold to every conclusion arrived at by the Bros Dimond but I do agree with some.
Fr. Cekada, you agree with them on their sedevacante belief, I do not; neither do I disagree. I just don't know for sure and don't feel competent to come down on one side definitively. However, on the balance of theological evidence that I have studied thus far from both positions, I've come to the conclusion and believe that Baptism of Desire is a non doctrine and is refuted by the dogmatic pronouncements of the Church on EENS.

like a previous poster and against what Tim (whom I respect very much) concludes, I too believe that belief in BoD has paved the way for all manner of errors concerning the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation.
I think this issue is at the crux of all debate among traditionalists and is the most divisive point. To resolve it would be of great advantage for all concerned and to do so would IMHO require a definitive definition on what exactly BoD is.  I.E, even the most basic questions answered such as those posed (below) by Gerard:

Quote:
"How does one determine when and if Baptism of Desire has ever actually occurred and if it did occur, how do we know that there was no miraculous water Baptism as part of it?"

Do we even know of one soul in heaven through BoD? Do we mean that it's probable,/possible but just can't say for sure? If indeed their are such souls in heaven, have they entered heaven without "the water" of which Our Lord said, (and of which Trent agrees) "Unless a man be born again of water and the spirit he cannot enter...etc.?"

PS.  I've been involved in one too many BoD discussions/debates and still have some fresh war-wounds.
I know.. I really should know better by now.  Just never had the contradictions satisfactorily laid to rest..


Ooops.. spell check.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Dealing with the Deceptive Dimond Demimonde - by columb - 12-29-2011, 07:58 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)