Do you believe in Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood? Why or why not?
Baptism
I don't. The only possibility is perhaps for catechumens who die before being baptized. As for why, all the info is on the Cathinfo forums. All the arguments for and against are there far more extensive and argued out more than we can do here. If you're genuinely curious, go there and read up. You should have more than enough information then to make your own decision. No one here will have a unique argument more than what's there.
Personally after seeing all the evidence it's hard to deny otherwise.
if you're a consistent Roman Catholic, then you definitely should
if you're anything else, then you definitely shouldn't, since the doctrines of desire and blood are predicated on baptism being a saving sacrament
What about when people bring up Trent? From my understanding, in Feeney's time, many people were proposing BoD as a way of universal salvation, and so he reacted to that. And you're right, it's possible for someone that has the faith but was otherwise unable to be baptized to be saved, but it doesn't really make sense for heathens. I guess those who deny BoD and BoB say that when a catechumen (or martyr) dies, an angel is sent to baptize them?
No, baptism is inherently symbolic. You need to do it, but it has no place in saving you. It, like any good work, is instead a result of your salvation.
Yes, becaus it is the truth of God, and is shown clearly in the Gospel.
Yes. No other particular explanation for St. Dismas, or others whom profess Christ (and, His Church) and died for it - all without the sacrament.
So why do you need to do it?
So I read around more, and found out something surprising. Apparently Charles Coulumbe is a (so-called) Feeneyite.
cathinfo.com
Trent is literally what says Baptism is only by water. The latin is extremely clear you need the LAVER (water) and the desire (Votum) votum means the act of wanting it. Some people get confused by the english translation. Saying I cannot play without bat or ball doesn't mean you can play with a bat or with a ball. There is no such thing as baptism without a desire, just with water. It's not either or. And the Gospel clarifies it, he must be born again of water AND the Holy Spirit, it's not either or. Again check cath info, you will see both sides, you can decide yourself. With all the information it's pretty easy to see who has a stronger case. The evidence is overwhelming.
Regardless the idea that you can go to heaven without being a catechumen is total heresy and was never taught until the modernist heresy. The only BoD (catechumen) savior was St. Alphonsus and he said that ALL Muslims Jews are ALL going to hell. Not one. He only believed it for catechumens. No one honestly cares about catechumens, how many of them die, almost none.
The debate over BoD is purely about saying people practicing false religions can be saved. There is no way this is the big heresy of our time, bigger than Arianism. Again just read Cathinfo, there's a whole forum dedicated to this with resource after resource of quotes. You can decide on your own, there are quite a few people fighting against it, you can decide on your own who has a better case.
As for Fr. Feeny, there was book published which defended his view which recevied a Nihil Obstat from a Bishop. He was never excommunicated for EENS, and never recanted and came back into communion, and recited the Athanasian Creed, which is very telling as it says you must hold the Catholic Faith and we believe in ONE BAPTISM.
Furthermore Michael Voris recently came out and defended the Saint Benedicts Center and said their EENS holds zero heresy. Michael Voris is extremely well known and holds quite a mount of clout and known to many priests and insiders. If he was preaching heresy you would think his opponents would jump and excommunicate him or something.
This is totally wrong. The church was started after Jesus' side was pierced. St. Dismas was not even saved, he went to LIMBO (Paradise) with the fathers. Just like the patriarchs etc did not have baptism, because it was not instituted. Baptism was COMMANDED by our Lord after his resurrection. Afterwards it was mandatory to be baptized.
Furthermore this issue is very easy to resolve with your own mind and heart when you meditate on Predestination. God is the author of this story. JK Rowling doesn't say OH NO IF ONLY HARRY COULD DO THAT, OH SHUCKS. No she writes the story. Harry can't do anything in her book unless she allows it. Same with God. St. Augustine's latest statement in his life on the matter was
Please give me a quick rundown on predestination. Which of St Augustine's books does he talk about it?
Yes, otherwise catholicism takes on the ethos of a fear mongering cult. I realise this isn't strictly a argument but people can make up their own minds, believing in Baptism of Desire and blood isnt a heresy and any extrapolation on it is within the realm of theologumen.
This article is short and sweet, though maybe too short, but in any case, it's worth reading: aggiecatholicblog.org
John 3:5 says—
Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Do not misquote the scripture by so casually adding words to it.
Because it is a sign to other believers that you have truly accepted Christ and been saved.
I think his stuff is scattered around in places. This is a good paper on the history of Predestination in Catholic thought up to St. Thomas Aquinas files.catbox.moe
Actually you can read the Summa section on predestination it's pretty good.
Yes, because the Church has believed these things forever and they are consistent with Scripture.
St. Augustine rejected it
Bump for answers
If you're Catholic there is tradition of God raising from death people so they can be baptized. It's trivial for God to enable anyone who is predestined to eternal life to get them access to baptism.
One mortal man, no matter how sanctified, does not single-handedly determine infallible doctrine. The Catechism affirms the reality of both BoD and BoB.
The catechism is not infallible, and there are plenty of errors in each catechism (particularly the CCC…) even the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Augustine is one of the greatest Doctors, and he clearly recanted his position on BoD. Aquinas held to a position of BoD that still administered the Sacrament. You can only really say that Bellarmine supported something like the current understanding of BoD.
In order for something to be dogmatic, it has to be part of the Deposit of Revelation. But there's no direct witness from the Church Fathers (by unanimous consensus) that BOD was. Nor has anyone ever demonstrated that it derives implicitly and necessarily from other revealed truths. So this opinion of speculative theology can never be defined as dogma… despite the false allegations of the modernists.
I remember when I was a lukewarm Catholic in college and an anti-Catholic was attacking the Church for EENS. My first (heretical) reaction was: "Well, what it REALLY means is [the exact opposite of the dogmatic definition]." Now, if the subject comes up, say, from an ex-Catholic, I just state that salvation isn't possible for them unless they return to the Catholic Church. And the speculative theology about all the possible exceptions does absolutely NOTHING from a pastoral perspective. Which is more likely to get a person thinking about whether they should convert? "You must become a Catholic in order to be saved." or "Well, if you're sincere in your belief, you can still be saved." ??? BoD explains the death of missionary zeal across the world. Father Feeney kept looking for the "missing doctrine" that explained the decayed state of the Church, and he finally realized what it was, after years of reflection: denial of EENS.